Red Hat’s chief executive has said that Linux needs to mature further before home users will get a positive experience from the operating system, saying they should choose Windows instead.
Red Hat: Stick with Windows at Home
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
MS cornered everything coming in via the desktop. Is Redhat afraid that Novell will repeat the stunt?
“Have you ever tried nvu?”
Have you tried Dreamweaver? If you had you’d know that nvu doesn’t even come close. Currently nvu is little more than Mozilla composer with high hopes for the future.
Is Reason something like ReBirth?
ReBirth is just a drum machine. We’ll likely see the ReBirth drum machine included as a rack component for Reason in Reason 3.0.
Perhaps i meant ”Virtual Machine” instead of ”Emulator”. I’m not sure what the exact difference is yet. Couldn’t find this info on the net
“Reaon is like ReBirth on steroids and then some
”
Ah well, there’s FreeBirth. Free (speech) implementation of ReBirth. Gentoo has it, Debian GNU/Linux.
http://www.bitmechanic.com/projects/freebirth/
But please don’t judge on this app solely that GNU/Linux is not ”ready”. I’d say, just install on HDD, learn, and search yourself for a while. Cause i can’t decide for you which apps you’d need. If you are open to a new world, and want to make a new experience, you can do so, and i think one’s busy with music is smart enought to find the apps s/he needs. Give it a try
“Truth is, if you value this app, there’s nothing like it on Linux. Hell, there’s nothing (AFAIK) like it on Windows either, sans Fruity Loops.”
Thanks for clearifying.
Fruity Loops runs in WINE. I’ve used it myself on GNU/Linux. Now i got stuck compiling new versions of .xm/.it compatible trackers on Deb… (cause i want free software).
“Yeah … when it works
”
If they don’t know users want a program X to work, they can’t decide priority. I think priority can be assigned (not necessarily with the money stuff as argument though)
“If I have to have a copy of Windows, then what’s the point? And these are audio apps – they take a LOT of horsepower to run natively, much less in an emulator.”
Like i said, no horsepower. Numbers. The statistic is only ~10% overhead. What is that? About nothing. Far less than VMware, Bochs and probly even than WINE. Perhaps it can be used to boot up in ReactOS/WINE in the future :> that would be awesome imo.
OTOH you could mail Proppelorheads to ask if they want to port it. If enought people do this they’ll receive the message. Not saying your opinion won’t bring you futher, nor they know what their customers want. You _can_ make a difference.
OTOH you could mail Proppelorheads to ask if they want to port it. If enought people do this they’ll receive the message. Not saying your opinion won’t bring you futher, nor they know what their customers want. You _can_ make a difference.
It will be hard for Propellerheads to consider releasing a Linux port of Reason until this problem is addressed:
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5029
I use Dreamweaver. It’s nvu that I don’t know (I have used Quanta+, Bluefish, and some others on various platforms).
Remember Redhat adopted a similar position about two years ago? Back then, they pulled out of the desktop market altogether. When they saw others moving ahead anyway, they decided to come out with RedHat 8. I think Redhat is been getting too big for its shoes. Its about time some other distro stepped up into their shoes
Well said. I agree with you, im not saying it is the best nor the worst, all I was stating was the mere fact that is was good enough, I agree with you on that.
“This is what gives Linux a chance for the home market in the long run — assuming certain problems are worked on and fixed.”
Yes assumming what needs to be fixed it fixed, but this just proved my point as in its current state it is not ready, but by no means did I say it wont ever be ready, if OSX did it with freeBSD then linux can hopefully follow in its steps.
In my eyes the general problem lays in the fact that the minority of us write software for linux with the mine set of for us by us. Where as as Microsoft and Apple write software for the majority of the general use world. That is where the power lays for use power users like us we write software that is extremely flexible and well suited for the minority of use computer literate people, but the majority of linux software sacrafices usablity and ease of use for flexibity and power.
You can compare the command line in linux to a more GUI based metaphor in windows, yes it is more powerful to work directly in the command line, but a GUI is far easier to use.
For linux to advance to a more general usage alot of the current developers must change there mind set. No matter how you put it software in linux is much more difficult to use then windows out of the box. It that simple. Im not saying windows software is better it just designed from the start for the general public.
It kind of the opposite of what Windows once was. Windows started as a desktop OS and now is trying to move into the enterprise and linux started in the enterprise is trying to move into the desktop space. Mentality has to change. As Microsoft has to refocus it effort to security to succeed in the enterprise, linux has to refocus its effort into usability to be successful.
Km I’m done.
Or to put it another way, Windows is the only choice for people who see their computers as tools rather than toys.
Confusing statement. If it is to slam an alternative OS, such as Linux or MacOS X, then it is pure ignorance.
I run OS X at home and work. There is no other alternative for the graphics industry, despite what some home user might claim. Enter into the business on the professional level and try to integrate Windows. It doen’t happen.
At home, we just retired our last Windows (XP) machine in favor of a new eMac with OS X because it just works better. And it is a tool, everything the fam needs it to do it delivers.
What are you saying? That porting apps to GNU/Linux is useless because of one such an opinion? Do you really think do care alot about that? Or programming apps for GNU/Linux is now useless just because of that?
“In particular my friend complained about the a.out to ELF migration; Then the ELF libc5 to libc6 migration, and apparently the new version of libc6 breaks their application again.”
His friend used a kernel which did not had a.out/libc5 compatibility layer. The *BSD’s have support in their kernel for ”older” TCP/IP implementations and API’s. They do not have programs with this either.
There’s nothing broken. There won’t be anything broken in the near future. Move along, nothing to see here.
> But only through the computer. Most people want to deal with an actual person. Not an email address. This is why many people still wont buy anything over the Internet.
Not really. I think most people really don’t mind getting software over the internet in most cases. Besides, with OSS, you can talk to someone. Only that someone is the author(s) of the software, and not some salesman or tech support nut.
> They must make an effort to get the correct hardware. Windows users can look only at the merits of the hardware.
So?
> Again, most people will want to deal with a person.
Why?
And this is why it may never reach the average users desktop.
So?
> So you don’t think Linux is ‘ready’ buy you don’t think it is ready… hmmm///
No, I don’t think it exists to replace Windows. So quarreling over whether or not it is ready is akin to arguing over how good or bad a microwave is at refrigeration.
> I just wanted to get in the fact that the trucks where no longer made.
Fedora.
> And the distro’s can not do it for the reasons I originally gave.
Which distributions? Only Lindows claims to be a full-blown Windows killer (and only on low to mid range hardware).
> I thought it was give the software away and charge for support.
Oh. My response would be that such a model could work, but not in our market. Most companies that develop software get their money from sales, and most of their customers don’t need support.
> Since NO distro can compete for the reasons given, it is fair to say that Linux ain’t ready for the average users desktop.
While that may be a technically correct sentence, you haven’t gotten me to see anything I didn’t before. Again, since it’s not a goal for most Linux developers, I fail to see exactly who can be faulted for this, or why it is even important.
It isn’t the Linux zealots that come out and say “Linux IS ready” most of the time. It is usually Windows zealots that want to bash Linux, and foolish Linux zealots feel the need to defend Linux, and claim that it “is.” I, however, don’t, and I feel the entire question “Is Linux ready” is pointless, and draws equally pointless answers.
> How is software less configurable on the software level on windows? OSS exists for windows plus lots of proprietary stuff. Lets remember that OSS does not ONLY exist for Linux.
I haven’t forgot that. I have more control over my system than most Windows users have over their system, for the simple fact that every piece of software is broken down into packages, and I can configure those packages. I know what they do. In Windows, the opposite is the case. It is really hard to break it down and understand all of the the components, and changing them is even harder. This has nothing to do with the licenses of applications one puts on top of the operating system.
> I don’t say that.
Cool.
> Your response is that Linux is good enough for you
My response is that we all need to ditch the whole “is Linux ready” question and change the way we think about Linux. Linux shouldn’t be thought of as an operating system that is working it’s way towards being easier to use than Windows. It should be thought of as a collection of free software that is all at your disposal, providing you don’t mind taking the time to learn what it all does and how to do it.
Of course, if you’re happy with Windows, by all means, stick with it. Just don’t try telling me Linux isn’t “ready for prime time,” because I reject the notion that it is even moving towards that goal.
QUOTE: Maybe its just me but i never have sex with my os.
My wife would thin slice particularly intimate parts of my anatomy if I tried getting her Quickbooks Pro running through WINE, much less having sex with a promiscious (free for anyone) OS.
http://www.finalscratch.com/fs4/load.asp?db=FS_MAC&sub=start
with red hat telling people to just use windoes and them
at the same time funding fedora, well there could come
a time when they take fedora back and tell the people
that are developing it to just use windoes instead.
rolling on the floor
so many people wont listen they just follow blindly.
support Mandrake, now is the time for Mandrake to really
shine. they wont burn u like red hat will.
also if u want support other distros, just make sure
they are Linux for the people.
You seem to know quite a bit about Linux and Windows. Why then do you feel the need to accept this idea that Linux exists to replace Windows for home users that know nothing about computers?
I know a lot of Linux zealots preach that kind of garbage, but we both know that it’s stupid. What’s the point?
Quark Express?, He..
PageStream is far more advanced and proffesional then
quark ever will be..quark is thinking about a Linux version
BTW. more info on PageStream? http://www.grasshopperllc.com/
Avid runs under Linux so does Eddy, Mainactor and Cinerella
Did you also forgot about MAya3D, Softimage and Houdini?
Cubase?, He..
http://www.finalscratch.com/fs4/load.asp?db=FS_MAC&sub=start
Peace
What are you saying? That porting apps to GNU/Linux is useless because of one such an opinion? Do you really think do care alot about that? Or programming apps for GNU/Linux is now useless just because of that?
I think it’s a fairly well known fact that distribution agnostic (and even distribution-aware) binary release of software are not possible without resorting to static linking.
“In particular my friend complained about the a.out to ELF migration; Then the ELF libc5 to libc6 migration, and apparently the new version of libc6 breaks their application again.”
His friend used a kernel which did not had a.out/libc5 compatibility layer. The *BSD’s have support in their kernel for ”older” TCP/IP implementations and API’s. They do not have programs with this either.
The point is that in the history of Linux the entire systemwide ABI has been scrapped and reimplemented in two different ways twice.
However, there are binary compatibility issues between various glibc releases that I cited on the other thread as well.
There’s nothing broken. There won’t be anything broken in the near future. Move along, nothing to see here.
Various Linux distributions are not binary compatible with each other. How are commercial developers expected to make binary releases of their software on a “platform” such as Linux where the binary interface varies from distribution to distribution? Static linking?
Uuuh…considering the license that the code is under, how can Red Hat “take fedora back?” This doesn’t make any sense.
I think it’s a fairly well known fact that distribution agnostic (and even distribution-aware) binary release of software are not possible without resorting to static linking.
It’s not like Windows apps avoid statically linking. In fact, in the past, the reason most Windows apps never suffered from dependencies was that applications avoided .DLLs that might not be present on the host system.
Now applications just copy .DLLs onto the system folder, effectively installing libraries without the user’s consent. Not very user friendly, from an advanced user’s perspective.
Bas (IP: —.mxs.adsl.euronet.nl)
http://www.finalscratch.com/fs4/load.asp?db=FS_MAC&sub=start
Final Scratch is a tool which allows DJs to place two specially cut records on their turntables and patch their tables into their sound card. The distortions in the waveform on the record are then analyzed by the computer and used to mix MP3s together.
