The crackers currently have the whip hand over Windows, and Microsoft’s assertion that Internet Explorer is now part of the operating system shows its flawed reasoning. Worried sick about the latest rash of Internet Explorer security problems? I have the perfect solution for you, one that’s even better than switching to Mozilla, Firefox or Opera. Switch operating systems: Go to Linux, says eWEEK.
Isn’t Now the Time to Try a Linux 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
when I think of desktop I think of games, lots of games, Quicken and other tax software, educational software, did I forget to mention lots of games?
Again, in Synaptic, under the same section there is the package kinput2-canna-wnn6 which is the Japanese Input Method.
Then follow these instructions for inputing Japanese
————————————–
Inputting Japanese
Now when you start X and a Japanese-aware application, you should be able to use shift-space to begin Japanese input. A little window containing a Japanese hiragana “A” should appear, and what you type will become hiragana as you go. Hit space to transform short segments of hiragana into Kanji, or ctrl-n to cycle through katakana, half-width katakana, double-width romaji, normal romaji, and back to hiragana. Hit enter to set your choice, space to choose the next kanji, or backspace to go back to entering more hiragana. Hit shift-space again to leave Japanese input mode, but beware that any text you haven’t set by hitting enter will be lost.
______________________________________
More (maybe outdated) information here http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diffusor/xim/
I have read the “back and forth,” on whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop. I CAN say Linux is ready in my house. We have four machines, and they all run Linux. It was a gradual transition, and it has worked.
I am NOT qualified to say whether Linux is ready for your desktop, but wish you much happiness with the OS you are running.
Now for an actual, bona-fide comment on the article: I find it significant that such articles are appearing in publications like eWeek, a ZiffDavis magazine. Folks, something has changed in the last few months. Linux is starting to get better coverage in what were once Windows only publications. It’s even hitting the mainstream press.
This is a good thing. I want viable options. Above all, I think diversity will actually help things by slowing the spread of malware, and forcing programs to talk to each other.
My own experience with the clueless is if I am going to help them, I would rather do it on Linux. Once things are set up, fewer things go wrong. One person used AIM constantly, and was constantly infected. Now she uses GAIM on Linux, and has discovered four desktops she can customize.
I got Linux to recognize another person’s wireless network card, and then got to work getting her HP PSC series printer and scanner to work. Her comment: “I have a scanner?” I taught her how to use it under Linux. She has no clue how to do it under Windows.
This was after removing tons of background programs in Windows XP for her, and coming back to find a fresh crop installed. With Linux, you set it up and it runs… and runs.
I’ve been using Linux for a few years and it’s been stable and virus free. I can play DVD’s and I can use my digital camera (Powershot A70), but you have to know your way around the environment. Using the command line is technically challenging at first but it is a much better tool than the desktop GUI after you know how to use it efficiently. The average Joe will have some difficulties unless there is someone to walk them through.
“Joe user […] They dont care about monopoly lawsuits”
Sorry but my experience is surely different. I’ve had multiple discussions with common people who are not involved in the IT industry and while not all were dissatisfied with how Windows worked, i did sense a common tendense where Microsoft was not liked as monopolist. This contradicts with your position, which seems to be that 100% of non-IT people do not care for the MS lawsuits. Ofcourse, the fact this was on news here in the most common, public journal/news on TV, paper (frontpage) implies people don’t really care a damn, as if it is unimportant news? The news people (who are basically non-IT) appear to disagree at least. I’m afraid it is important in such way that people at least care about, not necessarily agreeing, and that the overal tendense against Microsoft is not well with some open source people who are working in the IT industry on the lead with their opinions. This is not uncommon on other fields either.
When one asks me what i advise as Windows alternative -which happens quite regulary-, i suggest open source applications on Windows (OO.o, Mozilla, GAIM, and others) and after that a Live CD as a test (mostly Knoppix). After that, a dual-boot migration (RedHat, SUSE). So not directly from A to B. Quite frankly, it all costs me little time to advise such things, cause i don’t get many questions and am (until now) always able to point to sources which have good answers.
It is getting there…
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/gnustep/
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/workstation/
If there was a Linux port for IL2 Sturmovik , I wouldn’t boot the 2nd option in LILO.But since game makers preffer to do DX games (some do OpenGL but use native libs,this is the case with IL2 as well),that means we have to stick to the ported ones.
Linux is ready for my desktop.Fortunately I can do my regular work on a shiny Slack10 box.
I am so tired of hearing the old “Not ready for the desktop” mantra. Come on, get an original arguement people. Give me a list of why it isn’t ready. What is missing?
OK, here you have it:
It isn’t ready because it is not yet adopted by any large percentage. Adoption is the only real metric of what is and is not ready, not your opinion that it is “easy”, or some guys assesment that “it has enough mature apps” etc. If tha was the case, then, someone could argue that (insert random alternative OS that all 5 people use) is great for the desktop, because it has all the apps *HE* or his friends need. Hint: great for *your* desktop, does not equal “great for THE desktop”.
It’s not as if WE DECIDE when it is ready by looking at the available stuff and assessing it.
