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 491353
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by stabbyjones
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Sep 2011 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by stabbyjones"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Now take out all the ones that are available on windows and/or Mac. That's what this is about. Are there any apps out there that are so utterly awesome that anybody would want to switch to Linux?

Oh, I'm not a windows fanboy BTW. I'm a Mac fanboy. I do a lot of writing and Apple's Pages is the most incredible word processor ever made. The first wp I've seen on which styles actually make sense. I run a Mac because Pages is available on it.

Your turn. What Linux app gives such an incredible user experience that I should give up the Mac and run a Linux box instead? And keep in mind that anything that runs via a native port (eg Firefox), or as an X port (scribus) or via Darwinports or Fink does not qualify. I can run those already.

Hey, I like the Linux politics. But it's not enough, I need great software that I cannot get anywhere else. Give me a reason to switch!


You have a point here. For the most part, one can achieve whatever one wants to achieve on any well-supported platform, be it Linux, Mac or Windows.

The killer feature of Linux is value-for-money. One can achieve vastly more capability per dollar spent on a Linux machine.

That feature may not be very attractive however to someone who has already blown their money on an expensive Mac or Windows system.

In fact, such people might even come on Internet forums and try to justify their expensive choice, perhaps to make them feel better. They might even go so far as to try to insist that a far better value-for-money alternative doesn't exist, when clearly, it does. They might even down-vote others in a kind of semi-irrational state of denial.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Midnight Member since:
2011-10-02

The killer feature of Linux is value-for-money. One can achieve vastly more capability per dollar spent on a Linux machine.


Except that the majority of people don't care about this. I've worked both in a small local computer shop servicing home users and for a consultant business servicing business IT for networks up to 200 people. One of the commonalities of both of those markets is that they want something to "just work".

Home users don't care about the "choice" or added capabilities that Linux offers. They want to turn the computer on, log into their email, do their banking, etc. and turn it off. If you were to tell them about "choice" or "computer freedom" or "more capability per dollar", they'd look at you like you were insane. They don't care. These people buy a new OS when they replace their computer. That only happens when the old one dies. Saying "But you have more capability!" means nothing to them.

Business' clients want a system that just works with what they already have. They don't want to pay their IT staff to figure out how to coax Postfix & Dovecot to mimic what their old Exchange server could do. They don't want to have to sort out Samba when a Windows server will share files with five or so mouse clicks. They don't want to pay to have their old applications rewritten to use Linux technologies. They don't want to figure out why a mail merge that worked with Word and Excel suddenly doesn't work with Writer and Calc. This will cost them money and provide almost nothing in return.

If you want either of those two groups to take Linux seriously as an alternative to Windows or Mac, there HAS to be a compelling reason why. That has to be a "Killer App". Windows has a huge number of legacy applications, lots of triple-A video games and Office, not to mention Active Directory. Mac has Pages, Keynote, Final Cut, Aqua all with a "cool" factor. Linux has ... Amarok? Kate? That's not enough.

"Capability per dollar" means nothing if the people you're trying to convince to switch have no use for the added capabilities.

This is coming from somebody who runs a personal FreeBSD server, has done SysAdmin on NetBSD and Linux for an ISP, has been using Linux on the desktop off and on since 2000 and has worked in IT for over ten years.

In fact, such people might even come on Internet forums and try to justify their expensive choice, perhaps to make them feel better. They might even go so far as to try to insist that a far better value-for-money alternative doesn't exist, when clearly, it does. They might even down-vote others in a kind of semi-irrational state of denial.


You are extremely abrasive. This paragraph is so full of passive-aggressive posturing that I'd swear it was written by a twelve year old. My guess is that the attitude you're displaying here is enough to get people to down vote you just for spite.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by stabbyjones
by lemur2 on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 00:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by stabbyjones"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The killer feature of Linux is value-for-money. One can achieve vastly more capability per dollar spent on a Linux machine.


Except that the majority of people don't care about this. I've worked both in a small local computer shop servicing home users and for a consultant business servicing business IT for networks up to 200 people. One of the commonalities of both of those markets is that they want something to "just work".

Home users don't care about the "choice" or added capabilities that Linux offers. They want to turn the computer on, log into their email, do their banking, etc. and turn it off. If you were to tell them about "choice" or "computer freedom" or "more capability per dollar", they'd look at you like you were insane. They don't care. These people buy a new OS when they replace their computer. That only happens when the old one dies. Saying "But you have more capability!" means nothing to them.

Business' clients want a system that just works with what they already have. They don't want to pay their IT staff to figure out how to coax Postfix & Dovecot to mimic what their old Exchange server could do. They don't want to have to sort out Samba when a Windows server will share files with five or so mouse clicks. They don't want to pay to have their old applications rewritten to use Linux technologies. They don't want to figure out why a mail merge that worked with Word and Excel suddenly doesn't work with Writer and Calc. This will cost them money and provide almost nothing in return.

