Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:47 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Linux Linux is struggling on the desktop because it only has a small number of "great" apps, according to the Gnome co-creator. Miguel de Icaza, co-creator of the Gnome desktop, told tech journalist Tim Anderson at the recent Windows 8 Build conference "When you count how many great desktop apps there are on Linux, you can probably name 10," de Icaza said, according to a post on Anderson's IT Writing blog. "You work really hard, you can probably name 20. We've managed to p*** off developers every step of the way, breaking APIs all the time."
Thread beginning with comment 491251
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
just to make a point
by TechGeek on Fri 30th Sep 2011 02:26 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Firefox, Thunderbird, transmission, k3b, Libre Office, vlc, virtualbox, gedit, gimp, blender, wine, chrome, picasa, eclipse, .... do I really need to keep going?

Why don't we talk about the things that Linux has on the desktop that Windows doesn't?

One service to update most if not all software on the system, seamlessly.

True multi user capabilities.

The ability to change the graphical environment to suit your needs.

The ability to truly use the system as a user, protecting the OS as a whole from system wide compromise.

The ability to run on almost any hardware.

Built in virtualization.

A plethora of filesystem support and physical/logical disk management.

Yeah, linux obviously has it real bad.

Reply Score: 13

RE: just to make a point
by Luminair on Fri 30th Sep 2011 02:57 in reply to "just to make a point"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

the linux desktop user share has been 1% +/- 1% for a very long time. you can see why someone would be skeptical of your claims.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: just to make a point
by Slambert666 on Fri 30th Sep 2011 03:06 in reply to "RE: just to make a point"
RE: just to make a point
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Sep 2011 03:03 in reply to "just to make a point"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Firefox, Thunderbird, transmission, k3b, Libre Office, vlc, virtualbox, gedit, gimp, blender, wine, chrome, picasa, eclipse, .... do I really need to keep going?


If your point was that there are a large number of freedom software apps that work equally well on Linux or Windows, then no you don't need to go further, that is a given.

What is your point here, however? The apps do work on Linux desktops.

Why don't we talk about the things that Linux has on the desktop that Windows doesn't? One service to update most if not all software on the system, seamlessly. True multi user capabilities. The ability to change the graphical environment to suit your needs. The ability to truly use the system as a user, protecting the OS as a whole from system wide compromise. The ability to run on almost any hardware. Built in virtualization. A plethora of filesystem support and physical/logical disk management. Yeah, linux obviously has it real bad.


These are all fine points, and perfectly true. It is great that I can run great Linux applications in such an environment.

The problem is I suppose that most people would see these as features of the OS, rather than as desktop applications.

Edited 2011-09-30 03:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: just to make a point
by manjabes on Fri 30th Sep 2011 06:25 in reply to "just to make a point"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Why don't we talk about the things that Linux has on the desktop that Windows doesn't?
...
True multi user capabilities.
...


WTF is this "TRUE" multi user capability that Windows doesn't have? Like, HELLO, Win9x was killed (thank god!) a decade ago!
And then you get offended because somebody dares to remember their latest buntu update bonking graphics drivers a year or two ago...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: just to make a point
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Sep 2011 06:35 in reply to "RE: just to make a point"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Why don't we talk about the things that Linux has on the desktop that Windows doesn't? ... True multi user capabilities. ...
WTF is this "TRUE" multi user capability that Windows doesn't have? Like, HELLO, Win9x was killed (thank god!) a decade ago! And then you get offended because somebody dares to remember their latest buntu update bonking graphics drivers a year or two ago... "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_windows_said_to_be_a_multiuser_ope...

"windows does have the facility to give access to different users. That is the reason we can log on to different user accounts on windows. But windows does not give access to multiple users at the same time in a single processor system."

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

On Windows7, I can easily switch between users but I can not have two users logged into there own sessions concurrently. Alternatively, I can have two users concurrently logged into there own seporate sessions on the same machine.

Now, centralized multiple concurent user systems might not be the average need for everyone's home desktop but it's sure come in handy for me many times.

I've also seen some very nice lab setups where the students are all running off sessions hosted by the same back end server. A quick look at the Windows terminal server licensing model kills that idea quick for something as budget constrained as a school.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: just to make a point
by clasqm on Fri 30th Sep 2011 07:58 in reply to "just to make a point"
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

The ability to truly use the system as a user, protecting the OS as a whole from system wide compromise.


Nothing shows up the Linux mentality like this does. The easily re-installed OS and easily re-installed apps must be protected at all costs. But my documents that I've written over the last two decades, the pictures of my kids, my collections of music and films, the digital record of my whole friggin' LIFE, well that can be blown away. It's all about the machine, not the user.

Sure, it's a valid way to run a system. But don't tout it as an advantage to the user.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: just to make a point
by r_a_trip on Fri 30th Sep 2011 12:53 in reply to "RE: just to make a point"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

So, tell me, how well do Windows and OS X, as a pure OS, protect your own files in case of a malware infection? My guess, not to good.

The protection of your own unique files is called back up. There are additions that can be bundled with/installed on an OS, like Time Machine, TimeVault and Genie Timeline which make this easy. However, this is not a function of the OS itself.

I hope you realise that your own base system doesn't do anything to keep your own files safe and that you have back up mechanisms in place to guard against potential file loss.

Reply Parent Score: 3