It is THE PEOPLE (and the market) that decide whether something is or isn’t ready by ADOPTING IT IN DROVES.
Until Linux gets at least 20% of desktop share, it is not ready. Mac OS X is even not ready. It might be easy, and have commercial apps, but it lacks something people want ABSOLUTELY, or else they would have flown to it by the millions. In case of Mac OS X it is raw hardware performance with respect to price, and single hardware vendor lock-in. People just don’t like those two, so Mac OS X is not ready for their desktop. Since “they” are the majority, Mac OS X is not ready for the desktop, period, no matter how great you or I may thing it is (I’m actually buying an iBook in two months time, but I stand by this reasoning!).
On the other hand, people seem to have decided that Linix IS READY for the SERVER. There is no argument there.
Clue: the simple thing that people have to argue whether Linux is ready for the desktop or not, means that IT IS NOT. If it was ready for the desktop, it would be self-evident. There would be no arguing (except for the ocassional other desktop zealot).
Until Linux gets at least 20% of desktop share, it is not ready. Mac OS X is even not ready
WHAT?????!!!! MacOS not ready for desktop?Dude, MacOS IS THE DESKTOP. I don’t use MacOS, I would like to have money to buy a G4,but I have other priorities.
The rest of your arguments are too silly to even quote them.I didn’t thought I’ll ever see this statement.Hear,hear,MacOSX is not ready for desktop.I have been working 2 years for a company where the standar OS was MacOS7,then 7.5 , then 9. I leave company on ver.9
. But I was very impressed by this OS.Even today with all XP bells and whistles,MacOS looks better. Too bad it cost too much,at least for me.
Until Linux gets at least 20% of desktop share, it is not ready. Mac OS X is even not ready.
Linus says something (Until Linux gets at least 20%), and you take it up as gospel. Good thinking egghead.
I’m using Linux for past 3 years at Office as well as at home. I dont want to discuss DESKTOP Vs Server but once configured Linux it works very fast and it stands to my all needs. Infact I never had to download anything new after doing installation from CD’s. But I did upgrade my system regularly from Redhat 7.1 to Fedora Core 2 and I found that These CD’s are fully loaded with all types of packages that you dont have to download anything like on Windows. Also I’m free from Virus, and pretty safe from hackers! Never have to pay money to any package!
and pretty safe from hackers!
Wanna bet?
“Clue: the simple thing that people have to argue whether Linux is ready for the desktop or not, means that IT IS NOT. If it was ready for the desktop, it would be self-evident. There would be no arguing (except for the ocassional other desktop zealot).”
Clue: Argumentum ad populum; fallacy. Aka “where smoke is, is fire”. Aka, when some people call you an idiot, you are an idiot. Aka, when many people call Bush a dumbfuck, he must be. Because the majority is always right. I guess neither God exists, nor the Big Bang ever happened, because humanity simply doesn’t exist. All the arguments used don’t matter, what only matters is the fact humanity doesn’t agree which philosophy is right. Galileo was also PATHETIC with his finding that the earth evolves around the Sun. I mean, almost nobody agreed with him, so how could he have been speaking the truth?
After pages and pages of trolls screaming as they allways do that linux is not ready for the desktop without providing any valid argument for their point someone at last takes it upon himself to provide arguments and fails miserably.
In his desperation he even goes so far as to claim that Macs are not ready for the desktop. I think it is pretty selfevident how incredible desperate our beloved anti-linux trolls must be if they have to resort to this kind of “argument”
So I’ll ask those screaming once again, why exactly isn’t linux ready for the desktop and what exactly does being ready for the desktop mean in your opinion?
Linus says something (Until Linux gets at least 20%), and you take it up as gospel. Good thinking egghead.
I never even heard this Linus phrase you quote. If I had, be sure that I would have added it in my posting, since it’s a good thing to see the big guy agrees with me, while silly zealots twist it and turn it around.
In his desperation he even goes so far as to claim that Macs are not ready for the desktop. I think it is pretty selfevident how incredible desperate our beloved anti-linux trolls must be if they have to resort to this kind of “argument”.
The one you mention was a *statement*, not an argument. Perhaps you have difficulty differentiating between the two.
As for my arguments, check my posting again, they are there.
So I’ll ask those screaming once again, why exactly isn’t linux ready for the desktop and what exactly does being ready for the desktop mean in your opinion?
Even a 20 times better than Linux operating system doesnt mean it necessarily is ready for the desktop until people REALLY PROVE its ready for their desktop by USING IT EN MASSE.
Until then, it’s all speculation, and technical assesments which mean a shit only to technical people. Or stuff like: Linux is better because it has a bigger uptime, less viruses, open source, stronger vm, free programs etc. Good as all these might be, they are not the DEFINITIVE factors people consider when choosing their desktop. Other shortcomings seem to count more, and this can be proven by the share of OTHER desktop OSs.
Clue: Argumentum ad populum; fallacy. Aka “where smoke is, is fire”. Aka, when some people call you an idiot, you are an idiot. Aka, when many people call Bush a dumbfuck, he must be. Because the majority is always right.
You compare apples to oranges.
