“When you think of a personal computer, you probably think of one running Windows. Microsoft’s near-ubiquitous operating system runs on 94 percent of desktop PCs, according to experts. But could the upstart Linux OS soon replace Windows on a computer near you?” Read the article by Scott Spanbauer.
Editorial: Linux on Your Desktop
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Why does everyone assume linux is good on a old desktop? Sure you can run it fine WITHOUT a gui, but put gnome or kde on it and you’ll be hogging a good chunk of ram and cpu. Personally, I tried this on a pentium pro system with 32 megs of ram. This would run win98 fine, albeit slower than one with more ram. However, when I tried linux and kde, it was so f…ing slow my patience ran out after a couple of hours waiting for the logout to finish so I can quit the gui and try an gui with a smaller footprint, and no it was not frozen, it was swapping on the HD as if theres no tomorrow. Fact of the matter is, linux will work with a desktop gui, but it is not good enough to be my main desktop, lack of hardware support being number 1, UGLY fonts being number 2, lack of support for my games without paying transgaming to get it working, and lastly, DEPENDENCY HELL = WORST THAN DLL HELL.
Agreed!
I use linux as my primary OS but only on newish hardware. You could run it on older hardware but you would want something efficient like fluxbox…which doesnt really apeal to average Joe and normally doesnt come with average distro’s.
I thought the article was pretty good though…not really too biased in either direction and making a few valid points.
But could the upstart Linux OS soon replace Windows on a computer near you?
Nope it can’t replace windows on a computer near me.
Because
a) Windows makes sense, as in logical
b) Windows has more apps
c) Linux is made with a license which assumes you buy support, hence why software is produced with purpose of being hard for users
d) Windows is a reliable platform through time as in it’ll stay around. Linuxland is scattered with distros that come and go so choice is really not there
e) Security, sure Linux might be secure, assuming you’re a supertechnician with CS studies for about 5 years. For me it’s more like a swiss cheese…
f) Linux is EXPENSIVE, besides from learning costs, you have this update license fees which costs Loads, especially since you have big discounts for buying windows when you buy your comp.
At the moment, I’d say SkyOS or Amiga or something is more likely to replace a distro, but Linux is probably the last option there is…
Granted Windows has more apps, but it’s only logical for you because that is what you use. As a Linux user, that’s what’s logical for me. It has the applications I need and with it I can get work done EASIER than using Windows.
I have no clue what you are talking about in terms of buying support and making apps hard to require this support. With few exceptions, people are building applications because that is what they like to do. If you have trouble check google or ask in one of the many many user forums. No cost there. When was the last time you got free tech support from Microsoft?
Security, I’m not going to bother touching that one. I think we all read enough virus and worm notices to know the winner here. The fact that new sources like cnn report on the latest Windows viruses has got to tell you something about magnitude of the problem.
Again, expensive? Hm, let’s check. Fedora — free. Debian — free. Gentoo — free. The list goes on …
> a) Windows makes sense, as in logical
What do you mean ?
b) Windows has more apps
Agreed.
c) Linux is made with a license which assumes you buy support, hence why software is produced with purpose of being hard for users
Wroong. Linux is mostly made by enthousiasts working for free. Most Free Software developers couldn’t care less about the way distributions will make money on them. So they don’t make software hard to use in order to sell support.
d) Windows is a reliable platform through time as in it’ll stay around. Linuxland is scattered with distros that come and go so choice is really not there
Distros may disappear, but Linux, GNOME, KDE etc… will stay forever, because it’s free. It just can’t die. Windows, on the other hand, can die anytime. And when it does (like BeOS did), you’re basically screwed (like BeOS users)…
e) Security, sure Linux might be secure, assuming you’re a supertechnician with CS studies for about 5 years. For me it’s more like a swiss cheese…
If you do a default install of – say – Fedora Core, your system is quite secure. And, obviously, *way* more secure than MS Windows’ default installation.
f) Linux is EXPENSIVE, besides from learning costs, you have this update license fees which costs Loads, especially since you have big discounts for buying windows when you buy your comp.
“update license” ? WTF are you talking about ? My Fedora Core distribution is updating every day and I didn’t pay a dime. The same for Debian and most other distributions.
Please go get a clue.
what annoys me is that trolls who post rubbish like that almost always do it as anonymous.
This site needs a registration process so that posts like that can be eliminated, even if they are not, we at least have an email address to flame or a username that we can either ignore, or read when we are bored and need a laugh
a) Windows makes sense, as in logical
For you, but that doesn’t mean for everyone else.
b) Windows has more apps
Does it? Which apps are you talking about? If you know where to look you will find many apps for *nix.
c) Linux is made with a license which assumes you buy support, hence why software is produced with purpose of being hard for users
Mostly true for Windows. Just go on irc or a forum and you will get free help with your Linux distro. Check your sources first.
d) Windows is a reliable platform through time as in it’ll stay around. Linuxland is scattered with distros that come and go so choice is really not there
Yes, you have many distros to chose from, but a few are still alive and will be. Here is a few examples: Slackware, Red Hat(Fedora), Mandrake, and a few more. Again, check your sources first.
e) Security, sure Linux might be secure, assuming you’re a supertechnician with CS studies for about 5 years. For me it’s more like a swiss cheese…
Windows users are known to not care about security, because they think it’s secure enough. Linux users are aware of security issues and know how to fix them. If you know the system you are using, you will know how to secure it.
f) Linux is EXPENSIVE, besides from learning costs, you have this update license fees which costs Loads, especially since you have big discounts for buying windows when you buy your comp.
People more and more want to just click one button and the OS does all their work for the day. It’s not reality. I remember when people had to use DOS. People knew they had to know about computers to make it work, so those who used computers back then knew how to use it AND fix a problem.