This is nowhere close to the same problem domain as other applications mentioned. Reason is a software synthesizer advocating hardware replacement, whereas Final Scratch uses a chiefly hardware-driven interface. The use of Linux in conjunction with Final Scratch is no more suprising than the use of Linux in TiVo devices.
Quark Express?, He..
PageStream is far more advanced and proffesional then
quark ever will be..quark is thinking about a Linux version
BTW. more info on PageStream? http://www.grasshopperllc.com/
Quark is thinking about a Linux version? Have any evidence of that?
In regards to PageStream, the only newspaper I ever worked on used Quark exclusively. If I walk into a newspaper and see them using something besides Quark, perhaps my opinion of the situation will change.
ThanatosNL (IP: —.austin.rr.com)
You seem to know quite a bit about Linux and Windows. Why then do you feel the need to accept this idea that Linux exists to replace Windows for home users that know nothing about computers?
I know a lot of Linux zealots preach that kind of garbage, but we both know that it’s stupid. What’s the point?
The mentality that Linux can function as an effective replacement for Windows systems was strong enough to seep into my workplace, which started out with Solaris workstations for atmospheric modelling and Linux desktop systems for productivity applications. Over time we’ve moved back to Windows for productivity applications, and have been transitioning from Solaris workstations to Linux-based clusters. The Linux desktops (sporting an antequated Mandrake installation from the previous SA) were a veritable nightmare to maintain, and interoperability issues with OpenOffice.org versus Microsoft Office were constant headaches for the users here.
Whatever scorn I have towards those advocating Linux as a desktop solution is derived from the headaches they have inflicted upon me. In comparison, our Windows XP systems have been relatively aproblematic, easy to patch/maintain (thanks to SUS), and can be administered remotely using Terminal Services (even from my FreeBSD desktop using rdesktop)
“I think it’s a fairly well known fact that distribution agnostic (and even distribution-aware) binary release of software are not possible without resorting to static linking. ”
You overestimate the problem. Agreed, it _is_ a problem, but not a _big_ one like you intent to make it show with your hard words in your post.
WTF does this matter for a proprietary program? If they are gonna release for GNU/Linux and not ”RedHat version X.Y only” (with libc version A.B.C) they will release as static binary or provide source. The latter is unlikely for a proprietary app, so […]. So indeed, static linking. Power to everyone, not a bunch of popular Linux distro’s. And else they can do several versions, big deal. Native + source and/or dynamic would be much more cool, but that’s hard for proprietary distributors.
I think at the end it is a matter of investigation and thinking, something totally different then your ”almost-no”. The future is still wide open.
And the reasons are (in this order):
1. Crappy software installation
2. X
3. Too many damn application choices pre-installed
4. Easy to setup, hard to change anything
5. Elitist community
Notice I didn’t say that Linux CAN’T work on the desktop, or that it doesn’t work in a server environment. Just at this stage of the game, Linux has to make some very important fundamental changes if it wants to be considered for the desktop.
“The Linux desktops (sporting an antequated Mandrake installation from the previous SA) were a veritable nightmare to maintain”
Then you did not centralize the desktops enought. There’s no need at all to maintain multiple desktops in a solid network. Eventually a thing like a thin client could be done.
Besides, Mandrake != Linux.
“and interoperability issues with OpenOffice.org versus Microsoft Office were constant headaches for the users here.”
Any evidence on this? Afaik there are no such problems with OOo vs. MS O.
“In comparison, our Windows XP systems have been relatively aproblematic, easy to patch/maintain (thanks to SUS)”
Whatever SUS is, patching is easy on Debian boxes with apt-get. This can also be centralized. It can even be done remotely. I just need to do 2 commands and sometimes read a bit (reading EULA’s on Windows would take me more time. And yes, that IS important).
“and can be administered remotely using Terminal Services (even from my FreeBSD desktop using rdesktop)”
Rdesktop? We have such on *NIX too. VNC, for example. KDE has it implemented inside the desktop.
This is nowhere close to the same problem domain as other applications mentioned. Reason is a software synthesizer advocating hardware replacement, whereas Final Scratch uses a chiefly hardware-driven interface. The use of Linux in conjunction with Final Scratch is no more suprising than the use of Linux in TiVo devices.
This is another thing that Linux people do – if they can’t find you a functional equivalent (or even an equivalent for that matter), they’ll point you in the direction of an app that has nothing to do with what you’re looking for, I presume just to show you that something cool can actually run in Linux, thereby proving that their schlong is still bigger than yours.
Do you even realize that you can run libc5 and glibc and a.out and ELF all at once? You don’t have to scrap anything.
How do you expect developers to release applications for Win 9X, ME and 2K and XP when the binary interface varies from distribution to distribution? (Hint: You release multiple versions of your software.) What happens if you don’t? Then GTA 2 crashes and burns on XP of course.
Do you even realize that you can run libc5 and glibc and a.out and ELF all at once? You don’t have to scrap anything.
Try that with glibc 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. The binary interface has changed between these as well.
“This is another thing that Linux people do”
The problem with humans is, they’re generalizing and stereotyping. What’s are Linux people anyway? I know i pointed out to several working solutions. If you chose not to use them, that’s your choice, but i know they are working (WINE and Xen – no, not FreeBirth).
Same counts for Hexydes, who seems to have tested all GNU/Linux distributions in high excess. Hint: they’re not all the same! Why do you think there are existing multiple? I only see point 2 beeing possibly valid, but there are no arguments for it.
“Try that with glibc 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. The binary interface has changed between these as well.”
a) When the source is open anyone can port it to a newer version. Nothing to worry about.
b) When the program is closed, either static linking works (and makes the program faster, too) or the programmers can port it to the new glibc. Therefore 2 solutions exist for what you seem to see as a huge problem.
Time taken: it takes some time, agreed. Big deal. The *BSD’s have this problem, too with their libc. Windows has this problem, too with their compatibility layer.
Sure if you’re inclined to, you can run libc5 glibc (or any other library for that matter) 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,……3.0,….5.0,…..infinity if you want. Disk space is cheap. Just like you have boatload of VBRUN dll versions on Windows.
Sure if you’re inclined to, you can run libc5 glibc (or any other library for that matter) 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,……3.0,….5.0,…..infinity if you want. Disk space is cheap. Just like you have boatload of VBRUN dll versions on Windows.
The issue is that software compiled for glibc 2.1 and 2.3 will both reference libc.so.6. Selection between which version of glibc is used must be done on an application-specific basis, and can only be automated with the aid of wrapper scripts.
Is this progress?
This is another thing that Linux people do – if they can’t find you a functional equivalent (or even an equivalent for that matter), they’ll point you in the direction of an app that has nothing to do with what you’re looking for, I presume just to show you that something cool can actually run in Linux, thereby proving that their schlong is still bigger than yours.
This is something that *some* Linux peple do. Some Windows people claim that Linux sucks for stupid reasons as well. Steve Ballmer makes incredibly silly and untrue comments about Linux all the time. I guess what all of us should be doing is just ignoring the stupid posts from both sides.
Avid runs under Linux
Uhh, no? Avid makes no Linux products as far as I’m aware. They certainly haven’t released Avid Xpress DV for Linux.
Glad I sold my stock during the bubble.
Drop linux – NOT.
My 13 year old son and his friends think Linux is cool.
But, they were looking at my SUSE laptop.
Applications that outright crash on Windows because of incompatible library/API versions is progress? Let me see you even attempt to install Direct X 3 and Direct X 9 at the same time. If you get my copy of GTA 2 to run on XP, I will send you $1. (Serious! I have 4 quarters in my pocket right now with your name on it.)
At least we HAVE the ability to run the odd application that we need/want. The majority of applications ship with the distribution so there are no version problems there. The Windows alternative of crashing is not an alternative at all.
> Not really. I think most people really don’t mind getting software over the internet in most cases. Besides, with OSS, you can talk to someone. Only that someone is the author(s) of the software, and not some salesman or tech support nut.
Again, we are talking about AVERAGE people. WHen they want to talk with support, they want to do it face to face. It is a sad fact but true. This is why tons of online stores died off. People rather buy things in a store.
>> They must make an effort to get the correct hardware. Windows users can look only at the merits of the hardware.
> So?
Simply put, you can get the best hardware for Windows, not always so on Linux.
>> Again, most people will want to deal with a person.
> Why?
Human nature. More willing to spend money when talking to a person versus a website. People trust a face more then a machine.
>> And this is why it may never reach the average users desktop.
> So?
This is the point of this whole thing.
> No, I don’t think it exists to replace Windows. So quarreling over whether or not it is ready is akin to arguing over how good or bad a microwave is at refrigeration.
Lindows exists to replace Windows.
> Which distributions? Only Lindows claims to be a full-blown Windows killer (and only on low to mid range hardware).
Any distro.
> Oh. My response would be that such a model could work, but not in our market. Most companies that develop software get their money from sales, and most of their customers don’t need support.
Exactly.
> While that may be a technically correct sentence, you haven’t gotten me to see anything I didn’t before. Again, since it’s not a goal for most Linux developers, I fail to see exactly who can be faulted for this, or why it is even important.
This whole discussion is about Linux being ready for the desktop. You keep saying that this is not what most Linux developers are trying to do. I say, thats why it will never succeed.
> It isn’t the Linux zealots that come out and say “Linux IS ready” most of the time. It is usually Windows zealots that want to bash Linux, and foolish Linux zealots feel the need to defend Linux, and claim that it “is.” I, however, don’t, and I feel the entire question “Is Linux ready” is pointless, and draws equally pointless answers.
Good… then this whole thread really isn’t for you.
> I haven’t forgot that. I have more control over my system than most Windows users have over their system, for the simple fact that every piece of software is broken down into packages, and I can configure those packages. I know what they do. In Windows, the opposite is the case. It is really hard to break it down and understand all of the the components, and changing them is even harder. This has nothing to do with the licenses of applications one puts on top of the operating system.
Open source code can be changed for Windows as easy as Linux. Obviously how a package is made has no impact on how the software runs. If you are talking about where on the filesystem it goes… it really makes no difference and I don’t see how anyone can argue that it does.
> My response is that we all need to ditch the whole “is Linux ready” question and change the way we think about Linux. Linux shouldn’t be thought of as an operating system that is working it’s way towards being easier to use than Windows. It should be thought of as a collection of free software that is all at your disposal, providing you don’t mind taking the time to learn what it all does and how to do it.
Again, then this whole thread and topic really isn’t for you.
> Of course, if you’re happy with Windows, by all means, stick with it. Just don’t try telling me Linux isn’t “ready for prime time,” because I reject the notion that it is even moving towards that goal.
Ok… let me say this then. I am making no reference to where Linux is going. I say right now, as it is exists, Linux (as in no Linux distro) is read for the average persons desktop.
>This is another thing that Linux people do – if they can’t >find you a functional equivalent (or even an equivalent for >that matter), they’ll point you in the direction of an app >that has nothing to do with what you’re looking for
This is another thing that Windows people do trying to find an app that they cannot even use that cannot (or they presume it cannot) run on Linux and then say, see? Linux sux.
Home users do not use Quark and Avid so Bascules comparison suxed anyway!
I really don’t ever run into binary compatibility hell. I don’t get binaries that are built against different glibc versions. It’s just not an issue for me. Administering many Linux systems takes quite a bit of knowledge, but once you’re there, it’s really not a problem.
Of course, getting people who aren’t experienced with Linux to deal with it is tough.
“I say right now, as it is exists, Linux (as in no Linux distro) is read for the average persons desktop.”