The statement “Bush is an idiot because many people consider him one” is a fallacy, because people considering Bush an idiot doesn’t NECESSARILY imply that he is.
On the other hand, the very definition of a desktop OS is one that is ACTUALLY USED ON PEOPLE’S DESKTOPS. If it not, then it is not suitable for the desktop. It doesn’t matter if according to some f***tards definition it is already a fine desktop os, it doesnt even matter if it exceals in technical assesements.
For the metric of “Desktop”-ness is not “having a fine virtual machine” or a “nice GUI”. It is “actually being in people’s desktops”.
That’s where the “Desktop” part of “desktop os” came from, not from performance metrics or available application counts.
>>Once you can install a damn 7 button mouse without hacking imwheel…
That would help. Distributors should just bite the bullet and write drivers for these mice. Their manufacturers aren’t, and developers will never get around to it until every bloody 3-button ps/2 mouse disappears from the planet.
Being forced to use a hack like imwheel is bush league.
Ok, one last try, the question of adoption of linux on the desktop is in no way the same as the question if it is ready to be adopted. Not even namecalling will change this fact.
Just try to apply your “argument” to something other than computers and you will see how stupid it is.
Tell me, what amount of marketshare does a certain frying pan have to have in order to be ready for frying?
What’s the amount of market share a car has to have to be considered ready for driving?
The BIG question is: what is a desktop OS?
I guess nobody really knows because it’s such a vague definition. So Linux and MacOS and Windows and UniX and BeOS and a billion other operating systems are ready for what????
I guess people on OSNews like to have this kind of articles that don’t add nothing of value… Oh well, better this than nothing.
This is indeed a good question as there is no such thing as _the_ desktop.
However, I think the article quite clearly points out about what kind of desktops he is talking, so your critique isn’t really justified, imho.
“On the other hand, the very definition of a desktop OS is one that is ACTUALLY USED ON PEOPLE’S DESKTOPS. If it not, then it is not suitable for the desktop. It doesn’t matter if according to some f***tards definition it is already a fine desktop os, it doesnt even matter if it exceals in technical assesements.”
GNOME and KDE are “actually” used on people’s desktops. But, anyway, according to your logic the following OSes are totally useless on the desktop because popularity decided Windows is the one and only solution:
* AIX
* Solaris / SunOS
* IRIX
* QNX
* SkyOS
* Syllable
* V2OS
* RISCOS
* OS/2
* MacOS / MacOSX
* BeOS
* AmigaOS
I mean, seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND would run… BeOS or AmigaOS as _desktop_ OS?? OMFG! That’s STUPID! You use them for… i don’t know, but not as desktop, because everyone runs Windows!!!!!!!111
Here, Microsoft is a monopoly, or almost monopoly -> Almost everyone runs Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> […]
Circular, huh? Your rhetoric is that simply. And my last reply, cause i feel i’m wasting time here with you.
Pretty funny logic you have there.Now,according to your twisted thinking,one must demonstrate that “Linux” is ready for the desktop.I dare to ask,did anyone demonstrate that Windows IS READY for the desktop?Answer is no.Why? Because Windows was pushed in front of everything for a decade now.Without arguments except:use this.Why?Because is ready?Please demonstrate.And,before you say 90% desktop uses it,yah,they do,but not by choice.You see,somehow I understand your frustration.There’s no “Linux for the masses”,at least not yet.Give it time.Then,average computer users,just like you,might even enjoy a “Linux desktop”.I suggest you should try a Mac for a start.Is better than Windows.Funny stuff,the only Windows I really enjoyed was 311,and, to a lesser extend,NT Server.
As far as I remember,in justice,is not the defendend that have to prove he is innocent,but is the prosecution that must demonstrate defendend is guilty.
when I think of desktop I think of games, lots of games, Quicken
When I think of games, I think console, not PCs. That’s where most of the game development is at these days. Meanwhile, I run Quicken under Crossover Office and it works just fine, thank you very much (including online banking).
First: everybody seems to have forgotten all about the first Windows 95 release. Despite the fact that it basically was Windows 4 (so not a first edition), Win95 lacked a lot of drivers and applications. Basically here in Europe, Windows 95 was like living hell: no decent ISDN support for 8 months, etc. It now is 2004 and Windows still isn’t top notch. Let us please give the OpenSource group another 6 years before saying that the product is trash and won’t make it at all. Personally I think the improvement of the distro’s have come a long way since eg 1999 and have shown more innovation since that time the whole windows platform.
Then about the argument that everybody should learn Windows, because the whole world uses it. I guess you are learning Chinese then, aren’t you. NO? Why not?
AmigaOS: please leave this beautiful OS out of this discussion.
I have got you marked!
And for the record: I use Mac OS X on a powerbook, because I’m a loser for design.
So, following your logic, all that could be missing for Linux to be ready for the desktop is a) a large marketing campaign, b) more computers coming with Linux pre-installed and c) China and India officially adopting Linux?
So, following your logic, all that could be missing for Linux to be ready for the desktop is a) a large marketing campaign, b) more computers coming with Linux pre-installed and c) China and India officially adopting Linux?
I guess that should do it
I still keep that advert from the superbowl where IBM advertised Linux.Couldn’t believed my eyes then
.IBM paid big money for this,there’s no doubt.
