OSNews:

More games

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:04:00 GMT

Thats all I want.

developers

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:05:00 GMT

i want a decent IDE for gnome, go Scaffold go!

Comments

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:11:00 GMT

I don't have time to proofread, so I apologize in advance for any typos:

On ease of use ...
I've heard people say "Well, Linux isn't any harder to use, just different. If people learned Windows, why can't they learn Linux?" It seems to me that the way most people 'learn' Windows is to call up a friend, family member, or somebody who 'knows computers' to come to their house and fix/teach them whatever it is they want to know or whatever they need fixed. This isn't really an option in Linux for most people. If people won't use Google to learn about Windows and fix problems, why do you suppose they would do so with Linux? If my family or less computer-literate friends have problems with Windows (and they often do), they don't conult books or fire up Google, they call me.

On speed
In my experience, the default install of Windows is rather bloated as well, but you often hear people saying, "If you just turn off unneeded services, windows flies!". Please take this attitude with linux as well, to be fair.

Look here:
http://www.monroeworld.com/pchelp/xptweaks.php

Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner.

On hardware
If you want proof, it comes with your new hardware. Windows probably won't support your brand new video card at a decent resolution, or it might not even recognize your sound card. Windows simply doesn't ship with enough drivers, so you are forced to use a CD.

Oh my God ... are you telling me that I might actually have to INSERT A CD when prompted? That's terrible! But tell me, what's the alternative in Linux when the kernel doesn't recognize a piece of hardware? NONE of my hardware devices (except NICs) have come with a Linux driver on the CD.

On hardware
I know what you're thinking. "But {insert expensive proprietary app} isn't available!" Well then, Complain! Write to that company, and ask them to port the software. They won't port it unless they know people care.

Why? I'm already using an OS that runs all the apps I need just fine.

Desktop OS

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:12:00 GMT

Maybe Linux just isn't the best OS to use if you're looking for a desktop OS. Personally, I think BeOS (ie, OpenBeOS) would be a better choice to convince people to move to.

Especially if there's a strong focus on portability between Linux and OpenBeOS.

at least ..

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:12:00 GMT

Kde 3.2 is almost ready for the desktop.

Define it first.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:17:00 GMT

Everyone has a different opinion as to what "Linux on the Desktop" entails. For some it means web browsing and checking e-mail. For others it means writing papers and spreadsheets. For these people "Linux on the Desktop" has been here for some time. Pick up Mandrake Linux and you're more than set. However for most a Desktop OS is uniform. It's consistent. It has readily available drivers. It's preinstalled when they buy their Dell PC. They can go to the store and purchase a game to play. These people are the majority. For them I believe Linux is not ready for the desktop. Unfortuantely. Untill there is one desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, whatever) and Dell starts selling PC's preinstalled with a Linux distribution Linux will have some hurdles before ever becoming a "Desktop" OS.

My $ .02.

Ciao!

puzzled by paragraph 1

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:23:00 GMT

..but linux is on my desktop, even at work in 'the enterprise'.

Waaaaayyyyyy off...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:27:00 GMT

For people whose idea of "the desktop" includes Photoshop, InDesign or QuarkXpress, linux on the desktop may be *infinitely* far off. Yeah, yeah, Quark runs under OSX. That doesn't mean you'll see a linux port of it in a Galapagos tortoise's lifetime...

I wish I'd known that two years ago!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:28:00 GMT

...try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
Wish I'd known that two years ago when I ditched Winblows for good and started using Linux on all my home machines! LOL :-)

Kreek
Lindows Insider

Linux Package Management

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:38:00 GMT

I am appalled at the fact you make Package Management seem like just another commonalityin linux and between distributions. I think this is a big problem. RPMS, DEBS, Ebuilds, OLM's...etc. Even if I do know my distribution is an RPM distribution, I most likely have to find not only a Distribution specific RPM, but the Distro Version specific RPM. Then I have to sit there and worry about dependancy problems. "So install from source!" Well that still doesnt solve my dependancy problem. Hmmm, last time I check 99% of all Windows software (freeware, shareware, and commericial) I have installed ran without requiring me to download some library. The 1% that did had the library on their website to download or they packaged it.

I am not against you, your article, or ideas. I just think one of the major KEYS to the success of linux on the desktop is Package Management and to dismiss it as something that is already in usable condition is doing nothing but contributing to the plight of linux.

Usable Package Management = When I am 99% positive that every piece of software I install will work without any hassels of dependencies, or distribution specific matters.

Please excuse any spelling/grammar mistakes.

"its on my desktop" comments

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:40:00 GMT

Yeah, I understand that many people use Linux on the desktop, as I said, I use it too. But I don't think that's a valid argument. Hell, there's probably people who use QNX on their desktop. It doesnt mean most people can use it.

Ready? Ready!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:40:00 GMT

My Computer uses SuSE exclusively. After dual-booting between Linux and Windows for a few weeks I decided to throw the windows stuff away because I didn't need it. I can do all I need in Linux, so why use windows when I don't boot it anymore?
"Ready for the Desktop" is subjective. For me it is ready. People like my parents wouldn't see any difference to windows, because all they need is a word processor, E-mail, Browser and a little game once in a while. From what I see in my job most people will never need more on their private computer! But they have expensive computers for thousands of Euros AND expensive software, which they use not regularly. I ask them what they want to do with the computer they say most times: E-Mail, Internet, writing letters, use the digital camera. And when I offer them a cheap computer that fits their needs they would say: " Isn't that too slow for us? And our son told us we really need MS Office" I bet you see the influence of the so-called "Neighbourhood-Computer-Experts".

Re: Waaaaayyyyyy off...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:41:00 GMT

You have a point, but if you are buying a computer to primarily run those programs you would go with a Mac.

If you were buying a computer to work almost exclusively in MS Office, than you would buy a Windows.

If you just want a computer to surf the web, check e-mail, and is compatible with MS office documents then Linux is your computer.

If you want to do some C programming (or almost any programming for that matter) than Linux is by far better than a Windows.

It all depends on your needs.

But you'd be lying if you said a newbie couldn't jump on a modern KDE or GNOME desktop and successfully, get to the web, e-mail, and word processing applications.

RE: Anonymous

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:43:00 GMT

"Kde 3.2 is almost ready for the desktop."

Mmmmm people have been saying this exact same sentence for years... only instead of 3.2 it said 1.0, or 2.2, or whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I *love* KDE, but it's definitely not as newbie-friendly as, say, XP's explorer or Mac OS X's GUI.

Stop this madness

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:44:00 GMT

Let's just stop these 'Linux on the desktop'-articles.

If you like using Linux, use it. If you like Windows better, use Windows. If you like Mac OSX better, use that. If you like BSD, BeOS, ... (you get the picture, right?)

Why would you want to 'convert' people? Why do you even care! If (you think that) your OS is better, well, that's too bad for all the others then, because they don't know what they're missing. But why would you even care about them?

(and no, I'm not a Windows user. Nor am I a Linux user. Not OS X either.)

Ego

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:49:00 GMT

If you really want a *NIX that is easy to use for desktop users than just use OSX.

RE: Stop this madness

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:51:00 GMT

"Why would you want to 'convert' people?"

The more people we can get to use linux, the more commerical software(apps,games,DRIVERS!!!,etc) we can expect.

Ive gotton a couple of my friends(4) to switch compeletly over to linux and another 7 or so to atleast dualboot or play around with a liveCD. Every person that switches get us closer to better recongizition from the computer industry.

Wash....Rinse....Repeat.....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:51:00 GMT

Ahh....we get to go through this again.....

It's really just another re-hash.....let's all up the osnews
hit counter so pump up their advertising revenue with another
linux desktop flamewar.

I just want to point out that "Oh, I use Linux as my desktop, so
it must be ready." is not a valid response to the statement that
"Linux is not ready for the desktop". I used linux as a desktop
back in 1992, it wasn't ready, but it was possible. I still don't
see it as viable for 'my desktop', and that is what this discussion
always degenerates into, everyone trying to generalize their
own desktop needs into that of everyone elses.

The term "the desktop" means that it is a completely viable
replacement for a significant majority of the population in
general, not for a significant population of osnews readers.

Also, in response to the comment about how X cannot be slow
because it is a 'protocol', and that only an implementation can
be slow. This is patently false. Protocols are made up of
data formats and algorithms that have their own computational
complexity. In CompSci, we measure that in such notation as
Big-O or Big-Theta. If a protocol is inefficient in the way that
it formats data, or the algorithms used, it is inherently slow,
regardless of the implementation. An implementation of a slow
protocol may be as highly optimized as possible, but it is still
limited by the protocol definition.

Since I do networking, I'll use that as an example....BGP is
inherently slow with respect to acting on network changes,
while protocols such as OSPF or IS-IS are very fast. Insert
RIP for BGP if you so desire.

And on the topic of open source. That is much less important
than open standards, formats, and protocols. I don't have time
to sort through the source for every application, but I do expect
them to follow standards to enable interoperability. That is what
the companies such as IBM mean when they talk about the future
being "Open", not the source code. The only people who really
care about 'open source' are coders who want to tinker. It is not
inherently better, just different, and to many of us, irrelevant.

- Kelson

RE 1: Stop this madness

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:54:00 GMT

I agree, these narticles aren't very useful or informative. Linux will work well for people who wish to use it. If you require a Windows only application, then it obviously is not the choice for you.

The OS a person uses is largely due to taste and availablity. If Microsoft were able to stop people from pirating it's OS, a lot more people would be tasting alternatives.

Well, depend on people..

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:54:00 GMT

FreeBSD/Linux is already a 'ready' desktop for my brother and me, but not with my parents, grandparents and sister. My brother and I are able to work on Linux/FreeBSD at the full time at home and work as use TextMaker, printer and many others. :-)

Linux Package Management

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:56:00 GMT

As much as I would like to agree with you...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:57:00 GMT

...the comment about when you buy Microsoft products you are supporting them politically made me step back and view this from a non-linux users perceptive.

Aren't computers ultimately about making life easier? I LIKE playing with diffeent OS's and appreciate a lot about Linux, but when it comes down to writing and recording music I don't want to mess around with tweaking settings and worrying about libraries etc., I want to plug in and go. I want to work on my music not on my computer.

That isn't a political decision, that's about having productivity. If Linux desktop systems do 80-90% of what users want, then it's even more inconvenient to reboot to get that 10-20% done.

Just my 2¢.

dPa

Good article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:57:00 GMT

You make some valid counter-arguments to common points, although you could substantiate these arguments a bit better. I think you also neglect to play up some of Linux's strong points:

1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its a rather complicated and involved process. I could certainly teach her how to install Linux software, though. The process isn't any more complicated than starting up an app, double-clicking the program name, and closing the app. Automatic upgrades of all software on the machine? Synaptic's upgrade feature is 10x easier to use than Windows Update! The former upgrades your whole system in a couple of clicks. Windows Update requires many more clicks, and often requires you to run the thing multiple times for Service Packs or patches that need to be installed by themselves.

2) Lock-down. Kiosk (KDE) provides a very powerful way to lock down a Linux system. Soon, there will be nice GUI tools for it. A lot of desktops need locking-down. Consider corporate desktops, educational desktops, even some home desktops. If I've got an e-mail/internet station set up for grandma, I don't want her accidentally deleting a desktop icon and wondering where the e-mail program went.

3) Ease of maintainence. Linux machines handle abuse much better than Windows machines. Whenever people complain about Windows being unstable, Windows users come back with "stay on top of patches! don't run random programs off the internet! use a registry cleaner! use Norton utilities! use Microsoft's drivers rather than the manufacturers!" Well, its partially a fault of the underlying OS that those measures are necessary. When I used to run Windows, it was rock-solid for me. And this was Windows 95! But my dirty little secret was that I had my full install burned on a CD, and every month or two, I'd nuke my Windows partition (my data was on a seperate drive) and copy the image back over! Now, I've got several Windows machines at home, and they are all in various states of disarrary, because they don't tender-loving-care from their current users. Also, consider what happens when you get a new hard-drive for a Windows machines, and want to move your installation over. If you just copy it over, it is no longer bootable. And once you've made a Windows system unbootable, its nearly impossible to get it back. What happens when you move a Windows installation between machines? Linux will merrily redetect your hardware, while Windows will very often choke trying to reload your old hardware. And then compare the maintainence tools. You can administer a Linux machine over a low-bandwidth modem link with ssh. Try running remote desktop over 28.8kbps! Compare Linux's recovery tools (any CD-bootable Linux distro) to Windows' pathetic recovery CD!

Lastly, I can't stress this enough. Its all about the apps! If Linux had all the apps users wanted, today, companies would flock to it because its cheaper! They would gradually fix the shortcomings of the OS because of the potential cost savings! Its always been about the apps. Why did users flock to Windows 95 instead of MacOS? The latter was far easier to use, far more polished, and about equally unstable. They went with Windows for the apps! Why did users stay with Windows 95 instead of going to OS/2? The latter was easier to use, far more polished, and much more stable. Again, it was the apps!