"Capability per dollar" means nothing if the people you're trying to convince to switch have no use for the added capabilities.

This is coming from somebody who runs a personal FreeBSD server, has done SysAdmin on NetBSD and Linux for an ISP, has been using Linux on the desktop off and on since 2000 and has worked in IT for over ten years.

In fact, such people might even come on Internet forums and try to justify their expensive choice, perhaps to make them feel better. They might even go so far as to try to insist that a far better value-for-money alternative doesn't exist, when clearly, it does. They might even down-vote others in a kind of semi-irrational state of denial.


You are extremely abrasive. This paragraph is so full of passive-aggressive posturing that I'd swear it was written by a twelve year old. My guess is that the attitude you're displaying here is enough to get people to down vote you just for spite.
"

Every single one of your points is "classical FUD" against Linux.

If one gets a desktop Linux LiveCD today, and installs it on a bare machine, it will work instantly out of the box.

Yes, I repeat, it will "just work".

Ordinary people will absolutely be able to: "turn the computer on, log into their email, do their banking, etc. and turn it off".

Why on earth would you imagine that they wouldn't be able to?

Why would you imagine people would struggle setting up Postfix & Dovecot if it didn't meet their needs (it isn't a replacement for Exchange). Why wouldn't they simply go for Openchange/SoGo or Zarafa (which are a replacements for Exchange)?

http://www.openchange.org/

http://www.zarafa.com/

What the hell are you on about, anyway? Why do you feel the need to try to spread disinformation like you did?

How come alleged "cool factor" is important anyway if people allegedly want things to work "out of the box"? I will simply point out that what you list as cool for OSX and Windows doesn't work out of the box. Out of the box it is nowhere to be seen. I will further point out that there is nothing in your "cool" list that the equivalent cannot be had for desktop Linux. Except that for Linux, one can easily install for free using a few click in the GUI package manager.

Indeed "Capability per dollar" means nothing if the people you're trying to convince to switch have already spent their dollars on something else far more expensive. Like you they are more likely to try to justify their previous outlay. OTOH, "capability per dollar" means everything to people who are looking at a new system (or their first system) and who don't have an excess of unused dollars just lying around idle.

With your faux criticism of desktop Linux, you too are extremely abrasive.

You sound like you are crying in your beer over all that money you needlessly spent.

Edited 2011-10-03 00:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

In fact, such people might even come on Internet forums and try to justify their expensive choice, perhaps to make them feel better. They might even go so far as to try to insist that a far better value-for-money alternative doesn't exist, when clearly, it does. They might even down-vote others in a kind of semi-irrational state of denial.


Stop acting butthurt.

Windows unlike Linux is an full Operating system. That is what you pay for. You pay for all the work and testing that has gone in to make the whole system reliable (And Windows has been pretty reliable on the desktop since NT 4.0).

If your only argument is that Linux is a zero cost Windows clone with a few extra free features, and people are still choosing To Pay for it (even if you take Windows out of the equation, people are ready to pay for Macs which are far more expensive and have a similar application set to that of Windows out of the box).

Then tbh I earn good money, I might as well pay for Windows and I can use most of the GNU alternatives on a Windows system and I can use all the paid for stuff as well.

Edited 2011-10-03 00:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by stabbyjones
by lemur2 on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 00:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by stabbyjones"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In fact, such people might even come on Internet forums and try to justify their expensive choice, perhaps to make them feel better. They might even go so far as to try to insist that a far better value-for-money alternative doesn't exist, when clearly, it does. They might even down-vote others in a kind of semi-irrational state of denial.


Stop acting butthurt.

Windows unlike Linux is an full Operating system. That is what you pay for. You pay for all the work and testing that has gone in to make the whole system reliable (And Windows has been pretty reliable on the desktop since NT 4.0).
"

Say what? On what planet?

Windows is notoriously slow & unreliable. There are literally hundreds of millions of broken and/or compromised machines out there. There is an entire industry built on trying to keep the machines running and free of compromise. Even though all that effort and extra expense through that industry clearly doesn't work, ordinary people are still expected to pay for it all.

If your only argument is that Linux is a zero cost Windows clone with a few extra free features,


God no. Linux is nothing like a clone of Windows. Linux is a re-written-from-scratch Unix work-alike. If anything it is closer to OSX, which in turn is derived from BSD.

and people are still choosing To Pay for it (even if you take Windows out of the equation, people are ready to pay for Macs which are far more expensive and have a similar application set to that of Windows out of the box).


Because they are offered nothing else in commercial retail stores.

Then tbh I earn good money, I might as well pay for Windows and I can use most of the GNU alternatives on a Windows system and I can use all the paid for stuff as well.


I am reminded of old wisdom here, encapsulated in the saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted".

Edited 2011-10-03 00:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2