For the ones that didn’t seen the advert,here’s the page:
http://superbowl.ifilm.com/?sctn=collections&pg=superbowl2004
Is right on the 2nd line,next to AOL.Is called “Shake the World”
Tell me, what amount of marketshare does a certain frying pan have to have in order to be ready for frying?
What’s the amount of market share a car has to have to be considered ready for driving?
This is getting silly. A pan is a pan. Just like any other pan. A car is a car. They all work the same, with the same gasoline, etc.
An OS on the other hand can be a HELL OF A LOT different than another OS, from the kernel, to the philosophy, to the available applications, the programming model, the APIs, down to the little flashy icons.
If there was a FREE (as in beer and source) frying pan, the whole world and his mother would have adopted it. No such thing with an OS, and surely no such thing with Linux.
You argue that it could be *capable* to be on the desktop, but not *actually* on the desktop.
This is a fine line of reasoning, but: by what criteria then do you decide that it is *capable* to be on the desktop? Technical criteria on specific areas? GUI-pleasiness criteria? Price criteria? Philosophical ones (free as in thought, etc)?
And who told you that desktop worthiness for most people is measured by these criteria or a particular configuration of them? If it was, then those people would have flocked to Linux en masse already. Clue: they haven’t.
You might ask, why should we care what *most* people thing is better for their desktop? Duh, simply because “desktop” means THE PEOPLE’S DESKTOP, not mine, or yours or the one all 10 people use. There would always be some loose cannons running minority stuff or even crap. Hell, people still run Windows 3.1!
On the other hand, it seems that the criteria of the server people are different, for Linux satisfies these people, and is a SUCCESS in the server space. So Linux is without argument a server OS. If it is a desktop OS, remains to be proven (and seen).
So there.
GNOME and KDE are “actually” used on people’s desktops. But, anyway, according to your logic the following OSes are totally useless on the desktop because popularity decided Windows is the one and only solution:
* AIX
* Solaris / SunOS
* IRIX
* QNX
* SkyOS
* Syllable
* V2OS
* RISCOS
* OS/2
* MacOS / MacOSX
* BeOS
* AmigaOS
It is not according to my reasoning that these are useless on the desktop, it’s accoring to MOST PEOPLE’s reasoning. I simply said that to be a “desktop” OS you have to (duh!) actually be on people desktops!
The VAST VAST VAST majority of people thing all the above are useless as desktop OSs. Mac OS X is the least thought as useless of all these, admitedly. But it still is considered useless by 80% of the majority or more, because it is expensive as it ties you to a pricey hardware vendor lock-in.
Furthermore, REGARDLESS or not of the fact that SOME PEOPLE use those as desktop OSs (there are always loose cannons, os researchers or hobbyists, etc) the majority of those are not desktop OSs. I mean, seriously, AIX? Irix?
I mean, seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND would run… BeOS or AmigaOS as _desktop_ OS?? OMFG! That’s STUPID! You use them for… i don’t know, but not as desktop, because everyone runs Windows!!!!!!!111
You said it.
Here, Microsoft is a monopoly, or almost monopoly -> Almost everyone runs Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> Nobody should use any alternative for the desktop because no alternatives have significant market share -> Everyone remains running Windows -> […]
Circular, huh? Your rhetoric is that simply. And my last reply, cause i feel i’m wasting time here with you.
Maybe. But the above is YOUR reasoning. I never said anything to that effect. For example, in the 80’s Mac OS and DOC where the dominant desktop OSs. Now this is Windows. That can change in the future! What I OBSERVED is that this is not happening with Linux RIGHT NOW (if ever).
A new and better OS for the desktop can conveince people and it will get a LARGE market share. Linux is not (currently at least) that OS, otherwise this switching would have happened. There are probably many reasons why people installing new OSs thing Linux won’t cut it for them, in fact everyone of them can have its own reasons, but no matter what these reasons are THEY DO EXIST.
My reasons: I want to run Cubase, Reason, Photoshop and MS Office. I don’t want to run my apps under a provided-as-is compatibility layer like Wine. I don’t ever want to search around the net to have my laptop soundcard supported. Etc…
Yes I remember the TV ads from IBM too……they were for OS/2.
And IBM just did the new software package for eBay and it has already resulted in one class action lawsuit being started.
And how is Blue Linux making out by the way.
Linux has never worked on my ThinkPads and I am more than happy with Windows.
And todate nobody has sucessfully hacked me.
Pretty funny logic you have there.Now,according to your twisted thinking,one must demonstrate that “Linux” is ready for the desktop.I dare to ask,did anyone demonstrate that Windows IS READY for the desktop?Answer is no.Why? Because Windows was pushed in front of everything for a decade now.Without arguments except:use this.Why?Because is ready?Please demonstrate.
I can see by what you write that you weren’t around when Windows where launched (i.e you were small). For starters it was far more than “a decade now”.
Windows won because people like it and bought it. And it only won when this happened, i.e in the early nineties with Windows 3.1. Before of that, for 6+ years Windows weren’t adopted, although (as is the case with Linux) zealots and MS insisted that it was ready for the desktop.
