OSNews

I think the major thing to consider is administration, and for this Mandriva or PCLinux is far and away better. Never have understood Ubuntu mania. What you want is a simple recipe: if its your personal stuff, go to Gnome Control Center. If its system stuff, go to Mandriva control center. This is very easy to teach, and people can get the distinction at once, its quite intuitive. The problem with Debian or Ubuntu for ordinary users is the lack of a clustered system admin centre.

Yes with Debian you get continuous updates. But for most end users the price is too high.

I don't see any reason in features or functionality why Mandriva or PCL are not as suitable for end users as OSX or Windows. Its just a question of learning. They are not perfect, but they are as good as the alternatives and in some ways a lot more integrated because of the ability to get all the software you need from the repositories.

We keep hearing about integration either in the sense of common look and feel or hardware/software coming from the same source. But in fact, integration between system and applications, as in all software included or available for instant installation in exactly the same fashion, that's probably far more important to the end user.

Its just time. We are in the lower slope area of the S curve. But one day, it will take off, and when it does....

If it's personal stuff go to preferences.

If it's system stuff go to administration.

What's so complicated about that?


[edited for typo]

Edited 2007-12-07 12:57

It's complicated because he doesn't like the distro ...

"preferences" and "administration" sounds similar. Novice users might not understand the difference. They should be called "System settings" and "Desktop settings" or something. Though it's not a big deal and I personaly thinks it's better to use the gnome tools like ubuntu than som separate control panel application.

Nothing is complicated in that, except things aren't there that should be, and much of what is there does not work. Some works somewhat, but not enough.

Trying to get ctrl-alt-esc to run xkill has been a final straw for me. Why are there four GUI keyboard shortcut apps? Why don't changes in any of them actually work? Why can't the simple GTK-based one actually work like its help claims it does?

XFCE and KDE's are set for xkill, the little GTK-based on won't allow me to remove the ctrl-alt-esc shortcut, even though the help says I can, and the other one that looks more like it's from Gnome proper will let me try, but it doesn't work.

At least with a more basic distro I know exactly what I put in that is controlling that stuff. If Ubuntu wants to make it better, they need to have a single place to do those things, that kicks off an 'apply' script that then does it for every DE...and that works.

Trying to get sound working right also was not fun, nor getting SMP working (I changed hardware), nor dealing with each DE or FM having its own "trash," but also not being able to easily set a single system-wide FM to use, it took a reinstall to get font sizes and AA working right across toolkits...ugh.

The core Linux bits, and the separate application bits, work great, but what's trying to glue it all together is not working well. It's just Ubuntu. Some parts will get better wit each release, some parts worse. It's a great display of the capability of the modern Linux desktop, but not something I'll be running regularly.

Dethroning Ubuntu is easy: use Ubuntu enough that you see it has a chair at the table like every other distro--it just looks fancier. Ubuntu 7.10 was the nail in MS' coffin for me, but I' going to use either Arch or SMGL.

"1) Too much expectations from Joe The Average,"

No! To little expectation Linux geeks.

Let's use an analogy.

You want to get from home to work and back every day. In a good world, if you want to take a different route all you do is take the different route.

In the Linux world you have to download and configure the different route even though YOU know how to drive there already.

How would you like that? Well that's how the average person feels about configing stuff in Linux.

Hell, I'd be happy if they could just keep major non-upstream regressions from slipping into each release. Decision-making that leads to the disappearance of TTYs is backwards thinking.

Edited 2007-12-07 16:57

I have two points to consider.

1. Is Ubuntu king?

2. Is there a throne?

And, if I may:

3. If there's a throne, do Linux distro's want it?

I say this because the article was mixing different concepts. For one, it was mixing community projects like Fedora with commercial projects like Ubuntu.

Where Ubuntu, via Canonical, has clear commercial interests to pursue, Fedora or other community distro does not. There's no point in talking about "marketplace" where they are concerned. There's no advertising, no customers to win over, no marketshare. There are only people who use Fedora and contribute to it because it scratches their itch best.