@Eddy : You make two exellent points. 90% of users will not go out an install their own OS. They don't even know what an OS is. Until Linux comes preinstalled on grandma's Dell, it simply won't get the kind of market share that Windows has. Also, you are precisely right that it matters what you mean by desktop. If you mean scientific/graphics/programming workstation, public kiosk machine, educational machine, corporate desktop machine, or internet/e-mail terminal, then Linux is ready for the desktop. If you mean a replacement for your local Photoshop guru, then probably not.

Is it REALLY the last one?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:58:00 GMT

It's a brilliant article, well-written, I agree with it all, and if I get a vote then I vote that it should be the last Linux Not Ready For The Desktop article, most of which should be "I'm Not Ready For The Linux Desktop" articles anyway.

Maybe soon it will be "Is ReactOS ready for the desktop?" "Is SkyOS ready for the desktop?" I kind of wonder if anyone really knows what "the desktop" is. It seems to me if you can find a few people sitting at their desk looking at the OS's console interface, and they are smiling, then your OS is ready for the desktop, since it is obviously sitting there doing what some user thinks it is supposed to.

Universal installer

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:05:00 GMT

I think one of the biggest things holding linux back from greatness is a universal installer. If you're in Windows and you download an application, you open up the folder on the desktop, click on it, and it installs. Simple as that. You don't have to figure out if it's the right one for your distro, go through dependency hell, or compile the source using the command line. Autopackage is moving along nicely and hopefully people will start writing programs to take advantage of it and then the distros will start incorporating it into their products. Until then, the packaging systems are much too varied and fragmented for linux to be accepted.

I agree Linux IS ready for the desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:07:00 GMT

We've been running RH8 and 9 on our desktops for over a year. There is NOTHING missing from Linux in these distros. Sure, they could be better and I'm sure that the upcoming distros with KDE 3.2, kernel 2.6, the latest Open Office, etc are going to absolutely rule, but the RH8 and 9 distros are available NOW and work EXTREMELY WELL. ASAICT, the only people still talking about when Linux on the desktop is going to happen are those that haven't tried it.

6 years now and more to come

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:09:00 GMT

> and try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.

what for - have been using Linux on the desktop for about 6 years now and more to come.

Macromedia and Adobe have to port their authoring software to X11 (Linux)!

Services?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:10:00 GMT

Interesting that the author chooses to point out that services is where the money is with linux. It seems that if so much consulting is needed with linux vs. existing desktop technologies this is a checkmark in the negative column.

That is one of the benefits that companies such as Apple and Microsoft have. Their software is engineered to be usable out of the box vs. bringing in an army of consultants ala IBM...

It is fine to be a fanatic - but people need to remember that in business it all boils down to the mighty dollar. If it costs me $200 in licensing from company A but only $50 in services / year compared to $0 in licensing and $500 / year in services from company B - the BUSINESS decision is pretty easy...

Talk to your average Joe CEO and he could care less about your social agenda.

My Take

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:12:00 GMT

> Linux isn't as easy to use

The author spends a lot of time saying how Linux is getting better. Thats great and all, but as it stands to day, it is not as easy to use as Windows XP.

> There are already lots of studies out there though, and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users.

Finally, he gets to the point, and says nothing.

> Linux isn't as polished

> What does "polished" mean? In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent.

Huh??? What does polished have to do with knowing the inner workings or not? It is about the user experence.

> No one in their right mind would say that Linux isn't moving towards polish. If you want to help, write something and give it to KDE, GNOME, or your favorite desktop distribution.

Say the author says Linux is not as polished yet. Next.

> Linux is fragmented

> All distributions ARE united, so its not like there are 100 different operating systems. What unites linux distributions? For starters, they all use the Linux kernel. They all use the GNU tools. They all use XFree86. They all use glibc. You get the point.

The author misses the point. All the parts he listed are nothing the user deals with. When you get to the part that the user needs to know, each distro is different.

> Package Management

Author misses the point again. THe problem with package managment is that a single package only works with a certain distro. This means there needs to be many packages for a single piece of software. Makes things more difficult for the user since they need to find the right one.

> Linux doesn't support commercial software/idealogy

I lost interest here.

> There Are No Drivers

Im back

> Yes, there are. Linux supports more hardware than Windows, it's that simple.

This is desktop we are talking about. Stick with x86.

> But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing the big picture.

How is expecting hardware manufactures to provide drivers not seeing the big picture. This is a perfect solution to all problems. How is this a bad way of getting hardware to work? It keeps everybody happy. Manufactures can keep their secrets and users can use the hardware.

> That said, I understand "it works for me" isn't enough.

Nice that you included the main issue with hardware.

> Conclusion

Seems like all the author is saying is Linux is the way of the future, yet has nothing to support it other then his own beliefs. Not good enough for me.

Next.

why do we want people to switch?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:16:00 GMT

BECAUSE, M$'s business model is not in the public's best interest. It is planned to stifle creativity, openness, and competiveness. It attempts to force us to buy low quality software at high prices and if you don't like it, find another planet bucko! It is designed to feed one man's megalomania. If that guy has his way linux users will become criminals, and I don't want things to be like that.

As a result I am out there helping people make the switch whenever I can. If you hold their hand at the start I find they can embrace linux. I've gotten middle aged business men, mothers and kids to convert over.

If Linux isn't ready

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:20:00 GMT

...then Windows is far from it.

Kernel 2.6 is ready for both desktop and production level usage. No Windows can match it and i even doubt that Lognhorn will.

RE: Good article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:21:00 GMT

Some of your points are interesting (like claiming that the average user needs tools to lock down his own desktop), but I can't believe you can say this with a straight face:

1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its (sic) a rather complicated and involved process.

I would not expect my mom to be able to find a package for her specific distribution, and for her specific version (since she won't be upgrading the distribution, of course). And no, synaptic is IMHO not very friendly to the user. It looks like it was designed to make all of the command line options available, not to facilitate program installation. Try explaining all of that, versus "double click the exe and click next." I respect your opinion, though. I guess, different strokes for different people's folks.

Re:

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:25:00 GMT

Usable Package Management = When I am 99% positive that every piece of software I install will work without any hassels of dependencies, or distribution specific matters.

Wow... You've got 99% certainty that all software will install on your OS? Man, which one is that? I'd pay good money just to see that. (No, WinXP does not count). When you get outside your Word/Photoshop/Heavy-commercial software, and into custom business apps, you'll find that DLL problems are still rapant.

RE: My Take

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:25:00 GMT

//
The author misses the point. All the parts he listed are nothing the user deals with. When you get to the part that the user needs to know, each distro is different.
//

No, my point was that the user will deal with the same software. Mozilla, Evolution, GAIM, etc are all the same on every distro. The only thing that may differ is the default theme.

//
Author misses the point again. THe problem with package managment is that a single package only works with a certain distro. This means there needs to be many packages for a single piece of software. Makes things more difficult for the user since they need to find the right one.
//

I think you missed the point. You're still thinking the Windows Way. The user doesn't have to search for a package in linux. They just have to type "apt-get install program" or "yum program", etc. Like I said, the developer only has to release the source code,and people will make packages for him.

//
How is expecting hardware manufactures to provide drivers not seeing the big picture. This is a perfect solution to all problems. How is this a bad way of getting hardware to work? It keeps everybody happy. Manufactures can keep their secrets and users can use the hardware
//

The point was that hardware manufacturers SHOULDN'T keep their hardware secret. We all benefit from open specs. Look at the open hardware out there. There are wonderful drivers for it built into the kernel.

What happens when NVIDIA decides not to support linux? We're screwed. If the hardware/drivers were open, we don't rely on one company.

Linux is not ready for the desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:25:00 GMT

If you want people to use Linux then you better fix the sound drivers. ALSA is terrible. I can't listen to any sound files for more than 3 seconds without hearing it skip. And this isn't just limited to mp3s, its wavs and others. Support is another factor which is lacking. I'll join a channel of 100 people on IRC, does my question get noticed when I ask it? Nope. Do I have time to RTFM for every little problem I have with Linux? Nope. So you see, Linux really isn't ready for the desktop if you are requring anything to do with media.

Nothing like...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:29:00 GMT

Nothing like a 'Linux is (not) ready artilce to generate a lot of comments...

Re: RE: Stop this madness (JsB)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:37:00 GMT

"Why would you want to 'convert' people?"

The more people we can get to use linux, the more commerical software(apps,games,DRIVERS!!!,etc) we can expect.

No. What you will get is that companies will start creating buggy, closed source drivers. And those are completely worthless. A driver should have a license that offers as much freedom as the rest of the kernel, or more. So ideally, manufacturer released drivers should be BSD licensed, or public domain, as that allows integration in all operating systems (closed-source, GPL-licensed and BSD-licensed)

But we can't expect them to write drivers for every possible OS out there. So hardware companies should provide the necessary documentation to write a driver under a completely free license, which has no restrictions whatsoever (so no NDA's, no long disclaimers, just free)

But as the majority of people couldn't possibly care less about this, this won't ever happen. But a few manufacturers will provide documentation, and so I'll just buy their stuff. And I don't care if it costs me more. I don't even care if their products don't perform as good as the others.

RE : Rayiner Hashem

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:37:00 GMT

"1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its a rather complicated and involved process. I could certainly teach her how to install Linux software"

WHAT?? Hey, how hard can it be to click on SETUP.EXE and click on NEXT to install a software ? With good Install/UnInstall feature, lets get serious, DLL hell is prety much over since Windows 2000.

With Linux you have to think if this software is good for YOUR distro/version of distro AND if you have all the required libs AND having to worry about dependancy and all. When you do get to install the software, where is the ICON? Where is it in the Gnome or KDE "Start" menu? 80% of the time it's nowhere to be found. What about UNinstalling software? Where is the ADD/Remove software?

Linux is missing on EASY driver installation too. I don't mind having to search for them on the Web, but Installing them is a pain (very much so for Video Card). Every company provide us with Windows Drivers, how many of them provide usable Linux driver?

Linux is missing on GAMES, everything Adobe, something real close to MS Access, MS Frontpage, and the list goes on and on. And don't talk about CrossOver, that's only emulating Windows, the evil you, oh so want to get rid of.

Comments

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:41:00 GMT

> 1) Software installation.

I have installed many applications on MDK Linux by just pointing and clicking.
Once urpmi is set up, I find a rpm file and click on it. Instead of clicking on save, I click on "open". It opens up "software installer" automatically, and it just a matter of entering the root password and clicking on OK...

> upcoming distros with KDE 3.2, kernel 2.6, the latest Open
> Office, etc are going to absolutely rule, but the RH8 and
>9 distros are available NOW

Late Feb or Mar for MAndrake, KDE 3.2 and Kernel 2.6 are literally a few weeks away!

It was a year ago, (I'm 47 Months windows free), that I finally realized how ready Linux is getting. And my test of setting a non geek friend up with linux proved very successful, I offered to set him up with win, and he said NO!

So if you think that it's nat ready for grandmother yet, give it another look...

MarkP

Re: RE : Rayiner Hashem

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:46:00 GMT

WHAT?? Hey, how hard can it be to click on SETUP.EXE and click on NEXT to install a software ? With good Install/UnInstall feature, lets get serious, DLL hell is prety much over since Windows 2000.

---

You should try to teach your mother to do that. The biggest problem is when something unexpected happens, then it's usually "Huh? What do I do now?"

Re: Linux Package Management

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:48:00 GMT

I should correct myself.

Instead of saying I know that 99% of the software for windows will install and run without a hitch (because the truth is I haven't installed every program made for windows), I should say that I feel MORE confident about a installing and running a Windows program than I do installing and running a Linux program. I am not basing that on the quality of the program or gui, etc. I mean if I download Windows shareware or freeware I have more confidence in it installing and working vs the same situation in linux.

But look I am not arguing about the quality of software and installations of either OS. You cannot disagree with me that installing a program in Windows is less troublesome or cumbersome that installing apps in linux. Sure there have been times when I installed software in linux (source and binary) and it just worked. But there are more instances in the linux world of installation problems than there are successes. And if installing software is still a major issue for beginners and novices, how good can that OS really be?

I am making this complaint because I love linux, but darn it, it just makes me mad that it took me over an hour to just install Audacity on Mandrake 9.2, a simple but cool sound editor, because of dependency and rpm problems. However when I installed Audacity on my Windows System it was installed, up and running, in less than a minute! To me, that says something about the OS, not the software.

RE: Darius

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:54:00 GMT

"Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner."

You don't need one. You just need to choose the right 'Linux'. Despite the author's ramblings and ambiguities, there's a lot more to the situation than that.

Let me sum it up in a nutshell. I recently installed Slackware on a P75 with 40M RAM. It runs a graphical desktop (IceWM), with a word processor (AbiWord), web browser (Dillo) and more. They may not be the most powerful apps in existence, but they're modern, up-to-date and supported with security fixes.