At the moment, I’d say SkyOS or Amiga or something is more likely to replace a distro, but Linux is probably the last option there is…
Maybe, maybe not.
The most important issue in the “OS-War” is not that we should end up with ONE OS, but give people a choice. If you want to use SkyOS, then use it. If I want to use Linux, I want to do that, and so on.
That’s me: Anonymous (IP: —.prioritytelecom.net)
Forgot to sign the post. =]
Thank you for proving my point. Most of what you say is that Linux is not aimed for some normal character… you force people to learn…. IRC? Why would anyone want to use IRC anyway?
Google for answers? Howabout start writing manuals? If documentation was the issue the article would be named “FreeBSD on a computer near you”… since that is thorough documentation…
some other character actually mentioned Debian and Gentoo and Slackware… Geee, those are so well aimed towards the general public LoL.
Geeez, your answers just keep showing that Linux simply not aimed at anyone who uses the computer as a tool to do something but rather uses the computer for using it (as in interest). Linux really seems so far away from desktop use it’s embarassing.
Yes, I’m proving your point that most Windows users are lazy and afraid about learning to use a computer.
If YOU don’t want to learn Linux, don’t bother, stop trolling.
Just take a look in the real life. If you want to drive a car, can you just get one and start driving? No, you have to take a test. And if you pass that test, you are allowed to drive a car. And many people have a hard time getting that license, and that shows not everyone should have a car. If you can’t use the “tool” you want to use and don’t want to learn it either, don’t bother using it. Learn it or stop complain that you don’t understand it.
To use something we all need to learn how to use it. It seems that people who want to use computers think that you will get the information installed into your brain to.
It’s like the old saying: You have to learn to walk before you learn to run.
And one more thing. I’ve seen people who have never used Linux before start using it and turn their back on Windows. Why? Maybe they aren’t afraid to learn something new.
“Google for answers? Howabout start writing manuals?”
I dont know about you but every version of Linux I have ever used has come with documentation. You have help, man, etc… Also, every linux distro I have bought (Mandrake 7.2, 8.1, SUSE 8.0, 8.1, and soon 9.1) has come with nice books. SUSE’s are huge and very thorough, even covering how to use GIMP, OpenOffice, etc… besides the basic OS features.
If you don’t want to pay, then don’t ask for support. I’d like to see you call up Microsoft Tech Support for a cracked copy of XP and expect help. That being said, there are a vast number of free forums/websites dedicated to both Microsoft and Linux suppport.
do yourself a favour and download Mandrake 10.
I have 3 windows fanboy friends who hated linux in the past. I installed mandrake 10 on their pcs, and guess what ?
they are still my friends and they are extremely impressed by linux.
so until you can qualify any of your mad FUD, by ACTUAL linux experience, then stfu please
I raised this suggestion in the Linux forum here on OSNews, and got quite comprehensively trolled by the zealots.
Linux won’t catch on until either
A)High-street PCs and Laptops are tested with it and the results put into publicly available databases. It would do major vendors no harm at all to spend an hour installing linux on their PCs just to see if it works, then providing the results either with the machine or to the distro makers.
B) Distribution vendors supply details on which *complete* systems are fully supported by their software
And no, I don’t mean HCLs, if I have, say, an HP Pavilion Athllon 64, or a Dell Latitude laptop, I want to see on the distro homepage that is either fully supports every component of that PC, or doesn’t.
Joe User won’t open his case to see what components his PC has and then check each one individually against his proposed desktop. Just not gonna happen.
Joe User won’t open his case to see what components his PC has and then check each one individually against his proposed desktop. Just not gonna happen.
Joe User isn’t going to install an OS (Linux, SkyOS, Windows upgrade), either. They just don’t care. They’ll get a new OS when they get a new PC.
There are a couple of things the OSS community could do to help linux on the desktop:
-Get more Linux-based computers in stores (BestBuy, Circuit City, Wal-mart, etc, etc, etc). There are some niche PC, but they are really low end systems.
-Help the BSA crack down on pirating software. Face it: Most people don’t see the difference bewteen the ‘free’ in OSS and the ‘free’ in the copy of MS Office there buddy gave them. More people would turn to OSS/away from MS if the BSA started leveling charges against home users.
reaction to these guys who claim windows is so much easier.
I used Windows for years and just recently , less then a month ago gave my first look on Linux after trying out Knoppix. I heard these stories about Linux being so hard to learn and use, etc. I downloaded Slackware 9.1, booted from the installcd and followed the instructions given in the installer + reading a howto install slackware article at the same time, giving more info about each installation step. It amazed me how easy it actually was to set up everything, and how fast it goes.
Right after install I just had to add a normal user,
type alsaconf to install my soundcard . That goes completely automatic, even with my soundcard , an Opti , wherefor I had to look hours to find a windows driver. And here it took me 1 sec.
Then type xf86config to configure the X server. Really easy.
Installing Linux Slackware is overall very easy and fast. In my opinion easier then Windows installation. Even if I used Windows from Windows 95 to XP, and never tried any other OS.
And then the apps… I directly found Mplayer, OpenOffice, Sylpheed email, Gimp, Gaim, gftp, gvim… Just asking what programs I could use instead of my windows programs on a forum. Took me about 1 hour to get these programs which are totally free and completely superior to MS products coming with windows.
Comercial software promises so much … free software doesn’t have to compete and make false promises. It just works the way the programmer says. Bugs aren’t held back in the shadows.