Yeah, Windows 3.1 was crude. But in it’s time it was the only game in town. If Linux was around then, it would be fine now. OS/2 was damned by IBMs silly decisions, so noone used it but some corps and stuff.
And,before you say 90% desktop uses it,yah,they do,but not by choice.
Reeeeeaaaaally? Give people some credit, son. You seem to believe everyone is an idiot except Linux users.
People install third party programs all the time. See the huge racks of programs for PCs at the local computer store. If Linux is so nice, and dandy, and easy to install and administer, etc, why don’t they simply buy (or download) a copy and be done with it?
You see,somehow I understand your frustration.There’s no “Linux for the masses”,at least not yet.Give it time. Then,average computer users,just like you,might even enjoy a “Linux desktop”.
😉
I have used Sun O.S and Solaris since the mid-nineties, and Linux since 1998 (RedHat, then SuSe, then Debian unstable). Furthermore, I am a Computer Scientist. In my line of work I work with Java and Zope. So, let’s not jump to conclusions.
I suggest you should try a Mac for a start.Is better than Windows.
I’m getting an iBook in September, as I stated in my original posting. Mac OS X is great, Unixy and GUI-wise, but it is not suitable for the desktop for simple economical reasons.
Funny stuff,the only Windows I really enjoyed was 311
See! So some people actually liked Windows, and that’s how it succedded, not because it “was pushed in front of everything”.
What other thing was there in the time of Windows 3.11 that you would use?
As far as I remember,in justice,is not the defendend that have to prove he is innocent,but is the prosecution that must demonstrate defendend is guilty.
And I did. Reasoning: an OS is a Desktop OS when it actually IS on the desktops. Linux is on very few desktops. Therefore Linux is not a desktop OS (or is not one yet).
I’d like to see Linux move into Windows territory.
And I’m a OSX user.
But as far as I can see, there are various issues that prevent Linux from advancing faster- one of the most crucial elements that is crippling Linux as far as the consumer is concerned- is consistency.
The vast majority of computer users don’t hang out in http://www.osnews.com. they care about their computers as much as their alarm-clock.
Generally speaking consumer computer users learn how to operate a computer through repetition. The Linux UI constancy or lack of is having a vast impact on the consumer computer user, as their repetitious learning time is effectively increasing- which brings on frustration and can in some cases eventually turn the consumer off Linux altogether.
I hope this is rectified in the near future, as I personally would like to see Linux and OSX as the predominant computer operating systems sharing a common base- Unix.
Seriously, though I will find myself giving recommendations now and then to people to try Linux or an alternate OS to Windows, I really don’t see much point in this. Really, why should I really care all that much what other people, for whom computers probably don’t hold a fraction of importance to them that they do to me, run as their OS?
I find the attitude of many in the Linux crowd to be reminiscent of that of some religious people (disclaimer: I am myself a rather religious person). Ie., feeling the urge to convert the world to your cause. Often, I get the impression that for some, the urge to convert others is a sign of an internal insecurity about the validity of the cause you are preaching. Otherwise, why should it really matter all that much if others agree or disagree with you, if you are really all that convinced you are right? No, this does not hold water for everyone, there are some in history for whom I am very glad they did feel the need to persuade others of the truth. As regards matters of life and death and truth on an ultimate scale, matters regarding real social justice, and such, this is, if properly done, a good thing. But come on people, this is just a machine. A little box that people like us like to play with, and maybe even make a living off of.
In the grand scheme of things, it really isn’t all that important.
This is one reason (amongst others) I like the BSD attitude so much, as I notice their seems to be less religiousity about it all (exceptions withstanding). That is, their not out to conquer the OS world, just build a really decent working system, and get on with it. This said as someone whose *nix experience has been heavily Linux based, but now find myself gravitating towards alternatives, particularly the BSDs.
“It is not according to my reasoning that these are useless on the desktop, it’s accoring to MOST PEOPLE’s reasoning. I simply said that to be a “desktop” OS you have to (duh!) actually be on people desktops!”
Go search the meaning of “Argumentum ad populum” maybe you’ll understand then that just because everyone behaves or says X, that that is not an argument itself. It is a fallacy.
In short, what matters is the opinion of each individual on an individual basis. And you’ll see some inconsistencies with your logic when you’d perform such an investigation, which i’ll address in my next reply:
“The VAST VAST VAST majority of people thing all the above are useless as desktop OSs. Mac OS X is the least thought as useless of all these, admitedly. But it still is considered useless by 80% of the majority or more, because it is expensive as it ties you to a pricey hardware vendor lock-in.”
I don’t think the vast, vast, vast majority of people have any credibility to claim IRIX, AmigaOS, […] or even MacOSX are not “ready” for the desktop. Because they’ve never used it, never even heard of it, and would look you with wide eyes open when you’d coin the name. Maybe they’d assume its a brand of cheese, wine, or TV. And i’m speaking about the majority here. Argumenting they haven’t heard on it is because Windows is somehow superiour (without any arguments to argument that actually) is plain… pathetic.