Now go and install Windows XP on that same machine. Oh wait, you can't. It requires 128M. WinXP runs extremely slow on the minium-requirement spec, whereas a good Linux distro zips along fine.

Bottom line: Mandrake, Fedora and SUSE etc. may be big and bloated. But Linux per se, as evidenced with Debian and Slackware, is much MUCH faster than the equivalent Windows.

Windows XP is not any more easy than Suse or MDK or Fedora

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:54:00 GMT

IMHO

Dealing with the waves of virii that use Windows XP makes it harder for "the desktop".

Windows Product Activatoin dose not welcome users in to the frendly world of Windows XP. And running games at 60hz was an experience until Nvidia and ATI make there own fixes for the problem.

Making alot of Windows XP's API under wraps dose not help the Dev's.

Sending an email to MicroSoft about a problem dose not help us. I got replies from Suse 9.0 2 days after I emaild them and I did not say anything about support options.

Not letting user see the inner workings is find untill something gose wrong.

Not letting companies look at Windows XP API's and source code dose not aid development.

I use it ....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:58:00 GMT

My wife uses it and my daughters use it. I don't have worry about spyware, I don't worry about viruses, I can fix their problems remotely (which hardly ever happens compared to the daily click start crap, right click the icon crap and tell me what it says crap.) My duaghters can use gaim to talk to her friends with out having to deal with the crap that clutters the desktop that AOL and others spew.

I had Windows XP on my home PC because of the mtyh that it would be easier for them to use and get whatever they needed done. The reality was that it was easier for them to put crap on the PC and break things. Which made my life harder by having to go back and patch, clean, reinstall remove what ever was giving them grief. And usually with them standing over my shoulder asking when I was going to be done because they had a paper to write, and email to respond too or research for homework.

Not any more... I use Fedora Core 1 and now I have almost zero complaints....I did not have to retrain them to how use this complicated and cumbersome Liunux system. My 37 year old wife, my 12 and 9 year daughters seem to be of exceptional intelligence because they picked it up quickly and I rarely have to help them....

I do give them the option... I have two hard drives on this system and one with Windows XP and the other with Fedora ...

But you know what ? They never use XP ... I dunno why ... Maybe you enlighted folks out ther can explain this phenomenon.

@ Thom.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:00:00 GMT

"Mmmmm people have been saying this exact same sentence for years... only instead of 3.2 it said 1.0, or 2.2, or whatever..."

Yeah and people have said it wasn't in 1.0, 2.2, whatever. People said Bill Gates isn't an asshole 5 years ago, 2 years ago, and 1 year ago. Doesn't mean he wasn't, hasn't become, isn't, won't ever be, "or whatever".

"Don't get me wrong, I *love* KDE, but it's definitely not as newbie-friendly as, say, XP's explorer or Mac OS X's GUI."

Great arguments.

"why"

INHOUD?

Linux is ready for MY desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:09:00 GMT

Windows isn't ready for most users's desktop if you ask them. Most users just live with it and since they don't care about this kind of things, they won't change either.

Do I care ? No. I like linux for everything it is ! Varied but always the same, improving in every aspect very fast, rough on the edges or polished to death (debian or xandros), ultra sophisticated, and keeping things simple.

What I like in perticular is that what I learn, I learn it for all linuxes an also unix.

Linux is great for me.

RE: Ben Mazer or RE: My Take

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:12:00 GMT

> No, my point was that the user will deal with the same software. Mozilla, Evolution, GAIM, etc are all the same on every distro. The only thing that may differ is the default theme.

The user also needs to deal with installing software, installing hardware, updating if needed, making the desktop look pretty, dealing with users etc. These are usually handled by some distro specific software.

> I think you missed the point. You're still thinking the Windows Way. The user doesn't have to search for a package in linux. They just have to type "apt-get install program" or "yum program", etc. Like I said, the developer only has to release the source code,and people will make packages for him.

I am not thing the Windows way. I am thinking the distributed way. Windows just happen to use this approach. I want to install application X. I can go to the developers site, download the package and know it will work in Windows XP. The same cannot be said using a repository. Using a repository, I am stuck with what is there.

Honestly, both are fine approaches and one is not better then the next. I just prefer distributed.

> The point was that hardware manufacturers SHOULDN'T keep their hardware secret. We all benefit from open specs. Look at the open hardware out there. There are wonderful drivers for it built into the kernel.

You can't change the world. Windows works in a way to keep everybody. You propose a way to make users happy, but piss off the hardware manufactures. This does not seem the best solution to me.

> What happens when NVIDIA decides not to support linux? We're screwed. If the hardware/drivers were open, we don't rely on one company.

But you already rely on the company to make the hardware.

Harware company makes everything releated to a piece of hardware. OS developer makes everything related to the OS. Software developer makes everything for the software. Everything just works for the user. Everybody has their role, everybody does their job and everbody is happy.What is wrong with that? The way you put it users, hardware manufactures, and software developers need to play by the rules of Linux.

Learn them all...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:19:00 GMT

One thing that few have spoken of is OS diversity. I own five computer's and run a different OS on each of them: Debian, XP, OS-X, FreeBSD, Fedora. Now granted I love Linux the best, I'm not going to rip on another system do to the simple fact they all have their pros and cons. I can play state of the art games on XP, compleatly customize my Linux installs, enjoy the beautiful 3D GUI of OS-X, etc. I say just either try out a few different ones and go with what you like most. If you don't have the luxery of being able to experiment then stick with what you have now, just realize that you might be missing out on something that you might like better!

@Anonymous

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:20:00 GMT

Some of your points are interesting (like claiming that the average user needs tools to lock down his own desktop)
---
Its not that average users need tools to lock down their desktop. Its that many administrators need tools to lock down the desktops of average users. It might surprise you, but nearly half o fall desktop machines are at workplaces. Those machines have very narrowly-defined roles, and its a big help to the IT department if they can be locked-down so the user has only what he needs to do his work and no more. This lock-down functionality is also important for public machines and machines used in the educational market. Even in the home-market, it would be nice to lock-down the desktops of young children or complete computer-neophytes, especially if there won't be a knowledgable computer user around for long periods of time.

I would not expect my mom to be able to find a package for her specific distribution, and for her specific version (since she won't be upgrading the distribution, of course).
---
But you don't have to do that. You start up the package manager, and it takes care of all of that for you. Hell, I don't see why even power users would want to bother with all that!

And no, synaptic is IMHO not very friendly to the user. It looks like it was designed to make all of the command line options available,
---
KPackage's UI is a bit better than synaptic, IMHO. Let's try installing the GIMP in kpackage:
- Select "new" packages tab
- Find "gimp" in list
- Click "install"
- Click "install"
...wait...
- Click "done"

Kapture, the new APT front-end for the KDE Enterprise project, should be even simpler.

Try explaining all of that, versus "double click the exe and click next."
---
Its hardly that simple. First, you have to *find* the package. For the average free program (winamp, AIM, etc) it involves navigating an often complex site, sometimes filling out a registration, and downloading the installer. At this point, you've already put in more clicks than the KPackage route. But let's continue. Now, you double-click on the installer. What happens next depends on the program you are installing. You see, there are lots of different Windows installers out there. Sometimes, you can just get away with clicking 'next' several times, then 'finish.' Other times (the MS Office installer, for example) you have to enter your license key, then select an installation mode (minimal/standard/complete). (At this point, my mom has already called me up to walk her through it). Then, it prompts you asking what folder to install it in. If you tell the user to ignore all the prompts (which is dangerous, for reasons I'll explain in a momement) you can, at this point, do "next," "next," "finish."

Now, as for telling the user to ignore prompts. There is a very real danger there that they'll start doing just that, and hitting "ok" for everything. I made the mistake of telling my mom to do that, and as a result of an Altavista search gone awry, had to figure out how to remove an adult toolbar from her browser

RE: James

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:24:00 GMT

Same thing for me. My parents and my brother share one computer running XP. I made three partitions: C: for the system and two others for Data. I don't know how, but they got dialers, viruses etc. My brother installed many games and filled one partition completely with games (15 Gig!) and crippled the system so much, that I gave up helping them. I explained why separate user-setups are good and why you should install programs where I intended them to install. I jut gave up. Maybe I suggest a SuSE-Install for all of them with everything they need (the usual stuff: E-Mail, browser, Office) and dual-boot with windows for the games.I think they can learn it. Hey, I had to learn it without help, so they will with my help, I think. With the right setup noone gets affected and I can sleep better ;-)

Linux IS Ready

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:26:00 GMT

linux is ready for my family as desktop.

And Ben Mazer,
Great article!!
i'm with you!

Stop it STOP IT

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:26:00 GMT

This is the fourth Linux on the desktop article in ONE MONTH. At this rate we'll have a mind boggling 48 this year!

What's holding Linux back.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:27:00 GMT

Linux on the Desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:39:00 GMT

While I would like to agree with this article and say that linux is ready for the Desktop I sadly have to say no way.

I run several of the major distos as servers and desktops (Mandrake, Suse, Fedora/Redhat, Gentoo (those are what I have running right now). I find that the two that are the easiest to use by far are Mandrake and Suse. However this is even once you get them configured - For instance:

I have a newer ATI vid card (9600 Pro), to get acceleration on all every one of the distro's I have to install the kernel module (steps are slightly different with almost every distro), install the driver itself, and then run the config which basically is xfconfig requiring the whole Horz/Vert sync on the monitor. While this in itself is ATI's fault it still hurts, and hurts badly. Expand this to scanners/printers/dig cameras/etc and the issues just keep growing.

Your normal user would not know where to start, hell your normal user can barely figure out how to get a toolbar back after they "accidentally" removed it.

Other issues are in fact standardization. Is KDE or Gnome the linux desktop....... umm well it depends on what you want right? Well your standard user doesnt want choices, they need a familiarity and know that they can sit down and expect the same behavior every time from an OS. I personally like the choice, they dont. Going beyond just the GUI - whats your text editor? whats your shell editor? hell whats your shell? these choices are all things that just confuse those poor helpless users - ask them and your likely to get a question back at of "well whats best?" - tell them its just a matter of personal preference and take a picture of the look you get...... cause it will be priceless.

Now "Linux isnt as polished" - well it isnt. I find polished (for desktop use) to be having an easy GUI to do just about whatever you need. This simply isnt the case, some distro's are close but not complete. Once again personally I love having the ability to open a file and modify/look at whatever. Your average user is scared to death of this - and at times to make the OS work you have to do this.

And then theres applications and compatibility. How many IE specific web sites are out there? Expecially Web Apps! Sorry you cant use your online turbo tax anymore/etc (actually not even sure turbo tax maybe Moz compatible - but you all get the point). Once again not the fault of Linux, but still a huge downside. Then take your applications and installation. Could you imagine your typical user searching rpmfind to resolve dependencies? I think not.

Lastly to address the comment on X isnt fast. Well, it is fast but unfortunatly just not as fast as XP/2003 on a newer machine. How can I prove this technically? Well I cant nor have any desire too. For me its a matter of having a dual boot system and noticing that the XP/2003 gui is just a little bit snappier on the same exact hardware (Gnome or KDE) - that all the proof I need.

Linux makes a great server and a great desktop for the technically advantaged. However ready for the common desktop? No way.

re: As much as I would like to agree with you...(@J4DED)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:42:00 GMT

Any time you make a choice about your money it is a political decision. You're choosing who's pockets to line, who to make rich, which company to support. Any time you make a choice about what technology to use -- in almost all technological arenas, not just computing -- you are making a political choice. You're choosing to put more pollutants into the air rather than less, or to consume a resource rather than use a renewable one, or to support a system that's heading for DRM and more spyware. The fact that no one recognizes this doesn't make it false; on the contrary, it's why the world is in many ways quite horrible, and going downhill fast.

From the article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:43:00 GMT

"In a society driven by money, EVERY purchase you make is inherently political."

No, In a society driven by money, EVERY purchase you make is inherently economical. This is just the sort of thing that makes linux zealots look like morons to the rest of the world.

re: From the article (@Sagres)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:46:00 GMT

About as moronic as the supposition that there's much difference between money and power in the modern world? I'll buy that.

Re: chazwurth

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:49:00 GMT

I'll remember that next time i buy some m&m's, i think the red ones may be political.

RE:

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:50:00 GMT

Hi,

I'm a long time Linux user, 6 years at least. Well I agree there are many
drivers for Linux, but the truth is they tend to suck compared to those made
for Windows! Many are not as full-featured, or optimized as what you usually
get with "CDs" on Windows (And that's one of the reasons why I still need to
have Windows).