And i ask you: Which GNU/Linux distributions have you tried in an extended effort in order to draw this conclusion?
My experience on this is totally different, taken the user _wants_ to learn. Knoppix, Gnoppix, Gentoo Live CD’s, Demolinux, DyneBolic and even FreeSBE, BeOS and QNX deliver Live CD’s. How hard is it for Joe Average to burn such a thing, boot it up, and start the learning curve?
Also, the installation process itself is out of line since such people haven’t installed Windows either (i’ve helped Joe Average’s with installing Windows manyyy times in the past).
The people who don’t want to learn (the lazy ones) can stick to whatever. Frankly i don’t care for these i only feel sorry for people staying uninformed and in tradition. I’ve dealt with them in the past, it just sucks.
> Again, we are talking about AVERAGE people. WHen they want to talk with support, they want to do it face to face. It is a sad fact but true. This is why tons of online stores died off. People rather buy things in a store.
Do you get face to face support with any of the software on your computer? It has to be telephone based. I find IRC and mls to be as effective, but I dunno how most people feel. I await some sort of study…
> Simply put, you can get the best hardware for Windows, not always so on Linux.
Yup. Then again, Windows has a lot of bloat that hampers performance. Desktop distributions tend to have just as much if not more, but the fact that in Linux, the OS is broken up into smaller packages, means I can get more for my hardware. Of course, I have to know how first, which both helps out your argument that Linux isn’t for the non-illiterate, and helps out my argument that Linux is better than Windows for the techies.
> Human nature. More willing to spend money when talking to a person versus a website. People trust a face more then a machine.
Again, what software do you have that you get face-to-face support with?
> This is the point of this whole thing.
But there is no point………..
> Lindows exists to replace Windows.
Yes, and if you want to make a comment about whether or not *it* can replace Windows for most people, you need to try the newest version and tell me what you thought.
> Any distro.
Any distro that does not claim to be a Windows killer is exempt from criticisms claming that it is not one. You can’t knock my refrigerator for not heating food up, since it wasn’t designed to heat anything.
> This whole discussion is about Linux being ready for the desktop. You keep saying that this is not what most Linux developers are trying to do. I say, thats why it will never succeed.
Again, success is defined by acheiving one’s goals. Do we fault NASA for not exploring the Marianas trench? This discussion is completely inane, and I wouldn’t bother with it except for the fact that it is perpetuating ignorance and false conclusions on both sides of the argument.
> Good… then this whole thread really isn’t for you.
Ok, fellas. The Windows side wins. Windows works much better as the OS for the masses than any existing Linux distribution would. Will any distribution ever be as easy for the computer illiterate? Why don’t we wait and see instead of arguing over mundane and hackneyed points?
Arguing is good when it helps out both parties. There is nothing constructive about this argument at all.
> Open source code can be changed for Windows as easy as Linux. Obviously how a package is made has no impact on how the software runs. If you are talking about where on the filesystem it goes… it really makes no difference and I don’t see how anyone can argue that it does.
You missed my point. But it doesn’t matter anyways.
> Again, then this whole thread and topic really isn’t for you.
But I feel like contributing. I really want people to say “Is Linux ready for the masses? Who cares! Can I use it?”
If you can, and you enjoy it, then great. If you don’t like it, or you can’t, that’s fine.
> Ok… let me say this then. I am making no reference to where Linux is going. I say right now, as it is exists, Linux (as in no Linux distro) is read for the average persons desktop.
I agree, but then again I haven’t tried Lindows. As stupid as the name and their marketing tactics are, apparently some people who are completely computer illiterate find it easy enough to use. In fact, many find Click-N-Run easier than installing software out of boxes. I don’t know. I’ve never tried Lindows. Have you?
Comparing Linux to Windows isn’t fair. First, there is no The Linux OS. There is a great difference between Suse distro and Linux from Scratch distro. If I were to say that Windows doesn’t have multiuser evironment, a lot of people will say WinNT, 2000, and XP does. Which they are correct but Win98 didn’t. Why does everyone lump Linux into one pile? Distros like Lindows and projects like Gnome and KDE are shooting for the desktop. Not Linux. Linux is the backend part. Not all Linux distros should be all a like. The Linux environment can have server distros as well as desktop distros at the same time.
Micorsoft is finding out that a desktop environment does not make a great server environment and vice versa. That is why Microsoft created WinNT. After a bit, Microsoft switch everyone over to the WinNT code base. Users of Win98 had to learn about user space. Microsoft didn’t help the confusion any by making their OS only partial multiuser capable. Hopefully, Longhorn will fix this.
Users moving over to Linux will suffer a learning curve. Just like people switching from automatic transmission cars to a manual transmission.
Is there a Linux distro that is ready for the desktop? That depends on what you are willing to learn. There is a school in Maine {www.ghca.com} that run Mandrake Linux in their computer science lab. Kindergarten up to seniors use those computers for school and homework as well as research. But I do know my mom wouldn’t be able to use Linux or Windows.
Sadly, he’s right, at least when it comes to the average desktop user.
When I need to intensive graphics work, I have to boot to Windows. Why? Photoshop Elements and my Wacom. No GIMP is definitely not a substitute. It’s incredibly frustrating to use and doesn’t even begin to scratch the functionality surface of Photoshop Elements. Plus after reading all the documents that I could find I’ve never managed to get my Wacom working in pressure sensitive mode with GIMP.
Now, however the story changes as soon as I’m in a code mode. Using Linux I can get a lot of things done, cheaper and more efficiently. Software development is great for me under Linux.
I can’t even afford Windows software development.
Or how about those ATi drivers? Don’t even get me started. ATi’s Linux drivers are absolutely pathetic in comparison to NVidia’s (speaking from first hand experience). You’d figure plunking down $400 for one of ATi’s video cards would at least get you decent driver support. But apparently not. In addition to that, they even went so far as to refuse to allow xig to continue to develop commercial drivers for their newer cards (I own the 9800 Pro).
Everyone here who has any experience I think will agree with this:
Windows, while certainly getting better, is difficult to use for new users.
Under “easiest to use” or “best behaved”, I think the Mac wins that contest.
Windows is made much more useable by getting bundled systems from the large manufacturers. I can buy a lovely Dell, take it out of the box and plug it in to my DSL router and within a couple of mouse clicks be happily doing all sorts of modern things.
They have Windows to the point of useability where it is common to have a “reload system from scratch” option on the machine, to make reimaging the drive “easy” for the user should the worse happen.
Yet, with all of that effort, all those man centuries of work, Windows still enrages a vast majority of users. And to be fair it’s not necessarily “Windows” per se, but it’s “the computing experience centered up Windows”. If someone installs a bad 3rd party package that smashes Windows, we blame Windows (for letting it happen) rather than the 3rd party (for doing it in the first place).
Apple manages its user experience (ideally) better than Windows. It’s lack of market support and dominance is a blessing and a curse. It’s total control over its hardware is a complete blessing for it. Apple advocates things like Firewire, and USB, etc because these are generic, yet powerful interfaces where Apple can control the drivers and not worry about a 3rd party mucking up the “experience” (certainly this is not total, and Apples record is not perfect, but you get the idea).
Where Linux fails is that it has the market support of the Macintosh, but the hardware support burden of Windows. You have all of the headaches of a vast anarchy of hardware and software, yet no real corporate support for it.
For a large portion of home users, a pre-installed Linux box running on supported AND CONFIGURED hardware and a few select applications, their “experience” can be just as performant, and rewarding as with most any other OS today.
But if folks are told that it “runs on anything”, then they’re stunned and amazed at the Hell they have to go through to get it to work on their Compaq with all of its integrated and screwed up hardware. “Windows works fine on it!” they cry, not realizing that they’re running “Compaq Windows” with all of the special tweaks, hooks, patches, and drivers to make it work on this (and only this) machine. Whereas their Linux was downloaded from the net and burned on a CD by their buddy. “Do it Dude! It’ll work!”
Think of the vast majority of complaints surrounding Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc because of problems with installing along side Windows. As if playing nicely with others is a tenet of Microsoft corporate. It’s amazing how well these systems work when you simply dedicate a drive to them and boot off of it. Easy.
The Lindows crowd really do have the right idea, and they need to push ahead to try and gain some kind of dominance now that Red Hat has dropped the ball. Like it or not, Linux needs to be sold on its own hardware to have any chance of working at home. If it wants the home desktop space, it needs to compete on a system level right along with the Macintosh. It needs to completely side step any notion of Windows compatability beyond reading DOC files from Office.
Basically, Linux needs to be the “OS X” option for Intel hardware. Folks are willing to dump Intel to get OS X. Imagine they had something as well polished that they could use if they only had to dump Windows?
There needs to be an effort for a “Linux Certified” program that vendors can sign on with, that lets them meet some fixed target, and that a distro can also comply with. A “Linux Certified” piece of hardware/software will run easily on a “Linux Certified” distribution.
Red Hat was in the position where it could of pushed for this, but obviously they ran out of the money or the will to do it.
Certainly, Linus can give a rip. He can care less. So, it’s has to be someone willing to reign in the chaos and put its foot down.
Of course, from that point of view, BSD is even a easier platform for this to base upon.
Point 1: Windows isn’t the easiest. It’s the standard. It’s what people are acustomed to and familiar with.
Point 2: Example. Joe User wants to learn spanish using his computer, goes to Walmart, picks software package for 10$, doesn’t look at label, installs it by inserting the CD (usually no other action required other than clicking OK a few times), and he’s off learning spanish. I would argue that until you can do that with Desktop Linux incarnations, it won’t catch on; end-users will only get frustrated because of the “can’t do’s”. I’m technically savvy, and I got frustrated with the can’t do’s.
Face it, you and I can use Linux, easily and happily even (I know this because you’re looking at this site), but we are such a minority. Most people don’t even know what an OS is, though they use them for hours each day. Sadly, I agree wholeheartedly with our illustrious CEO.
What would some of the Linux avdocates be posting if Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer had been quoted in article as saying “Large enterprises would be better off staying with a *nix, Windows Server 2003 just doesn’t cut it yet”?
Something else this came from a business man who depends on Linux for his living, not some who treats an OS like religion. So I think this carries alot more credibility than most of the posts here.
“Linux is truelly not ready for the home pc yet.”
This is my breaking point. What is wrong with so many of the posters here! You’d think that given the subject matter of this site, that the discussions here would be an interesting debate about the strengths and weaknesses in various operating systems. It seems like more and more though, that this is becoming the rarity. Instead it’s just a bunch of Linux zealots screaming about how Windows sucks, Windows zealots screaming about how Linux sucks, and a smattering of tired complaints about the mice included with Macs. The majority of the discussion here just boils down to people screaming about the fact that other people are committing the sin of not using whatever their pet operating system of the moment is. There’s little interest in different operating systems here, there’s only people interested in killing any diversity. And seeing little slams like “linux people” or “windows people” is simply juvenile behavior that belongs on a playground, where personalities are judged by their socks or brand of jeans, not in a serious discussion.
Not to mention the useless spouting of opinion as fact that goes on here, such as in the post I’m replying to. Speculation is fine if it’s based on research or personal experience and you list your reasoning. But just taking whatever pet peeve you have about an OS, and saying that this is the reason that it’s bad for everyone on the planet is an example of such overwhelming hubris that I’m simply astounded by it. There’s things I like and dislike about every operating system out there, but I’m not about to list any of them as reasons that the system ‘is’ or ‘is not’ ready for the desktop of some theoretical nameless, thoughtless mass of ignorent people. Firstly because people just can’t be classed like this. Sure there’s cultural trends, and a stress on conformity in any society. But people are still people – individual with personal prefrences of what they like and don’t like, what they can and can not handle. Secondly, because it’s like saying the world isn’t ready for science past the 101 level because you thought the class was hard.
