Microsoft’s big new product is way overdue, according to Times. And Linux is challenging Windows’ desktop dominance. What will it take to get the software titan moving again?
Is Microsoft A Slowpoke?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
DOS 5.0/6.0
IE 4/5/6
I have often pondered the reasoning for Microsoft’s Windows OS being released so late. I have often figured the problem is in the code of the OS itself. The saying keep it simple stupid(no insults intended), i think applies. The more you integrate, the more things can go wrong, the more band-aids you need to apply. As an example, look at the 64 bit version of Windows XP. A friend of mine installed it, and so many 32 bit apps just wouldn’t work correctly. Now i relize that its a beta. However, spend a day setting up a 64 bit version of Linux, everything operates very nicely. I have always figured the problem was that so many parts were interconnected together, so if something breaks the whole thing falls down.
Any other theories?
I am curious what some of your opinions are on what you would like to see from MS?
A couple thinigs I would like to see from them is a sandboxed email client and additional improvements in VS.NET
MS could move into the software market with more graphics and audio editing tools like Apple but they would probably just get sued by everyone already in those markets.
The thing I would most like to see from MS is more bash shell like command line functionality.
It’s funny that a company that made a name for itself selling the most popular command line driven OS in the world (DOS) would end up so many years later with a lack of command line functionality being one of its weakest selling points.
Dude, I think the last thing Joe User cares about is a command line
“However, spend a day setting up a 64 bit version of Linux, everything operates very nicely.”
Well for one thing your version of “everything” is mighty damn small. Everyone gives MS hell for compatibility issues. Consider for a second just HOW DAMN MUCH they need to be compatible with…… Boggles the best of minds.
Attempting to compare absolute compatibility on the FOSS side of this is nothing, zero, notta. They don’t/won’t ever need to deal with the shear number of applications available. There are FAR LESS applications to deal with on the Linux side, and it’s likely to remain that way for DECADES.(forever comes to mind)
With their Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft appears to be attempting to make a “best effort” at producing a secure, stable operating system (Cathedral, Berkeley). This takes a lot of time and effort, and hopefully it will pay off. Contrast this with the “release often, release early” mindset of Linux (Bazaar, MIT/Stanford).
If the result is that Windows really becomes cheaper in the long run to maintain than Linux, then Microsoft will very likely have played their cards right.
It’s impossible for Windows to become cheaper than Linux, since Linux is *free*. Windows might become cheaper than say SuSE, but “Linux”? No way.
>> Well for one thing your version of “everything” is mighty damn small.
I wouldn’t say the 3 GBs of binaries that comes 64-Bit version of SUSE is mighty damn small.
>> Everyone gives MS hell for compatibility issues. Consider for a second just HOW DAMN MUCH they need to be compatible with…… Boggles the best of minds.
Backwards compatibility is a time bomb, you can’t stay backwards compatible forever the maintenance costs grow exponentially. FOSS can offer something much better, forwards compatibility, the code can always be recompiled/modified.
“It’s impossible for Windows to become cheaper than Linux, since Linux is *free*. Windows might become cheaper than say SuSE, but “Linux”? No way.”
I think what he is refering to is total cost of ownership. Meaning that you spend less maintaining windows than you do linux.
I think it’s BS, but thats just me. It’s a lot cheaper to have one hi paid linux admin than several cheap windows admins. Another thing that isn’t added into the windows TCO figures is that linux doesn’t need all the damn maintanance that windows does. Just look at W32.Sasser, I’ll be busy all week fixing people servers and desktops. But my 7 linux servers will keep running. And don’t give me that BS of market share causing virus and hacking attacks either. Look at Apache and IIS market share and the shear amount of exploits for each.
What I think MS needs to do is stick to home computers. Thats what they do best. All things aside, windows is a damn fine OS for Joe User. But I won’t run it as a mission critcal server OS.
Does anybody actually need a new version of Windows? – as opposed to bug fixes for the present version.
Is there any demand? Are businesses crying out to spend more money on upgrades?
IMO the longer Longhorn takes, the better. Nobody needs it, so Microsoft will have to push it down customers’ throats.
The number of applications means nothing if you have a clearly defined interface so application writters don’t need to use undocumented behavior or other hacks to get things done.
For example:
sin(x) (where x is in radians) will always work and it should be trivial to change it’s implementation whether 1 or 100000 applications use it.
So, this means that either Windows do not have clearly defined APIs and some application writers rely on undocumented behavior to get things done or that Microsoft changes the documented behavior.
Either way it’s Microsoft’s fault for either providing lacking documentation or introducing incompatibilities. That’s why they are responsible.
Microsoft has enroled many larger corporations in they licensing scheme(scam), so microsoft don’t have to make new features for the money they get..
>> It’s impossible for Windows to become cheaper than Linux, since Linux is *free*. Windows might become cheaper than say SuSE, but “Linux”? No way.
He is talking about cost of maintenance (along the lines of cost of ownership). Not that I agree with Traal, because Linux can offer low cost of maintenance, you just have to pick a stable distro such as Debian, Slackware or one of the enterprise distros (e.g. SUSE SLES, Red Hat RHEL).
Traal didn’t say initial cost will be cheaper, just maintaining it might. Regardless, as FOSS spreads, I imagine maintainance costs for Linux and the BSDs will go down.