“Furthermore, REGARDLESS or not of the fact that SOME PEOPLE use those as desktop OSs (there are always loose cannons, os researchers or hobbyists, etc) the majority of those are not desktop OSs. I mean, seriously, AIX? Irix?”
ROFL. AIX has been used for CAD work for example. Not only for servers, database, ed. This was before Windows 95 and all that stuff even existed. Same is true for IRIX, but with IRIX you can do so much more. Have you ever actually used IRIX? You name yourself some applications like “Reason”, “Photoshop”, “Cubase”. Well well. Maybe, just maybe, you’d understand that these applications are clones and/or counterparts from older versions which ran on these computers, like the Amiga (AmigaOS) or Atari, or SGI (IRIX). Heck, there are still things one is able to perform on IRIX and a fine SGI which you cannot do with your PC. And i’m speaking about 10+ year old computers there plus more recent ones as well. So yeah if you want to draw it to production applications -which demand creativety- then this was all done before. The reason its currently done on cheap-ass Windows and Linux PC’s is simple: damn-cheap hardware. However, make no mistake. The professional graphics industry might prefer PC’s, they cannot escape the destiny of acquiring an actual Onyx (or better).
“Linux is not (currently at least) that OS, otherwise this switching would have happened. There are probably many reasons why people installing new OSs thing Linux won’t cut it for them, in fact everyone of them can have its own reasons, but no matter what these reasons are THEY DO EXIST.”
The problem with your way of argumenting is that you’re only invoking a fallacy of popularity, without stating any actual arguments. Fallacies don’t convince people, my friend. I’m sure people have their reasons why they chose X or Y, but that alone doesn’t make their choice valid, nor smart, nor stupid, nor invalid. It says this: nada.
Btw all the applications you state are available for MacOSX.
Anyway, this has been really my last response and i’m quite confident any reader with a clue basically agrees with me. So i quit here.
Nope,you’re wrong.I started with MSDOS back then in 91 or it was 92.We were doing Pascal (5.0) and then C/CPP all of the being Borland “IDE’s”. And In 93 or something like that came in Windows 3.1 . Is more than a decade with 1-2 years.From these 11-12 years MS had monopoly starting with W95.I know that in university we had that Novell DOS or whatever the name was. MSDOS was mostly a toy.You couldn’t even network that guy back then.So,you see,in a way I started with MS.I went Linux only 5-6 years ago with RH6.2 just out curiosity.At that time our OS in the office was MacOS.Then changed job and went back to MS. Today I can work entirely in Linux (Slack) even that a lot of colleagues use windows (we do java,web apps).
But,point is,you didn’t demostrate anything.Why Linux is not ready?Your last sentence does not respond to the question.Is just a statement to me.Take care
So my example with the frying pan is silly while your “argument” is valid? I simply took your “argument” and applied it to an other area to show how silly it is and acording to you I seem to have succeeded.
Btw., what about my example with the car? Silly too? Not complex enough?
But as dpi has allready said, it is so selfevident that your “argument” is stupid that no further discussion is needed to make that clear.
And Linux certainly isn’t only capable to be on the desktop it actually is on the desktop of a lot of people and the number of people using it on the desktop is growing. So maybe we’ll just have to wait until it reaches 20% of the market share and be ready for the desktop even in your opinion. On second thoughts, your margin for desktopreadiness will probably have gone up to 30% at the time.
>After working in Tech-Support (Home Users) for the last five
>years, I can say Linux IS ready as a Desktop OS. As ready as
>windows is.
Thnx for bringing in some light..
You are absolutly right. I work daily with computer nitwits i maintain their servers and desktops. About 99,9% does no care about the OS but only about their program. Linux is very ready for the business desktop. For home users it might be a bit to soon but since a changed a ton of home users from Windows to Linux without very big problems it looks like its ready for the home user as well.
Windows has it place but that place will become smaller and smaller.
//What Linux does not have:
1) Native game support (a little) or you can run various emulators with some degree of sucess.
2) Latest hardware? In some cases you wont have the latest hardware support (or wacky unkown verndor support).
3) Over 80,000 viri.
4) Vendor lock in (file formats).//
1. Forgive my anger, but those who trumpet that gaming performance is identical in Linux and Windows are cold stone drunk, or just plain lying (UT/Quake notwithstanding). This is up to, and including, anything from Transgaming/Wine. If you honestly can see no difference whatsover between running “Thief: Deadly Shadows” in Windows XP and Wine, you have no reason to be playing games.
2. True.
3. Let’s see .. i’ve been using Windows since 9.x … and I’ve always had Norton AntiVirus installed … kept it updated … and I’ve seen maybe *SEVEN* virus warnings on my PCs. Ever. Period. And never lost a shred of data.
4. So? Your formats are compatible with 95% of the other computer users you know? And this is bad because?
I agree, this has sort of already been mentioned but I think people agree that a desktop OS means different things to different people based on how much they use it and who they can rely on for support. For a business use, Linux is more than ready as a Desktop. However for a home user, because of the lack of one of those magic linux gurus that buisness can hire, it simply is not an option to some. Hopefull development in usability and hardware support can help bridge this gap.