It’s that we the consumer don’t have enough choice in the matter. As some have stated, they are forced to use Windows and not because of Microsoft, but because of all the corporations over the years that either enabled them or just plain rolled over for them. IBM thinking they could keep it Microsoft as their lackeys, Apple refusing to port its OS, OEMs groveling before MS, software companies jumping on the MS bandwagon, none of them thinking of the future, none of them thinking about what kind of monopoly they were helping build. And now many of them have less choices than we do, but it’s largely their fault. It should have never been allowed to happen. If I’m using Linux, BSD or Solaris, I shouldn’t have to beg the hardware companies for drivers or just hope for the best. I shouldn’t have to wait until the software companies “come around”. We could have had healthy competition and the ability to pick and choose from the beginning but unfortunately, the only one in the computer industry who seemed to have any vision was Gates. And now over 90% are stuck with Windows, whether they like it or not.
Linux OS has been developed and used for commercial purpose by many self-centered programmers and companies like redhat.
So that Linux has always been a programmer-friendly or system-administrator-friendly OS, but it’s never been a real USER-friendly OS.
It’s time to gather the force from communities to develop a desktop environment based on linux kernel which focuses on home users and entertainment-use users.
No you actually do. If you had been buying Linux distros in bulk, the Redhat guy whould have been bragging about it. The market answered. Sorry to all those dissapointed. I am a little, but at the end of the day, the guy has a point. Look at how well Mandrake is faring!!! Their emphasis is on the desktop. Look at Redhat, they are profitable and are under no illusions as to where their money comes from. The are many remaining problems to get Linux ready for the home desktop. Not everyone wants to subscribe to a mailing list to discuss their problems. Do you know whatI usually do when software under Windows does not work well, I usually just replace it with something that works.
Its not about wanting to be stuck with Windows. there needs to be some major changes to the Linux model. Especially to how Binaries are distributed. Of all things to copy from Microsoft or Apple, installation of apps is the most pertinent. Desperately do need either the drag and drop into the programs folder of Apple, or something like Installshield for Linux, which works with all the distros mind you. The software company trying to make shareware cannot simly make rpms for every flavour of Linux out there. Neither does Novell or IBM or even SUSE want to do that.
Uuuh…considering the license that the code is under, how can Red Hat “take fedora back?” This doesn’t make any sense.
i have read that red hat is funding fedora. i believe
to the tune of a couple million.
funding it and because it was at one time red hats software will give them leverage. leverage they can
use in the future.
here is an example of leverage or an attempt at it.
remember when some of the people of red hate were going
around the internet stating
“if we wanted to kill KDE we would just kill KDE ”
this was an attempt by them to cower KDE into doing
exactly what they wanted. what would have been the
benefit of this ?
if they had gotten the programmers of KDE to follow their
lead they would have in effect gotten control of KDE.
if they had control of KDE, Gnome would have been their
next step. if they had managed to control Gnome along
with KDE then they would have effectively taken control
of the linux desktop.
they would have been able to move it in their direction.
who would have been able to stop them then.
and also if they had managed this then not only would
they have gotten control of the desktop but they would
been in a position of not having to have paid for it.
quite interesting.
i have always believed that this was them attempting
to gain control.
what other motive could they have had ?
now we fast forward to now and they are telling people
to use winodes until at some time in the future the
desktop is ready.
why would they do this ? are they attempting to motivevate
the fedora people ?
at some point in the future will they take what fedora
has produced and recombine it into their plan and then
tell the fedora people to use windoes or just fedora
with nothing.
its all about money. there is nothing wrong with making
money but the love of money is very dangerous.
i have no problem with red hat leaving the desktop behind
and going on with whatever business they want to pursue
but i do find it interesting that as they leave the
desktop at least for now that they would speak as if the
linux desktop is not any good.
people need to stop and think for a moment instead of
just blindly following . the people of linux seem for
the most part want more freedom. some linux companies
dont offer them more freedom but instead offer them
a version of microsoft. heck even their own people are
telling others to go back to windoes.
Something else this came from a business man who depends on Linux for his living, not some who treats an OS like religion. So I think this carries alot more credibility than most of the posts here.
Yes, but what did he really say? Let’s take away some of the spin you anti-Linux zealots have put on it, shall we?
“I would say that for the consumer market place, Windows probably continues to be the right product line […] I would argue that from the device-driver standpoint and perhaps some of the other traditional functionality, for that classic consumer purchaser, it is my view that (Linux) technology needs to mature a little bit more.”
Did he say that Linux isn’t ready for the desktop? No, he didn’t. In fact, the next thing he said is that it’s more than ready for the corporate desktop. What he said is that for the “classic consumer purchaser” it needs to mature a little bit more. By “classic consumer purchaser”, he means people who know little about computers.
Note that his main point of contention is that there seems to be some problems with device drivers. So, in fact, it the classic consumer were to purchase a pre-installed Linux system (anyway, that kind of consumer doesn’t install any OS on their computers – Windows comes pre-installed), then the major point of contention would disappear.
So Linux is in fact ready for many desktops, but not all desktops. That’s okay, unlike MS (and their zealots) I’m all in favor of variety.
What this tells me is that MS advocates must feel really threatened to pounce on such news with such haste. C’mon, we don’t want the whole market share – just a fair share! Are you that insecure that anything less than 90% market share makes you feel threatened? 🙂
Use my digital video camera. Panasonic VDR-M30 DVD cam. Pfft.
Nov 4 17:06:17 localhost kernel: hub.c: new USB device 00:11.3-1, assigned addr ess 4
Nov 4 17:06:17 localhost kernel: usb.c: USB device 4 (vend/prod 0x4a4/0x1d) isnot claimed by any active driver.
I think you’re being a little conspiracy-theory-ish about all this. The community is more diverse than Red Hat, and a lot of people other than Red Hat have a vested interest in projects like Gnome and KDE. As for how Fedora does in the long run — it will depend not only on funding from Red Hat, but also on the dedication of its programmers/maintainers. And it will have the option to incorporate other free software advances into itself, just as much as Red Hat will have the option of absorbing anything from Fedora.
In any case, I don’t see this as dire in any sense. There are many distributions available; the prospect of the rise or fall of one of them isn’t particularly frightening.
Red Hat’s chief executive sure stirred up a Hornet’s nest with his coments, and more than peeved a few people…
i been using Linux on the desktop since Redhat-7.1 first hit the shelf in my local computer store back in 2000 now currently using #9, i will try Fedora when it releases #1 if i don’t like it i will put #9 back on untill i find a suitable distro for my needs, why is he burning bridges with so many Linux people??? people of great influence should choose their words very carefully because you don’t want to get on the wrong side of an entire world wide community…
(no, i did not bother to spellcheck my post and don’t care either)
Get a Mac and enjoy the best of both worlds; unix
with a responsive and functional desktop.
Sean
> And i ask you: Which GNU/Linux distributions have you tried in an extended effort in order to draw this conclusion?
I have a Gentoo dual-boot and have used Mandrake and Slackware in the past. The reason I state this is that no distro will run on my laptop since the ACPI problem is in the kernel. Also, I have a wireless card that does not work in Linux yet. That covers the hardware issue.
Software… You can not buy Linux software in a store. End of store.
> My experience on this is totally different, taken the user _wants_ to learn. Knoppix, Gnoppix, Gentoo Live CD’s, Demolinux, DyneBolic and even FreeSBE, BeOS and QNX deliver Live CD’s. How hard is it for Joe Average to burn such a thing, boot it up, and start the learning curve?
For the record, my problems are really only with hardware support. I have been using mostly Solaris the last 4 years so the learning curve is not an issue for me.
> Also, the installation process itself is out of line since such people haven’t installed Windows either (i’ve helped Joe Average’s with installing Windows manyyy times in the past).
I never said anything bad about the install process.
> The people who don’t want to learn (the lazy ones) can stick to whatever. Frankly i don’t care for these i only feel sorry for people staying uninformed and in tradition. I’ve dealt with them in the past, it just sucks.
As I said before, I don’t want to pick to pick my hardware based on my OS. That is my major concern. Everything else I said is what average people think.
WINDOWS
makes the easy things easy
the hard things hard
the immposible imposible
*NIX
makes the easy things harder
the hard things easier
and the imposible posible
well it all depends of the viewpoint
That’s something that always impressed me about Red Hat. They are really down to earth and that makes me confident, that they are able to actually do something about the missing pieces, not just telling us that there wouldn’t be any missing pieces…
I’m very optimistic though, that Linux will be ready even for home users soon. One part that is missing is more polish and integration of the operating system. Currently, distributions feel too much “patched” together and not like one solid product. This is very rapidly changing though.
The other part is, that there still isn’t enough hardware and software support for home users. This is unavoidable but it will change as Linux becomes useful for more and more user groups. The corporate market will play a big role in this, but also developers and other computer freaks, for which Linux becomes more and more appealing with every passing month.
When I compare what I can do with Linux today to what I could do with Linux five years ago (and how much “fun” it was), the progress is breathtaking. Give it another five years and we should be there. Meanwhile, enjoy the undoubtly best free software operating system for geeks like us.
It’s funny how internet headlines always seem to twist what is really being said and then everyone spouts off a whole bunch of nonsense without even R(ing)TFA. Read it again:
//”I would say that for the consumer market place, Windows probably continues to be the right product line,” he said.//
Obviously Windows is the right product line in the CONSUMER MARKET PLACE, they sell (I mean license) an insane amount of software compared to Linux. At this point in time Windows does better in the consumer market place, this is nothing new.
//”I would argue that from the device-driver standpoint and perhaps some of the other traditional functionality, for that classic consumer purchaser, it is my view that (Linux) technology needs to mature a little bit more.”//
Of course from a device driver point of view Windows is better for the CLASSIC CONSUMER PURCHASER. There are more drivers for Windows. Again this is nothing new. As for TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY, Windows wins yet again because the tradition is based on Windows.
//”Consumers want USB drivers and digital camera support; but for the enterprise desktop, that is a little bit different–that area is ripe,” he said. “We think that the enterprise desktop market place is much more strategic and has buyers whose needs we can exceed.”//
It seems to me that he’s saying that Linux is a stable and useful OS whose capabilities can EXCEED what is needed in an enterprise environment. It is true that there is no AOL or MusicMatch or Linux device drivers for every peripheral device but that will come in time and that’s all he is saying. How is this news? It isn’t until the headline is hyped and the article left unread, as usual.
> Do you get face to face support with any of the software on your computer? It has to be telephone based. I find IRC and mls to be as effective, but I dunno how most people feel. I await some sort of study…
It not about actual support. It is about the perception of the buyer.
> Yup. Then again, Windows has a lot of bloat that hampers performance. Desktop distributions tend to have just as much if not more, but the fact that in Linux, the OS is broken up into smaller packages, means I can get more for my hardware. Of course, I have to know how first, which both helps out your argument that Linux isn’t for the non-illiterate, and helps out my argument that Linux is better than Windows for the techies.
No matter how the hardware is broken up, if something doesn’t work it doesn’t work. It is not about doing stuff more efficiently with the hardware that works. The fact is lots of hardware just does not work.
> Again, what software do you have that you get face-to-face support with?
Again, not about support. It is about getting it from a store (salesperson) versus the Internet or mail.
> Yes, and if you want to make a comment about whether or not *it* can replace Windows for most people, you need to try the newest version and tell me what you thought.