I’d like to see what other crazy industry Microsoft will throw themselves into next… it seems they feel the desktop market is saturated. That maybe the problem with being on top for so long, since now they can only attempt to retain market share rather than make it grow. I’m still surprised at what a success the XBOX turned out to be.
Most of all, I am not completely a Microsoft hater (been getting there since windows ME tho), but I’d like to see them start respecting their users. OS bloat, activation, DRM-everything… what’s next? A spontaneosly combusting install CD after first use for Longhorn?
It’s actions like these and their past behavior that are driving my friends and I to FOSS.
peace
foo
Most users are fed up with Windows while Linux was “not ready”
It has changed.
– Groupware x
– Modern Email Client x
– Word processing x
what needs work
– professional graphic programs
–
What is still premature
– a compatibility layer: wine
– A VB like program hbasic, gambas and so on
The problem of Linux today is not the Operating system, the problem is the software.
And Linux is challenging Windows’ desktop dominance.
Don’t they educate journalists these days to write their own scoops? We’ve heard this for several years now, PLEASE figure out that there is several years left (if it’ll ever happen which is unlikely for Linux) before any real competition is to be expected.
How timely a story?
“Development Advisory: Hold on .NET Development Work”
http://www.theopensourcery.com/osHoldondotNet.htm
The rest of the site has some good stuff as well.
Microsoft — no doubt here — is a big player. So I ask myself quite often: How will the Microsoft Windows will look like 10 years in the future? I am not working in a Microsoft lab. Well, I do not work for Microsoft at all. So this is pure speculation.
I think Longhorn will be a bridge. Most win32 legacy apps will run on Longhorn. But the .net environment will be the main focus. The successor might look like this:
* the OS (including all device drivers) is comletely CLR
code, so it runs on a VM.
* an RDBMS is used for persistence. Maybe a FS based on
that RDBMS is offered for POSIX compliance as option.
* single rendering engine featurung high level language
constructs.
* no win32 support
The first 2 points look like a AS/400 remake. Point 3 has been introduced by SGI (GL). All three features are 20+ years old so they can easely be touted as innovations.
Point 4 is nessecary due to design flaws in win32 resulting in security leaks.
Greetings,
Carsten
I think the primary problem here for Microsoft is that they made too big a deal about Longhorn, and did it too soon. Had they quietly developed a “next generation” operating system while continuing with their previous line expectations could have been kept fairly low, and honestly, that’s where Microsoft does best. They’re reliably mediocre.
But now their hype is making people wonder if there could in fact be something better. The problem is, no one at Microsoft stopped to figure out if they could actually deliver something better anytime soon. The result is that they’ve done a lot of advertising for a product they can’t provide in the near future, or in some cases (WinFX), at all.
And the real trouble is… other companies can and will provide it.
And Linux is challenging Windows’ desktop dominance.
Don’t they educate journalists these days to write their own scoops? We’ve heard this for several years now, PLEASE figure out that there is several years left (if it’ll ever happen which is unlikely for Linux) before any real competition is to be expected.
I was JUST going to comment on this rediculous statement myself and then saw that you beat me to it. Darn it.
And let me add: This deadhorse (linux on the desktop) has gotten beat to death so much, there isn’t anything left of the horse.
PLEASE take off your Reality Blinders. Linux will NEVER be of dominace on the desktop. Even with all the great work and talent that is going into linux, we have to look at it objectively to make an honest prediction.
Linux has gained so much press and herd following because the timing and present economic times have been perfect for it. Everything happened at once to create a melting pot for Linux to bloom.
Two parts of a growing community of Microsoft bashers/haters, One part tech bubble-bust in 2k that has plagued america since, and One part FREE Unix like OS that was born from a guy who that sprung from the Two Part Ingredient (A “poster child” if I ever seen one!).
People tend to forget that the BSD’s were free way before Linux came into play. BSD’s are even argueably superior, but it is the Linuxes that have taken off and garnered the media attention which then lead to more takeoff. The crucial difference is the 3rd ingredient (Linus).
America started a tech slump RIGHT (literally) when Linux was gaining some ground. Microsoft bashers flocked to Linus and his creation and this wonder FREE OS got press. With the continued tech bust (and y2k joke), Microsoft along with TONS of other tech companies got pummeled.
Cash strapped companies from small business to Fortune 500 started looking to save costs along with the new hoard of Linux promoting consultants have gained Linux more steam.
But the inevitable always happens and is starting to happen slowly to Linux. Market Forces. The big sharks come in to try and capitalize a trend or current hot technology and turn it into basically what everyone was hating regarding Microsoft. What, you gonna tell me when the economy improves and companies start spending again that we are going to be PAYING Novell/IBM/REDHAT/Whoever big bucks for what was once a FREE OS and in the meantime Microsoft will have just SAT STILL? By the time Linux gets JUST the installation of programs and updates user friendly to be on par with Microsoft, MS will have their self-healing/auto patched/DRM protected against viruses flashy new OS out…
And Please don’t get me wrong. I use Linux in alot of situations for where it fits or seems to be the best choice after weighing in on all the factors of a clients needs (or mine). It makes a great server.
But please people stop with this naive thinking.
eE
^ But what if big corporation decide suddenly that the (already high) cost to mantain Win on their desktops is not an option anymore?Everybody is looking today in cutting costs,and you’re right, Linux took advantage of today’s economic situation in the world. Don’t they have to look for alternative solutions?For sure , RedHat, Suse and so on will charge big for their solutions , if they will find the opportunity. Is exactly as Microsoft. But I don’t believe that the “free OS” will vanish. Linux is free , the kernel of course, distros , well , this is another story. And if you are smart enough , you can build your own , and voila! , you have “your OS”.