Some of those people may be concerned about what the average non-geek user wants, but most of them don't care. I'm not saying there's a complete disregard for usability; after all, the geeks are humans too. But I'm saying that there's no drive to actively push one distro in front of another, unless you're a zealot.

Competition between open community distro's is simple and practical: the people use the one they like best. They don't fight with artificial means of promotion because they're not selling anything.

Therefore I submit that the article is null, because it discusses a non-subject. Not to mention it's downright ignorant in places. For example, what do Nautilus supposed shortcomings have to do with Fedora? Gnome is a different project, and Nautilus is a separate team inside it. The fact that the author chastizes Fedora for it just goes to show that he doesn't get it; Fedora is not a commercial company like Microsoft, where a central entity controls features in every component. A free distro is a combination of thousands of ready-made components made by third parties.

Edited 2007-12-08 05:58

"Linux desktop readiness is highly subjective"

Indeed. Just like Windows readiness is. In reality, the only reason people seem to think linux isn't ready for the desktop is that it's different from windows. And since many people are just used to windows, they fear what's different.

If you take a person who never used a computer, it doesnt' make any difference if you install Windows XP or Ubuntu on his machine. Except that he won't probably get hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing the internet if you choose the latter option.

Except that he won't probably get hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing the internet if you choose the latter option

sorry, he actually WILL still get the hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing...They just will not run.

The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.

"""
The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.
"""

Ah, the old "Operating System Q would be just as dangerous as Windows if it had 90%+ desktop market share!" claim. In the case of Linux, at least, I would contest that. But... just for the sake of argument, let's accept it and see what it would mean if it were the case. The answer is: "Not much". For whatever reason, Windows users are in more danger. If their being more of a target is a factor, well... then that's a factor. Period.

Besides, in the absence of Windows, it is unlikely that such a monoculture could materialize,in the market place, around any other one OS. So the whole line of reasoning is really moot, anyway.

hmmm, my post was meant as a joke. Clearly some people did not see this.

Anyway, I agree with you, it does not matter how many people use Linux, spyware and malware will not run on it, the creators will have to use social management to get users to install and run malware on it.

I too am sick of reading that shit about Windows having 90% of the market share, and if it was Linux there, then there would be way more virus and malware for that.... No, this is just plain wrong, in fact, I would go as far as to say that the people that make this claim have no understanding about operating systems, security or malware itself... They should, instead of trying to put down a system they are too stupid to use, spend some time learning how to secure their own systems, so that I do not get more spam offering to increase my penis size or to sell me 10000000 viagra for 35p.

You've made not one but two grave errors here.

First, what you said is simply wrong. No, as a Linux user I don't get any kind of malware, from anywhere. My system is clean. It's not like the malware executables get on my HDD but they won't run, I don't get any stuff I don't want period.

Your second error has to do with a very dumb and outdated concept of what security is supposed to be about. Sadly, you are not alone. Most of the companies selling you security for Windows share your point of view. That point is that it's normal for malware to enter the system and that efforts should be made to contain it after that happens. I'm sorry but that's extremely stupid.

I much prefer the Linux or Mac OS X method, which says "malware doesn't enter, period". Isn't that much simpler? Why bother to track thousands of pieces of malware, dozens appearing every day, when you can simply make sure nothing gets in and be done with it?

Why do you think Macs and Linux are so secure? By dumb luck? No. They're secure because they're designed to be secure. They haven't approached security saying "I'll just let everything in my system and see what I can salvage later."

I see you had your sarcasm detector switched off

If you take a person who never used a computer, it doesnt' make any difference if you install Windows XP or Ubuntu on his machine

Yes, and this is basically the problem. The user who installs Windows will have access to more software in niche areas, e.g. accounting, tax calculation, CAD,...

He will also have a much better chance that that el cheepo piece of hardware he picked up at his gas station will work without any problems.

It may be true that there are more programs available for Linux, and that Linux have a broader hardware support, but that doesn't matter when the user still have to check on the internet if a certain hardware will work or not, or he can't find sofware that covers his special needs it doesn't matter how many mp3 players there are for Linux.

This network effect makes Windows a winner if everthing else is alike. To win Linux must be significantly better or easier to use. When that happens, it will get a large enough network of its own.