The problem is that I always needed another PC or at least another partition with another OS running to access the internet to figure out problems during installation or initial setup which was never included in the piss poor documentation which came with the distribution. As an example setting up a DSL connection with t-online in Windows is straight forward. In Linux / FreeBSD it is the horror.
Only if more people could be so opened minded as you are. =]
use a router with built in firewall , works with everything immediatly , they are so cheap anyway
I think the best way to learn and use linux are the live cd’s. (There is also an lot of documentetion on line , or in your local libary)
Its like an interactive linux book that really shows you what it is. And yes, you will have to make an effort, you will meet dissapointments, you will have to search for answers, and cannot ask your neigbourgh (better find an linux guru
, cause he does not know what you are talking about.The same would be true for windows, if you have an non pc user neigbourgh. This does not mean that linux cannot be on the desktop, it can, and the fact worldwide is : that it is on the desktop, it is in your router, it is in your standalone dvd player, it serves you when you connect to the internet and browse your fav websites, its even helping microsoft with their servers, it might even be on your watch. (see linux devices) The endless discussion is over, its here and here to stay. And it can live in peace side by side with others. Even windows.
cybernout.
‘Yes, I’m proving your point that most Windows users are lazy and afraid about learning to use a computer.’
Yet Windows users *have* learned to use a computer, if they hadn’t then they wouldn’t be Windows users. Maybe what they’re afraid of is wasting their valuable time learning an over complex and user hostile OS, that has few advantages over the one they already use. That isn’t being lazy, it’s just common sense.
‘Just take a look in the real life. If you want to drive a car, can you just get one and start driving? No, you have to take a test.’
True, but that doesn’t mean that all cars are equally easy to drive and maintain. If Linux was a car you’d need to understand exactly how the engine works and spend a day tweaking it just to drive down the street.
‘To use something we all need to learn how to use it. It seems that people who want to use computers think that you will get the information installed into your brain to.’
Most people are used to Windows, Mac, Amiga, RISC OS, or other easy to use OSes with nice consistent GUIs. Obviously going to a user hostile OS like Linux is going to be a shock. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t willing to learn, just that they aren’t willing to suffer a product that’s much harder to learn when they’re used to something so easier.
For all the Linux skeptics out there. Try Knoppix Live CD. You don’t have to install anything. It takes a minute to be up and running with a fantastic state of the art desktop complete with multimedia, browsing and office software. It even gets connected to the internet with zero effort(in my case). You wouln’t go back to Windows later.
@ Anonymous (IP: 213.80.61.—)
Good post. Too bad the close minded Linux zealots don’t even “get it”.
I recently added NTFS access to my Fedora Core 1 Linux. The procedure was simplified but still was too much work for such a trivial task. There should be an RPM that the user double-clicks, ask 1 or 2 questions and installs itself properly. Now for the main problem: the permissions and auto-mount at boot. When I mounted the 3 drives using the supplied commands, it makes all the folders and files read-only. I got tired of this and right-clicked each files I needed to 0777 so that the emblem would disappear and be free to move my stuff around. The proceded to FSTAB in ETC. Added the 3 lines with 777 as permissions like the documentation said.
Anyway, 1 day later I can’t access my 3 NTFS partitions. I have to mount them using the console. In OS/2, you only have to add 1 line to the config.sys and 1 reboot and you can access you stuff. Linux is complicated. Fixing this kinf of stuff is boring. I’ll mess around tonight to get those working again.
Then there is the RPM database problem. Rythmbox hangs when installing. Something is corrupted…
when will linux shake the geek image? my sister uses my mandrake install at times to play games and she never have to encounter the console. if a linux box is preconfiged (like most windows installs are) then anyone that gets a basic walktru about where the stuff is (or just goes looking, mdk and others have this nice menu that sorts tools by what they do, not theyre name or makers name) they will be goinging strong. its the power users that hit the console every day and its the power users that boot to console and then use startx if they want to use the graphical interface. most others will be happy with a graphical autologin (to nonroot i may add, autologin isnt bad at all as then the user gets directed straight to the desktop) and will most probably never look at the console unless they encounter a problem and then they get hold of someone that can help them. i personaly act like a mr fix-it for the local area when it comes to computers and i have seen many people that dont know shit about how to install or configure windows use it for day to day tasks so how can linux be diffrent if they get someone to install it or get it preinstalled?
I really think this article is well placed in the linux windows reality. Good Work
“Linux on the desktop will not happen. Ever. Period.”
It happened to me. It happened to my parents. It happened to some of my friends. Period.
“If Linux was a car you’d need to understand exactly how the engine works and spend a day tweaking it just to drive down the street.”
Wrong. I put in my Fedora CD, click a few buttons, and almost all my hardware is automatically detected and setup. Either you haven’t used Linux for years or you’re using a distro that isn’t intended to be user friendly.
This month, the Dutch computer magazine “Computer Techniek” wrote an article about Linux on the desktop. One of their quotes is “Many colleagues were surprised about how easy it is to install Linux.”. I trust them more than I trust you, a single person making grand statements without any solid proof.
dude wrote:
> Why does everyone assume linux is good on a old desktop?
http://delilinux.berlios.de/
> Sure you can run it fine WITHOUT a gui,
Yes. Hell, you can run it fine WITH a gui:
http://fvwm.org/screenshots/desktops/
> but put gnome or kde on it and you’ll be hogging a good chunk of ram
Correct. For those you’ll want to get like 384MB or more …
> and cpu.
No. Any Pentium II or better should be fine, for either. As long as it has _lots_ of RAM and a fast HD installed.
> Personally, I tried this on a pentium pro system
Try something (a bit) optimized for i686 on that, like:
http://slackware.com/
> with 32 megs of ram.
There we go 🙁 … Read above.
