We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yeah, I think rewriting the OS based on specific use cases would lead to a much better OS, than twisting and bending Linux into doing the stuff decent enough. "
Hello. Hi. Hi...guys? Guys? Hello? Is this thing on? *tap* *tap* *tap* Hi? Anyone?
Oh there you are.
We've been working on this with AtheOS and Syllable for over a decade now. Very few people appear to care, or at least care enough to put in the effort to actually help do such a thing.
Member since:2006-02-15
We've been working on this with AtheOS and Syllable for over a decade now. Very few people appear to care, or at least care enough to put in the effort to actually help do such a thing.
Does either of those address the issues mentioned? Like f.ex. GUI using non-accelerated graphics, or LDAP being easy to set up, or a stable kernel API for driver development? I am not familiar with either of those, though I did check a few screenshots of Syllable but atleast those screenshots were rather...well, non-enticing, to put it nicely.
As for helping; I am unfortunately still a complete newbie when it comes to coding anything. I can do some basic GUI app with GTK+, or some simple console apps, that's all. Sure, I can help with translation to Finnish, but that's most likely not too important at the moment seeing as how raw Syllable still is.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-11-18
An OS should IMHO set up a comfortable work area for the user, where he/she can be productive with tasks like Internet, music, video, photos etc. I don't think those tasks were goals for Linux when it was first written.
No, they were not. The Linux kernel has only one goal when it was designed, and it was to be able to use UNIX on a Personal Computer, particularly IBM PC.
GNU, had a different goal, provide software without commercial barriers.
If you see it closely, none of those projects were designed or destined to create a better OS. What we today know as GNU/Linux or just Linux, was more a "political" movement, rather than a technological one.
It was very different when, for example Macintosh or BeOS were created. They tried to do things differently. To provide a new way of doing things.
Macintosh set the goal on bringing the GUI to the people (At least if you could afford it) and BeOS tried to create something new from scratch with very nice technology that disrupted legacy technology.
However, as you can see, disrupting the past is not always the best commercial strategy, as Microsoft has prove it.
And, Linux, well, they never meant to be better, at least not on technology. They meant to be free.
It is frustrating though, how that freedom is also its biggest shortcoming. Commercial firms do not want to develop software for Linux because Linux users believe that all Linux software should be or is free, which is not.
And today's Linux promotion is maintained and done by paid professionals that work for server computers, like IBM, Sun, Novell, Oracle, etc. It is just a myth that a teenager on a garage works at night on developing kernel extensions. While there must be some geniuses out there, the truth is Linux is a server operating system maintained to avoid Microsoft total domination on server arena.
Linux on the desktop is a joke. At least, 15 years behind what Microsoft or Apple provides.
Member since:2006-01-19
"Linux on the desktop is a joke. At least, 15 years behind what Microsoft or Apple provides."
Look at WinXPSP2. Look at a recent Fedora or Ubuntu.
They are in most aspects better than XP ever was. I would say, Desktop Linux is as good or better than Desktop Windows, having some things where it really shines (virtual Desktops, stability, Virus-free, still usable under 100% load), and some things where it is behind (apps, scanners, moving of windows).
Give them a few years and you will see fade more and more of the criticisms.
All any computer user now has to do is to ask himself these two questions:
1 - Can I do my work with Linux?
2 - Do I want to invest the time for learning how to administer Linux?
If both get a yes, go for it, if not, stay with the more expensive option.
Member since:
2009-05-18
Yeah, I think rewriting the OS based on specific use cases would lead to a much better OS, than twisting and bending Linux into doing the stuff decent enough.
An OS should IMHO set up a comfortable work area for the user, where he/she can be productive with tasks like Internet, music, video, photos etc. I don't think those tasks were goals for Linux when it was first written.