Me too I believe that Microsoft will held a very big chunk of the market , but I belive they will be not the only ones in the game.
Some people have a short view of the world.
They tend to think that everyone else thinks like they do.
Let it be said once more (and I’m sure it will not be the last time), Linux is free in choice, not money.
I have still to see any proof of why Linux will be better than Windows AND why Windows will always dominate linux?
People who are negative about things are almost never heard. It’s like a presidential campain where the candidates try to belittle eachother, while they could talk about how they would do things themselves instead of how the other candidates did/does things wrong. That would be a much stronger point of view, and probably lead to victory.
So, please try to be constructive in comments, you’ll sell your point of view a lot easier, and it saves you from a lot of negative comments.
In the future, I hope there will be no dominance. Neither from MS, Linux distro’s, Mac, or whatever.
What will it take to get the software titan moving again?[i]
How about this:
Maybe, at least for a moment, MS could forget what’s been their no. 1 main goal for years: killing their competitors and achieving and maintaining a business monopoly, and just concentrate on innovating and development more…? And with inovation and development I mean innovation and development that has users benefit as the main goal, like true security, using open source document formats, using and keeping standards (HTML etc.) and [i]not trying to kill those standards and make people use MS proprietary technology instead.
Mission impossible??
@ Michael Moran
A Microsoft Windows Network is the most complex thingie on earth at the moment (Also the largest – codewise). When you additionally have PR strategists and tacticians that insist on anly adding new and usually unfriendly and anti-productive eye-candy instead of fixing old issues (That way old issues are inheriated and never goes away) – then at some time you run into trouble.
@Verbatim
“Well for one thing your version of “everything” is mighty damn small. Everyone gives MS hell for compatibility issues. Consider for a second just HOW DAMN MUCH they need to be compatible with…… Boggles the best of minds.
Attempting to compare absolute compatibility on the FOSS side of this is nothing, zero, notta. They don’t/won’t ever need to deal with the shear number of applications available. There are FAR LESS applications to deal with on the Linux side, and it’s likely to remain that way for DECADES.(forever comes to mind)”
Bollocks … The number of applications has nothing to do with it, as long as you use standard APIs. And by the way I thought that it was the world that was incompatible with Microsoft Windows and not the other way around.
Their problem is that they deliberately change their API’s – they are changed day by day. Making todays windows applications tomorrows legacy applications. W2K3 server is incompatible with upto 30% of todays 2K/XP applications and Longhorn is only able to run Win32 applications through a VM. The Microsoft Office 2003 Super Premium that you just bought is a legacy application.
And why do Microsoft do this, why does the Windows API’s have a an estimated morphing time of 18 months ??
Simply because it gives the application-developers of Microsoft an advantage over the competitors, whoose documentation of the API’s is months, perhaps years old.
@Don Cox : What’s the hurry?
Microsoft needs it
AFAIR revenue is down….
Longhorn will most likely force many users to replace most of their software completely.
Their competitors are gaining on them.
The Linux alliances (Redhat, SUSE/Novell, SUN) or should I just say IBM :o) are in the midst of making the market profitable. Also, old enemies are holding ground, MacOS X, OS/2, our *BSD friends and a few more. With Longhorn they can both make DRM and .NET mandatory.
>> Well for one thing your version of “everything” is mighty damn small.
I wouldn’t say the 3 GBs of binaries that comes 64-Bit version of SUSE is mighty damn small.
Guess again, IT IS!
There are TENS OF GBS of Windows programs that Windows must be compatible with.
Also, those 3GB you mention are COMPILED for the specific SuSE version. Windows have to run 10 and 12 year old programs.
“I think what he is refering to is total cost of ownership. … It’s a lot cheaper to have one hi paid linux admin than several cheap windows admins. Another thing that isn’t added into the windows TCO figures is that linux doesn’t need all the damn maintanance that windows does. Just look at W32.Sasser, I’ll be busy all week fixing people servers and desktops.”
If you/your clients are busy fixing Sasser this week it is your/their fault. We’ve had fair notice that a worm was possible, and a practical lesson in patching when Blaster happened. Anyone running an MS server could have deployed auto updates, SUS, SMS or a third party patching solution by now.
Don’t complain that MS patches sometimes break things. The choice is clear – take a small risk with a patch from a group of professionals or take a huge risk with malicious code.
If a person chooses to take the risk with malicious code, they can’t complain about having to clean it up.
Their problem is that they deliberately change their API’s – they are changed day by day.
The change their APIs adding new features and introducing newer technologies. No faster that OS APIs, where every lib maler can think they can break binary AND API compatibility and piss on all developers.
Making todays windows applications tomorrows legacy applications.
Bollocks. I have 10 year old applications that run fine on my XP. Can’t say the same for Linux. No major distro distributes the necessary compatibility libc etc so I can run my 7 year old apps. In fact, as in Red Hat for example, RPMs from a previous version don’t work in the next one.
W2K3 server is incompatible with upto 30% of todays 2K/XP applications and Longhorn is only able to run Win32 applications through a VM.
Longhorn is 2 years in the future, and (if what you say holds) does exactly what Apple did for os9 apps.