I'll take a simple example of hardware that is widespread: A 3dfx voodoo 3 gfx
card. This card has 16 Mb of RAM. First the kernel module tdfx.o has been kind
of abandonned no one is fixing the bugs or maintaining it. With XFree86, your
desktop (2D) can't have only maximum 1024x768 if you want to able to use 3D,
which kind of sucks if you have a 17" monitor. But they even recommend to set
the desktop at 800x600 because even 1024x768 is unstable. Try a Linux desktop at
800x600 some day and see how usable it is. On Windows you can have 1280x1024 or
more and use 3D without problems. For me that is an issue. And last time
I asked if there were plans to fix that, I just got flatly ignored or some
idiot replied something like: tough for you, buy a new video card. Heh well,
I guess you don't pay for Linux, but you pay for the hardware that works with
it.

Second example: yet another video card which is not supported correctly. I
have a Compaq laptop with a SiS video card in it. Windows can do 640x480@16bpp,
XFree86 can only to 640x480@8bpp. Have you ever tried Linux at 8bpp? Needless
to say you don't just replace video cards on laptops.

Third example: I have another PC which I use for recording which has a
S3 Virge DX in it. This card has some 3D capabilities... of course they're not
supported in XFree...

Fourth example: My sister has a PC with some other SiS video card in it which
support 1024x768 on Windows, and only 800x600 on XFree.

4 PCs: 4 video cards that are not supported to the full extent. Now ain't there
something to worry about?

In addition many sound cards, even with ALSA, are not fully supported. Even a
plain emu10k1 isn't supported entirely. That was admitted recently on LKML.
Linux on Desktop? What about a usable Direct Connect client and a an office
suite that doesn't take 2 minutes to load? (Well actually KOffice, I have high
hopes for it, but it's not there yet). What about working file transfers
for MSN, AIM, Yahoo, Jabber (Without having to use 4 apps)?

On a positive note, with KDE 3.2, Linux has made a BIG step forward on the
Desktop. Now one can have a snappy, easy to use (although not for system
tasks yet), coherent desktop.

As far as "you can't demand from developpers" stuff. Well of course you can't,
but if Linux has pretentions to be a desktop OS, then some things have to
be addressed. Else Desktop Linux will be hot air.

RE: Re: chazwurth

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:53:00 GMT

//
I'll remember that next time i buy some m&m's, i think the red ones may be political.
//

Well, what if the company that makes M&Ms(Mars?) was torturing children? Would you still buy them?

That is my point. The M&Ms may taste delicious and be reasonably priced, but giving a company money will just help support any injustices that they are commiting.

RE: Software

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:00:00 GMT

"WHAT?? Hey, how hard can it be to click on SETUP.EXE and click on NEXT to install a software ? With good Install/UnInstall feature, lets get serious, DLL hell is prety much over since Windows 2000."

With good... IF you have good ones, and let me tell you, some windows software is really ugly. Even now, with 2000 and xp, witch are supposed to be multi user systems.

Example: Why the hell most installers are thinking that, since I'm installing as a administrator, it should install the menu files in the administrator "Documents and Settings"?

I'm taking apt as a exemple now, since that's what I'm using:

"With Linux you have to think if this software is good for YOUR distro/version of distro"
no
" AND if you have all the required libs"
no
" AND having to worry about dependancy and all."
no. BTW it's nice repeating the same problem three times, I wasn't sure what it was the first time.

" When you do get to install the software, where is the ICON? Where is it in the Gnome or KDE "Start" menu?"
No. If they don't have a gnome, kde, or anything else menu, it's a bug that should be filled. And let me tell you, that at least in debian's gnome, I never had a problem. (for gnome apps, that is, i don't know about others)

" 80% of the time it's nowhere to be found. "
It's nice that your are pulling stats from your ass.

"What about UNinstalling software? Where is the ADD/Remove software?"

Are your fucking stupid? No, really?

"Linux is missing on EASY driver installation too. I don't mind having to search for them on the Web, but Installing them is a pain (very much so for Video Card)."

There is third party tools for installing binary drivers. I agree, they can be a pain, but then, debian is all about free software. If you want easy to install binary drivers, go get a commercial distribution.

"Every company provide us with Windows Drivers,"

What about, no?

"how many of them provide usable Linux driver? "

Hum, mister dumbass, did you try to read the acticle first?
"Linux is missing on GAMES, everything Adobe, something real close to MS Access, MS Frontpage, and the list goes on and on. And don't talk about CrossOver, that's only emulating Windows, the evil you, oh so want to get rid of."

HAHAHAHA Access! HAHAHAHA Frontpage! HHAHAHAHAA

And personally i don't give a fuck about adobe stuff, there is alternatives your know. But I understand they may be required to some people. Are they to you?

dumbass...

Some comments about a useless article.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:05:00 GMT

The article attempts to be comprehensive, and is written in a "I am your friend" tone. Well it's not a good article.

1. "you have no right to demand ANYTHING"

Well actually, as a user, I do have all the right to demand. If you want to claim that your product (be it Windows, Linux, the DVD player, whatever...) is good for me, then I will tell you why it is NOT. The customer is always right, and if you really care about making Linux good for everyone (i.e., put it on the desktops) then you better listen buddy.

The comment about demands came under the "Linux isn't as easy to use" heading. Let's us start with basics of referencing: The author states "and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users". Care to share these please? As an advocate, I really would like to get my hands on those studies.

Following on: "It's fine if linux isn't perfect for everyone yet". What? The section kicked off by saying that the author has found Linux to be easy, and has taught it to several people with no problems. That is what they call a contradiction, I believe.

2. Re polish: "In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent."

I disagree with this definition somewhat, but I'll use it anyway: I've had endless problems using GUI network config programs when setting up my network. It turns out that they edit 'random' files, and the only way to get my network up and running was to figure out which config files to edit manually (hard enough) and then figure out the format (varies from file to file, but certainly easy). What's the point of having a GUI if it doesn't work.

Further, people ALWAYS moan about editing the registry. I've edited the registry many times in my life, and frankly, it's as heart-stopping as editing config files manually. But guess what? I haven't come across a situation that requires registry editing in over 2 years. Yes Windows XP is very good in this respect.

3. "Linux is fragmented"

Yes it is. Go to distrowatch.com, and look at how every distro has it's own customised interface (be it KDE, GNOME, XFCE...). Further, each distro has its own set of tools, its own set of nice things, and its own set of quirks.

Then here is a gem of a quote: " Installation is something few people will have to do, so it's not that important for compatability,"

What on Earth are you on about? Have you ever used a computer? Few people will have to install software? Oh just get a clue.

"Package Management isn't that important either,". Again, what are you talking about? Why is MS investing hours of research into library control (COM, COM+, ActiveX, etc)? Why did MS invent the MS Installer? Why are there tens of installer systems (Nullsoft's, installshield, etc)? The answer is simple: People NEED to install software, easily, and installations must NOT mess up the system.

4. "Some people say there should only be one or two distributions".

I actually agree. But I still would like to see some sort of consolidation, or some sort of standardisation.

5. "Linux moves too fast"

It does, but the speed (which is GOOD, IMHO), is not an issue. What is the issue is backward compatiblity. Windows versions tend to be backward compatible, and there is no reason why OSS developments should not be. It's just good programming practice IMHO.

6. "his is an ideological stance, and no one has a right to say that the "open source idealogy" is wrong."

And you can't say that the closed-source idealogy is wrong either. Freedom goes both ways. To use your sentence: " People with different beliefs will just have to get along."

7. "How would a business make money?"

Why don't your write up a business plan and submit it to some VCs. You seem to be clued up on business models too.

8. Buying MS software supports them politically.

Let me get this right: You are saying that using OSS means you cannot avoid the idealogy, and that's OK. But if I use MS software, the politics that come with it are not OK. Sweet. Just leave politics out of technology and give me something that works.

9. "Linux is slow"

I like this section. It raises some good points, and I never say that Linux is slower that Windows: Sometimes it is, sometimes it is faster. Overall, my life is not better or worse if I choose one or the other (based on speed).

10. "There Are No Drivers"

It is the manufacturers responsibility to release drivers. To comment on a couple of things:

"But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing
the big picture"

"Ideally, the drivers would be allowed in the standard kernel (and be open source)"

Why is it so bad to expect to have a CD come with hardware? And why should the drivers be open source? Remember that it is in the best interest of hardware manufacturers to create drivers. Don't tell them they have to be open source.

11. "No Applications"

OpenOffice is good for general use, and so I won't quibble here. Evolution trumps EVERYTHING else available, be it under Windows or Linux or anything else. Mozilla (and the associated browsers) is excellent. However, the situation is very far from perfect, but is constantly improving. This argument is the most valid at the moment, but it is losing validity with time.

Finally, let me go back to one point. We really need a good installer. Not an OS installer, but a software installer. I don't want to go ./lalalala to get something to work. I just want something as simple as the MS Installer. IMHO, debian packages are an excellent starting point, but it can be a lot better.

re: Sagres

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:06:00 GMT

Funny, you think giving money to a company that's a member of the National Foreign Trade Council isn't a political act? It's as political as giving money to someone who's collecting for a political party; the only difference is that the political party is likely to use it in less destructive ways. As I said, just because no one recognizes it doesn't make it false. Spend your money where and how you like; but applying the word "moron" to people who are intellectually honest enough to recognize what their own choices mean for the world they live in, much less to an author who's obviously going to read your comments, isn't exactly a demonstration of superior wit.

@Anonymous

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:08:00 GMT

Unfortunately, you're kind of in the minority. Linux supports all the major cards out today in 2D (SiS, ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox, and Intel). The other vendors really aren't shipping very many cards today, and between ATI, NVIDIA, and Intel, you've got a majority of the new computer market covered. As for anyone who cares about 3D performance, they have an ATI or NVIDIA card. NVIDIA has 100% support for Linux in their drivers, and ATI, though not as good, has supposedly gotten a lot better with recent releases (I don't own an ATI card so I can't say first-hand).

@Anonymous (videotron.ca) I can verify that I've only had one problem with KDE apps not being installed in the KMenu, and that was with KControl in the prerelease debians for KDE 3.2-RC1.

re: Ben Mazer

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:09:00 GMT

Of course. On the other hand, it's much easier to be alive in the world if you can pretend that your choices don't have consequences or moral content. That's why it's such a popular way to live.

Just to be fair......

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:15:00 GMT

when you'll be able to get your mp3 device (such as my creative jukebox) work as fine you wish, you could talk about the fair use of linux....
when you'll be able to have your tv-out working out the box without an inch (not even mention my drx3..), you could talk about the linux easy of use......
When you'll be able to edit a simple avi file in order to make some work on it (including reencoding a divx and its subtitle in one files), we could talk about the easyness of linux......

And for now, I just don't want to talk about the incredible difficulty of getting old-binaries work after a distro update.
I'm talking about wordperfect8, applixware and Houdini (just to say I was able to make them work using a lot of non standard tips ).
That's for the old apps I enjoy (please don't tell me OpenOffice is fine, I don't have a P12 12GHZ to get it run at the speed and at the reactivity I expect from a 500 mhz machine (which is enough for high desktop task) )
If your distro is a little old, you'll be soon into the dependency hell problem and I know what I'm talking about, I'm still with my mandrake 8.0, updated and tunned by hand) and sometimes I just don't want to compile stuff again and again so welcome to (requires -> glibc (2.2.3)) come on ! I've got 2.2.2-99 and it doesn't work ??????????????

Note that I'm using GNU/Linux since 98 as my only system and now, I grew up and I'm tired of putting my hands in every corner just to make some usefull stuff with my computer.

Just to make your laugh : just try to get flyspell.el work with ispell and a french dictionnary.

The latest environnement may be easy but just if you stick to the line, if you want to install something unusual, you'll have to be a sysadmin.

Djamé

ps : All of my peripherics are working fine but none except the soundcard and the scsi card were working out of the bow
(webcam, graphic tablet, nvidia card, tv card, dxr3, cd-writer)
reps : one of my favourite game in this time is to get garnome2.4 compile, could you believe when you download everything, it still lacks some stuff ?
when I read that, it's obviously coming from somebody who has never try to compile gnomemeeting or gaim (whith the gnutls stuffs) by hand....

"linux easy for all of us" lol.
"mail, web surfing and some wordprocessing for all of us"

for the rest it's not ready if you don't dig out everywhere...

please forgive my tone, but I'm tired about all this buz about linux and desktop, there's no simple AND powerfull video apps, no simple AND powerfull sound apps like fruity loop, and except for those shipped with the loki installer, no apps installable by your mother, my uncle or his aunt.

I'm a geek, an otaku, a nerd, whatever you want and I know how to get things work and I did for 6 years now, but I shouldn't have to. Do I know how a phone work ? no and I don't care. Do I know why my car doesn't start anymore ? no and I don't care, my garagist knows and it's enough.
Computer should work like that.

About "Fragmentation"

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:19:00 GMT

I don't feel like quoting...

Anyways, Windows has blackbox, I don't hear people complaining... and litestep has been available for ages. I don't hear people complaining.

It's like saying, "omg this guy is working on osx, he doesn't help to acomplish the IT dream of making windows the only OS available!"

Something is worse: Microsoft never complies with standards.
Yeah, TCP/IP (wasn't standard first), http (not html for sure!), ANSI C (i gues that is required), and that's all I can think of.