Today people are quite satisfied with windows XP, even Microsoft suffers from this by having very slow sales of Vista. So, another way for Linux to win over windows would be to create or solve new needs of the user.

Linux is ready for the consumer Desktop and have been that for a long time, the problem is that the consumer is not ready for Linux.

I think the main problem with Linux is software. It has very few apps to claim exclusive ownership.

Windows has access to nearly all of the software available to the Linux platform in addition to the big name commercial apps.

Can Linux claim the same? Wine works well with some apps but not all. The only sure way is through virtualization, which is the same as just running Windows but as a second class citizen and vnc or terminal server. None of the latter solutions offer anything for 3D apps (as in gaming or 3d modeling)without spending big bucks.

Linux needs more developers and exclusive/killer apps that cannot so easily be ported to Windows. In the mean time it needs flawless interopability with the vast selection of commercial apps on Windows.

Edited 2007-12-07 08:09

Linux has killer apps, but they aren't things most Windows users want to use. For me, BASH is a killer app and Windows lack of it is one of the biggest reasons I don't use Windows (Cygwin tries to compensate, but it really isn't ideal).

Also, Open Source software isn't about locking programs in to one platform like Microsoft does; which is what has made Linux a better platform than Windows is. Open Source is about freedom and giving the user the ability to make a program work how he/she wants it to work and on their preferred platform.

I don't think Windows users appreciate the huge benefit they have reaped from Open Source ideals and efforts.

Finally, I don't hear Linux users talking about whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop. We all know it is because we've used it as a desktop for years. It's the people who are sick of Windows and want a replacement that keep bringing the issue up.

Nobody but techs, boffins and tinkers will care about bash.

Nobody but techs, boffins and tinkers will care about bash.

Wrong.
My wife asked me lately how to change the permissions of an entire directory branch including subdirectories.
She had seen me doing it using the shell and wanted to do the same.
I told her how, and now she uses the shell. Her statement: "This is just so much more efficient".

My wife is no tech by any means, but she is not stupid either. And to learn a few commands, so you have them handy whenever you need them is no big deal.

If you ask "why would an ordinary user want to change file permissions", the answer is: Keeping myself from accidentally deleting digital photos. But for red-eye removal you need to be able to write to the files.

But it's not a problem. If you get used to THE SAME software on both platforms, it would be easier to switch to Linux exclusively. Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp - I use it every day on both platforms and that suits me just fine.

If that were true Linux would be more popular right now. Unfortuantly, marketshare speaks for itself.

What actually happens is some people embrace the open source offerings on their existing platforms and dont bother to try Linux. This is completely appropriate to the ideals of open source but offers no incentive for Linux adoption and therefore no incentive for 3rd party developers.

People are smart enough to relize that it would serve them little purpose to migrate to a different OS and be forced to learn all of it's querks/differences, just to have the same apps they have been using before on Windows, yet no access to those "other" apps--also used.

If Linux is ever going to be anything but an alternative for those who hate Microsoft then a movement needs to form that is soley dedicated to Linux/Unix and develop exclusive apps to showcase.

Edited 2007-12-07 21:50

I'd also like to add:

Most people care about applications not operating systems. Linux users like us, care more about the operating system and ideology than the applications because the applications just aren't very interesting nor exclusive to the platform.

This is in complete contrast to the typical, no techy Windows user.

Edited 2007-12-07 22:05

That is actually a major problem is linux advocacy. You have people who assume that if they can sell you on the idea of open software, they can sell you on the idea of linux. This is far from true, there is plenty of open software on windows and mac. Switching to firefox will get someone no closer to switching to linux.

Same thing with open formats. This is why everyone is flipping out about OOXML, because instead of selling governments on the importance of an end to end open platform, all the advocacy has been focused on open formats, assuming that the rest will follow and that MS will sit still and not respond to market pressure.

People need to focus. If you have decided you are going to be a linux evanglist, don't try to sell people on firefox for windows, sell them on linux. If you are trying to push for open software in governaments, push for open software, not just formats. If you are trying to sell the FSF ideology, dont even bring up specific software.