As for W2K3 it is not meant to run 100% of todays applications. It is to be deployed as a server OS for specific needs. However, the 30% figure you give is bollocks. My colleague uses it as a desktop OS just fine.
And why do Microsoft do this, why does the Windows API’s have a an estimated morphing time of 18 months ??
Estimated by you?
Anyway, APIs morph simply because WE (devs) WANT BLOODY NEW FEATURES.
Simply because it gives the application-developers of Microsoft an advantage over the competitors, whoose documentation of the API’s is months, perhaps years old.
Probably you NEVER did Windows development, or Linux for that matter. The APIs are presented AS SOON as they are introduced, and in fact months before in the form of beta versions. Longhorn APIs are ALREADY available to third party developers. Some “hidden apis” in the past where few and far between.
In fact, third party apps are AS GOOD or EVEN BETTER than MS APPS on Windows, so where’s the proof of the “advantage” you mentioned?
@foljs
“There are TENS OF GBS of Windows programs that Windows must be compatible with.
Also, those 3GB you mention are COMPILED for the specific SuSE version. Windows have to run 10 and 12 year old programs.”
How many 10 or 12 year old application are the Windows of today capable of running satisfactory ?? 2K3 are having trouble running XP applications, and XP are having trouble running 2K applications and so on … with every SP something new is broken.
Even though you have access to the source code, you still have compatibility issues ….. it is not only a Microsoft Windows issue, it is not a concept patented by Microsoft Corp.
“Some “hidden apis” in the past where few and far between. ”
Hmmm, according to the DOJ verdict Microsoft where forced to publish specs on 300 API’s and protocols …. a few ad far between – yeah…
MS provides this free of charge and free to download:
play with unix all you like (though it is KornShell and C Shell environments by defualt you can get
Q. I’m more familiar with bash than the Korn or C shell. What are my options with Windows Services for UNIX 3.5?
A. Although Windows Services for UNIX 3.5 ships with both the Korn and C shells, users desiring bash or other Open Source shells, utilities, and tools can download compiled versions for Windows Services for UNIX from the Interop Systems website.
see–
http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/
dl from: http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm
get it here
Windows Services for UNIX (SFU) 3.5 provides the tools and environment that IT professionals and developers need to integrate Windows with UNIX and Linux environments
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/default.asp
or you can pay for Virtual PC–
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/
or you can learn more about MS Command Line Interface and all of its scripting options that are free or you can turn to third party solutions. MS CLI is quite robust and admins of very large networks seem to do just fine with it.
Check out some of MS White Papers on giant firms that have migrated to Win2k3 Server and you can get a feel for its power…the Motorola example is a good one. A network of 50,000 Windows desktops and Servers heavily adminned via the command line and scripting.
or see for more info:
do a search on amazon and you will see there are dozens of books on the the MS CLI
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735620385/qid=108367…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1887902821/qid=108367…
or from MS
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default…
or spend time on ms technet or msdn sites looking at scripting info and you will be busy for some time to come.
enjoy.
Same old discussion. Don’t you people get tired of this?
Simple fact is that Windows and (a) Linux (distribution) are pretty much entirely different products. Projecting (perceived) advantages of one to the other will always make that other look bad in that particular area. Just accept that there is room in the market for more than one OS (and that’s a good thing!), and concentrate on making them all the best possible products by forcing competition. We, as consumers will always win that way.
many releases of products in the software world are delayed
ms is not just windows
in last few years they have shipped:
xp and service pack 1 and svc pk 2 is due in a month or so
xp has been ported to 64bit and is in public beta and will go gold by the end of the year
windows server 2003 shipped last yr on 32 and 64 bit platforms.
small business server 2003 shipped last year
exchange 2003 shipped last year
office xp and 2003 shipped within the last couple of years with all new apps
onenote is new in office
infopath is new in office
new versions of several office type apps have been updated in the last year like project and visio
windows ce/ windows pocketpc has had several new versions in last 2 years and has nearly caught palm in current sales
the list goes on. know what you are talking about before yakking away.
a 40 billion dollar software company produces a lot more than just windows. taking its time to produce the best next version is fine by most people as one) many have not even bothered to upgrade to xp yet and 2) most people are not interested in the expense or time involved in upgrading their oses but every four years or so.
the bottom line is xp is a current and valid os that no other os has any lead on. os x may look pretty with kiddie icons and genie effects, but it has no functionality that xp is missing. in fact os x is was playing catch up with ms: chat, video and sound chat, a web browser, encryopted folders, fast user switching, etc etc etc.
ms doesnt need to hurry with longhorn as long as many choose not to upgrade to even xp and xp holds such a clear lead over all its competitors.
sad truth for others is that with the delay and focus on security ms will ship almost assuredly the best os they have ever done and that will hurt others chances even more.
Linux has another flaw preventing widespread desktop implementation by the average user: a consistent application installer.
I’m pretty facile with Linux, Unix and FreeBSD, but often find I’m frustrated trying to install new pieces of software from tarballs having to collect a variety of libraries, suring up dependencies, setting permissions etc that could (and probably should) be an effortless routine scripted installation. It’s not that I can’t manage such an installation, it’s that I don’t want to have to bother with it. I’ve been disappointed by the rpm system as there are conflicts and dependency failures enough to frustrate the average user.