I can tell you the newest version of Lindows will still not work for me since the problems I state face all Linux no matter how packaged or distrobuted. The reason I just refer to it as Linux is that if ANYBODY who runs the Linux kernel meet my concerns, then it will filter down to the easy-to-run distros.
> Any distro that does not claim to be a Windows killer is exempt from criticisms claming that it is not one. You can’t knock my refrigerator for not heating food up, since it wasn’t designed to heat anything.
True, but what I am doing is actually making it easier for the Linux people. I am saying take the best traits of any distro, and it still wont meet my concerns. So to use your analogy, I am not saying your fridge won’t heat up food, I am saying no appliance you have will heat up food.
> Again, success is defined by acheiving one’s goals. Do we fault NASA for not exploring the Marianas trench? This discussion is completely inane, and I wouldn’t bother with it except for the fact that it is perpetuating ignorance and false conclusions on both sides of the argument.
Success was a bod choice of words then…
> Ok, fellas. The Windows side wins. Windows works much better as the OS for the masses than any existing Linux distribution would. Will any distribution ever be as easy for the computer illiterate? Why don’t we wait and see instead of arguing over mundane and hackneyed points?
My point exactly.
> You missed my point. But it doesn’t matter anyways.
I guess I did.
> But I feel like contributing. I really want people to say “Is Linux ready for the masses? Who cares! Can I use it?”
> If you can, and you enjoy it, then great. If you don’t like it, or you can’t, that’s fine.
You see… you are not the problem. You are actually one of the good ones. It is the Linux people who jump all over Microsoft for just being Microsoft and praise Linux for the sake of being different.
> I agree, but then again I haven’t tried Lindows. As stupid as the name and their marketing tactics are, apparently some people who are completely computer illiterate find it easy enough to use. In fact, many find Click-N-Run easier than installing software out of boxes. I don’t know. I’ve never tried Lindows. Have you?
The problems I have stated are faced by all Linux. That is why I never get into things like desktop discussions.
> It not about actual support. It is about the perception of the buyer.
I’ll buy that, though I still don’t believe that most PC users like to buy boxed software because of the salesmen. There is a case to be made for feeling better about boxed software, however.
> No matter how the hardware is broken up, if something doesn’t work it doesn’t work. It is not about doing stuff more efficiently with the hardware that works. The fact is lots of hardware just does not work.
My point was that though I may not have as good of hardware as you do, if I run collectively less software, then the performance gain you get by being privy to the latest and greatest hardware are offset by my better performance on the software side.
> Again, not about support. It is about getting it from a store (salesperson) versus the Internet or mail.
Ok, I see I misunderstood. Still, I would argue that buying packaged software itself is more of an advantage of store-bought applications than the overpaid salesman to most people.
> I can tell you the newest version of Lindows will still not work for me since the problems I state face all Linux no matter how packaged or distrobuted. The reason I just refer to it as Linux is that if ANYBODY who runs the Linux kernel meet my concerns, then it will filter down to the easy-to-run distros.
Ahh, ok.
> True, but what I am doing is actually making it easier for the Linux people. I am saying take the best traits of any distro, and it still wont meet my concerns. So to use your analogy, I am not saying your fridge won’t heat up food, I am saying no appliance you have will heat up food.
But I equated heating up food with acheiving market dominance. You’ve changed it to hardware support
> Success was a bod choice of words then…
But implicit in this discussion is the idea that Linux has a goal of somehow defeating Windows at home. Use of the word success is unavoidable when the discussion is about whether or not Linux has or ever reach that goal we’ve so carelessly defined for it.
> My point exactly.
Cool.
> You see… you are not the problem. You are actually one of the good ones. It is the Linux people who jump all over Microsoft for just being Microsoft and praise Linux for the sake of being different.
Thanks, and I think you’re one of the good ones to. There are many Windows advocates who ceaselessly bash Linux for entirely false and baseless reasons. Steve Ballmer, for example. Of course, he knows better
My favorite recent quote of his is saying that most Open Source software comes from failed proprietary software, and Microsoft is in the game of successful software. Not only is the first statement untrue, the second one is as well. Although Windows has matured into a relatively stable operating system, this has not always been the case. Windows 95 was successful in getting itself on most people’s computers, but not successful by most other standards.
> The problems I have stated are faced by all Linux. That is why I never get into things like desktop discussions.
Cool. Many problems other Linux bashers face, however, like installation of software, for example, aren’t faced by most distributions. I see having to ship every application with it’s own bloated installer a reduntant “hack” personally. Of course, it really doesn’t matter too much as long as the bloat doesn’t stay after the installer is gone.
Everyone in the Windows vs. Linux (vs. Mac OS X) argument should be shot.
Lots of clammoring over what’s “better”, and too few informed opinions.
How many people use Windows, Linux, AND Mac in daily use? I do. And while I am in no way an all-knowing oracle, I have eyes and a brain, and a general lack of a bias flag to wave.
Windows has a lot going for it, and several very deep flaws. Software installation is consistantly simple – something one doesn’t even need think about. Hardware support is unmatched. The UI is very usable. However, security flaws are rampant (some of which aren’t bugs, but just poor design decisions), and many of the included applications (most notably Internet Explorer and Outlook Express) are just flat-out bad. Personally, I find using a non-IE browser makes the Windows experience exponentially better (and safer). Windows also has far more propensity to break without warning. Many years of Windows use and troubleshooting has left me with a lot of memories of problems that existed for no apparent reason.
Linux is an enigma. An installed and configured Linux system is easily as usable as a Windows desktop. I’m actually converting my girlfriend to Linux use with GNOME. However, this is only possible because I’m here to set it up. Linux does not tend to break once configured, which is why I can set it up and not worry about it. But, getting a Linux desktop installed and set up, with all desired applications, can be more work and too difficult for a non-knowledgable user. Hardware support is surprisingly good, but not on the level of Windows. Software installing varies greatly from distrib to distrib, and unlike Windows, it’s something one has to actually think about (“will this package work with my distro?”). Things like Gentoo’s emerge or Debian’s apt-get are dreams for advanced users, but are not intuitive for joe schmoe. Linux can be a great desktop for someone if it’s set up and taken care of for them, but it still is not autonomous enough for the average user to use themselves.
Macintosh OS X is very nice. I did not care for pre-OSX Macintosh releases, but OS X changes a lot. The UI is second-to-none, and installing and keeping software up-to-date is incredibly easy. Hardware support is, well, you have to own an Apple computer. Not really for the gameaholics, but a very intuitive interface that gets in the way of useful work the least. Software support is getting better, but is still the Mac’s weakest link (getting some open-source projects like OpenOffice to support Mac OS X natively will help a lot). Very stable. Support is growing but is not completely there yet.
My Windows machine can do pretty much anything I need a computer to do, even though stability and security is usually pretty shaky ground. My Linux and Mac machines are a lot more reliable. The Linux machine takes more work to get everything set up, and sometimes it’s time I don’t have. My Mac is the most straightforward of the bunch, but sometimes there’s some certain software I want that I can’t yet have.
My triple-headed assault always ensures I have the right tool for the job somewhere, though.
1. Crappy software installation
2. X
3. Too many damn application choices pre-installed
4. Easy to setup, hard to change anything
5. Elitist community
1. Use APT or URPMI or portage or even yum. They are all better than the Windows way.
2. What’s wrong with X? Works fine for me, even across ethernet. Xourvet should give X a nice facelift anyway.
3. Not with Gentoo, or even Mandrake for that matter. You choose what software you want before the installation. They’re just checkboxes, it’s not that hard, really.
4. Are you talking about Windows? It’s much easier to change things in Linux. You just plain can’t change some things on Windows at all. You can change anything in Linux. Besides that, most RPM distros have easy to use graphical utilities and Gentoo has some nice little scripts to make things easier.
5. Visit the Gentoo forums, it is very friendly there. You can quickly find information and get help for any problem. Some Linux users are elitist pricks but some Windows users and Mac users are also. You’re going to get those kind of people in every camp.
ThanatosNL (IP: —.austin.rr.com) – Posted on 2003-11-04 19:04:26
Those aren’t applications that average users will ever install. Those are professional level applications.
Ok then, what he gave I wouldn’t call what an average user would use, however show me where I can buy the following titles BUT for Linux. Not replacements, the actual version WITHOUT emulation/stimulation of any sort:
Corel Printshop or Graphics Suite
Quicken OR MYOB
Photoshop Elements
Macromedia Dreamweaver (the user friendly light version)
Filemaker
Autocad (you would be surprised who has bought this title)
That doesn’t even go into the number of games or there-lack-of. Jane wants Soltaire type game, Joe wants to be able to run Janes Flight Similator. The reality is that Linux DOESN’T give the end user what they want. It isn’t up to you to tell the user what they want, it is up to YOU to give the user what they want. If they are dead adiment that they want Macromedia Dreamweaver, then that is what they want. There is nothing that even comes close to the WYSIWIG capabilities of it.
The fact of the matter is that hardware support is also substandard. How many Linux users curse over the fact that the gizmo they’ve just bought doesn’t work with Linux, taken it back and had swapped it for the cheaper but not-as-good piece of hardware simply so that they can get it to work with Linux.
End users should not need to check whether their hardware is supported, they should be able to purchase a gizmo, attach it and install the software. The computer should work for the user and not the other way around.
The end user doesn’t want to diagnose a problem, read a 10 page How-To then after finally getting it working minus 100 important features, how to use some sort of application which is a nightmare just to navigate.
Just look at GIMP, it is pathetic, and that is complimenting it! put GIMP side by side with Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo-Paint; compare them and then you’ll see what I mean, even Paintshop Pro provides an easier to use interface!
What users want are mainstream applications on Linux with their hardware fully supported. Just look at ALSA list of sound cards and the number of features unsupported hence the reason why there are two versions of support in the Linux world, there is the “sure, it detects and plays sound” and the “sure, it detects but only 60% of the features are supported”.
Users don’t want to be told that the hardware they have is 85% is supported. They want their video card features to be fully exploited, their sound card to have all the features being used. In a nut shell, they want the full capacity of the $1000 computer exploited to its full potential. What we have now is the equivilant of a BWM but can’t go any faster than 50km p/h and the reclining seats don’t actually recline all the time so you’re advised not to use it and you can’t use the stereo or otherwise the engine will fall out.
“What this tells me is that MS advocates must feel really threatened to pounce on such news with such haste.”
Why didn’t you address the first part of my post?
A 90% market share is nice. It means more choice in quality apps and more device drivers. If Linux had a 90% market share that is what I would most likely be using. But then it would be an alot different than is now.
//Just look at GIMP, it is pathetic, and that is complimenting it! put GIMP side by side with Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo-Paint; compare them and then you’ll see what I mean, even Paintshop Pro provides an easier to use interface! //
Call me an idiot but I could never figure out photoshop. I never really needed it for much but everything I tried was a pain to do. I’m sure if I used it more it would have been easier, but I picked up GIMP in a couple of minutes and could do more with it than I ever could with Photoshop. I’m not making judgements about the actual capabilities of the applications, just that GMIP was much more intuitive for me.
The only people who love gimp are those that never learned Photoshop. A heavyweight graphic alternative to gimp in Linux would be phenomenal.
I think you missed the point. The point was not where we’re at now, it’s where we could have been had the OS market been more competitive. As it so happens, I own about 7 different distros, but installing your own is simply not the same as having it preinstalled.
But alas, this is 2003 instead of 1993. We’re ten years too late. Now we’re going to have to wait for however long it takes the OEMs to start to pre installing other OSes full time.