“Really, why should I really care all that much what other people, for whom computers probably don’t hold a fraction of importance to them that they do to me, run as their OS?”
Because there is a greater chance that like minded people as yourself with be developing, donating to, bug fixing, and using software that meets your needs.
This is why it’s important to me, as someone who uses Linux for audio.
Linux has at the moment a small percentage of the market.
A small percentage of Linux users are musicians.
An even smaller percentage write music software.
I could be one of perhaps ten people interested in certain DSP methods under Linux.
So, if you are interested in a minority aspect of Linux, there is often little documentation or binary packages, simply because so few people are using it.
The same applies with hardware. You may find that you are the only person using a particular piece of hardware in a particular configuration under Linux. This has happened to me.
So for me, it’s quite selfish. As more people use Linux, I get more refined and tested software. I’ve seen the quality of Linux software improve over the years, and while refinement takes time, I’m sure the growing number of users has a lot to do with it too.
As a final point, I’d rather be repairing a Linux box than a Windows one. I’m sure we all have to do tech support for family and friends on occasion.
RE: RE: Switching the question…… (@ cheezwog)
“You’re comments don’t hold any water. You’re only spreading FUD, nothing more. ”
Ouch
. My questions were not totally rhetorical, thanks for some answers.
For those who are willing to learn about an OS and whom don’t need maximum handholding.
1. Forgive my anger, but those who trumpet that gaming performance is identical in Linux and Windows are cold stone drunk, or just plain lying (UT/Quake notwithstanding). This is up to, and including, anything from Transgaming/Wine. If you honestly can see no difference whatsover between running “Thief: Deadly Shadows” in Windows XP and Wine, you have no reason to be playing games.
Let’s see.FPS in Quake3 at 1280x960x32 Windows , latest nvidia drivers average fps is 40 with a min of 15 and a max of 96 on my machine.Same game,native Linux, average 38,with a min of 30 and a max of 108.While average is better for Windows (with 2fps),consistency is on Linux side.If you are using Quake with wine,there’s no doubt you see differences.OK, let’s have a look at UT2003,here’s a funny one,same specs,on Windows average is 35 fps with a min of 20 and a max of 92,on Linux same game , native, average 42 with a min of 30 and a max of 102.Who is the winner?Besides,let’s take another game native on both platforms,America’s Army (free for download) , in Windows average fps is 56 with a min of 30 and a max of 89 , Linux , average fps is 60 with a min of 38 and a max of 96.Both of these tests were done using OpenGL.
You see,trouble is not Linux,nor the graphic driver,trouble is Windows,I use EndItAll to end unecessary services from Windows and still,Linux with cups,apache,bind,ssh started,is faster.If you use Wine you already use another app on your desktop.The day game vendors will do native Linux games, then we’ll talk business.Doom3 comes native for Linux as well.I hope that HL will do the same,although they’ve said nope.
2. True.
Yep,right.Same applies for windows.On my laptop,Dell 4100 Inspiron,you have to install dell’s graphic driver and modem.The rest is detected by windoews.Is a matter of how the vendor built their drivers.Not Linux or Windows fault.
3. Let’s see .. i’ve been using Windows since 9.x … and I’ve always had Norton AntiVirus installed … kept it updated … and I’ve seen maybe *SEVEN* virus warnings on my PCs. Ever. Period. And never lost a shred of data.
Me neitehr,that’s true.One single time something teribly happened.XP failed,mind you,XP!Couldn’t boot,gave me an error for a missing dll in system and stuff like that.Problem was that I had 3 partitions then.One XP,1 swap for RH and one root RH.If I had enough space to save my essential files in another partition,this wouldn’t trouble me too much.But I didn’t.Luckily , I could boot with RH and with XRoast could burn my files and use them.Thank God, I had then a dual boot.
4. So? Your formats are compatible with 95% of the other computer users you know? And this is bad because?
Now this , I really don’t care too much about.I chose carefully what I will use/buy. I want as much compatibility as I can get.
See you in the fence
All I know is that it took me better that half a day to build
update and secure a win2k box(a clean install no errors and with help from HP installer). On Fedora Core 2 about 2 hours.
There is nothing easy about Windows.
I am not a noob. I was an NT/Win2k Sys Admin for about 6 years before I changeed to linux about 3 years ago. I was so itellectually bored that I thought about changing my career.
Since the switch the benefits I enjoy using Linux ….
I don’t know nor care what Zone Alarm is .
I don’t have to remenber to renew my subscription to third party Anti Virus Software (who fixes problems with viruses without the benefit of having the source code.) .
My kids and wife safely cruise the internet with Mozilla.
(no more pop-up bombs and spyware)
I don’t have to buy an effective Spyware application.
Uptime baby ! Uptime ….
I began computing in the early 80s with the TRS-80 Color Computer, switching after a year to a Model 4. The Model 4 was ready for the desktop, and it got me through my second round of graduate school. I switched gradually to MS-DOS in the late 80s, because of a desire to combine text and graphics. At that point MS-DOS was “ready” for the desktop. In fact, it was dominant. One could, and should, argue that the Mac OS was better. Even an Apple IIgs was better in some ways, but good old MS-DOS was dominant.