The heterogeneous nature of Linux (Bazaar paradigm) and its various distributions and contributors has mostly precluded addition of a standardized installation fuctionality. Although the Microsoft world has implemented it easily (Catherdral paradigm) as has FreeBSD (Cathedral paradigm) with the ports system and Sun Solaris (Cathedral paradigm) packages with pkgadd. Still, the BSD ports and pkgadd are not intuitive and graphical. Nevertheless, BSD ports installations are almost always very smooth with only rare broken ports. Solaris packages do not resolve their own dependencies, but generally are simple to install. I’ve had varied successes and failures with rpm packages (hybrid: a cathedral in the midst of a Bazaar).
Perhaps the Gnome project or GNU project will be the best place to address this issue. A simple graphical self contained installer which includes and installs all necessary dependencies along with the target application would help bring Linux (an other *nix’s) up to a level of usability that would become acceptable to the **practical** user who needs to use software, not hack the OS. The Bazaar has served the Linux project well, fostering much of the inovation and rapid efficient development. To bring the OS to the desktop, more consensus based (Cathedral) standardization will be needed to bring consistent coordinated user space behaviors to the software that runs on Linux.
No, I wouldn’t say its much of a challenge. Although I run linux on the desktop, until my non tech friends understand what linux is, its not a challenge. Maybe in 2-3 years, just about when longhorn ships, that the average joe will realise that choice exists.
Linux is no real challenge to Windows dominance. Outside of computer fanatics, who really uses Linux? Does your business? Do you have friends who are not computer professionals running Linux at home? Linux is a geek’s toy. It is not polished enough, nor easy enough to use. Besides, there is no “Linux” but many “Linuxes”, all slightly different, and all cobbled together from various sources. No mass adoption of Linux is going to take place in the near future.
A business could switch to OS X and MS Office 2004 and do very nicely, but Apple would apparently rather sell iPods than market its OS as the most viable alternative to Windows’ mediocrity.
that linux dosent make it big on the desktop. The way I see it:
windows user that dosent patch comp = linux user that dosent patch comp
Even worse, imagine a legion of the computer illertae running as root full time because they dont like retyping a pasword when they want to install something.
Id be happy with 5-10% desktop marketshare with a user group of mostly geeks.
Quote:
” Perhaps the Gnome project or GNU project will be the best place to address this issue. A simple graphical self contained installer which includes and installs all necessary dependencies along with the target application would help bring Linux (an other *nix’s) up to a level of usability that would become acceptable to the **practical** user who needs to use software, not hack the OS.”
I agree that rpm packages are not the best way to install software.
On Gentoo though, the portage install system works wonderful, and I’ve heard the same comments about apt-get.
You just say which program you want to install, the installer downloads it, including all needed dependencies etc…
Only in some cases, it’s required to change some settings though, but that’s the same on any system.
In my opinion, gui installers are not necessarely better or easier to use. On the contrary, I have to click several times. With portage for example, I can just enter “Emerge -U world” to upgrade my system, or “emerge mozilla” to installe mozilla with all dependencies. It couldn’t be easier.
And I believe there’re already gui clients for portage and apt-get, but I’m not sure.
Firstly, stop astroturfing. Secondly, do some research before spouting off at the mouth.
“Linux is no real challenge to Windows dominance.”
Phew, Steve Ballmer should be glad to hear that.
“Besides, there is no “Linux” but many “Linuxes”, all slightly different, and all cobbled together from various sources”
Linux is a kernel, GNU/Linux is an Operating System.
“No mass adoption of Linux is going to take place in the near future.”
Rome was not built in a day.
“Linux is a geek’s toy. It is not polished enough, nor easy enough to use.”
Is this from your personal eXPerience?
Don’t fear change – embrace it.
I’ve got a copy of Gentoo on my desk, but have not had a chance to install it. The portage system was the big draw for me, as well as the oportunity to basically compile the code to optimize performance on a given machine.
All the other comments noted. I have no difficulty with the command line, and also prefer to do simple command driven tasks rather than deal with graphical front endsin many cases.
My comments were made with the true end user in mind, not limited to the home user with limited skills but to the business user who could care less about what’s under the hood but has a task to complete and wants to complete it quickly and simply.
“Just accept that there is room in the market for more than one OS (and that’s a good thing!), and concentrate on making them all the best possible products by forcing competition. We, as consumers will always win that way.”
Fine. Do you think that we can get MS to agree to that?
[tbscope (IP: —.166-201-80.adsl.skynet.be) ]
It’s not so much the package, or the package manager, as it’s the packagers. There’s not an install system that’ll do well with a badly-packaged piece of software.
[Tony Soprano (IP: —.rb.gh.centurytel.net)]
http://www.oeone.com
Besides the world isn’t a zero-sum game.
Where is GNU/Linux.com so I can download this distribution that you speak of?
“Linux has another flaw preventing widespread desktop implementation by the average user: a consistent application installer. ”
*sigh* here we go again:
apt
abs
ports (ok, that’d fbsd)
portage
apt for RPM
swaret
slapt-get
pkgtool
ClickNRun
w/e MDK has
Come on, just because their is a variety among distributions doesn’t mean it’s not standardized within each distribution. And you can ./confugre, make, make install in EVERY DISTRIBUTION.