And on top of that, they try to fuck the xml standard...

'Desktop' articles for 2+ years

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:30:00 GMT

I've been reading these articles for 2+ years now, at least. It's old already, and who cares. I've been using Linux as my primary desktop since 1999, but I don't recognize this need for Linux to push other OS's off of the desktop. These articles used to be written in the tone that if Linux didn't take over the desktop, it'd fail, as if going out of business. An insane line of reasoning, but that was the underlying theme. After reading these for a few years, I also get the idea that some people feel they can only achieve success or happiness through someone else's failure.

If Linux has what is required to make you happy when you use it as a desktop, then that's great. More power to you, go off and be happy. If it doesn't, then perhaps it's best if you use something else. Either way, I don't need to keep hearing about it. Thanks.

Contradictions.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:33:00 GMT

It seems that I'm a strange breed of *nix user, as a teenager I wanted desperately to be able to use Unix systems, to be able to touch, use and understand the system. It was a source of lust in the same way that some people are obsessed with performance cars or motorcycles or lately hot-rod gaming rigs. For me, the whole big hoopla about Linux and *BSD being open source is little more than a diversion. The important thing about these free Unix-like systems is the fact that they ARE Unix-like.

I haven't been touched by the ideology and zealotry of the open source community in the same way as a lot of people whose introduction to Unix style OSes has been through open source software. I support open source software as a concept, and have made a few contributions here and there, but I'm fully able to separate my desire to use a quality, high-performance operating system from my belief that software can be free. I don't believe that ALL software SHOULD neccesarily be free, I think that there is a place in this world for all sorts of profit models from computer software.

It would certainly be nice to have the choice of using a free or commercial version of all software, but to be honest, I don't think that my favorite games would be of the quality that they are if people weren't willing to fund them properly, and ID software's hybrid open/closed model proves that closed/open source philosophies are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway, enough about philosophy and on to my point. Your article is self-contradictory, on the one hand you say that Linux is a constantly moving target, and difficult for closed source vendors to deal with, but you don't see that as a problem because everything should be open source. Then, later in the same page you say that people should be pressuring vendors to make their software available. Obviously this is not going to happen while Linux distributors are holding a gun to the vendors heads to release their software's source code -something which just isn't possible with many closed source programs, because they have integrated licensed components that the vendor doesn't have the rights to release to the public. Both netscape and star office sources remained unusable for extended periods of time because of this problem.

The source of these problems is ideological zealotry, and bigotry against closed source vendors. Something which is actually for the most part absent from commercial vendors. They are just companies who want to see a return for their shareholders. Plenty of people would buy Photoshop for Linux, even though Gimp is available. What's stopping Adobe from porting their app to Linux is that it won't work in a year's time, not a lack of audience for their software in Linux. What's stopping your webcam vendor from shipping a driver for Linux on the CD is that any given binary driver may only work on one kernel version, with all the right options compiled in. There needs to be a stable driver API, even if it's just a wrapper.

It's time for people to stop defending this ridiculous state of affairs and start pushing for proper backward compatibility in Linux. There's more than one meaning to the word stability, and while the kernel may be stable in the sense that it doesn't crash, the API for programmers is the most unstable of any popular operating system. This is not a good thing, it is not an advantage, it is not a feature. It is a limitation, imposed on all users of Linux, and it needs to be addressed, not swept under a carpet of zealotry and idealism. If Linux is to be truly free, then people need to be free to sell software for it, otherwise it's no better than Microsoft creating an OS that is incapable of running open source software.

Huh?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:38:00 GMT

Microsoft doesnt support standards? Huh? What proof of that say you?

Microsot has built their products based on the RFC's for the primary standard out there. They might extend them for additional benefit, but they support the RFC's requirements (think: DNS).

XML, SOAP, WSDL, BEPL, LDAP (working with IBM on that), etc...

You might want to find a new horse - that one has been beaten to death long ago... :-)

Whoops

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:42:00 GMT

Mean working with IBM BEPL vs. LDAP... Doh.

re: mike, re: cheezwog

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:46:00 GMT

Mike:
If Linux isn't ready ...then Windows is far from it.

Kernel 2.6 is ready for both desktop and production level usage. No Windows can match it and i even doubt that Lognhorn will.

LOL. Right. Care to back that up? I may not have all the data about the Windows kernel, but certainly you don't either. This statement is pure BS.

Cheezwog:

It makes Windows very attractive if you have thousands of pounds worth of commercial software for free. The Linux alternatives, while good, cannot compete with getting commercial software for nothing.

I think that the one thing that will move millions of people to Linux will, perversely, be strong copy protection combined with hardware DRM in Windows.

Yes, very very interesting point. I think you are very right about this for a lot of people. However, probably most people still buy their software, otherwise the warez sources would be waaaay overworked considering how many computer users exist. But who knows. It will be very interesting to see what happens with DRM. Too bad it's nearly impossible to get some real numbers on the amount of pirated softare being used. I bet pretty much *all* college students use pirated software, they can barely afford food let along software!

Have to flame

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:57:00 GMT

Hopefully this article doesn't represent the open source or the "community" or whatever. Otherwise it is a good article to show that Linux is pretty much doomed.

Think about it, the author starts with accusing the people who write helpful and honest articles about the status of the linux on desktop. He claims that they were not able to understand or accept the open source system, as if some of them are evil people who refuse to understand this "open source system". I wonder what is this open source system is? What is the abstract word about, how does it relate to the articles people write about linux on desktop? The author makes the claim, but doesn't back it up. It is like spreading FUD. Then the author backs off a little and says it is ok to critize, and then warns people of not talking too much about this, cause then you are assumed to be offending developers, which you can't do cause these developers are open source developers, so they are entitled to greater respect.

As a typical linux user, the author doesn't see or know how open source really works. Most of the open source projects do not have the same engineering power as the commercial companies have. If you have ever used linux, ever read serious linux journals, you will see the problem. Creating an application which does something is not that hard, but creating something as perfect as photoshop is a big deal. Kernel is not the only thing, compiler is not the only thing. There are so many components that the developers have to deal with. As a result, programs with user interface on linux almost always suck with respect to commercial ones. There is nothing to hide here and no reason to hide and no reason to accuse anybody for telling the truth.

Linux is making a progress, I don't know if it will ever reach good quality in our life span, so that significant number of people will actually switch to Linux, but Linux is not something you can dismiss as other hoppy operating systems anymore. It is definitely more than that. Its tools are open, accessible to people. When you are a developer, you know that you can develop cool apps for Linux, but for Windows you have to buy VS .net which costs hundrends of dollars. But note that, if ever Linux become a serious threat, we still don't know what Microsoft will do. If they release the vs .net as free, I wonder how Linux will ever win those developers. So it is still extremely challenging to win against Windows on the desktop. That's why none of the big names like IBM or HP etc... try to sell Linux as desktop OSes. There was a recent bogus news about IBM switching its desktops to Linux, but I know that is not true.

@ chazwurth

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:03:00 GMT

Of course. On the other hand, it's much easier to be alive in the world if you can pretend that your choices don't have consequences or moral content. That's why it's such a popular way to live.

No, it's just that i think that there are a lot of worse things in world other than if bill gates is evil because he wears a red thong or ships IE with windows.

A question for Linux users on 'conversion' ....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:07:00 GMT

First, I hear people talking about how great Linux and its apps are, and how good the hardware support is, and how desktop Linux gives them everything they need.
Then asked why 'converting' people is so important, they talk about getting more apps, drivers, etc.
So, I have to ask .. is Linux good enough, or is it not? If it isn't, then why won't you say so? If it is, then why this obsession with coverting people to your religion .. er ... I mean, your OS ?

Dumb dumb dumb

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:00 GMT

These articles are dumb. You know why? It doesn't matter if it's "ready". All that matters is the number of people useing it. There are pros and cons to all operating systems, but no matter how good or aweful a system is, if 90%+ of computer users run it that's where the money and effort will largly flow towards. Usability or readiness is always good, but how many people are actually using it?

re: A.K.H.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:14:00 GMT

On the issue of college students using pirated software, I think you're a little off the mark. My 'evidence' is purely anecdotal, but as there are no good sources on the issue, I suppose it's as relevant as any. I'm a college student (undergrad), and most of the friends I spend much time with are undergrads, grad students in various fields, or fairly recently graduated (grad and undergrad both). That said:

I see a range from none (myself: I use almost entirely free software) to a hell of a lot (one friend of mine has downloaded/cracked versions of dozens of games, almost everything produced by Adobe, a font collection running into the tens of thousands, Reason...you name it, he's got it or can get it). But most of the students I know don't have all that much. The reason is that most of them can get what they want and need for free or at very low prices. For example, any student at one of the universities near my home can take WinXP Pro out of one of the University libraries and install it without paying anything; the school has already payed for the license. Much other software is available at extremely steep educational discounts. And the number of computers available at campus computer labs is staggering; many of those machines have a lot of software installed, and some of the labs are open nearly 24 hours a day.

I see much, much more downloading of music and movies than I do of software. Most of the students I know have extensive mp3 collections; fewer download movies regularly, but the number is still significant. I attribute this to two factors: 1) Bandwidth is plentiful in most college towns, and 2) It's easier for students to get cheap software than it is for them to get cheap music/movies.

"I don't care, as long as it just works", well I care.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:17:00 GMT

Great article. I don't use Linux because it is currently the best operating system in the world. But I prefer Linux over its proprietary cousins because the community cares and strives to make it better for everyone., not just to make profits. When we begin to care about the people around us then we begin to become human.

The "I don't care as long it works" attitude is analogous to big business' "I don't care as long as we make money" attitude that plagues our selfisf, self destructing society. We become slaves to money and lust. I generally stay away from people who "don't care". They are the same people capable of beheading me because they "don't care".

Perhaps Linux is better suited for those "who care".

Enjoyment

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:18:00 GMT

Use Xfce on X11 (Darwin) in conjuction with OS X. Word processing in X11 while OS X handles Logic Audio. Xfce's small fooprint is so cool.

My Daughter's boyfriend runs Gnome on Debian.
My Daughter runs Kde. Openoffice and Koffice.

So busy doing stuff with these desktops, I didn't "know" they weren't ready. Should I apologize to someone or wait?

Nah, gonna hang out on irc, or mailing lists, or various sites and enjoy learning to work with that which works with me.

RE: idc

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:18:00 GMT

"XML, SOAP, WSDL, BEPL, LDAP (working with IBM on that), etc..."

XML? The first time I've heard about Microsoft using it, it was in office, and you know what's going to happen.

LDAP: Yeah, I agree, and I was really surprised when I heard that they were using it. I guess I can add that to the list.

SOAP/WSDL: Seems like w3c recommendations to me, and it's not like Microsoft supported the w3c in the past. I don't know much about them, so I can't really tell anything.

BEPL: Google wasn't really happy with this search...

I find it strange that you name relatively unknown standards. I'm sure I can tell more standards that Microsoft broke that you can tell me that they comply to.

To add to the list: dhcp (since the internet is not managed by windows servers, thanks. And even then, Windows server has another auto-assigning-of-ip thing if you shutdown the dhcp service) and nntp (I guess they don't have a point to broke _that_)

@Sagres

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:24:00 GMT

I don't dispute it. Everything is a matter of degrees, and Bill Gates isn't at the top of the list. That's actually one of the things that's puzzled me about RMS; it seems to me that someone with so much anger and energy could have made more of a difference if he'd chosen a more urgent cause. On the other hand, I think that the future of technology will seem a lot more urgent when it arrives than it does at the moment. In any case, Microsoft's impact on the development of technology isn't as important as the issue of unchallenged corporate power and illegal activities, regardless of what area of the economy it happens to be in. I'd be just as anti-Microsoft if they were a car manufacturer or an energy company. Granted, the issue is a little closer to home for me because I'm a geek, but as far as principle is concerned, my problem isn't just that they ship IE with Windows.

good article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:25:00 GMT

but you people who say it isnt ready for the desktop are still way off. the first time i used linux back in kde 1.x on mandrake 7.1 and i was able to find and use the apps i needed in 20 minutes just by clicking the menu button! i mean seriously, come on folks! what does linux need to do to be ready for simple email, browsing, chatting, and simple minded games? do the programmers have to somehow program a hand to come out of the screen and mash the appplications over your face? linux comes out faster, more stable, more secure, and easier to use than windows does out of the box. it takes me like 2 hours just to get windows up and running like linux does out of the box. Linux installs in 20-30 minutes at the most! and all the software and hardware and desktop is working right there within the first boot. nothing i enjoy more in windows than installing driver after driver rebooting and rebooting and rebooting and downloading all the software i need on the internet. use some common sense here guys.

Great article !!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:28:00 GMT

I agree entirelly !

I use linux on my desktops and I think that it is better for geeks like me (because of its flexibility, powerfull tools, etc) and for stupid users also (those that need a friend to install and configure your computer).

