Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:40 UTC
Linux "I recently read a story that asked, 'Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?' Burst!? No, I don't think so. Actually, it still isn't even half as big as it will be when it's full. The author goes on to explain that he feels this way because GNOME 'lacks any form of a vision', while KDE4 is full of wonderful ideas, but not enough money and effort behind turning concepts into code. I don't see that at all. I think both popular Linux desktop environments are making good progress."
Thread beginning with comment 195750
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Of course it is!
by tmack on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Of course it is!"
Member since:

The anti-linux desktop people define "ready" as "Runs Windows Applications."

They don't realize that you don't need these cruddy programs to be productive. Hell, the Linux desktop comes with replacement applications all installed or ready to be installed at a mouse click.

Try doing that with Windows or a Mac.

Edited 2006-12-23 21:49

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Of course it is!
by D3M0N on Sun 24th Dec 2006 05:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Of course it is!"
D3M0N Member since:

Your comment wasn't bad, until you added your last statement. Have you ever installed an application in OS X? It certainly doesn't seem so.
In most cases, it's as simple as drag and drop. Now *that* is actually one click and one fluid motion.

I am not an "anti-linux desktop person" but do I think its ready? Not yet. Linux needs to be polished and my hardware needs to work. Practically any hardware I buy for my computer will work with OS X and Windows. Linux supports a *vast* majority of hardware out of the box, but when something isn't built into the kernel, for an average joe desktop user, adding that driver is in a lot of cases, not anywhere near easy. It's "stuff" like that that needs to be improved for Linux to become fully ready, in my opinion of course.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Of course it is!
by tmack on Sun 24th Dec 2006 06:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Of course it is!"
tmack Member since:

Actually, you're missing most of the process with Mac OS X app folders.

With Linux, that one click includes getting the software on my PC. I do not have to download the program from some website or put a disc in the drive.

That one click goes through all 3 phases:

1) Download the software
2) Prepare the software for installation
3) Install the software

Mac OSX only does the last one easily. And I'm not saying Mac OS X is terrible at software installation, it just isn't anywhere near as good as your average end user Linux distro.

A modern linux distro is as polished as Mac OS X. A colleague and I were commenting at the local computer store about how Mac's are starting to look so dated compared to modern Linux counterparts. It's funny because the Mac's used to make the Linux ones look dated.

Driver installation is extremely simple, it's literally copy a file to this directory and register the driver with the kernel. The problem is: vendors don't provide binary drivers in a usable format. It's rare to find RPM drivers, or heaven forbid .deb files.

But that isn't Linux's fault... it's the lousy hardware industry that has built up around Wintendo.

And Mac OSX doesn't have the best hardware support either. I've seen many products that were unusable on a Mac as well. Just like Linux, you really need to check before hand if a product is compatible with a Mac.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Of course it is!
by kaiwai on Sun 24th Dec 2006 15:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Of course it is!"
kaiwai Member since:

"cruddy programs to be productive"

You do realise that some people do centre their business around a set of core applications on which they've automated their work flow on.

Instead of abusing the poor end user to buggery, how about lobbying the hold out ISV's comeing up with old wives tales as to why they won't port their application to Linux or some other *NIX of some sort.

Reply Parent Score: 2