It would seem that the upcoming release of Microsoft's Windows Vista does not seem like a good thing for the desktop Linux community. After all, this update to Windows XP is going to focus on two attributes which have pushed users to Linux for years- security and stability. Upon closer inspection though, the move to Vista may be the perfect time for the Linux community to make headway on the desktop and increase its user base dramatically. The number of features which Microsoft has cast aside since Longhorn and the hardware requirements of Vista have set the stage for a large scale move to desktop Linux. 
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Wow, you said a lot without actually saying anything. RedHat's and Suse's graphical utilities aren't server tools btw. They're old desktop tools; not quite so old in the case of Suse.
"Cairo and hardware-acceleration requiring closed source drivers."
Cairo only supports X11, Win32, and image output. Glitz and gl are unsupported and recommended against. I *wish* gl were supported today though!
Member since:2005-07-06
Wow, you said a lot without actually saying anything. RedHat's and Suse's graphical utilities aren't server tools btw. They're old desktop tools; not quite so old in the case of Suse.
What did you say about saying nothing? That is the most meaningless thing I've ever heard. YaST is a bunch of, mainly, server config tools, designed for server use.
Member since:In it's current state, Linux and the surrounding software just isn't good enough to produce a working, stable desktop to replace Windows.
It may not be identical to Windows, but what is the point of that? If you want a Windows clone, use Windows. Linux is different - if you don't want different, then butt out. Linux is not for you, and your view on it is irrelevant.
There are more issues at stake than just stability and usability. It's all the surrounding issues like software installation. There's simply no reason it can't though, because all the ingredients are there. All it takes is one distributor to take the bull by the horns and say "Right, this is what we're going to do". But no, no one does it.
So reading from your post, there is a problem with installation. But you don't identify what the problem actually is, and furthermore (and probably as a logical consequence of not actually identifying the problem) suggest no specific solution. So that paragraph is a waste of pixels on my screen. BTW, software installation on linux is just fine. Package management is a very good way of installing AND removing software. Being able to sit on my arse, and install packages over the net for free is a lot more convenient than having to go to a store to pick up a CD, or hunt on the net for something, then manually downloading and installing it - dependency resolution has been solved - deal with it. It requires you to think differently, but as set out above if you want a Windows clone, then use Windows.
Linux distributors also need to work hard on Linux as a server and look at some of the tools Microsoft has. Microsoft's server config tools aren't exactly the greatest, an the technology isn't either. If Linux distributors can look at what they need to be doing all the ingredients are there for them to really cement Linux's place in the server world.
Linux has a huge share in the server room, and it's growing faster than Windows (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00153905). It doesn't need to do squat - Linux in the server room is mature, accepted and doing just fine without your advice. You say Linux should look at emulating some of Microsoft's tools, which you then say aren't that great. Why the fuck would Linux (which is growing faster than MS) want to emulate what you describe as "not exactly the greatest".
About the best server tools I've seen are Apple's and Microsoft's are not great but they're complete. Red Hat's, Sun's, and Suse's (yes even YaST) are a complete joke and not what I want to see in a commercial product). I might even write and article about that though.
Linux has great server administration tools, and they're not YaST or Red Hat tools, they're universal tools like Bash, Perl, Text Editors, and a thing called training, reading and thinking. Servers should never be administered by people who don't know what they're doing - even Windows servers. Furthermore, server administration isn't a product, just like security isn't a product. You can't package it in a box or a gui. The admin has to actually know what to do with it. In my view, the CLI is a far more powerful admin tool than any gui once the admin knows what he's doing. Why else would MS be spending valuable developer time on implimenting a proper CLI shell for its next server release? I'm looking forward to your article though, I do enjoy a bit of self parody.
I never understand why people want Linux to "dominate"/"win" on the desktop. Currently it has enough market share and developer enthusiasm to provide exactly what I want in a desktop for free. I have all the tools I need, including rich multimedia apps, PIM apps and productivity apps - in fact I have more of these than I would in Windows, because they're mostly free of charge. Linux doesn't need Joe Sixpack. So in my view, emulating Windows to attract Joe Sixpack is just counter-productive.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-20
There's at least one really good reason to wish Linux to dominate the desktop. Hardware support.
Take Logitech, for example. They make really cool stuff, like that camera on a stalk that can track you as you move and the diNovo Bluetooth keyboard with that LCD in the keypad.
But they won't provide documentation on how to use any of that. If Linux had more people using it, hardware companies would feel more pressure to support Linux systems.
Member since:[quote]
In it's current state, Linux and the surrounding software just isn't good enough to produce a working, stable desktop to replace Windows.
It may not be identical to Windows, but what is the point of that? If you want a Windows clone, use Windows. Linux is different - if you don't want different, then butt out. Linux is not for you, and your view on it is irrelevant.
[/quote]
If this is true, your opinions on Windows are irrelevant aswell. So please, stop telling Linux is better and blablabla 
A third anonymous
Member since:2005-07-06
Linux is different - if you don't want different, then butt out. Linux is not for you, and your view on it is irrelevant.
My view on it is relevant since I do use alongside Windows servers as well. Both have pros and cons. If Linux can eliminate the cons which makes people use Windows in some scenarios you're going to see Windows waving goodbye to the server world.
So reading from your post, there is a problem with installation. But you don't identify what the problem actually is
It is far easier for me to install and configure lots of open source software on Windows, get it up and running and keep it up to date.
It doesn't need to do squat - Linux in the server room is mature, accepted and doing just fine without your advice.
Yes it does. I love the 'we're perfect' attitude.
Furthermore, server administration isn't a product, just like security isn't a product. You can't package it in a box or a gui. The admin has to actually know what to do with it. In my view, the CLI is a far more powerful admin
Yada, yada, yada. For some thing you need to save time, and good admin tools save you that time.
Linux has great server administration tools, and they're not YaST or Red Hat tools, they're universal tools like Bash, Perl, Text Editors, and a thing called training, reading and thinking. Servers should never be administered by people who don't know what they're doing...
You're not tackling the real issues.
Member since:
Member since:
2005-07-06
In it's current state, Linux and the surrounding software just isn't good enough to produce a working, stable desktop to replace Windows. There are more issues at stake than just stability and usability. It's all the surrounding issues like software installation. There's simply no reason it can't though, because all the ingredients are there. All it takes is one distributor to take the bull by the horns and say "Right, this is what we're going to do". But no, no one does it.
Linux distributors also need to work hard on Linux as a server and look at some of the tools Microsoft has. Microsoft's server config tools aren't exactly the greatest, an the technology isn't either. If Linux distributors can look at what they need to be doing all the ingredients are there for them to really cement Linux's place in the server world. About the best server tools I've seen are Apple's and Microsoft's are not great but they're complete. Red Hat's, Sun's, and Suse's (yes even YaST) are a complete joke and not what I want to see in a commercial product). I might even write and article about that though.
I find the lax hardware requirements funny though. You might get away with it with a desktop like KDE to a certain extent (but you still need a minimum of 128 MB memory) the Gnome and GTK people are now off into the wide blue yonder of Cairo and hardware-acceleration requiring closed source drivers.