The reason dependencies exist is well they exist in every OS with all packages. It’s called saving resources. The reason you don’t see them in Windows is because CD’s are quite large, and when you ship your program on a CD you have plenty of room for all the libraries. Network bandwidth is not so large, and if you make a 3MB package that requires gtk you aren’t going to provide 40MB of bandwidth per download so they can also get: glib, glibc, xfree86, libtiff, libpng, and libjpeg!
If you don’t wanna deal with libraries or compiling I recommend Debian. apg-get install seems easy to me! Much easier than:
Download .exe from some site.
Run spyware checkers and anti-virus
Check .exe with anti-virus
Run .exe
Run spyware and anti-virus
Remove program if anything is found the second time.
Repeat as needed or until you run out of programs to try.
I realize it’s not Microsofts fault that their free programs seem to be riddled with spyware, but it seems to work out that way unfortunately.
“I have often pondered the reasoning for Microsoft’s Windows OS being released so late. I have often figured the problem is in the code of the OS itself. The saying keep it simple stupid(no insults intended), i think applies. The more you integrate, the more things can go wrong, the more band-aids you need to apply. As an example, look at the 64 bit version of Windows XP. A friend of mine installed it, and so many 32 bit apps just wouldn’t work correctly. Now i relize that its a beta. However, spend a day setting up a 64 bit version of Linux, everything operates very nicely. I have always figured the problem was that so many parts were interconnected together, so if something breaks the whole thing falls down.
Any other theories?”
Actually 64 bit Linux has issues too, mostly in the packages. Some things simply fail when you compile them to 64 bit instead of 32, so they need changes. I don’t know why Windows has trouble. I imagine this is why Apple is so late to release a 64 bit OS X, because they may be having issues with porting applications.
It’s been more than a year since VS 2003 came out and there are no publicly available bugfixes out. The environment leaks memory during debugging sessions and intellisense for C# loses its mind every once in a while, to name only two major annoyances. Yes, Microsoft is very slow at many things. However, Microsoft’s response times increase dramatically when it involves Marketing initiatives, hence a large part of their success.
Will
In my opinion, gui installers are not necessarely better or easier to use. On the contrary, I have to click several times. With portage for example, I can just enter “Emerge -U world” to upgrade my system, or “emerge mozilla” to installe mozilla with all dependencies. It couldn’t be easier.
The problem with ports or ports-like systems is that you are dependant on the mainteners. If a new version of your favorite program comes out but the maintener(s) don’t care or left the project, you’re on your own. For example, I’m still waiting for the inclusion of the lastest version of bluefish in portage. Sure, I could just edit & rename a previous ebuild file or just file a bug report and beg mainteners to create one (and that’s probably what I will do soon)… but ask Joe Couchrider to do this. He’ll probably be mystified by your orders.
Similiarily, your programs must be in the repository or you’ll either have to compile them from source or beg for their inclusion. Making your own Makefiles/ebuilds/packages and submitting them to the repository is, once again, not an option for users.
I like the concept of ports (that’s why I use Gentoo and FreeBSD) but stand-alone packages are still something necessary for the wide adoption of any OS targetted for desktop usage.
From somebody else: Linux is a kernel, GNU/Linux is an Operating System.
Oh, come on. Stop being an ass. Every geek knows the difference between the two and Joe Couchrider just don’t care of it. Unless you’re a GNU disciple and a RMS worshipper, you shouldn’t bother to make this nitpicking.
*sigh* here we go again:
apt, abs, ports (ok, that’d fbsd), portage, apt for RPM, swaret, slapt-get, pkgtool, ClickNRun, w/e MDK has
Come on, just because their is a variety among distributions doesn’t mean it’s not standardized within each distribution. And you can ./confugre, make, make install in EVERY DISTRIBUTION.
Heh, that is exactly what people are denouncing: there should be more cooperation between various Linux distros. As a developer, I shouldn’t have to provide a package for distro X, distro Y, distro Z… and as an user, I shouldn’t have to choose a package depending on my distro and its version. Configure/make/make install is, once again, not an option for the average user. Remember that the average user don’t really want to learn: it just want something that works(tm).
I know that each distro is a whole operating system but they are often so similar that there should be a standard for package installation.
If you don’t wanna deal with libraries or compiling I recommend Debian. apg-get install seems easy to me! Much easier than:
Download .exe from some site.
Run spyware checkers and anti-virus
Check .exe with anti-virus
Run .exe
Run spyware and anti-virus
Remove program if anything is found the second time.
Repeat as needed or until you run out of programs to try.
I realize it’s not Microsofts fault that their free programs seem to be riddled with spyware, but it seems to work out that way unfortunately.
The same problem will probably occurs with packages for Linux once it becomes truly mainstream (I still have hope).
Two users before mentioned the Command Line weakness of Windows. Microsoft seems to be thinking about it too. They’re reimplementing the CLI in a new tool called Monad (or MSH). It seems like this might break the current superiority of UNIX scripting.
http://tfl09.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_tfl09_archive.html#10676992183…
Yeah, I agree work still needs to be done, however, ive seen the 64 bit version of Windows and compared to the 64 bit install of Gentoo Linux, and I defently know who’s curently in the lead. Plus, I beleve that you can recompile the kernel for 64 bits and all 32 bit apps should run correctly, something which is certenly not the case from the copy of XP 64 i saw.
the only thing slower than ms is FOSS.
it takes decades for a FOSS program to have the nicities put in. featurewise FOSS might get stuff done a good clip faster than MS, but pretty much FOSS has to be indoctrinated into some elite circle of ‘essential software’ before it ever get sthat spit and polish that makes a program api or standard complete.
polish is the prodct microsoft sells.
slightly tounge in cheek, but there be truth.