> This would run win98 fine,
Try actually _using_ that. IOW: install MS-Office 2000 / MS-Explorer 5.5 / et al. (Indeed it’ll become slow too, but worse yet: it’s unreliable).
> albeit slower than one with more ram.
What is keeping you from installing more RAM then?
> However, when I tried linux and kde, it was so f…ing slow my patience ran out after a couple of hours waiting for the logout to finish so I can quit the gui and try an gui with a smaller footprint, and no it was not frozen, it was swapping on the HD as if theres no tomorrow. [ … ]
Wrong. I put in my Fedora CD, click a few buttons, and almost all my hardware is automatically detected and setup.
Almost all, huh? So what do you do about the hardware that wasn’t automatically detected?
“Linux on the desktop will not happen. Ever. Period.”
It happened to me. It happened to my parents. It happened to some of my friends. Period.
How much more sarcastic do I have to become, huh? You didn’t even bother to read the rest of my post, did you?
Another article about Linux on the desktop and then the same arguments are made on for it and against it. I’ve been using Linux since ’94 when I got my first Slackware book with Slack 3.0. Ten years later and I don’t see Linux on the desktop for several reasons.
Linux needs multimedia capabilities. I’m talking about in browser streaming video. Plugins that work with the browser. Also better counterparts to their Windows applications. Yahoo lets me use environments, send files, and use my webcam. AIM lets me do the same thing. However gaim does not. Its these types of things that will keep Windows around. I will give Linux credit for finally figuring out how to play more than one sound at a time, but even that is sketchy at times.
I am not IT trained. When I started working, windows 3.11 was the only thing you could run on a PC. I did not realise at the time that something ELSE could run on the PC.
I realise it when I windows NT came our and I installed it for the first time at work, because I couldn’t stand rebooting 3.11 4 or 5 times a day. Colleagues sneared and when I hit problems, they were so happy to lecture me on how careless I had been. After the problem was resolved (bad memory), everyone upgraded, obviously not lecturing anymore.
Linux will be the same but distros have got to hunt down application gaps and start projects to close them.
‘Either you haven’t used Linux for years or you’re using a distro that isn’t intended to be user friendly.’
I’ve been using Mandrake 9.2. According to Mandrake it’s designed to be user friendly, although it’s got a hell of a long way to go before that’s even remotely true.
“Why does everyone assume linux is good on a old desktop? Sure you can run it fine WITHOUT a gui, but put gnome or kde on it and you’ll be hogging a good chunk of ram and cpu. Personally, I tried this on a pentium pro system with 32 megs of ram. This would run win98 fine, albeit slower than one with more ram. However, when I tried linux and kde, it was so f…ing slow my patience ran out after a couple of hours waiting for the logout to finish so I can quit the gui and try an gui with a smaller footprint, and no it was not frozen, it was swapping on the HD as if theres no tomorrow. Fact of the matter is, linux will work with a desktop gui, but it is not good enough to be my main desktop, lack of hardware support being number 1, UGLY fonts being number 2, lack of support for my games without paying transgaming to get it working, and lastly, DEPENDENCY HELL = WORST THAN DLL HELL.”
*sigh* You should have known better than to try KDE on 32MB of RAM. Secondly, I don’t think anyone will argue that Linux will me much quicker on a machine that age than Win98; however the speed should be similar (if you use a lighter WM) and you will have more tools.
Hardware support is fine in Linux, it actually has great hardware support. It’s not quite as full on x86 as Windows, however it actually runs on other architectures (albeit with an occasional patch). Try to boot up Windows on an ultra-sparc or an alpha!
The fonts are fine. I bet I have 60% of the fonts you do in Windows, largely because you can GET WINDOWS FONTS RUNNING ON LINUX!
Yea gaming sucks, but I don’t think you are gonna game on a Pentium Pro. Although my friends who do game in linux tell me most everything works in WineX. I don’t see how paying a game company less than you pay Microsoft is really a bad cost? Less money was cheaper last I heard.
A lot of distro’s come with a package managers that handles dependencies for you: Gentoo, Suse, Yellow Dog, Fedora, Debian, Arch, Slackware (although I dislike swaret), Lindows, Vector. Oh I give up, I can’t list them all. And DLL hell has it’s Linux equivalent, although I haven’t run into a great deal of troubles with it on either system.
Oh, and my 224MHz Cyrix runs beautifully with Linux. I use iceWM on it and it’s pretty responsive.
Linux needs multimedia capabilities. I’m talking about in browser streaming video. Plugins that work with the browser.
What are you talking about? Linux has THE BEST MULITMEDIA APP AVLIABLE, Mplayer. Theres also the mozilla plugin which lets you stream vid/audio in windows media formats, quicktime, and real.
use a router with built in firewall , works with everything immediatly , they are so cheap anyway
What good is a router going to do if you have no network because your card was not supported by the distro or it failed to load the driver for it? Not everyone has umpteen nics of various flavours just lying around their computer room. Ah – but use usb some will say! Yeah sure – like that really works with all distro’s.
I’m not defending windows here because the same can happen with windows but 99% of the time, you can download whatever drivers you need before upgrading to a new windows OS if you suspect your hardware may not be supported out of the box, can you do the same with linux?
I’m a linux user by btw, but linux is far from ready from taking over the desktop or even posing a serious threat to mongrelsoft’s monopoly.
Till
More apps does not necessarily make me want to try your Operating System. You can keep your Kazzaa and other spyware/adware crap.
As for the other comments, you need to get your mothers milk knocked out of you before you run your mouth.
Sadly, none of the live cd’s work on a new system and I don’t even consider mine to be that new since it’s just over a year old. On Knoppix I get no sound, no network, a distorted screen and it’s as slow as hell. And since the others had no support for serial ATA, there was no point in even downloading them.