"Big bucks"? Where did you get that? You can get VMWare or Cedega for very reasonable prices. They have a lot of 3D features and drivers. And you will get them at some point in Wine and QEMU, for free. But work advances slowly because there's a lot of reverse engineering to do.

And I don't think you're really up to how good virtualization and emulation has become these days. Kernel support has made it so Windows XP running under QEMU on Linux is undetectable from it running natively, in terms of speed and features. I no longer boot Windows unless I want to play a game that won't run otherwise. For everything else I run "qemu -hda /dev/hda7 -kernel-kqemu" and up pops the Windows XP installation in a window on my Linux desktop. Complete with USB devices, sound, file sharing between the virtual machine and the real machine, and of course networking. Yes, the actual Windows installation, on a different partition, not a virtual image.

I know how "good" virtualization is but it still wont play my games unless I move to the Mac platform and use Parallels or Fusion. There isn't anything equivalent for Linux yet, nor are there any 3D remote desktop solutions that are reasonable prized--I think Citrix is working on one but just imagine how expensive that will be for a home user.

Edited 2007-12-08 08:12

*shrug* PC-based gamers are a small market when compared to consoles and the Linux subgroup is even smaller. So the only help will have to come from those who work at reverse engineering DirectX. It will take another while, but it will come. Still, I expect that playing the latest game on Linux may be a longer way in the future even. That's how it is, no use fussing over what cannot be helped. I prefer to rejoyce at what Wine and QEMU did achieve.

Linux needs more developers and exclusive/killer apps that cannot so easily be ported to Windows.

But doesn't that conflict with the open source philosophy? Practically all the popular applications for Linux are F/OSS. And being f/oss means they can be fairly easily ported to Windows.

This situation makes it virtually impossible for Linux to ever catch up to windows in terms of applications.

As far as I can see, the only thing that could change the situation is browser based apps.

What is it that makes people think Windows is oh-so-easy for Joe Average to use? I find Windows difficult to navigate and it is almost impossible to figure out what to do when something doesn't work.

I'm not saying Linux is any better here. I'm sure most Linux users can figure out how to fix problems, but that is because most Linux users are experienced computer users or even have an IT education.

So I agree with the article that what is needed is something that works out of the box and where installing new hardware (a printer, a camera, etc.) is just a matter of plugging it in and following a few simple instructions -- nothing like editing a config file, just clicking a few choices or making sure the computer is on the Internet, so drivers etc. can be automatically downloaded and installed.

Running new software should, ideally, not even require am installation step: Just download it and it is ready for running -- or if you have it on a CD, you should should be able to run it directly from the CD without copying it to the hard drive. My old 1980's home computer could do it, so why not modern computers?

Nice comment. I would like to add,, I am a somewhat experienced Ubuntu user.. since warty. I have no IT education. I am currently running Gutsy on a hand me down Dhell with an 800 mhz p111. I have done zero configuration from the command line, and have not had to manually edit one config file. My 13 yr old uses this box for her homework, email, and (gag) Myspace. My wife uses it to do all her email, browsing and work correspondence. When we game, we either use an ancient PS2, or a GameCube. As far as I am concerned Ubuntu is utterly desktop ready. (BTW.. because this thing is so old..they use XFCE4, I use Wmaker)

Amen to that. If it weren't true, everybody would be using OS X. People are like mentally tied to Windows.

People aren't mentally tied to windows, they just don't want to learn more then they have to. If they have to use windows at work, they want the same thing for home because they already know it.

This is why any difference from windows is considered bad by most people, because being forced to learn something new is not what they want to sign up for. OSX is vastly more appropriate for most home users, but they will never go for it because it involves new ideas.

People who don't like to learn new things are just sheeps and monkeys. They go through the same routine and if something changes they're completely lost. That's a pathetic trait in any human. That's what you get for dependence on Windows and school training in Windows because "that's what the industry uses": an endless cycle of robots instructing robots to follow the same footsteps.

So, under this theory, every migrated Linux desktop in a corportate or governmental office will almost certainly lead to a respective Linux desktop at home?