Hear, hear. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about OS diversity. I run Windows and Mandrake at home (and wouldn’t mind having an OS X laptop). Often, MS Zealots think that because I’m pro-Linux I’m anti-Windows. In fact, as I wrote in a recent post, I’ve got nothing against Windows, really. It’s just an OS.
Microsoft, on the other hand, I’ve got plenty against. They do not share this ideal of OS diversity – they want to rule alone. Control is what they’re after, and unfortunately they’ve chosen an OS (Windows) and closed document formats as tools to achieve their goal. This is part of what makes me personally choose Linux over Windows (I also like KDE 3.X much better than the Windows UI, and fonts look better on Linux than they do on Windows).
Bill Sykes
A 90% market share is nice. It means more choice in quality apps and more device drivers.
Nonsense. If you had a market evenly divided in three (33% each), you’d have pretty much the same device driver coverage for all three due to competition between hardware manufacturers. Since there is a sizeable market for each OS, it’s advantageous for a hardware vendor to support more than one, as this means more potential sales of hardware over a manufacturer that supports only one.
Quality apps are not dependent on platform. Porting an app is relatively easy, especially if you plan it early (which would be the case if there was such a division in Market share). To give you a real-world example: we’re finishing a gamed based on a well-known cartoon franchise, and we’re releasing it simultaneously for all three platforms. It’s a bit more work (and certainly a more of a pain to manage), but in the end it’s going to make more money compared to the initial investment. That’s simple economics: competition good, monopoly bad.
If Linux had a 90% market share that is what I would most likely be using.
So what you’re saying is that market share should be the primary criteria in choosing an OS?
At what percentage of market share would you most likely switch to another OS, then?
The only people who love gimp are those that never learned Photoshop. A heavyweight graphic alternative to gimp in Linux would be phenomenal.
I use Photoshop daily at my work and I love the GIMP (I’m using version 1.3). Seriously, the new UI improvements make it as user-friendly as Photoshop. Okay, there are a few things you need to do a bit differently, but it’s a relatively short learning curve.
Seriously, sometimes I think the main reason people are turned off by the GIMP is that there it doesn’t have a “workbench”-style window like Photoshop, and instead displays all files in separate windows.
Oh, and before you can say “CMYK”, someone on the Mandrake Cooker mailing list posted this interesting tidbit about the GIMP and patented color processes:
“Yes, the Gimp-2.0 core will have support for multiple color spaces and CMYK will most probably be one of the color spaces supported by default. Of course color management is partly protected by patents. While I must admit that I do not believe in intellectual property at all and living in Europe makes it easy to ignore those software patents, we will probably have to respect some of those patent issues. On the other hand, only professional users need professional color management systems like Pantone, so our goal is to provide the architecture for color management and to provide at least one free implementation. This will give color management to everyone and will allow third-party vendors to offer color management modules which are based on systems that need to be licensed. Professional Gimp users will then have a chance to spend their money on licensing fees in order to get the color-management systems with well-known names on it as their customers demand.”
What it means is that if Pantone wants to sell a color management module for GIMP (and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t, really) you’ll be able to use it for pre-press. That’s enough to make Adobe nervous…
I’m not sure why your post got modded; I’ll respond to it anyway:
I guess I just don’t see this as Red Hat trying to exert covert control over anything. They’re being very open about it, and their reasoning is pretty obvious. They shouldn’t have to bleed money to offer a service. They are a business, and they have shareholders, and they are _responsible_ and _accountable_ to those shareholders; they can’t justify continuing a project that benefits the community if it loses them too much money and hinders their other projects, even if doing so is the right thing. It isn’t simply a matter of greed; it is a matter of responsiblity and accountability.
If they go somewhere shady from here, I guess I’ll eat my words; but I really don’t think that’s going to happen. And I don’t feel like I’m following anything blindly — I’m just stating what I believe.
1. Lots of missing pieces to the puzzle – First of all, there’s no set standard for installing programs from a disc thats in any shape or form easy and straight forward. Actually, let me backtrack. There’s no way of accessing data that is simple or straight forward. People will very easily get lost in a Linux filesystem. This is why Apple hid the UNIX layer of Mac OS X so well.
2. Horribly inconsistent UI – go from a GTK+ app, a Qt app, and a pure X11 app, and you’ve got totally different UI paradigms. There needs to be some effort to consolidate and standardize them. I can’t hardly tell a Cocoa app from a Carbon app. I don’t want to be able to easily distinguish between the myriad of apps written with different toolkits.
3. Unfriendly driver model – From what I’ve read, developers dread writing drivers for Linux. Keeping them compatible with each revision is also a pain in the ass. Face it, most hardware companies only want to release BINARY drivers.
4. Low quality applications – Most OSS programs suck in comparison to their commercial renditions. Why? 90% of the problem is bad UI design, while 10% is due to lack of features.
5. Lack of commercial applications – People want programs that they know and trust. Yes, many of us are still willing to pay money for programs with warranties, support, and commercial fit and finish.
Untill all the above issues are solved, Linux will never see a serious Desktop following, no matter how much we fantasize about it.
“I have a Gentoo dual-boot and have used Mandrake and Slackware in the past. The reason I state this is that no distro will run on my laptop since the ACPI problem is in the kernel. Also, I have a wireless card that does not work in Linux yet. That covers the hardware issue.”
What makes you think this proofs ”GNU/Linux (as in no Linux distro) is ready for the average persons desktop”?
According to you, a laptop represents ”the average persons desktop”?
According to you, WLAN is correlated to ”the average persons desktop”?
No point against Mandrake. This is rather an ”average persons desktop” than say Slackware or Gentoo which are more DIY. However, you’ve only used 1 of the very many available user-friendly style distributions.
Why isn’t ACPI supported on your laptop? What have you tried so far? What hardware is it exactly?
“Software… You can not buy Linux software in a store. End of store. ”
You claim i cannot buy a GNU/Linux distribution in a store?????
“For the record, my problems are really only with hardware support. I have been using mostly Solaris the last 4 years so the learning curve is not an issue for me.”
I was referring to Joe Average.
“I never said anything bad about the install process.”
I was referring to Joe Average.
“As I said before, I don’t want to pick to pick my hardware based on my OS. That is my major concern. Everything else I said is what average people think.”
Hardware based on your OS? When you buy a Mac, you do. When you buy a Dell, you do. When you buy a SPARC, you do. One _always_ do this. It’s just a matter of perspective and relativation imo.
Perhaps you’d be happy with chosing NetBSD as the OS you use for everything, without worries for hardware
—-
“Games blablabla”
GNU/Linux desktops like KDE and GNOME include games (or more specific: priovide a package DEname-games). For
example the earlier mentioned Mahjong. KShisen, SameGnome, Solitaire and the toys, bells and whistles. My mom plays such games about every day on GNU/Linux.
Such games are provided with Windows, too. For the more advanced/cool stuff (which is BEYOND Joe Average) there is ie. ID Software who are cool with proprietary bins for their games as well as GPLing their source of their engine for older games like Wolf3d/Doom/Duke3d/QuakeI/QuakeII among others. There’s this site Icculus.org who port software. There’s even WineX which supports a variety of games.
“Autocad (you would be surprised who has bought this title)”
Haha!
http://revobiz.dyndns.org/group/seaint/1999b/msg01301.html
http://www.varicad.com/
http://www.qcad.org/
http://www.cycas.de/
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=cad§ion=projects
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=86
http://appdb.winehq.org/ search for cad
Then there was Google.
I don’t know what the other projects in your list are/do and i’m not much interested warezing them to test in WINE nor interested in buying them for this purpose. Perhaps someone else can comment, or you can search at appdb.winehq.org
“That doesn’t even go into the number of games or there-lack-of. Jane wants Soltaire type game, Joe wants to be able to run Janes Flight Similator. The reality is that Linux DOESN’T give the end user what they want. It isn’t up to you to tell the user what they want, it is up to YOU to give the user what they want. If they are dead adiment that they want Macromedia Dreamweaver, then that is what they want.”
I see, so MS decided to deliver to put Macromedia Dreamweaver together with MS Windows 2003? IMO users should be given the oppurtunity to choice, not to ”stick to this” by Mr. We-Know-Whats-Good-For-You.
“There is nothing that even comes close to the WYSIWIG capabilities of it.”
Why not?
(Dreamweaver works in WINE. The only difference is a bit slower. That’s all. For the rest it costs the same. But somehow you try to evade that…)
“Just look at GIMP, it is pathetic, and that is complimenting it! put GIMP side by side with Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo-Paint; compare them and then you’ll see what I mean, even Paintshop Pro provides an easier to use interface!”
You confuse opinions with facts. This is highly subjective babling. IMO GIMP is easy enought when i’m not too lazy to learn about it. Which i’m not all that 100% cause i got other things to do, too. But when i need GIMP, and i read up, i’ve done everything i wanted to do with it.
“The only people who love gimp are those that never learned Photoshop.”
Please post proof for such generic assumptions.
BTW Photoshop works flawless in WINE, except for a small, few minor glitches. Been there, done it. So did Disney, FWIW.
What does such an app have to do with home desktop users anyways? Paint is enought for them. No sane non-professional person can pay it (it’s high on the top 10 warez list).
“What users want are mainstream applications on Linux with their hardware fully supported.”
What makes you think so? What makes you think you have the brilliant insight to know what all users want, and only they only want that?
REQUEST: instead of posting your favorite killer app, please note thoroughly which features you very much like/need in it and why the other alternatives don’t have it.
Hi all.
Even if I am a 4 year Linux User (RH-Mandrake-RH) (38 years old :-)) I have to agree with RH CEO, even if he shocked me.
Linux distros today are easy and well formed if your tasks are
E-mail, Chat, Browse, Rip your Music, edit and store your photos, write your documents, make some calculations and drawing. This comes out of the box or almost out of it, it depends on the distro you are using. RH9 lacks Mp3 and Video/DVD player support bat you can easy add to it thanks to RPM sites.
The Internet Media Content is changing fast. MS is pushing hard its Media 9 format and most distros does not play well with that. If I want to take a look at news at euronews site, I need Real Player. Well no Real Player works on RH9 if you do not disable NPTL, you can learn it form the Release Notes plus Linux Forums. Well if I am a user I do not want to mess up with a Kernel Startup Parameter (nosysinfo in this case) because I am no geek.
At present Linux is ready for the desktop if you do not take for granted that your Internet Experience will be the same as a Windows user.
A little more along the way and Linux will fix it, a distro will fix it (Lindows maybe already does it – not tested) or a community project will. Anyway it’s only for the time being, be patient. As today maybe not, I agree… But it’s a matter of time. Linux folks (I want to thank for the good work they made and will made) should concentrate on that : Users are only Users.
– Regards
– Pasha
REQUEST: instead of posting your favorite killer app, please note thoroughly which features you very much like/need in it and why the other alternatives don’t have it.
How about instead of posting “replacements”, why do you provide me with the application I want! I know how to use Photo-Paint, why should I then go off and relearn all the skills I have acquired?
Stop coming up with excuses and provide the application I want. Consumers don’t want “replacements”, they want the same bloody thing but running on Linux. They want to use it the same way they have always done.
You are right CooCooCaChoo.
The problem here is that Corel photo-paint guys, as many other, do not consider worth the investment a Corel Photo-Paint Linux Edition, even if I tried one some time ago attached to PC Magazine.
That’s why Linux Community built The Gimp.
