Here is a quick Linux articles round up: “Analysis: Linux looks for new worlds to conquer” says ComputerWorld.au. “From back office to desktop, Linux is spreading” says ComputerWorld.au. “Novell at LinuxWorld: Ready To Rock” says Enterprise Linux IT. “Showtime for Linux” says LinuxWorld.au. “Big vendors lead leap to Linux” says ComputerWorld.au.
LinuxWorld Article Round-Up
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
All these that tell the tale of how an OS matures to become ready for the home PC, makes me want to think that MS might have pulled the right strings and have the right ingredient to pull off such fine desktop OS as Windows XP. I mean, not to spark-off wars here… but can’t you at least appreciate how they did it? Or, is it because people just naturally work better when they are compensated monetarily and work as a close team, not as working some worlds-apart?
I must admit I am also sick to the back teeth of “is linux ready for the desktop”, “linux desktop of future” “linux works in another business” …can we get a new topic?
Novell has all the tools it needs to take the lead in both the server and desktop. they once were the king of the hill, and i just have a feeling that this time if they play it right can be back on top again.good luck Novell.
I must admit I am also sick to the back teeth of “is linux ready for the desktop”, “linux desktop of future” “linux works in another business” …can we get a new topic?
No, Linux can’t afford multi million dollar PR and marketing. So you have to deal grass root hype for a while.
Like IBM’s multi-million dollar advertising campaign?
One case to prove this point is MacOSX Panther. Like linux, MacOSX is on a unix-like base (BSD). So why is it then that the people working on Panther pulled-off a relatively better desktop OS as compared to ANY Linux distro that is whipped out by assembling and integrating OSSes? IMO, it is not the kernel or base OS, it is not the developers, it is certainly not the OSS. I think it is simply because these developers for Panther and MS have Bosses and $alaries.
I am very greatfull for OSSes. But if you want a great products, maybe it needs to be developed in a much tighter and controlled space.
One case to prove this point is MacOSX Panther. Like linux, MacOSX is on a unix-like base (BSD). So why is it then that the people working on Panther pulled-off a relatively better desktop OS as compared to ANY Linux distro that is whipped out by assembling and integrating OSSes? IMO, it is not the kernel or base OS, it is not the developers, it is certainly not the OSS. I think it is simply because these developers for Panther and MS have Bosses and $alaries.
I am very greatfull for OSSes. But if you want a great products, maybe it needs to be developed in a much tighter and controlled space.
Quit yapping. Some people find OS X restrictive, unusable and cumbersome. We have a Mac lab at our University. 99% of the time it’s empty, except when the graphics art students are having classes.
If OS X was the holiest grail of desktop environments like you point out, shouldn’t the Mac lab be occupied 100% of the time. The funny thing is that when the Window labs are filled, people just don’t even bother using the Mac lab, even though it is empty.
When you ask them why they don’t use the Mac labs, there responses might surprise you. “I don’t know how to use them things, men!, they look cool though”, or “They are just weird to use, the single mouse button and all that”, or “I thought they were just for art stuff”. Those are some of the responses you’ll get. Yet, OS X is clad as supposedly the easiest to use, user friendliest…yada yada.
Even I, as a knowledge/power user, need to adjust my manner of thinking when I’m using a Mac. Talk little of someone who thinks Macs are specialized PCs. My point is, the best things in life must not necessarily cost $$$. And OSS is a living example. Some of the things we take for granted today are priceless. If we were to pay money for it, we’d never beable to afford them. Like freedom.
I wasn’t comparing OSX against Windows. Put-up a Linux lab and abolish your Windows lab and “maybe” you’ll see people populating your Mac lab. And, I wasn’t talking about life either. So, YOU quit yapping!
Its the applications MORON! the applications is the catalyst. All the hype in the world isn’t going to change the fact that Joe Corporate is going to say, “screw Linux if I can’t get the applications I WANT”.
Novell, IBM and SUN can crap on for as long as they want, but they have done nothing to get Linux on the desktop. Why don’t these companies PAY FOR THE PORTING OF APPLICATIONS TO LINUX? please, a Novell, SUN or IBM employee, explain why your management are such morons not to work out the the basics of getting ISVs on board.
To be fair, the Apple guys also had a huge head start. They already had a solid base system from NeXT. They already had most of the application framework in the form of OpenStep. They had tons of existing usability research, design experience, and practice in-house. OS X was then a combination and refinement of all of those existing things.
The KDE and GNOME folks started from *scratch*. They had to build all of the core framework first, and acquire the UI design experience as they went along. Its only recently (in the last couple of years) that they’ve even started seriously concentrating on UI factors. So its no surprise that MacOS X is ahead on the UI front.
To be fair, most of the people shunning the Mac lab do so because they’re not used to Macs. Even if they are better, they are different, and people don’t like to adjust to something different, especially when they only use it intermittently. You, as a power user, are in an even worse position, because certain ways of doing things are deeply ingrained into your behavior. Heck, I find myself habitually pressing Win-[Q/W/A/S] in Windows, because those are my virtual desktop shortcuts in KDE!
If OSX is so brilliant, why am i considering replacing it with gentoo??? There isn’t the application set for osx like linux. All mac os x good software costs lots and lots of money. So i end up most of the linux time running software through xwindows (slow) via the fink project.
However OS x is v nice just needs some ‘normal’ software to go with it.
I think money is part of the issue. So is time. Despite being crude and crusty at times MS has been developing GUI *constantly* since approx 1985. They have undoubtably had some brilliant programmers at some point, and have benefitted from savvy product purchases. It seems that Windows development has been cohesive and directed for the last decade at least. OSS is by nature divergent and haphazard by comparison. MS have probably had a general plan since first developing Win95, and despite hiccups and wrong directions they produced a benchmark OS for the time being.
OSX is also a cohesive UI at least for the native apps. Anything running under X is still problematic. More native apps or better toolkit support may alleviate some of these issues.
I think the divergence of X applications, (toolkits, hardware, libraries, UNIX/*BSD/Linux/???) has possibly failed or been unable to plan ahead consistently enough to attract commercial developers of desktop applications.
I think the massive output of the OSS community is divergent to manage, yet so overwhelmingly productive that its not falling behind at least. Unfortunately some direction is probably needed to avoid the wholesale replace and rewrite mentality.
But then I could be wrong maybe money is a major incentive for quality.
“However OS x is v nice just needs some ‘normal’ software to go with it.”
What exactly is “normal software” anyway?
“We have a Mac lab at our University. 99% of the time it’s empty, except when the graphics art students are having classes.”
Are those Macs running OS X or Classic?
I like how you polarize everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Not only is everyone with a differing opinion a moron, that’s capital MORON. You don’t know everything, moron.
Speaking as a know it all moron that yapps(cover my bases here) I can agree the Linux on the desktop discussion is OLD. When you see superbowl adds advertising Linux for the home user then you know Linux has arrived.
on another note IBM is slowly putting out marketing add for Linux on there servers and has been for awhile. Cautious little baby steps is the best idea i think. They need to seperate themselves from the screaming “USE LINUX OR YOUR GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!”Linux Zealot crowd.