The same with most of the distro’s, no support for my hardware, tho all my hardware does have supported drivers for linux, none of the distro’s have caught up to the latest trends straight off the bat, I have to jump through a gazillion hoops to get a working system, which is frustrating to say the least.
The only distro that has worked for me off the bat was Fedora Core2, but since this is alpha software, it’s not really suitable for day to day use.
To me, I see two reasons why linux will not be mainstream on the desktop for a very long time. One is hardware support (I don’t blame linux for this) Two is the desktop environments, all of them are not a patch on windows or macOS, they have not matured enough and I doubt the will for a long time
Till
Ye , with a router you only need good driver for your network card. Not having to log in to your isp manually, no need for modem drivers. Slackware automaticly found the right module for my 9 year old ISA network card
. I tought if it finds that, it finds everything 
.
I wouldn’t recommend usb modems either…
I think routers are great, spares me from some hassle. Altough it’s right that not everyone can afford it. I don’t know if Linux is very compatible with usb modems, and others. It’s offcourse a big downside if it’s not.
Linux (I only know of slackware) has great support for the regular stuff, I don’t think it’s as simple for exotic hardware… USB headsets, digital cameras, bluetooth etc. But again , I have no need for these and never tried it.
Based on that linux is offcourse not ready for everyone, not that that is the goal of Linux…
my iriver mp3 player works perfect with linux tho… I believe it works good with all usb mass storage devices, if all mp3 player, digital photocamera, etc brands would make their products a usb mass storage device, would they all work ? I think they would, dunno for sure.
grtz
The author ends by saying “you may even see Microsoft Office on Linux.” Well, I am running MS Office on Linux. So this isn’t a prediction, it’s a reality.
As almost everyone knows, Codeweavers CrossOver Office allows you to run MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint flawlessly out-of-the-box. I have only ONE bug among these programs (XP version), which is that in Excel when I go to “Format->Cells” one of the tabs doesn’t show up properly (you can still click on it, but its label is blank). But what’s amazing is that even though these apps are being implemented by way of WINE, Office XP starts up _faster_ under Linux than it does under Windows XP on the same box. I don’t know why, I don’t know how, but it does.
Why do I use MS Office in Linux? Well, because I’m a student and professors expect the MS DOC format to be ubiquitous, especially non-CS professors. So, I pander to them rather than making a big deal out of open standards. But I’ve been surprised by how well it works.
Of course, “ready” is subjective. Some people have problems with it, some do not. I have a laptop that I have experimented with Linux for a while now. It is usually hooked up to an external monitor
I started off with Knoppix live CD which was great but was limited. The distributions I have installed to the hard drive were Morphix, Slackware 9.0, Vector, Mandrake 9.2, and Mandrake 10. None of these would recognize my PCMCIA wireless cards except Mandrake 10, even though one of them (a cf card) worked fine in my Sharp Zaurus.
None of these distros will allow me to adjust the resolution above that of the built in LCD. With Linux I am stuck at 1024×768 on a 21” monitor. I have Googled for an answer but the consensus is there isn’t one. Dual screens? Forget it. I can, however, get all this done with Windows.
I also agree with the previous poster regarding the remark about fonts on Linux – they are on the whole butt UGLY with Mandrake being the worst.
Mandrake 10 has come closest to a viable desktop of the ones I’ve tested. But aside from the above mention monitor problem, it has the worst fonts of any distro I have seen, so much so, that I have ruled it out as a Windows replacement. Mandrake was also the first OS that used RPM’s. Up until it was installed I had only heard about dependency hell but hadn’t experienced it. Now I know what people have been complaining about. Try to install programs from something other than the CDs and you may wind up in hell. Conflicts and missing dependencies may drive you insane and may take hours/days to resolve.
The best software installer I have seen is the Linspire CnR. Nothing in Mandrake compares to this. But Linspire charges for their OS upfront without any guarantee that it will work on your hardware. Their website is woefully inadequate in its guidance in hardware compatibility.
All-in-all I still have high hopes for Linux.
I am writing this on Linux. I have tried to use linux on my home PC for the last 6 years. Now with Mandrake 10 I’ve got a system which is good enough to do everything I want. I don’t have 200 euro for Windows XP. This distro was free. All the software that came with it was free. I have an office suite that works, and does everything I need (OOo) I have a great email application (Evolution) great web browsers (everything apart from MS IE which I don’t want anyway, it doesn’t have tabs). It looks nice and it works well.
The number of people trying and using Linux is going up. It will continue to rise.
When Bill Gates and co went to IBM with the proposal that they should get money for each copy of DOS that was bundled on the PC IBM thought it was funny. Who wanted to pay for the OS, people bought computers. (IBM simply wanted to buy DOS in one go.) Anyway the point is that we are back to the stage where people don’t want to pay for software. Look at the ammount of pirated copies of Windows out there. Hands up everyone that built your own computer… ok now hands up all those that went out and bought a legal copy of Windows to put on it?
Linux is starting to gain ground in all the areas that it was lacking in the past. It’s starting to look professional, it’s easy to install. It’s getting easier to use and configure.
Here in Thailand a lot of PCs (the cheaper ones) come with a copy of Linux installed. Government bodies are starting to move to Linux, schools are starting to use it, internet cafe, etc. Linux is a real working alternitive to Windows. It might not be perfect but if it does the same basic job, but is free, why should you pay more.
For me it’s simple. Windows XP might be a great OS. MS Word might be brilliant and Adobe Photoshop might be the best photo editing package in the world. But I don’t have 200 euro for XP, and 200 euro for Word and 700 euro for Photoshop. And it just so happens that I don’t have to spend that money, because I there is Linux, OpenOffice and gimp.