Windows is STILL (I hope change in future) better for gamers and for "semi-geeks" (those who want use all pirated commercial applications that exist and they don't know how to use linux and free software equivalents).

@RunJorel

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:37:00 GMT

I am making this complaint because I love linux, but darn it, it just makes me mad that it took me over an hour to just install Audacity on Mandrake 9.2, a simple but cool sound editor, because of dependency and rpm problems.

Er...I think you should definitely learn to use urpmi. Audacity is in the contrib repository, so once the repository is added to your list of sources, all you have to do is type "urpmi audacity" and it will install all required files automatically. Alternately, if you like the GUI, you can use rpmdrake. Check out Easy Urpmi to easily set up rpm repositories:

http://urpmi.org/easyurpmi/index.php

Dependency problems are a thing of the past, exactly like DLL hell in Windows. So to all here who say that installing apps on Linux is hard, I have only one word: FUD. Installing software on Linux is easier and faster than in Windows.

However when I installed Audacity on my Windows System it was installed, up and running, in less than a minute!

Actually, I installed it on my Linux system to compare, and it took exactly 71 seconds - and that includes download time for both audacity and libwxgtk2.5 (the other package determined by urpmi to be needed). The actual installation took about 30 seconds...not bad!

Linux desktop solution

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:44:00 GMT

All of these distros sure kind of smell the same...oh look it's all using same kernel anyway lol, just different structures/mgmt commands.

In my piddly vision of Linux, companies are developing different desktops that end users are purchasing..oh look they're all 'compatible' to a certain degree. then of course the company reaps rewards of support and 'updates.'

kind of like MAC X, geez it's just bsd with custom APPLE gui.

i would like different desktops, hell sometimes i want kde and gnot gnome [pun uh-huh.]

okay so to a point, what the heck is osdl and 'desktop groups' doing trying to create 'THE DESKTOP'? i thought linux was about free choice and open standards?

Re: Comments (Darius) ... had a great laughter!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:49:00 GMT

"On speed
In my experience, the default install of Windows is rather bloated as well, but you often hear people saying, "If you just turn off unneeded services, windows flies!". Please take this attitude with linux as well, to be fair.

Look here:
http://www.monroeworld.com/pchelp/xptweaks.php

Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner."

If you look at those "tweaks" you will see that nearly all of them are for the purpose to get rid of some M$ windows typical "features". This annoying stuff you simply won't find with Linux/KDE/Gnome.

Looks like trolling.

Waaaa, Waaaaa, Waaaaa!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:01:00 GMT

Lord is this the only thing we have to talk about? Is Linux dead, is it alive, will it make it to the desktop, will it not.

I am sooo tired of hearing that Linux (Which in reality is 10 years behind Windows) is not up to snuff, it's not this, it's not that. Windows is this and Windows is that. And Windows can do all this different stuff better and the drivers are better etc, etc, etc!

None of that matters. The facts are that Windows has a NICE head start, Microsoft has all the resources, the channels the connections, 50 Billion dollars in the bank and years of in the field use. Yet distros like Xandros and Lindows and Suse (Plus many others) are only as far behind the Windows curve as Win 98 and Win NT are to Windows XP. (Not all that far behind)

People know the short falls of Linux and are working to fix them. It's only a matter of time before Linux gets on government and corporate desktops! And yes it may take some years to get a better place in the home desktop market I would be willing to bet they get there in less time then it took Microsoft!

On top of that Linux is killing Apple's market share. I love Apple but Apple will not be #2 for long.

Because once Linux cracks the cooperate market you will see MANY more applications ported over to Linux. Being that tons of apps are already ported to the Mac OS it shouldn't be hard to move them to Linux.

Anyway let's be patient, remember it took MS 20 years to get to the top of the mountain!

So to heck with the nay sayers. I remember when IBM thought MS would never make it to the top of the mountain. Now IBM is kicking themselves in the butt!

Linux time will come! (And if not the Kernel is free, we can always create something out of it. And that is the important part. It's not going anywhere. If BSD can hang in there for all these years so will Linux. Whether it becomes the desktop of choice or not! )

RE: Ford Prefect

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:03:00 GMT

http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/linux/2001/00918803.html
http://www.lesbell.com.au/Home.nsf/0/b5080b9e12e951b0ca256d030082e4...
http://linuxperf.nl.linux.org/general/kerneltuning.html
....

You cant use google? Lazy windows boys

Looks like trolling.

little thoughts

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:03:00 GMT

well, had to throw something in to the fray. For all those saying linux is good enough for me on the desktop, and my mom uses it too, well I'll better that one. I use linux on the desktop (slackware) and my son seems to have no problem doing what he wants to do with it, play some little games, that type of thing. Oh btw, my son is 5.

I've begun to suspect that perharps many of those in the "industry" who keep on moaning on about linux not being ready, are actually just afraid for their jobs. I work in tech support (not windows-based though), and I do hear what many of the windows-techi crowd make their dollars off of. Cleaning out spyware, getting rid of virii, etc. I've seen what they actually charging their customers for and it does strike me as often rather questionable. Not to knock every windows tech though, I know there are some fine ones out there. Oh well, just some quick thoughts.

RE: IP: ---.189-202-24.mc.videotron.ca

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:04:00 GMT

"Are your fucking stupid? No, really?
HAHAHAHA Access! HAHAHAHA Frontpage! HHAHAHAHAA
And personally i don't give a fuck about adobe stuff, there is alternatives your know. But I understand they may be required to some people. Are they to you?
dumbass..."

And it's with that kind of helpfull reply that Linux folks think they will get more users.... No thanks.

But it's nice to know that DEBIAN seem to be a better distro than others. YOUR experience with Linux seem to be so good. I and many others must be fuck*ing twit to have problems with Linux.

...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:08:00 GMT

"And it's with that kind of helpfull reply that Linux folks think they will get more users.... No thanks."

Please continue with your generalizations. I guess youll add that:

All black people are criminals
All Americans are lazy and overfed
....

RE: ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:16:00 GMT

" Please continue with your generalizations. I guess youll add that:

All black people are criminals
All Americans are lazy and overfed"

Generalizations? Read all the reply here. Everyone trying to point out something against Linux is gun down by someone else. And it's not in a learning maner, it's in a "you're stupid" maner. I'm the best because it works for me so I don't understand what's your problem. Hey! My kids use it! Good for all of you. Instead of flaming those with problems, could you be more helpfull?

RE: By Anonymous (IP: ---.189-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:34:00 GMT

Hey Eugenia, why mod my reply and let him call names?
Not good, not good at all.

Apps

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:34:00 GMT

'For normal desktop work, Linux is there. Web browsing, word processing, email, and PIM are already mature and stable.'

A lot of Linux apps like OpenOffice and GIMP aren't bad, but how many people need compatability with mainstream software? I need to be able to e-mail MS Word documents to people and open the documents they send me. OpenOffice may be 90% compatible, but that isn't good enough when documents have to be error free. I doubt my parents would be happy losing all the layers in their Photoshop images (and I wonder if their expensive SCSI negative scanner would work in Linux). I imagine that a lot of people are in a similar situation, while the rest of the world is using Windows/Mac it's inevitable.

Even if I didn't hate using Linux as a desktop OS for all kinds of reasons, I'd be reluctant to switch just because software. I know I can run Windows software in Linux, but what's the point of running Linux if I'm going to use Windows software? Especially when there are stability, performance and compatibility problems with some apps.

gentoo

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:46:00 GMT

while people consider it too hard to install, gentoo sure has the easiest app install process.

emerge mplayer

wow. that was hard. now i have a functioning mplayer, as opposed to the crippled kind you get from the 'big' distributions (suse, mandrake, fedora).

i also like the discussion on disabling services. hmm...no services run on my gentoo box that i don't specifically tell to run. short of basic system services (syslog,etc).

at the moment, gentoo is not for those afraid of the command line. i dont know if there are plans for nice pretty gui tools, but i wouldn't be surprised to see them appear.

a good community is always nice as well. i even reference the gentoo forums when i'm having problems on other distributions. http://forums.gentoo.org

gentoo is not perfect, but no OS is.

Why fighting kids?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:26:00 GMT

Honestly, in a normal home desktop user point of view, the following may be true:

1. Installation OF os itself - I put a tie here. I haven't really tried Mandrake or SuSe, but recently I saw the SuSe's installation rocks, so I say a tie here since the SuSe installation goes smoothly without any problems like Windows. Remember I say installation of os itself, not involving any drivers just yet, see next.

2. Drivers - Windows wins. Many of Linux drivers still need to be compiled before use. You are not required to compile anything, just click next and finish to do the job. Although there are tons of binary drivers, at the very least if the kernel includes the driver and when you find out that your kernel does NOT have it compiled as module, you will need to compile the entire kernel. It's not a pain, but we are talking about the ease of use for installation. Be honestly. Learning curve is another topic, see later in this post.

3. Applications - Tie...If I put windows as the winner, I would argue myself that if I am just a newbie, installing Linux packages is just like windows applications. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying installing applicatins in windows is hard but the problem is users don't read these days. I found that most of the home users know english, I mean they really know how to read, at the very least, but they never do so when installing anything on windows platform. Thus what's the point of that if you have to teach yourself or your parents or grandma/pa to do things anyway? The way you teach, the way they learn, there is no difficulties because both of them require points and clicks only. Be careful here, I am not talking about any compilation of software or CVS here, I am just saying the so-called desktop ready distro like Redhat, SuSe, Mandrake. Because when you compare a pure sport car's internal interface with the one inside a luxury, there is no point to do so.

4. Choices of applications - I would definitely say a tie. Why? When you talk about commercial products, too many companies use custom made 3rd party software, which means that they will buy a "design for it" software from a software development company, then no matter the company is using Windows or Linux, the software will be taken care of by the developers, and they care the platform, not the buyers. So at that moment, that 3rd party custom made software is still commercial even it is for Linux, then does it count as Linux apps?

5. Miscellaneous - I cannot say anything more because the best way to rate them is to try them yourself by your honest.

(Technical point of view)
Final word - I find that the learning curve of Linux is pretty unlimited. Although it's fun to play with Linux kernel compilation, I still keep my piece of windows because I need some games and I need it for my courses in school. So are we back to the topic "Linux or Windows is better?"....o wait! it's "is Linux ready for desktop yet?", why do people and me comparing them? Should we just discuss the usabilities, productivities, efficiency of Linux instead of comparing to windows cuz windows is not a good piece of software to compare with.

One more thing is that whenever you compare something, would you please compare two objects with similarities in general? For example, when you compare applications in Windows and Linux, you should never compare Adobe and GIMP because they are totally different things. Why? Because one is proprietory and one is open source and downloadable from net. You should compare Adobe and Linux commecial products; otherwise you are comparing two different things. Because when it comes down to commercial software, cost will ever come first which open source with free download will definitey win unless there is a product designed and developed for a particular field.

Finally, in my opinion, I would just suggest you all to try everything that interests you, and then keep the things you like, and that's it. Do not flame others about something that you don't like and say they are dumbaxx or whatever because if you say Linux geeks are stupid to compile codes everyday to just have a calculator running, they can laugh at you, the windows users, who don't know what is computer. So be cool and enjoy your life, that's it.

Have a good day and your os.

:)

Re: Comments (Darius) ... had a great laughter!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:35:00 GMT

If you look at those "tweaks" you will see that nearly all of them are for the purpose to get rid of some M$ windows typical "features". This annoying stuff you simply won't find with Linux/KDE/Gnome.

So how do you get rid of the bloat in KDE/Gnome? From my experience, both are slower than a default XP install on the same hardware, so surely there is some way to spead them up?

re: chazwurth

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:35:00 GMT

Hmm, well that just goes to show that it would be really nice to get some *real* numbers on the use of warez. When I was in undergrad there were no special deals to get WinXP cheaply. And I don't know a single person who's actually bought Photoshop, yet many people have it. Course, your experiences are just as valid as mine, hence the need for some real data. Maybe some sort of anonymous survey?

Maybe most people would be afraid to admit to using warez even if it was anonymous? It would be interesting data though.

Re: Comments (Darius) ... had a great laughter!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:05:00 GMT

Noticed you said "default" XP install. But what happens 3 months down the road and you have installed your apps and are just using your XP machine. Hummmmmm, it gets slower and slower and slower. While my Linux machine only slows down a little.

6 months down the road while you are defraging and chkdisking your machine, I am chugging along at the same speed.

While you are worrying if your Virus scan DAT file is up to date, I am still just chugging along.

Oh no, even in January there have been 3 Major worm out breaks! And I am still chugging along. Running Crossover office with Office 2000 for Outlook, Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash just working my little butt off.

While my friends cry to me about what they should do to protect themselves from Begal and Novarg! All I think to myself is "You know, my Xandros install runs a little slower then a default XP install" LOL!

Come on.

I am sooo tired of hearing that Linux (Which in reality is 10 years behind Windows) is not up to snuff, it's not this, it's not that. Windows is this and Windows is that. And Windows can do all this different stuff better and the drivers are better etc, etc, etc!