“the only thing slower than ms is FOSS.
it takes decades for a FOSS program to have the nicities put in. featurewise ”
Get that tongue out of your cheek. Makes you type funny.
http://www.async.com.br/~kiko/papers/mozse.pdf
[Mozilla development process]
And if the results are anything to go by? Then in a couple decades it’ll be the be all and end all of browsers.
I for one am happy that they are taking thier time, better to release when it’s ready. Release early and patch later as we’ve seen gives a competitive advantage *but* is responsible for the virus/worm mess we have today (Sasser being the latest). They don’t need to be fast here, what they need to do is put out something solid. It’s not like XP needs to be replaced by the next version of Windows now…Linux maybe challenging it but I haven’t used a distro yet (and I do tend to stay on top of them) that would make me favour it over Windows from purely a user (read non programmer) point of view. From a business point of view I don’t think they have any real urgency either, they have stockpiles of cash, they are still selling an obscene amount of software, and they aren’t in any real danger I can tell from any competitors in their core markets. They can afford to take the time to “do it right”. As a consumer I’m tired of getting unfinished software that I have to patch later. As a programmer I understand how much time and effort actually is needed to get software finished to the point where patches aren’t spewing out constantly after release. I think the computer industry is probably the only industry where it’s expected to throw stuff out to the public as fast as possible…new designs for components for cars take 4-5 years to hit the market but I don’t see anyone saying “Ford is a slowpoke!”. It’s about time Microsoft took software seriously. I hope everyone else will follow suit. Once more, I am glad they are taking thier time.
“Fine. Do you think that we can get MS to agree to that?”
Why would we need MS to agree with it? You seem to be under the mistaken impression they have a choice in the matter.
“I wouldn’t say the 3 GBs of binaries that comes 64-Bit version of SUSE is mighty damn small.”
1) You don’t have to install all that. You only have to install what you need.
2) 64-bit userland results in bigger userland. You are comparing 32-bit with 64-bit. Try to be a bit more objective next time…
“Similiarily, your programs must be in the repository or you’ll either have to compile them from source or beg for their inclusion. Making your own Makefiles/ebuilds/packages and submitting them to the repository is, once again, not an option for users.”
Depends on the distribution. This is possible with Gentoo and Debian for example. You could even set-up your own 3rd party repository. It all takes a little time.
Users who think they need top-notch new versions or alternatives are either entering a small, documented learning curve or keep using older, stable versions and other, suitable applications. So much works already out of the box.
Is that Windows maintains its dominace on the desktop forever so that the crackers, worm writers, agobots and spyware will always be drawn chiefly to it. And that’s why I can’t wait until Longhorn gets here, so that all these groups have a new project, one they can really sink their fangs into.
Depends on the distribution. This is possible with Gentoo and Debian for example. You could even set-up your own 3rd party repository. It all takes a little time.
I know… but my point is that the average Joe should not have to do that.
Users who think they need top-notch new versions or alternatives are either entering a small, documented learning curve or keep using older, stable versions and other, suitable applications. So much works already out of the box.
That’s where we disagree. Even if it’s fully documented, users should not have to do that. Old doesn’t always mean stable, especially if the maintener(s) were negligent.
Note that I’m not talking against repositories… My point is simply that we still need a standard packaging format. I can understand that it’s not much of a concern for people like us that are familiar with their OS but newbies or PHBs with no interest in CS might be scared. Sadly, they’re the majority.
Yes.
Is this a real question?
> Does anybody actually need a new version of Windows? – as opposed to bug fixes for the present version.
Microsoft is the one that needs the new version. What keeps Microsoft awash in money is the fact that they dominate a large market, and part of that is dictating to hardware developers what they will develop or make available to the masses (Cheaper memory, more processing power, and larger storage devices would be unnecessary if Windows and Office weren’t so bloated). With the release of the AMD64 processors and Apple’s G5 systems, Microsoft is now on the offensive, scrambling to accommidate 64-bit hardware before losing too much ground to Apple, who is set to release a 64-bit OS soon (doesn’t make much sense to sell the 64-bit boxes if you weren’t planning to use the extra capacity) and the Open Source community, who currently has the most extensive software available for low-end 64-bit servers (compare software for Linux-Opteron to Windows-Itanium).
Also, Microsoft tries to release a new OS every 2-3 years, because their business model depends on upgrades. For every computer that doesn’t upgrade, another potential sale is gone from Microsoft coffers. For a company that is having a hard time getting people to ditch Win98 SE for XP, it needs to scare people into the latest and greatest.
BTW, I’m surprised that no one mentioned that mainstream support for XP expires at the end of CY2006. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;%5Bln];LifeWin In other words, if Microsoft doesn’t crank out Longhorn by the end of the year, they may find themselves in a potential support quagmire. I don’t think users that bought a new system or copy of XP in May 2006 would like to know that MS no longer supported their software by New Year’s Day 2007
“PLEASE take off your Reality Blinders. Linux will NEVER be of dominace on the desktop. Even with all the great work and talent that is going into linux, we have to look at it objectively to make an honest prediction.”