Thats how windows got to where they are now. Mac dominated the home and education sectors, windows dominated the office. As more and more "average" people started using computers, they chose windows because it was what they knew.

Maybe whether something is ready, doesn't actually matter. Instead of a jihad against another group, just use what works for you. You like Linux, then install it. You like Mac OS X then go out and buy a Mac, like Windows then go with the status quo.

I don't why there are certain people who think that they must promote their operating system, and some how, in some way gain something out of promoting it. If people are genuinely interested in Linux, they would investigate it. People are interested in alternatives, look at the growth in Mac sales, for instance.

In the case of Linux, instead of looking for the simplistic reasons for why it hasn't taken off; how about asking the tough questions. Simply whining about OEM vendors not bending over isn't going to change things.

Apple learned the hard way, but once they addressed the deficiencies in their product line up sales started to take off. The same thing will occur once the 'linux vendors' start to address long standing issues rather than spending time looking for others to blame.

"Instead of a jihad against another group, just use what works for you. You like Linux, then install it. You like Mac OS X then go out and buy a Mac, like Windows then go with the status quo. "

Exactly. I've found that for myself Ubuntu and a virtualized XP are the best bang for the buck. Others may find another combo like MacOS and say virtual {insert linux flavor here}.

It's all about choices. Ubuntu has increased the desktop choices by 1/3 (Windows, Mac, Linux) where the other distributions havent. Maybe some day they will, but today not so much.

"n the case of Linux, instead of looking for the simplistic reasons for why it hasn't taken off; how about asking the tough questions."

I disagree that it hasn't taken off. Sure it's only on a handful of vendor machines, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that it's not popular. I know many many people that have chosen it based on word of mouth alone.

I've recently had a noisy at OpenSolaris/Indiana, and when that is released people will have even more choice - something you can never have too much of



In terms of sales there were leaked numbers from Dell, lets say they weren't all that good compared to their Windows sales.

At the end of the day, though, OEM's need to get their act together. I find it a double standard that the bundle applications with their windows machines and yet they do little to improve the standard linux distribution.

Lets imagine fore a moment that Dell's Ubuntu machines are loaded with Ubuntu, and pre-installed there was the Lindvd player (which is only available to OEM's), licence codec's off Fluendo for various media types.

What I see isn't a lack by Linux vendors but a lack of drive by OEM's to actually spend the same amount of time and effort actually creating an integrated bundle as they do with their Windows machine.

I am definately sure that if Dell turned around and provided all of the above - and lets go out on a limb and say they included Notes 8.0 for their Office Suite/Collaboration Suite, and sold it at the same price as their Windows machines, you would have alot of sales inquiries - heck, even I would consider purchasing one!

Edited 2007-12-07 14:02

I think this is more of a problem with Dell than either Linux or Microsoft. Dell just can't be bothered to do it right but I'm sure there are many companies that are willing to do it right and are envious of Dell's position in the Computer Supply Market. But they won't topple Dell by getting just Linux right. There are probably other flaws in Dell's business model they would be working on.

If you are looking for a good Linux Machine there are much better companies to work with. Of course with Dell being a major supplier this then reflects badly back onto Linux.

So we wait for either Dell to get their act together or for another company to take their place that can do it right.

By this logic, we should've never moved out of the caves. They were good enough, we just wanted to keep out of the rain, and we were familiar with them. No need for modern houses, right?

Well I say the hell with those Average People you speak of. They're sheep. I don't see why they should be given any choice in the matter. If they don't care what they're using then they should leave the decision to those who care and actually try to imagine new things, and meekly follow them.

Well I say the hell with those Average People you speak of. They're sheep. I don't see why they should be given any choice in the matter. If they don't care what they're using then they should leave the decision to those who care and actually try to imagine new things, and meekly follow them.

Hell, yeah! Sometimes I want to scream this out loud to some people in this site. All this excessive focus on the "average user" sometimes feels like we're constantly awarding mediocrity. Well said!

You're absolutely correct. I say let those who wish to be ignorant continue to pay the piper (msft). But the rest of us have to keep a close eye on the piper that he doesn't get government even more convinced to pass more laws which shores up his monopoly making it more illegal just for us to use our own machines.