“What good is a router going to do if you have no network because your card was not supported by the distro or it failed to load the driver for it? Not everyone has umpteen nics of various flavours just lying around their computer room. Ah – but use usb some will say! Yeah sure – like that really works with all distro’s.”
Simple — you check wether the hardware is supported before you chose to install some OS or you buy a complete solution which is meant for this purpose. For example a Soekris or VIA C3.
Pro-Linux people: i suggest to just ignore the trolls up here. They’re with a lot, and they keep repeating their moronic, unproven arguments. It is a waste of time, only creating pageviews for Ms. Loli-Queru.
>>b) Windows has more apps
I am a Linux (Mandrake 10) user and I much prefer it to Windows XP for home use (which for me is mostly downloading videos, music, watching DVDs, CD burning, web browsing, IMing, POP email and P2P [Limewire]). However I must I agree with your statement. Many important Windows applications such as Comet Cursor, Gator, Bonzi Buddy, Hotbar, MyWebSearch, Huntbar, Shop@Home Companion, Precision Time, Weatherbug, ZestyFind, New.Net, TopText, Outlook Express, and AOL 9.1 are conspicuously absent from the Linux landscape.
I have placed Linux of several desk tops now – for friends, family and others After about a month of use all have come to love it (mostly SuSE and I do remove duplicated programs & utilities). Why?
1.It works well – no problems as a rule. This is most notable when coming from Win98 and ME. Most people are not looking for the greatest wiz-bang OS but just one that works for what they need. In fact extra features are only an annoyance to many people.
2.The point that really makes the sale is that they can stop worrying about viruses and other scum-ware while surfing.
3.The non-profit where I work uses it because we get systems with the drives wiped – and no source disks or data on the system. In this situation Linux installs very easy compared to Windows. In fact if one distro fails to install correctly just try another. No surfing the net with a crippled machine looking for drivers or swapping or buying cards to get one with a driver.
4.Small business that I have set up on Linux systems notice very quickly that they are calling me less for help with their Linux boxes than their Windows Boxes and are therefore getting very interested in moving more of their equipment to Linux.
True I’ve had a couple people not make it to the one month mark before switching back to Windows – one had special game disks they wanted to run the other thought the MSN games site was the place to be.
I have been running linux on a dell 4150 inspiron laptop for almost 2years now, dual booting with XP. I have tried too many distros to name but settled on Libranet lately which works fine for the most part. Wether people like to admit it or not depending on what you plan on doing with your PC (and your hardware) Linux could be ready for the desktop as of now. But like I said it all DEPENDS.
Linux could make sense for a corporate desktop environment where certain apps are needed and they could be properly tested and supported by experienced net admins. But for the normal home user, who does not have access to the above having used Linux now for sometime and enjoying it, you cannot hide from the reality of the situation, which is for the average home users desktop it is not ready yet. This is not to say it will not be ever, far from it, but until it recieves far greater hardware and software support form larger companies it will not happen today or tomorrow.
Case in point, I recently bought a new DELL 4600, with built in Intel Audio 82801EB AC’97, which is not supported in Linux. Support emails to 5 distros that I have used extensively have confirmed this as a current issue. Sure maybe there might be some wrapper soon that needs to be compiled from source and it might work, but I can’t see aunt Tilly compiling from source just to get sound on a fairly run of the mill piece of hardware such as a DELL.
Before the zealots start screaming at me saying, well serves me right for buying a dell, or dell is a pice of $$%@# , wether thats true or not is beside the point.
Fact is a common piece of hardware is not supported.
Inspite of this I still continue to use Linux fairly often, because I like it, its fun. Also I would like to add, that the developers and maintainers of the distros understand this problem and appreciate constructive critiscism unlike many die hard linux users and fans, who unfortunately take things too personally. If linux is ever going to replace windows on the desktop, then you need to face reality and stop acting like brats and help solve its present shortcomings and work to make it as widely compatible as possible.
Dude, grow up.
Sorry about that, Eugenia. Mod me down, please.
Sure you can run it fine WITHOUT a gui, but put gnome or kde on it and you’ll be hogging a good chunk of ram and cpu. Personally, I tried this on a pentium pro system with 32 megs of ram. This would run win98 fine, albeit slower than one with more ram. However, when I tried linux and kde, it was so f…ing slow my patience ran out after a couple of hours waiting for the logout to finish so I can quit the gui and try an gui with a smaller footprint, and no it was not frozen, it was swapping on the HD as if theres no tomorrow.
Try XFCE if you need a lightweight desktop environment. XP isn’t going to be fun running on that machine either. At least you can run an up-to-date version of Linux with an up-to-date DE on an older machine.
lack of hardware support being number 1
What hardware? It has supported everything ever I threw at it. XP isn’t always supported by all hardware, especially anything older. XP wouldn’t even recognize my GeForce card, so I had to install it with another card, then switched it out when I could use the CDROM to install the proper drivers. SUSE didn’t have a problem using my GeForce card for the install.
UGLY fonts being number 2,
Bull. That argument has been tired for at least a year now. My fonts look better than Windows’ fonts.
DEPENDENCY HELL = WORST THAN DLL HELL.
Then try a distro that doesn’t have those problems. Gentoo does a fine job of avoiding any dependency issues. You do have choices with Linux.