I hear you on this one… Some of the Linux zealots out there sound just a religious person trying to convert people to whatever religion they see fit. I wonder how long it will take for Linux to be a recognized religioun practice… Seems like its on its way!
Sounds like someone’s going for an irony tag.
“””PLEASE take off your Reality Blinders. Linux will NEVER be of dominace on the desktop. Even with all the great work and talent that is going into linux, we have to look at it objectively to make an honest prediction.” “””
Maybe it won’t, maybe it will. Nobody can say for certain. There really is no reason why it couldn’t possibly dominate the desktop.
And before anybody makes a laundry list of things wrong with Linux, let me tell you that these problems are being worked on and just because they are problems now doesn’t mean they will remain problems with Linux for all eternity, as some people seem to want to believe.
And no, I’m not a Linux zealot, merely a Linux user who also acknowledges Windows carries advantages at times as well.
I use Linux at home I as a result, I don’t need to run
Spyware cleaners
Virus eradicators
Registry cleaners
File deframentation/optimisation programs
on a regular basis. I was getting very tired of having to do that at home, bad enough I have to do it at work but at least I get paid. When I come home I just use my computer. Also one major problem for me under Windows 2k/xp was support for my audio hardware which was very poor (semi pro hardware for studio work). The drivers for my audio hardware would bring Windows down on a regular basis. Now I have it running stable as under Arch Linux and using ALSA drivers. No problem, no piss farting around trying to keep my system from going down and I can play the games I want either natively or under Wine-X and guess what, they run stable than under Windows 2k/xp and don’t if, a big if, they crash they don’t bring the whole OS down with it.
So hey, I must be using Linux as my home Desktop. It’s ready people, not perfect but better than what I’ve had to endure for the last 10 years. Now distros conforming to standards in file layout and then having standardised package management would be great.
Maybe it won’t, maybe it will. Nobody can say for certain. There really is no reason why it couldn’t possibly dominate the desktop.
And before anybody makes a laundry list of things wrong with Linux, let me tell you that these problems are being worked on and just because they are problems now doesn’t mean they will remain problems with Linux for all eternity, as some people seem to want to believe.
Take a look at the post after yours. After trolling for quite a bit (I find it ironic and a little hard to believe that these people who were too stupid to keep a Windows box up and running smoothly were able to install Linux and have it up and running without any problems at all, Piers makes a good point:
Now distros conforming to standards in file layout and then having standardised package management would be great.
This is the very thing that’s keeping desktop Linux down – lack of uniformity, as it seems that the various camps in the Linux community are out to show the world that their dicks are bigger than everybody else’s.
If they even manage to come up with a tool that’ll let you configure fonts in one place for all the DE’s (Gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc), I’ll be really impressed. I don’t hold any high hopes for uniformity in package managers, unless hell happens to freeze over.
I use Linux at home I as a result, I don’t need to run
Spyware cleaners
Virus eradicators
Registry cleaners
File deframentation/optimisation programs
No, but you have to check for rootkits, trojans, and you also have to patch often because of lacking hardware support, and lack of quality control second only to Microsoft’s.
“After trolling for quite a bit (I find it ironic and a little hard to believe that these people who were too stupid to keep a Windows box up and running smoothly were able to install Linux and have it up and running without any problems at all”
Well obviously someone doesn’t work PR.
“Spyware cleaners
Virus eradicators
Registry cleaners
File deframentation/optimisation programs
”
I think the complaint was that “Mr Stupid” had to run all those programs to keep his machine “running smoothly”. And complaints about drivers are legend in the Windows world. Are you going to blame that on “Mr Stupid”?
[Anonymous (IP: —.home.cgocable.net)]
“No, but you have to check for rootkits, trojans, and you also have to patch often because of lacking hardware support, and lack of quality control second only to Microsoft’s.”
Trollin, trollin, trollin, keep those comments rollin, Rawhide!
And complaints about drivers are legend in the Windows world. Are you going to blame that on “Mr Stupid”?
Buy a device with bad drivers for any OS and you’re up shit creek. Of course, this is more the fault of the hardware vendors than end users, but you gotta take at least part of the blame if you don’t even bother to do any research before buying a piece of hardware. You can’t tell me you don’t have to do that running Linux
It’s impossible for Windows to become cheaper than Linux, since Linux is *free*. Windows might become cheaper than say SuSE, but “Linux”? No way.
As long as it continues to provide value, MS doesn’t have to be as cheap as free. The vast majority of people don’t mind paying for their OS and desktop productivity software.
‘I think the complaint was that “Mr Stupid” had to run all those programs to keep his machine “running smoothly”.’
[those programs referring to virus checker, spyware checker, registry cleaner and defragger]
Only one of those programs is even close to essential (virus checker). The others (and possibly all) are unnecessary given sensible user behaviour. If a user is advanced enough to know of the need for such programs, surely they’re a whisker off knowing what behaviour will cause spyware, registry, virus and fragmentation problems. (Hint: installing software without complete trust of the source, installing any ActiveX control unless CERTAIN of the function and need, not keeping up to date with patches and the usual email attachment precautions)
I’m a supporter of some of those system tools, especially virus and spyware checkers, but with appropriate, well disciplined user behaviour they are unnecessary. It strikes me that a user aware of the need for the four programs listed should be able to learn appropriate behaviour.
Some might argue that most users are aware of the need but unaware of the detail. I’d point to the millions without up to date virus definitions and patches and conclude that they’re not truly aware.