None of that matters. The facts are that Windows has a NICE head start, Microsoft has all the resources, the channels the connections, 50 Billion dollars in the bank and years of in the field use. Yet distros like Xandros and Lindows and Suse (Plus many others) are only as far behind the Windows curve as Win 98 and Win NT are to Windows XP. (Not all that far behind)

People know the short falls of Linux and are working to fix them. It's only a matter of time before Linux gets on government and corporate desktops! And yes it may take some years to get a better place in the home desktop market I would be willing to bet they get there in less time then it took Microsoft!

On top of that Linux is killing Apple's market share. I love Apple but Apple will not be #2 for long.

Because once Linux cracks the cooperate market you will see MANY more applications ported over to Linux. Being that tons of apps are already ported to the Mac OS it shouldn't be hard to move them to Linux.

Anyway let's be patient, remember it took MS 20 years to get to the top of the mountain!

So to heck with the nay sayers. I remember when IBM thought MS would never make it to the top of the mountain. Now IBM is kicking themselves in the butt!

Linux time will come! (And if not the Kernel is free, we can always create something out of it. And that is the important part. It's not going anywhere. If BSD can hang in there for all these years so will Linux. Whether it becomes the desktop of choice or not! )

Yawn

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:23:00 GMT

This is getting old...

If you like Linux (like me) continue to use and improve it. Trying to argue with people who don't agree is a waste of time.

If you don't like Linux, get lost and quit pestering Linux users.

@Darius

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:05:00 GMT

So how do you get rid of the bloat in KDE/Gnome?

Just install KDE 3.2...it's the fastest one yet! :-)

RE: What's holding Linux back.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:20:00 GMT

In one word... Warez.

The piracy rate of music software is estimated at about 8 illigal versions to 1. Illigal copies of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office are used all over the world. Copies of Adobe Photoshop are everywhere.

It makes Windows very attractive if you have thousands of pounds worth of commercial software for free. The Linux alternatives, while good, cannot compete with getting commercial software for nothing.

I think that the one thing that will move millions of people to Linux will, perversely, be strong copy protection combined with hardware DRM in Windows.

I am always surprised no-one mentions this. It's the dirty little secret of Microsoft Windows's success.

I totally agree with this. This is a major factor keeping windows alive. Out of all my friends, none have paid for their copy of Windows Extra pathetic and Orifice XP. None have paid for their copy of Photoshop 7 and Macromedia Flash, fireworks and Dreamweaver and all of them don't like linux because there's no Kazza and their friends websites are made with pirate copies of Dreamweaver and flash and only work with IE because of Active X and its broken CSS implementation, not to mention most of the larger websites on the net, banks even yahoo will only work properly with IE, Sad but True

Stopping people from getting those large commercial apps for free is going to be a mammoth task. I hope product activation will get better in time, then people will flock to linux in droves!

Till

RE to article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:05:00 GMT

Ben Mazer, good stuff indeed
-Vecc

And please eugenia, don't moderate this post :/

@chazwurth

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:07:00 GMT

In a society driven by money, EVERY purchase you make is inherently political.

It's choices that make politics; not money. If money has done anything, it is to make us less political.

Choosing your OS from Microsoft may be better for the world than choosing from Redhat or IBM or Apple. Gates donates more money to charity than any other of the respective companies.

It's close, but...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:16:00 GMT

I've been trying to configure a dual-boot system (Win2K on hda, Debian/Knoppix on hdb) for a couple of weeks now. Linux is pretty well ready for the desktop if you don't mind tinkering. Knoppix makes for a terrifically easy installation of Debian. Perhaps too easy. Noobs like myself actually think they know what they're doing and can easily screw things up beyond recognition. However, there are some things that are IMPOSSIBLE for noobs. X11 configuration: after all this time, I still can't figure out how to get an 800x600 desktop that doesn't have that virtual desktop garbage (or has inaccessible buttons on the windows). Kernel upgrade: tried to go to 2.6.1. Fuggheddaboudit. I still can't figure out at which of a thousand stages I screwed up. Could have been any or all. Root: I have no problem logging in as a user, but everything I want to do requires root access. I pity the corporate user who does not have the root password.

Anyway, I'm still enjoying KDE and Linux, but I'm not looking forward to losing everything to upgrade to 2.6.1 (because the only way I think I'll be able to do it is to use Knoppix 3.4 when it comes out).

Ike Hall

Re: Till and Tyrone Miles

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:22:00 GMT

Bravo! You two seems to get the point: Linux improves much faster than any other OS, and Windows benefits from piracy -- I doubt that MS will ever try to stop it -- It will be like a shoot on their own feet.

Give the Free Software developers a little more time and money and Linux Desktop will rock -- When Windblows Longblorn comes out, it will have a REALLY hard time against Linux.

@Nathar Leichoz

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:39:00 GMT

First of all, where and how you spend your money *is* a choice, and it is a political choice. Second, money hasn't made us less political, unless by that you mean "we've become less aware that our choices are political." I don't know whether that's true or not. Different groups at different times have been more and less aware of the power-relationships that affect their lives; but those who have been aware have often been so in very financial terms. An example might be the generation of North American plantation owners alive at the time of the revolution that led to the formation of the United States. They were extremely aware politically; and we can see from what they fought to have added to the U.S. Constitution - namely, the three-fifths compromize and the fugitive slave clause - that they well understood the connection between politics and economics. Hell, liberal theory from Hobbes and Locke on down is all based on the protection of property. How can money *not* be political in modern democratic government?

As for the issue of what Bill Gates does with his cash, I'll hedge my bets. I'll admit that I delighted in watching him shame the U.S. government into spending real money to combat AIDS in Africa. But I'm not convinced he's done more harm than good; monopolistic business does harm to many, many people. I'd rather save what money I can and send it on to the causes I favor without Microsoft taking a cut off the top in profit.

Nice article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:48:00 GMT

"you have no right to demand ANYTHING"
Unless you've purchased a support contract which is what they hope you'll do. The media tends to forget that Linux is a hobby that just now is also turning commercial.

"It's improved leaps and bounds in usability."
It has indeed. I just checked out a couple of embedded movie trailers on this my SuSE9/KDE3.2/2.6.1 box and I'm impressed! The Linux desktop may never be as good as Windows. But it will reach a point where many will say: I'll take the Toyota - I don't need the Mercedes.

"Linux doesn't support commercial software..."
Not true. But maybe not viable in the long run. Still, I could make a closed source Qt app and charge for it if I wanted to. SoftMaker does it. Hancom does it.

re: It's close, but... (@Ike Hall )

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:51:00 GMT

Have you considered installing a more standard desktop distribution, perhaps one that is considered to be vaguely user-friendly (Red Hat, Suse, Fedora, Mandrake, something like that)? Doing a Knoppix hard drive install may be simple, but it also dumps a lot of crap on your system. It isn't exactly what I'd call a "clean" install, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think you'd be much better off learning in a cleaner, more standard environment. You'd have much more coherent documentation that way as well. For instance, detailed Red Hat manuals are available online at their web site. And I don't use Suse, so I don't know if their good docs are available online, but if you're up to shelling out $80 or so, their Suse Professional box comes with some thick manuals.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for Linux users learning how to read man pages and use google, and I'm not a big fan of distribution-specific books. But it sounds like you're new to Linux, and you might find those books to be pretty accessible -- that's what they're written for. Once you get used to Linux, and you're a little more up to speed -- if you still want a Debian-based distro, install Debian.

some thoughts.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:23:00 GMT

distros: theres no 'too many' linux distros. on distrowatch theres 200 in the list 70 on waiting list?! give me a break. 80+ based on redhat 50+ debian 50+ is CD based.

less than 10 linux companies is really in the game:

suse (ibm,novell,ximian)

redhat (oracle,red flag, miracle)

sun java desktop(suse based consider 200 million desktop contract in china and 500000+ in UK)

when desktop linux is really really here. those small companies like mandrake, lindows, xandros will easily wiped out by those big players.

if desktop linux is alraedy here, redhat would put in all the efforts they can to create a polished, just work linux system. yet for now theres too many unsolved issues:

1.dependency
2.more 'out of the box' software application. (mostly in multimedia apps better quicktime and windows media streaming, dvd...)
3.better hardware support. out of the box sound hardware experience (5.1 digital out...) and of course many many more external peripherals.

linux as my os because im 'ready' for linux.
im capable of making everything as stated above works.
i check for linux compatibility on web before i buy the products so all my hardware works out of the box except tablet i need to 'tweak' it in order for it to work.

if i cant get my favorite software from rpm i compile it myself.

for audio video streaming quicktime windows media real dvd i install some rpms from web and tweaking still needed

apollon for kazza p2p

video editing (mainactor im using suse)

so for me desktop linux means tweak tweak tweak.

for now lindows and xandros are the answer for desktop linux.

the fact is linux isnt ready in desktop domain for EVERYONE.

RE: article!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:04:00 GMT

First of all, if you're new to linux, you probably still have some learning to do before being able to post an article that is worth reading. Don't get me wrong, it took me a long time to really understand the way that things work in linux. I've been using it for close to ten years and I still don't think that I'd be up to writing a good article.

Second, I want to take you up on your XFree86 isn't slow bit. Everybody who's used linux in the past knows that XFree86 is a big bloated, and slow. Why in heck do you think that Xouvert was created( there were other small projects who tried to do the same but failed ). They want to remove the bloat and create a better server. As for X being a protocol, I agree with you but the problem with the protocol is just like with Windows, the god damn message passing. You have messages passing through 3 or 4 layers depending on what WM and Desktop Environment you use. That's what makes it slower. Sure, if you run on a P4 or an Athlon XP, you won't see the difference but on my main box, a PII 300, I can see the difference if I run GNOME, KDE or if I use a simple WM like IceWM, Fluxbox, Openbox, Hackedbox, WindowMaker, etc. If I were you, I would stop writing articles, grab some more books, FAQs, HOWTOs, etc and learn a bit more.

Newbie

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:44:00 GMT

I'm sorry my ignorance, but what "zealots" means?

bsantos

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:50:00 GMT

Zealot: person or peoples who defend and stand up for something they believe in. they also attack th "mis-informed"

not a good thing might I say

AMD RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ha ah ahah a ha

RE: RE: Ford Prefect

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:58:00 GMT

That was a quote, NOT my text.

Darius: KDE let's you (dis)activate visual stuff etc. without "hacking" or reading boring tweaks articles. Just use that config tool

Linux needs frontpage

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:02:00 GMT

Posted By Software:

Linux is missing on GAMES, everything Adobe, something real close to MS Access, MS Frontpage, and the list goes on and on. And don't talk about CrossOver, that's only emulating Windows, the evil you, oh so want to get rid of.
_______________________________________________________

Yea , Linux really misses the superb Frontpage !!
That must be the funniest thing I ever heard 0_o.
Most web designers know Frontpage is crap, only amateurs use it. There are better WYSIWYG for the newbies, but they just use Frontpage because they already got it with Office, doh.

my fave drawback

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:05:00 GMT

sadly what will stop me from using GNU/Linux all the time is the POSIX bit and the Linux history. I wan't an open source system with the advantages, but I don't want a case sensitive file system.

I don't want /usr and the like, even if they are hidden. Heck, I've played with 5 distros but don't know where the equivalent of 'My Programs' is. Just in case I wanted to back up an .ini file or something.

Guess I'll wait for SkyOS or it's friends...

my fave drawback

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:39:00 GMT

I assume you have not used Xandros, Suse or Lindows. When you use those you will find out that that you don't need to use the command line so you don't have a problem with the case sensitive file system.

I mean I have given away so far 50 machines preloaded with Lindows and once you get them over the inital shock of not using Windows applications and can show people Linux applications that can do the same things like Star Office. They get comfortable and work with it.

I think if someone came up with software like Video Professer (Which are are programs that teach you how to use Windows and Office) I think this could go a long way in teaching people how to use Linux and Open Office etc.

http://nami.videoprofessor.com/411/index.php?ID=403&K=133999

I mean Mac OSX uses the same Posix system but I don't see people complaning about it. (Because Apple has billions of dollars to make OSX look good!)

Replies

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:16:00 GMT

RE: Darius

Look here:
http://www.monroeworld.com/pchelp/xptweaks.php

Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in
the same manner.

Those tweaks either involve settings that you can easily change in Linux or
restrictions that Linux doesn't even have. Your point is moot.

RE: RunJorel

I am appalled at the fact you make Package Management seem like just another
commonalityin linux and between distributions. I think this is a big problem.
RPMS, DEBS, Ebuilds, OLM's...etc. Even if I do know my distribution is an RPM
distribution, I most likely have to find not only a Distribution specific RPM,
but the Distro Version specific RPM.

That is not a problem to the average user. Thousands of binaries are available
to common desktop users of any major distribution. Anyone who even needs
something that is not available under the distro-specific package manager
probably know enough to install from source or search for the package anyways.