To be on topic,RH CEO was talking about home users. The average home user does not even buys Corel Photo Paint, to modify his digital photos to be printed with a cheap colour ink printer. What is within any camera software package is more that enough. If you have invested money in Corel product (349 US$) you are a pro, not an average home user.
Stay with your system, work with it, enjoy it. No one is pushing anyone towards Linux. We live in a free world, we take free decisions. If you are a Corel Photo Paint owner,
ask them if they plan to build a Linux version and listen to their reply. We the buyers, the users, shape the world.
– hope it helps
– Pasha
You still haven’t answered this:
What would some of the Linux avdocates be posting if Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer had been quoted in article as saying “Large enterprises would be better off staying with a *nix, Windows Server 2003 just doesn’t cut it yet”?
As far as evenly divided marketshare in operating sytems this isn’t going to happen unless there is virtually no differnce between the the three OS’s that you believe will have a 33% share each.
Gaming consoles are another matter. The underlying OS is basically hidden from the user. What the user interfaces with is basically the same from console to console. That is the major reason there is more diversity in consoles.
But as Microsft innovates more in the console market I think you will see that change as well. Either that or they will abandon the market to Sony, who will then crush Nintendo.
I read all these comments with delight, and yet I want
to point out one more issue: localization. I live in
East Asia, and localizing Linux had been always a
headache for me. It got a lot better than the past, yes,
but I cannot say it got better than stock Windows in this
matter. Yes, with enough time and effort I can get
everything working, and I do share my experience and even
try to submit a patch to upstream. With XIM and GNOME
now there is no need to patch every single app. But there’s
KDE, not properly i18n’d console apps, Unicode isn’t
universal yet, and so on… Compare this with Windowsland,
where Unicode is indeed universal.
I read all these comments with delight, and yet I want
to point out one more issue: localization. I live in
East Asia, and localizing Linux had been always a
headache for me.
I totally agree with you. Support for East Asian (and other “non-standard”?) languages (Japanese in my case) is still seriously lacking in Linux. Everything is (relatively) fine as long as you are only using GTK2 programs, but usually problems arise the moment you have to use anything else.
This is one of the major reasons I am considering going OSX since Windows is not really an option for me anymore.
What would some of the Linux avdocates be posting if Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer had been quoted in article as saying “Large enterprises would be better off staying with a *nix, Windows Server 2003 just doesn’t cut it yet”?
I’d personally disagree with them. I’d say “stay away from Win2003 because it doesn’t support open standards and will only further the monopoly.
But it’s funny that you ask me to consider a hypothetical situation, then just dismiss my own hypothetical situation (three OSes with equal market share) saying “it’ll never happen.” Well, then, my official answer to you is “Gates and Ballmer will never say such a thing, so why should I bother to imagine what Linux advocate would say?”
Gaming consoles are another matter. The underlying OS is basically hidden from the user.
Heh – the underlying OS is hidden from most users with computers as well! Most ordinary people don’t understand what an OS is (they often equate it with the Office suite, another testimony to MS’s monopoly).
Anyway, that’s not the reason why there’s diversity. There’s diversity because you can’t lock the user using file formats, like MS has done with Office.
But as Microsft innovates more in the console market I think you will see that change as well. Either that or they will abandon the market to Sony, who will then crush Nintendo.
I’m not sure how Microsoft “innovates” in the console market. Perhaps you’d like to give us examples? I don’t think that they’ll be able to displace Sony, and I don’t think Nintendo is beaten yet. I think we’ll have three console makers sharing the market for quite a while yet.
But it’s telling to see how much you’re stuck in the monopoly mindset. It’s as if total domination within a market was inevitable to you…are all cars made by GM? Is there only one TV maker? What fun would that be?
A monopoly is an aberration, and should not be seen as a “normal” thing. Monopolies should be broken apart, by force of law if necessary. Hopefully, the next administration will be responsible and will take care of the MS monopoly once and for all.
1. Lots of missing pieces to the puzzle – First of all, there’s no set standard for installing programs from a disc thats in any shape or form easy and straight forward. Actually, let me backtrack. There’s no way of accessing data that is simple or straight forward. People will very easily get lost in a Linux filesystem. This is why Apple hid the UNIX layer of Mac OS X so well.
2. Horribly inconsistent UI – go from a GTK+ app, a Qt app, and a pure X11 app, and you’ve got totally different UI paradigms. There needs to be some effort to consolidate and standardize them. I can’t hardly tell a Cocoa app from a Carbon app. I don’t want to be able to easily distinguish between the myriad of apps written with different toolkits.
3. Unfriendly driver model – From what I’ve read, developers dread writing drivers for Linux. Keeping them compatible with each revision is also a pain in the ass. Face it, most hardware companies only want to release BINARY drivers.
4. Low quality applications – Most OSS programs suck in comparison to their commercial renditions. Why? 90% of the problem is bad UI design, while 10% is due to lack of features.
5. Lack of commercial applications – People want programs that they know and trust. Yes, many of us are still willing to pay money for programs with warranties, support, and commercial fit and finish.
1. Installing from a disk is simple. The filesystem takes a little getting used to but at least it’s more coherent than Windows.
2. This has no merit. Windows programs decide many times to make their own UI and not follow the Windows UI (musicmatch, winamp). There are more apps included with either DE that do follow the UI than come with Windows.
3. They can release binary drivers for Linux. It will get on the nerves of some people but you CAN do it.
4. To be honest I find the OSS applications are better. Gaim is a hundred times better than AIM or even DeadAIM. Mozilla Firebird leaves IE in the dust. The same goes for mplayer, I prefer it over all those bloated multimedia players.
5. You got me on this one. There are not nearly as many commercial applications but they do exist. Who needs most of them anyway, there are free counterparts for most things. If only macromedia would make Linux software.
> What makes you think this proofs ”GNU/Linux (as in no Linux distro) is ready for the average persons desktop”?
Hardware: Linux makes you pick and choose hardware based on OS and not on quality of Hardware.
Software: Can’t go to store and buy software. Needed by ‘average’ user.
> According to you, a laptop represents ”the average persons desktop”?
According to you, WLAN is correlated to ”the average persons desktop”?
You asked me what I personally used. I told you.
> No point against Mandrake. This is rather an ”average persons desktop” than say Slackware or Gentoo which are more DIY. However, you’ve only used 1 of the very many available user-friendly style distributions.
The problems I just stated go across all distro’s, unless you can show me otherwise.
> Why isn’t ACPI supported on your laptop? What have you tried so far? What hardware is it exactly?
It is a Compaq n800c. I got it working, but I had to hack the DSDT table and re-compile the kernel. Not an acceptable solution for most.
> You claim i cannot buy a GNU/Linux distribution in a store?????
No. I claim you can not but Linux applications in a store. If you want a new word processor for Linux, you can not go to a store to buy it.
> I was referring to Joe Average.
Personally, I don’t see the learning curve as much of an issue.
> I was referring to Joe Average.
Personally, I don’t see the installation as much of an issue.
> Hardware based on your OS? When you buy a Mac, you do. When you buy a Dell, you do. When you buy a SPARC, you do. One _always_ do this. It’s just a matter of perspective and relativation imo.
For the record, I only talk about x86 hardware. Everything else is off-topic. In regards to x86 hardware, 99% of the time I don’t need to think about my OS when buying hardware if I use Windows. Not true with Linux.
—-
> GNU/Linux desktops like KDE and GNOME include games (or more specific: priovide a package DEname-games). For
example the earlier mentioned Mahjong. KShisen, SameGnome, Solitaire and the toys, bells and whistles. My mom plays such games about every day on GNU/Linux.
> Such games are provided with Windows, too. For the more advanced/cool stuff (which is BEYOND Joe Average) there is ie. ID Software who are cool with proprietary bins for their games as well as GPLing their source of their engine for older games like Wolf3d/Doom/Duke3d/QuakeI/QuakeII among others. There’s this site Icculus.org who port software. There’s even WineX which supports a variety of games.
Are you saying that installing and running the newest games are beyond Joe Average? That is flat out wrong. Please don’t tell me you are arguing that Windows has better games then Linux?
> Haha!
> I don’t know what the other projects in your list are/do and i’m not much interested warezing them to test in WINE nor interested in buying them for this purpose. Perhaps someone else can comment, or you can search at appdb.winehq.org
So you are telling me that running software in wine is just as good of a solution as running it natively.
> I see, so MS decided to deliver to put Macromedia Dreamweaver together with MS Windows 2003? IMO users should be given the oppurtunity to choice, not to ”stick to this” by Mr. We-Know-Whats-Good-For-You.
The user can always install non-Microsoft software. Don’t assume people are stuck with what is installed for them.
> Why not?
> (Dreamweaver works in WINE. The only difference is a bit slower. That’s all. For the rest it costs the same. But somehow you try to evade that…)
Using your reasoning, I can run Linux in VMWare then have all the advantages of Linux.
> You confuse opinions with facts. This is highly subjective babling. IMO GIMP is easy enought when i’m not too lazy to learn about it. Which i’m not all that 100% cause i got other things to do, too. But when i need GIMP, and i read up, i’ve done everything i wanted to do with it.
The graphics people here at work all state that GIMP can not hold a candle to Photoshop. That is the extent of my knowledge, so I really won’t get into it. All I say is GIMP is available on Windows too
> What does such an app have to do with home desktop users anyways? Paint is enought for them. No sane non-professional person can pay it (it’s high on the top 10 warez list).
Because if they do want it, they can have it. You are you to judge what Joe Average wants.
> What makes you think so? What makes you think you have the brilliant insight to know what all users want, and only they only want that?
You are making the same assumptions. It is a valid argument to make that a user could want any hardware available to them. They may want any software available to them.
> REQUEST: instead of posting your favorite killer app, please note thoroughly which features you very much like/need in it and why the other alternatives don’t have it.
He has. He said I want the best Web Content Creator. He stated that Dreamweaver is the best. There is no Linux alternative that meets all the needs of a Dreamweaver user.
> 1. Installing from a disk is simple. The filesystem takes a little getting used to but at least it’s more coherent than Windows.
Filesystem is fine, but the problem is different application packaging across distro’s so the user needs to make sure the CD has the right package. Just another step for the users. Or the cd maker needs to inlude all packages, which may be hard with so many distro’s. Not a huge issue, more of an annoyance.
> 2. This has no merit. Windows programs decide many times to make their own UI and not follow the Windows UI (musicmatch, winamp). There are more apps included with either DE that do follow the UI than come with Windows.
Very true.
> 3. They can release binary drivers for Linux. It will get on the nerves of some people but you CAN do it.
It is possible, but a hassle.
> 4. To be honest I find the OSS applications are better. Gaim is a hundred times better than AIM or even DeadAIM. Mozilla Firebird leaves IE in the dust. The same goes for mplayer, I prefer it over all those bloated multimedia players.
Most quality OSS is available on Windows too.
> 5. You got me on this one. There are not nearly as many commercial applications but they do exist. Who needs most of them anyway, there are free counterparts for most things. If only macromedia would make Linux software.
This and hardware support are the main issues for Linux on the average users desktop.
“This is like the CEO of Ford telling me to buy a Toyota… ”
“Actually, it’s more like the CEO of Peterbilt Trucks telling me to stick with my Toyota as it’s probably more suited to my needs. I agree with him.”
no. it’s more like the ceo of peterbilt telling you to buy a tonka.
after making it so easy to enter the twilight zone without a return ticket
That pretty much sums up Linux on the desktop.
Good job. I can quit reading the replies now!
Redhat’s only source of income is from Linux. And now they are saying not to use it???????