I recently bought a new DELL 4600, with built in Intel Audio 82801EB AC’97, which is not supported in Linux
It looks like Intel makes a driver for your soundcard:
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/linux/
Yet another article about whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop. IMO, the biggest advantage to Linux is that its free. I do dual boot Linux (Mandrake 10) on both my laptop and my desktop and I will boot into them every now and them so I can be familiar with the system. This is why Linux is a long ways off from making it my main OS (and for many other people I know):
1. Programs. Face it, you have the biggest selection in programs when you are a Windows user (even if you take out the gaming). Yea, you will pay for many of them, but I for one dont mind paying for a quality product, rather than getting one for free that almost does what I need it to do.
2. Hardware. On my two computers, I have yet to get everything working propery under Linux. My Desktop is almost worthless since I cant get my network card to work (NO, I am not going to go out and spend money on a new one…) and I would LOVE to get my wireless card working on my laptop. Sound doesnt work on either. Making use of my 3D card? Well, thats a different story.
3. Ease of setup. I will say that installing Linux was just as easy as installing Windows (and quite a bit faster too!). Once I boot into the OS, then I run into problems… For instance getting my 3D card to work I had to download drivers, compile them, then do some compiling with the kernel and then deal with the Xfree8 files… And I have to ask why am I wasting my time doing this? IMO, this is one area where Windows shines in that it handles the detection and installation of drivers for you. I’ve screwed up video card drivers before in Windows, and its been able to boot into a basic, low res GUI. Last time I had an issue with Linux display drivers, I just ended up with a system that would crash immediatly upon entering the GUI.
4. Multiple Flavors. Some may see this as a strength to Linux, but I see this as a problem. The nice thing about Windows is that while there are some different flavors available, they are also very, very similar too. Microsoft has done a great job at allowing programs to go from one OS to the next very seamlesly. When I choose a download for Linux, I am typically confronted with 4 or 5 choices as to what “Distro” I am using. Doing the same thing in Windows, its usually just a single Windows option or somtimes a Windows XP or Windows 98/ME choice. Very simple, and somthing that your average Joe could figure out. Sometimes these choice arent clearly marked, so I am stuck downloading multiple versions to see which one might work for my Linux distro.
So there you have it. I am expecting some flames on this, but I am just simply telling my Linux experience, and one that many of my buddies have had as well. I could try different distros, but why? I have better things to do than be downloading several cds worth of information and then running the install process just to see if things will work. I expect ALL my hardware to work under whatever environment I use for my main OS. Heck, I paid for my hardware, and its just throwing away money to only have it halfway working. For me, thats NOT good enough. My solution? I chose a distro that does all I need it to do. Its called Windows XP Pro. Its reliable (it may crash, but very, very rarely. I’ve crashed Linux even more times than I caused Windows to), easy to use, and it has all the programs I want. For me, the $200 or so asking price is NOT that much at all.
Why is it when someone comes here and posts their opinion on some of the “gotchas” with linux people say “Grow up!” or “Get a Life!”. Last time I checked this was OSnews which allows people to post opinions on articles listed on this site. Instead of spouting off childish insults like you are 10 years old, how about respond back with constructive and informative criticism?
Ray,
I totally agree with you. I use Linux also, but with common pieces of hardware still not supported in Linux it’s hard for me to use it as my primary OS. Linux needs to get to a point where it can have hardware supported prior to the hardware being “officially” available to the public or a way to get the supported added (like when Microsoft releases a driver update). The OSS community needs to work harder with the hardware manufacturers on getting specific hardware support into Linux.
I love Linux don’t get me wrong, but I just wish that no matter what distro I grab I know that my hardware will work and not require a RPM download or source download and a recompile of the kernel. I know how to recompile the kernel, but 99% of the population does not. I mean when I bought Windows XP and installed it all my hardware was recognized and worked out of the box. I didn’t have to download any drivers (I eventually did because I am a driver nut and like to have the latest)or recompile any kernels. That is how Linux needs to be. Just my opinion. Hopefully noone goes off on me all though someone more than likely will.
While I sympathize with your troubles, and I’m sorry your Linux experience isn’t better, I do feel the need to respond to one point:
“”Hardware. On my two computers, I have yet to get everything working propery under Linux. My Desktop is almost worthless since I cant get my network card to work (NO, I am not going to go out and spend money on a new one…)””
Network cards cost no more than $10 nowadays. What’s the big deal about getting another one? (This isn’t meant as a flame, just a question, because I seriously want to know)
What type of sound cards do you have? Did you check mixer settings?
Listen I’m all for alternative operating systems like Mac OS X & Linux gaining more share and being much more present in computer stores, the problem with Linux is most distros just aren’t ready for the average user out there. If some technies like me even can’t simply get some Linux things to work semi-effortlessly like on Mac OS X or Windows then it’s nowhere near ready for joe user out there. I would love to see pre-loaded Linux PC’s, but I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. All i’ve seen so far is hype about Linux, but I have yet to see any actual results in the real world.
“Network cards cost no more than $10 nowadays. What’s the big deal about getting another one? (This isn’t meant as a flame, just a question, because I seriously want to know)”
Nofi, this is true. However, there’s network cards and Network Cards. A NIC with a RTL8139 chip can’t achieve the same performance as any later 3Com or Intel NIC. So yeah, you’re right, you can get a NIC for $10. You can also get a better one (i saw $3.50 quality 3C’s on Ebay, second hand!), and actually get a better performance (less CPU usage, faster speed).
Here’s some more info including a compare between several NICs http://www.fefe.de/linuxeth/
Linux will not catch on as a desktop OS until it becomes easy and transparent how to install new applications. Package management apps are great, but if they don’t list a program that you want, they are useless. I would use linux if there was an application installer that people used.
Ye know,
I’m just about sick to death of seeing stories about this stuff. It’s fortunate that OSNews carries other interesting stories or I’d simply stop tuning in.