Hmmm, last time I check 99% of all Windows software (freeware, shareware, and
commericial) I have installed ran without requiring me to download some library.
The 1% that did had the library on their website to download or they packaged
it.

That's exaclty what causes Windows to have DLL hell. Different programs with
different versions of the same library. I prefer the method of having the
package manager install the latest library instead of installers overwriting
DLLs with older libraries that break other applications.

RE: Kelson

In CompSci, we measure that in such notation as
Big-O or Big-Theta. If a protocol is inefficient in the way that
it formats data, or the algorithms used, it is inherently slow,
regardless of the implementation. An implementation of a slow
protocol may be as highly optimized as possible, but it is still
limited by the protocol definition.

True, but X11 is not slow. X10 maybe but X11 is a pretty efficient protocol.
So I guess in the end you could say that specific implementations of X could
posibley be slow but X11 itself is not.

whatever

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:53:00 GMT

User what you want to use. Windows and Linuxs fits different needs of different people. There is not BEST choice.

RE: idc

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:04:00 GMT

Microsot has built their products based on the RFC's for the primary standard out there. They might extend them for additional benefit, but they support the RFC's requirements (think: DNS).

XML, SOAP, WSDL, BEPL, LDAP (working with IBM on that), etc...

You might want to find a new horse - that one has been beaten to death long ago... :-)

What about java or html? Those two alone cause a lot of problems. This day and age most people are on the web and encounter both java and html everyday.

All I ask is that IE supports style sheets correctly and they get rid or ASP. I shouldn't have to use a crappy browser just to view certain pages. In fact I don't. I refuse to support any site that is IE only.

Why Linux is a Second Class Citizen in my shop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:51:00 GMT

I was forced into doing a cold reboot on my Mandrake Dist. The system came up, ran a check, and then it told me that there were some problems due to open files, etc. from the reboot. I was alerted that I could go ahead and do the repair but that I might lose some data. Naturally I went right ahead because in all my 12 years of using windows I have never lost anything by running chkdsk/f. So next thing I know, the system can't find inittab. So I launch from recovery cd and copy the file over. Next I get a whole bunch of errors (they flew by) and I'm at the command prompt with the booting sequence still incomplete. I check my directories and lo and behold, the /var directory and the /home directory (each on a its own partition) are completely empty. And yes, I had some production work on this machine. But yes, I am also stupid. I bought into the myth that linux is more stable than windows and I didn't back up my work. So where does that leave me? Really upset. The last thing I wanted from linux was a reason to feel affinity for my cursed windows machine.

My two cents

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:01:00 GMT

I switched to GNU/Linux (dual boot) in 1999...full time in mid 2001 so suffice it to say I have used both for roughly an equal period. OT for a sec...We are all human and all we create (software, cars, houses, clothes) reflects that humanity at it's core. That core? We are imperfect. All we create is imperfect. Most products hace warranties right? Software is no different. It is imperfect. Created by, not companies, but imperfect human beings. My point? I have to be proactive in my life. Hom many full service gas station are there still? Every put in washer fluid? Oil? How needing a jump start? (What can I say my "lights on" buzzer don't work no more and warranties expired) Would ya buy a car with the hood welded shut? IMHO that what your buying with Windows. Just as the autoparts aftermarket, I wanna have options for maintaining my imperfect product (OS/software) built buy imperfect people. I don't wanna be force fed another's meal at their discretion. Give GNU/Linux a try there's a whole community a google away willing to help, to give you the option to choose.

The Last on Linux on the Desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:18:00 GMT

I skimmed many of the comments but didn't see one driving force that has caused Linux and open source to be accepted by many corporations, individuals, and even countries (S.A. China , Germany, Brazil, and India). This is the cost and flexability that their support structure (with programmers and such personel available) already exhists, the switch is a very large financial incentive. Training for the desktop or other use in their position is at best nominal.

Estimates I have seen say that one third of all "Third World" computers will be using Linux or other "open source" operation system because of cost issues.

Linux IS ready for desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:24:00 GMT

It's been called .......... LindowsOS ! A "Linux for everyone's desktop".
This OS has already surpassed clearly the ease of setup, programming and use of any Windows OS. The ease of it all is simply beyond compare. Yet, the good work still goes on in the spirit of open source! Version 5.0 is on its way although 4.5 already rocks. Nothing easier for the home and office user with a decent internet connection.

Easy = Lindows

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:47:00 GMT

Lindows based on Debian has addressed a lot of the ease of use questions. You can get computers preloaded with Lindows from many places now, even laptops. Visit http://www.lindows.com and check it out.

RE: Comments

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:48:00 GMT

''Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome''

One word: hdparm

Audacity Install in 34sec ind mandrake 9.2

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:52:00 GMT

"it took me over an hour to just install Audacity on Mandrake 9.2, a simple but cool sound editor,"

I don't know what you did but I read your post and ran:

# urpmi audacity
To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed (8 MB):
audacity-1.2.0-0.pre2.1mdk.i586
libsndfile1-1.0.5-3mdk.i586
libwxgtk2.5-2.5.0-0.cvs20030817.1mdk.i586
Is this OK? (Y/n) y

installing /mnt/linbak/mdk9.2/Mandrake/rpms3/libsndfile1-1.0.5-3mdk.i586.rpm /mnt/linbak/mdk9.2contrib/./libwxgtk2.5-2.5.0-0.cvs20030817.1mdk.i586. rpm /mnt/linbak/mdk9.2contrib/./audacity-1.2.0-0.pre2.1mdk.i586.rpm
Preparing... ##################################################
1:libwxgtk2.5 ##################################################
2:libsndfile1 ##################################################
3:audacity ##################################################

It took 34 seconds to install in mdk9.2 and it works perfectly.

Re: Wash....Rinse....Repeat.....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:18:00 GMT

> And on the topic of open source. That is much less important
than open standards, formats, and protocols. I don't have time
to sort through the source for every application, but I do expect
them to follow standards to enable interoperability. That is what
the companies such as IBM mean when they talk about the future
being "Open", not the source code. The only people who really
care about 'open source' are coders who want to tinker. It is not
inherently better, just different, and to many of us, irrelevant. <

No, NO, HELL NO!!!

It may not appear to matter for you right now, but I think it's darn stupid to believe that the availability of open source code is not very important.

I can immediately give you several reasons for why the unavailability is a Bad Thing:
a) vendor goes out of business (ok, with open formats you'd be able to get a replacement app programmed, but that would take very LONG)
b) backdoors
c) dependence on vendor to fix bugs in time (Micro$oft, anyone??)

I'm sure there are many more reasons...
(but I'm too lazy to cough them up ;-)

So while open standards (partly!) solve a) and c), b) still fully persists.

In other words, openly available source code is preferrable to open standards (but those are also "ok" as an intermediate thing, and of course they should have been mandatory from the beginning in all company and government contracts).

linux as a desktop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:39:00 GMT

Linux has been my desktop at home and work for over 4 years now. No reason why anyone can't use it

Re: to Posted on 2004-01-26 21:25:35

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:09:00 GMT

"If you want people to use Linux then you better fix the sound drivers. ALSA is terrible. I can't listen to any sound files for more than 3 seconds without hearing it skip. And this isn't just limited to mp3s, its wavs and others. Support is another factor which is lacking. I'll join a channel of 100 people on IRC, does my question get noticed when I ask it? Nope. Do I have time to RTFM for every little problem I have with Linux? Nope. So you see, Linux really isn't ready for the desktop if you are requring anything to do with media."

The latest ALSA distribution is fine on my Red Hat 9. You should be specific about Linux distribution as I had an issue with sound driver on Red Hat 9. Also, make sure your kernel runs the right driver.

This article proves how great Linux is

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:48:00 GMT

There are some people out there that are still using their 486 machines with Windows 95. They don't care that their systems are outdated and that there are more holes in its security then a piece of swiss cheese. They are happy that their systems do waht they want. Well, you have to realize that with time software gets better. Microsoft doesn't control the universe, although it thinks it does, upgrades don't have to cost you money and you don't need to buy a new system just to keep up with you operating system. Linux is great because it is open. Security holes are fixed quickly. Software is free. If you have a slow internet connection then you are able to buy a boxed version of your Linux Distrobution or pay a few dollars for a cd from distrowatch.com . The point I am trying to make is that Linux is so much better than Windows. No tightly integrated middle ware (ex. Internet Explorer) you have the freedom to choose what you want. After all you spent all that money, shouldn't you control your computer. If you couldn't be bothered with all the great choices, just install the defaults.

Linux 'fanboys' are all alike - a little blunt in the head

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:30:00 GMT

Sorry to start off in such a high manner, but I think I need to put in my time here as I am sick and tired of all you darn, whiney, Linux doo-sniffers. You're the same bunch of lamers who stick of for the snot-nosed anti-social kid in the corner who for "some reason" is the target of all negative attention.

"Linux isn't as easy to use"
----------------------------

That line alone should have been the opening and ending statement to that paragraph. He was absolutely right. It isn't as easy to use -as Windows-.

If I hear another Linux fanboy say Linux is easier if you discard your Windows knowledge and start with a fresh slate I think I shall puke.

Try telling that to my mother who can barely use a computer, nevermind begin to understand the workings of Google, the internet and apt-get. She can however, throw in a CD-rom and enjoy the merits of auto-play with onscreen prompts encouraging you to hit next, with a default install path chosen specifically for the less 'computer-literate' fortunate.

How about : your girlfriend wants to go out for the night. The fancy restaurant site she's on just happens to require flash, and afterwords she wants to watch some movie trailers online to descide which movie to go see that night. Would you like to explain to her why she can't without a good 3 hours work, and in some cases maybe not at all; or would you just like to run an already feature-rich and easy to use OS where ALL of your plugins are automatically installed when requested?

Linux requires work just to do something Windows has been capable of since Windows 95. Multimedia. Not one of Linux' strong points. Nor is software management, intuitive directory design, or multimedia performance.

Ever tried installing your SB Audigy 2 with digital output under Linux? Even with your ALSA tarballs, each Linux distro has its own installation quicks.

Anyone!?

//--->
mkdir -p include/linux
touch include/linux/workqueue.h

RE: last post

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:42:00 GMT

"There Are No Drivers"

--Yes, there are. Linux supports more hardware than Windows, it's that simple.--

I would hate to meet you in person; I'd pummle you for your stupidity.

Linux has more drivers than Windows. Yes, more USELESS drivers than Windows and not enough of the important ones.

Linux supports more hardware .. like what? Amature radio equipment!? ahahahaha. How about my LOGITECH MX500 bud!? Support a friggen Amature radio card (where the heck do you buy those anyhow?) but not my 2 yr old MX500 mouse?

It is that simple. You're a fanboy thick and through.

"Conclusion"

Windows is coded by human beings as well; yet their -Microsoft- products don't seem to suck half as badly.

Linux has been around as long as Windows. What the hell is this "Linux is coded by humans" ... perhaps we should hire monkies to bring it up to pace with the state of Windows (and dare I say it, OSX).

I shall make my own conclusions. The only thing that I love about you Linux Fanboys are the following :

1) You've made Microsoft take notice of you and make effort to improve Windows, while at the same time helping to make you dorks pay for Linux; or if you're a developer get out of your mommies garage and make some money

2) I will admit .. I run SuSE 9. Pretty fun OS to get up and running; quite pleasing because like anything Linux just getting things to work like Windows does without hassle is quite the accomplishment. SuSE 9 is also a good reminder why Microsoft is where they are today .. and no thats not because people hate their software Only snot-nosed losers in the corner hate MS and Windows. Remember the snot-nosed kid made fun of in the corner? After being made fun of all their lives they rebel ... I bring you Linux. Peace and love .. bunch of hippies. Love would not exist without hatred, wake up ... put 2 and 2 together.

3) I love making fun of morons. No better way to end a day. I feel great now hahaha

Cya boys,
Don't let Linux in behind you always cover your ass, as you never know who or what will jump up inside it.

Re: Services?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:46:00 GMT

> Interesting that the author chooses to point out that services is where the money is with linux. It seems that if so much consulting is needed with linux vs. existing desktop technologies this is a checkmark in the negative column.

> That is one of the benefits that companies such as Apple and Microsoft have. Their software is engineered to be usable out of the box vs. bringing in an army of consultants ala IBM...

WOW, idc, that is one stunningly inaccurate piece of commentary. Try this: open your local yellow pages, find the "computer support" section, call them up, and see what they "specialize" in. My prediction: 80%-90% will say "supporting Microsoft products and platforms". Or perhaps you've missed 15 years of Microsoft's #1 marketing goal: convincing potential support personnel, small tech companies, etc., that there's money to be made in Microsoft support (quite true, of course). Have you heard of MS technical certification programs (including loan programs for getting certified), small business support and certification programs, MS TechNet, etc., etc., etc? Just an amazingly [insert perjorative here] comment you made there, really.

Peter Yellman