What the …
“Software… You can not buy Linux software in a store. End of store.”
Have you ever heard of CompUSA, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc? They sell it actually, distros and software. Just there is not alot of it, but Linux software IS sold in stores.
> Have you ever heard of CompUSA, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc? They sell it actually, distros and software. Just there is not alot of it, but Linux software IS sold in stores.
Actually, living in Canada, we have no CompUSA or Circuit City and only a few Best Buys. Our equivilent, FutureShop sells no Linux apps, only a couple distro’s.
Just a quickie with regard to the GIMP vs. Photoshop sub-argument…
I’ve been using Photoshop for a long time now and am very comfortable with the interface etc. I’ve used the GIMP a lot as well, but have found the interface to be a bit more difficult to get used to. That’s purely because I’m used to the way Photoshop works though.
Anyway, Photoshop is one of the main reasons that I keep Windows (2000, of course, there is no other version as far as I’m concerned) installed. For the past few years I’ve been getting more and more enamoured with Linux – first RedHat and more recently Gentoo ( I <3 Gentoo ). So imagine my surprise when, on a whim, I decided to try and install Photoshop with a recent WINE and got this: http://ftp.deadlocked.org/Temp/photoshop-in-linux.png!
Feckin’ deadly, huh? Not only does it run perfectly in WINE, it actually looks better than it did on my Win2k install! Note the anti-aliased UI fonts etc.
And yes, I know, I know, the soulless cynics are going to bleat ‘why would I want to use a Windows emulator to run my Windows app, when I can just use Windows?’
I’m just saying is all…
Remember a year or two ago, when Corel made some forays into the Linux market (Corel Linux is now Xandros, if I’m not mistaken)? They also released linux versions of some of their flagship apps and made Corel Photo Paint for Linux available as a free download. They didn’t actually produce a Linux-specific version of PhotoPaint, they just compiled the Windows product against the WINE ‘dlls’ and distributed the app with a version of WINE that was guaranteed to run it.
I’ve often wondered why more Windows developers don’t do that. OK, so it mightn’t necessarily be aesthetically pleasing (Windows UI on top of GNOME 2?), but at least they’d be broadening their market.
i switched over to linux RH 9.0 and as a person new to linux it comes not even close to the ease of windows which i knew from the start. i believe linux isent ready for the desktop unless you feel like spending more time trouble shooting than using. i also dont think it will ever get widly adapted in homes unless people can just click and things install. although apt-get and things like that are nice it still not as easy as what people are used to. since windows comes on most computers i dont think its going to turn around anytime soon. i think everyone got hyped up about linux the last year or so and it got blown out of porportion. i went back to windows just because its not worth the time or effort to get simple programs to work.
“How about instead of posting “replacements”, why do you provide me with the application I want!”
How do i know what you want if you don’t ask it? Search for yourself.
“I know how to use Photo-Paint, why should I then go off and relearn all the skills I have acquired?”
Ask the authors if they port it. This cannot be 100% “GNU/Linux” fault it ain’t ported. We mortals are not in power to do *that*, only the elite small group who own the source can do such.
“Stop coming up with excuses and provide the application I want.”
I can’t! Only with with Free Windows API’s (WhINE) and emulators it can possibly work such way.
“Consumers don’t want “replacements”, they want the same bloody thing but running on Linux. They want to use it the same way they have always done.”
I doubt every consumer is as conservative as you are.
What an a55!!
RH tells everyone to piss off or move to Fedora, a distro who’s site essentially claims it’s for tweekers and that’s that?
I’ve been thinking of moving to Mandrake anyway.. but to know that the RH bosses are seemingly seriously only interested in supporting people who are willing/capable of paying for open source stuff make the mindf**k of making a descision easier.
The thing is, you didn’t know Windows “from the start,” like you say. You learned it. And the learning curve in Linux isn’t that bad. I’ve seen people learn how to get around in Linux faster that I’ve seen other people learn how to get around in Windows.
I agree that Linux isn’t going to be widely adopted on the desktop any time soon, and some of the reasons you mention are valid. But it isn’t that hard to learn, and I’ve found that once you do learn it, you spend more time using and less time getting things to work.
I think it’s hilarious to watch all these Linux biased zealots try to dance around the fact that even the CEO of Red Hat acknowledge the very simple truth that Linux is behind in the desktop arena.
And then you have people who write lies, like “more Windows apps are inconsistent than Linux,” “it’s easier to install things in Linux,” and so on.
So blinded by fanboyism.
QUOTE: I think it’s hilarious to watch all these Linux biased zealots try to dance around the fact that even the CEO of Red Hat acknowledge the very simple truth that Linux is behind in the desktop arena.
And then you have people who write lies, like “more Windows apps are inconsistent than Linux,” “it’s easier to install things in Linux,” and so on.
So blinded by fanboyism.
END QUOTE
First off, I’m sure you didn’t mean to misrepresent the Redhat CEO’s statements and were trying to write that he said it was behind in the desktop arena for NON-COMPUTER SAVVY USERS.
Anyway…
So, looking at Linux on the desktop for the knowledgeable user…I use Arch Linux. I can install a fully operational system with all the bells and whistles and up to HUNDREDS of thrid-party apps, have my GUI up and running, be listening to mp3’s, watching movies and browsing the internet in under 30 minutes.
pacman -Syu downloads the most updated versions of ALL the software on my system. pacman -R packagename uninstalls, pacman -A packagename installs. This is vastly superior to the windows system. So is Debian’s system.
I just have to disagree with you on the app install front, my friend. At most, when installing a commercial game (such as UT), I type sh intallfile.
I agree with you (and with Redhat’s CEO) on your main poinst and on with you the inconsistency between applications issue, but my only point is this (in BIG letters):
IF THE USER IS READY, LINUX IS MORE THAN READY ON THE DESKTOP.
I hated Redhat anyways… FreeBSD forever!
Heh… Just kidding. Currently I have FreeBSD 4.9 on the desktop and Slackware 9.0 w/ Dropline Gnome on my laptop, both work wonderfully. Does it matter to me that I can’t run Photoshop? Nope. Dreamweaver? Nope. Fact is, my computers do what I want them to, with the OS’s that I run. If I needed either of those progs, or any other progs which don’t have ‘functional’ equivalents under linux/BSD, I’d probably be running some version of Windows as well. Whatever it takes to get the job done. After all, a computer is a TOOL right?
On ‘the average Joe’: My parents use Windows XP, it works great for them, they’re happy. They’re about as ‘average’ as the ‘average Joes’ can get. Would they be able to use linux/BSD? To be truthful, they’d be able to use it as well as they use XP. How often does the average joe install a program, after they’ve gotten their winamp/web browser/office progs installed? How many of them actually know what they’re installing aside from clicking the ‘ok’ buttons? How many of them have Gator or Bonzi Buddy installed? How many of them would visit this site? Discussions like these tend to overestimate the knowledge/interest the average Joe has in computers. So what’s the real question? What works for YOU. What OS does what you want it to do most effictively/reliably/consistently? Trying to claim that one OS is the ‘best’ is pointless, isn’t it? (I’m sure that there’s a BeOS user here who’ll agree with that!)
Windows suits some people. Linux suits other people. (fill in your own OS here) works for YOU. Not happy? Give something else a try to find an OS that works for you. It’s not like linux/BSD is going to die anytime soon, hell, BeOS is still alive to some.
Just a couple observations….
“I think it’s hilarious to watch all these Linux biased zealots try to dance around the fact that even the CEO of Red Hat acknowledge the very simple truth that Linux is behind in the desktop arena.”
Because some people don’t agree. That’s legal. He’s not Holy, you know. Even if he were, he could be wrong. What’s done in this topic is a (imo quite healthy and fruity) discussion about why/why not ready – which is a *highly_subjective* matter… and you don’t seem to contribute in a way <with> arguments for your opinion about ”why not”. Sad.
I feel betrayed by Redhat. I want to here what Linus says.
Most quality OSS is available on Windows too.
This is true but you said “Most OSS programs suck” and I was just pointing out that in my opinion they don’t suck.
—-
I think it’s hilarious to watch all these Linux biased zealots try to dance around the fact that even the CEO of Red Hat acknowledge the very simple truth that Linux is behind in the desktop arena.
I’ve addressed this already in an earlier post in this thread: RTFA.
And then you have people who write lies, like “more Windows apps are inconsistent than Linux,” “it’s easier to install things in Linux,” and so on.
So blinded by fanboyism.
I’m sorry to say that KDE and Gnome both include more applications that are consistent, respectively, to each DE. There is a wide array of programs that don’t follow that consistency but there is also on Windows. Many third party apps don’t follow the Windows UI at all.
With respect to installation I don’t see how it is any harder in Linux. If you use Redhat all you have to do is click on an RPM in the filemanager just like you would click on an installer in Windows. How is that any harder? On top of that there are many tools that make life even easier, like APT. If an RPM doesn’t install you can always build from source or a source RPM. If it doesn’t install in Windows you can’t do anything about it, you are screwed.
It’s getting tiring to listen to people make these same arguments without anything to back it up. I believe I made some valid points, so please dispute them if you please, but don’t just claim all the points are invalid without refuting them.
I can deal with people like psycosis who make their point with examples, even if some people may disagree. I can’t deal with people who just spout off nonsense and FUD with nothing to say to back it up. It makes me think they just read all the FUD and regurgitrate it on forums like this one.
With all that said, I think the main problem is that the people who tend to frequent this forum (other than the trolls) are much more into computers than the Average Joe. Most average computer users I know just want to use the internet and maybe play some music and simple games (like the ones included with Gnome or KDE). That’s why I believe it can be used by Average Users because that is all available on Linux. People on this forum tend to be into more technical or professional applications that are NOT available on Linux. Linux is not for these people, at least yet. If you need one of those specific aplications then:
A. You are not an average user (at least from my experience)
B. Linux is not for you
why do people care so much? man…. linux is my operating system of choice. yours is windows. so? my god, just live and let live. a whopping 200 comment rehash of an argument that is based on opinion, not fact. i use linux because i *like* it. you use windows because you *like* it. can you say that i am wrong? can i say you are wrong? i can set up linux for your average joe to make it just as usable as a pc you set up for him with windows. so why does even the hint of a topic along these lines drive people into a frenzy?
What has happened here is the CEO of redhat thinks that there isnt enough market potential for a desktop distro for him to want to persue it atm. Why is this so bad? I think it is a great move by redhat, and i think fedora will be a quality distro. This wasnt a personal attack on each and every desktop user of linux. It was a business descision, that was based on his perception that windows is the better choice for the majority of home users atm. Redhat is a commercial distro. Say it with me, COM-ER-CIAL. they are there to make money. If debian said this, everyone would have a reason to be up in arms. since its redhat, everyone should just chill out and spend your energy on something more important.
As for all you ms trolls, this has absolutely nothing to do with your personal experiences in linux. stop trying to validate youre own failures by trolling the message boards making statements that were true six or seven months ago about how crap linux is. if you dont like it, fine. if it was too complecated for you, fine. then ignore it, it is silly to spend time and effort reading on it, researching it, talking about it, just to find flaws. linux has flaws, plenty of them. linux is complex to say the least, especially if you arnt used to it. but just because something doesnt work the way you specificially think it should, doesnt mean its a personal insult to you and your family. i swear, some of you have these personal vendettas…
anyways, this stuff has been bugging me for awhile now. to sum it up,
a) Linux is not the answer to all of lifes problems. At times, there can be a better solution.
b) If you dont like linux, then stop wasting peoples time by trolling message boards about it.