Yaaawn. Not even bothering to read this article or the responses (even my own). Same old same old.
Mmmm.
I do nothing that other people don’t already do. Like you, I whine alot. Personally, I think that your entire purpose here is to bother me, as all you ever do is bad mouth me.
Whatever makes you happy I guess. I’ve heard it’s fun.
that independant thinking thing was wrt this ridiculous hero worship. the fact that i agree with another ordinary guy was based on the fact that alot of what he’she said agreed with my thoughts on thing. not that you really care. you like to whine.
A few comments:
I liked Roman Pretenderle’s comments. Here is someone who got the joke. There may even be others who did.
At one point I upgraded my son’s computer from Windows 98 to 2000, and had to replace the NIC. The 3Com SOHO card never did get 2000 support. NICs are cheap, and the upgrade was worth the price of a new one. So to the guy who couldn’t get the NIC module to load in Linux, I know what it feels like. If you want Linux, see if Knoppix will run your NIC. If Knoppix won’t handle it, time to get a new NIC.
Regarding DLL and dependency hell. I haven’t run across the former since Windows 98. I haven’t seen anything like that on Linux since switching to Debian.
As for the person who recommended a router, I second that heartily. Just make sure to get the right router. I have an old Linksys I have updated several times. My connections are reliable and dead simple. A friend of mine bought a Belkin. He runs OS/2, Linux and Windows 98. The Windows box sort of worked, but the OS/2 box wouldn’t “see” it. The Linux boxes could see the Windows box, but not the OS/2. One Linux box would fail to detect the network at all, unless the Belkin was restarted. He replaced the Belkin with a Linksys and all network problems went away. I hear Netgear routers are good, too.
About running Windows 98 with 32 meg. of RAM: Yes it can be done. I volunteered at a small school to keep their computer lab going for one more year. Students fought to keep away from an HP machine with 32 meg. It would boot, but take a while. Half the time it would crash loading Word or Photoshop (yes, Photoshop). I ran 98Lite on it and gave it the “micro” treatment. If you rip out every last shred of Internet Explorer, and use the Windows 95 Explorer, Windows 98 runs just fine in 32 meg. Photoshop and Word do too.
One impetus for Windows users to change, is the first time they get infected with a virus. Several people I know have switched because of that. One person tried dual booting, and then got infected, blaming it on his son, who never touched the Linux side. I pointed out two virus attachments he had saved to his “home” directory. They hadn’t run, because they were Windows viruses, and because they hadn’t been made executable. Not all is peaches and cream. He can’t get his scanner working. He prefers Word to Open Office. Still, Linux is running, and Windows isn’t. That counts for something.
” Oh pretty please, with Linux on top?”
Its not about Linux but about putting i agree after a long posting just to boast a few points on your ego
how, uhm, personal. i bet you’re having the time of your life! woo hoo! i agrred with quite a few of his/her points because they were well thought out and valid. you’re just being confrontational for the fun of it, which i guess is also valid.
Since when is Windows ever ready for desktop? So many holes that you can drive a Mack through. Not only that but spyware and crapware, uch. What’s the purpose of having as many software when the Windows os is crapware and says “Sorry but we have a problem with your software but we will be glad to send it to our very intelligent employees to have a look at it.” Nice! Not only that but more you use it the more it becomes very slow. I’m sorry Windows is definately not ready for desktop. I used to do a lot of work to just maintain Windows but now my computer works for me, thanks Linux.
mandrake was the first os to use rpm ?
really ?
rpm, the same rpm as “Redhat Package Management” ?
hmm interesting.
mandrake might have ugly fonts out of the box, but how hard is it to go into mandrake desktop contol and change the fonts ?
anyway, switch off sarcasm detectors, the rest of the post is fine…
Linspire does have a decent system with click and run, however there is another distro available called OneBase, it has a system exactly like click and run, but it is free to use.
onebase has a few iso images, a live cd, and a hybrid source/binary distro, that will let you set up the machine a bit like gentoo. so it can be a noob friendly or as geek friendly as you like.
>>mandrake might have ugly fonts out of the box?
What are you guys running it on? Mandrake has had super-crisp, Windows-quality fonts for me since 9.1, and they’re spectacular in 10.0. Years and years ago (2001 or so), all Linux distros had nasty looking jagged fonts that I couldn’t stand, but that seems to have been corrected in all of the distros I have tried in the last year.
“mandrake was the first os to use rpm ?
really ?
rpm, the same rpm as “Redhat Package Management” ?
hmm interesting.”
That should have been: it was the first RPM distro that *I* used. Shame on me.
“mandrake might have ugly fonts out of the box, but how hard is it to go into mandrake desktop contol and change the fonts ?”
Hmmm… I didn’t say “out of the box”. Shame on you. (FYI: I have tried nearly every font adjustment in Mandrake. They still stink. Shame on Mandrake.)
“anyway, switch off sarcasm detectors, the rest of the post is fine…”
I’m so glad you approve of the rest of it.
“Linspire does have a decent system with click and run, however there is another distro available called OneBase, it has a system exactly like click and run, but it is free to use.
onebase has a few iso images, a live cd, and a hybrid source/binary distro, that will let you set up the machine a bit like gentoo. so it can be a noob friendly or as geek friendly as you like.”
I did have a look but it is not really comparable – where are the screenshots?
FYI: The fonts are poor on my system:
SiS video card on laptop
External monitor: Mitsubishi 22″ Diamond Pro 2070SB
When viewed on the 12″ LCD laptop screen they are OK but when viewed on a much better and larger screen sometimes they are barely readable. They are dirty looking and too frequently the letters run too close together. Under Windows fonts are fine and none of these problems exist for me.