I followed Windows from about 3.0, as the magazines first raved about it, then dropped it for stability reasons. I jumped with Windows 3.1, then stopped its use for stability reasons. Windows 3.1.1 for Workgroups was a little more stable. The big change, however, came with Windows 95.
Out of the box, it was more stable, and could be stressed more. With service pack 1, it could actually run quite stable on some systems. Windows became suitable for the desktop as Windows 95 progressed.
Windows wasn’t, however, suitable for a large scale networked environment. To my mind, it still isn’t. At first, networked environments were more trusting affairs, and household (as opposed to NT) Windows was simply buggy. By Windows 98, these bugs were still annoying, but not critical (remember the mapped drive shut down problems, anyone?).
I will argue that Windows, while good as a desktop OS, still is a poor network OS. I cite the concept of “zones” as they are implemented by Windows and Internet Explorer, the drive by downloads, networking patches that break things, or that don’t fix what they were intended to fix. I’m sure others can add to the list.
Bringing back the hapless “Joe user” metaphor: While some, including myself can guard against infection while using the Internet (the biggest network available), “Joe user” cannot. The relatively clueless have difficulty installing a new browser, putting in a firewall, even keeping anti-virus software up to date. The same things that hinder the securing of Windows, also blocks the person from installing Linux. I suspect that Linux adoption will rise as more machines come with the OS installed. That is starting to happen in business settings.
I’ll close with another example, this time of a moderately savvy neighbor, call him “Joe user+,” who installed Windows 2000 on his machine, tracked down the drivers he needed, and loved it. he knew enough to install a firewall, keep current with Microsoft’s patches, and he used anti-virus software. He even got cocky enough to ask me to install Linux.
He didn’t much like Linux. It was hard to set up, and it wasn’t like Windows, so he ignored it for a week. Then he started complaining of slow Internet connections, and system instability (Windows kept “blue screening”). He figured his motherboard was going bad (nope), then that he had bad memory (nope). After spending $200, I got back on the scene, and he had been infected and back-doored royally, spamming tens of thousands.
He blamed it on his son checking e-mail. His son always used the Windows side for checking e-mail. Over on the Linux side, I pointed out multiple copies of the same virus saved to his /home directory. They hadn’t executed, because this was Linux. His Linux installation was saved in part because of obscurity, in part, because he would have to make the saved copy of the virus executable, and then execute it (preferably as root).
Since Windows was back-doored, I told him he could not truly “clean” it, and be sure we had gotten everything. The alternative was to format and reinstall. He grudgingly stuck with Linux, and together, we got everything to work, his printer, his scanner, his camera, Open Office, the Gimp 2.0. For the one or two programs he needed to run under Windows, I installed Win4Lin. Mozilla, he knew from the Windows side.
For this individual, Linux was crammed down his throat, and his appreciation grew slowly, largely because, once set up, he didn’t have to do anything. It boots; it runs; it performs. Here is a semi-clued in guy, who still hosed his system, and wound up liking Linux. Linux IS ready for the desktop, as long as it is set up by people in the know. Windows ISN’T ready for the network, and that, I suppose is the point of the eWeek article.
Imagine a Linux distro which is showing 4 screens and a progress bar.Exactly as Windows does when you install it.Imagine that drivers database for Linux is complete,or you will be prompted to install it after the first boot.Point and click.Keep the level of customization as it is now and when install a browser (does not matter which),put some bookmarks like here is the software.You can pay for it or you can get it for free.Imagine also that there are some hundreds games Linux native,big titles.And imagine that this distro will build a iptables GUI (there are tons already,a personalized one won’t harm too much).Everything included.For 50 bucks, let’s make it 90.Substract 200 bucks for Windows from the cost of your computer you bought in media store.There you have it.The OS!
//I don’t know nor care what Zone Alarm is .//
You were a W2K Admin for six years, and you’ve never heard of ZoneAlarm??!!??
Uh, yah. Ok. Sure.
//Let’s see.FPS in Quake3 at 1280x960x32 Windows , latest nvidia drivers average fps is 40 with a min of 15 and a max of 96 on my machine … //
Apparently, you didn’t notice my (UT/Quake notwithstanding) comment. I know the UT/Quake engines run well in Linux. That’s why I said so.
//Windows average fps is 56 with a min of 30 and a max of 89 , Linux , average fps is 60 with a min of 38 and a max of 96.Both of these tests were done using OpenGL.//
And, with your apparently bionic eyes, you’re telling me that you can tell the difference between 56 FPS and 60 FPS.
Suuure.
Plus, odds are quite high that the scores you posted would change dramatically on different hardware.
But anyway. I concede Linux games are improving. But they’re not close to Windows, across the board.
The average Joe desktop user surfs the Internet, sends and receives email, types a few documents, listens to a little music, maybe burns a cd or dvd once in a while, prints a joke to hang in the old cubical, scans a funny picture, and downloads ant-virus and spyware updates. They do this day in and day out whether at home or at work, same-o same-o.
So what in this list can’t one simply do on Linux that would make Linux not ready for 90% of the desktop users world wide? What — can’t play a few of those Windows games, maybe?