OSNews

That would be the most common reason for a return, I would have thought.

"I bought this thing but it isn't exactly what I thought it was. Sorry, I just assumed it would be Windows".

What the MSI spokesman doesn't tell us is what the return rates actually are. If they aren't that high ... then it could still be the case that not many are returned for Linux but even fewer are returned for Windows (purely because the Windows version match the buyers expectations).

Finally, the MSI Linux version ships with SuSe doesn't it? This is probably the Linux distribution least adapted for use on netbooks.

The original EEEPCs and also the Acer aspire One machines were selling Linux well by including a specific UI that made them easy to use as netbooks.

Perhaps MSI could improve their Linux offering by going with something like this (tailored for use on netbooks) instead of SuSe:
http://www.ubuntu-eee.com/?module=moreinfo

Edited 2008-10-06 06:17 UTC

If Windows/DOS is good enough, then Linux is a welcome upgrade and light years ahead.

Windows has been based on the NT kernel for 8 years, not DOS.

If you want open source operating systems to have a future, you as a community must be able to take an objective view of them and compare them to competitors. Until that happens, there is no chance of Linux ever gaining significant market share because of its shortcomings. The previous comment being buried is only proof that Linux is not ready because most of the community behind it cannot act rationally, or do things like admit weakness. If they had, the average user wouldn't have to put up with nearly as many annoyances because something would have been done about them.

Your comment was pure FUD. I used Windows for 6 years and find Linux much easier to use. My views are based on my experience. There are legitimate criticisms of Linux and the Mac, but yours were stated so as to start a flame war. If you are giving criticism, then be constructive. btw: I use a Mac as my main machine.

No, they were stated because I've done research into why I have to put up with annoyances on Linux, and come to the conclusion that open source for desktops needs a new kernel in order to ever be successful and I tried to convince people of that. Of course the community will always start a flame war if you criticize Linux for weaknesses to competitors; but it was the truth, sorry it hurts. (and this comment goes full circle into more flame wars because it also encourages the people who can't ever admit to Linux's weaknesses to start shouting at the top of their lungs so no hears the them, and the weaknesses are never dealt with. It's a perfectly rational comment, but it will get irrational responses.)

I spend my days working on a kernel and I don't necessarily buy your theory that replacing the kernel is what will boost Linux's acceptability on the desktop/laptop/netbook. Frankly, the end user could care less about the specifics of the kernel as long as it meets the minimum bar of reliability and performance, which Linux does. It's all the other things, like X, management functionality, simple (and functional) control panels, etc which have a dearth of deep contributors that would take them quickly to mass-market acceptability.

If people really wanted to make Linux displace OS X or Windows on the desktop, they probably should put kernel work on pause and fix up (or rearchitect) various aspects of the Linux User Experience so that a typical person who's trying to get work done will be able to perform basic tasks (like setting up a common wireless connection or a projector/alternate monitor) in a logical manner that works more than 95% of the time.

I am highlighting this part of your post by quoting it, above, because it is often a presumed "given" that we tend to gloss over that, perhaps, we should not.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I don't think that Linux (the kernel) meets the requirements for a decent desktop operating system. Some of the issues that I see are:

Drivers: The real issue here is the license model, hardware companies don't want to release an Open Driver, or their specs, and no, you saying they should won't magically make them do it, and it'll never happen 95% of the time. What's the next alternative? Closed Drivers? Sorry, that's illegal to include in the kernel, and iffy in Distro's, and the fact that Closed Drivers brake so much between releases of Linux doesn't make that option any better.

Dev Model: They don't focus on the Desktop: This can be argued either way, and be won either way too, but the main concentration on the current Linux Kernel seems to be for servers and super computers.

Hiding itself: Remember when Linus went on TV and told us that a kernel that a user never has to see is one that works? What happens when you upgrade your kernel? You risk breaking your system, the chances are that your custom drivers have to be rebuilt for it to work, and why isn't this being fixed? How can you consider it to be doing its job when it contradicts its creator?

I think the license, general focus of the devs and the community will just end up killing any chances that it (a Linux Distro) has in the desktop market. I'll be willing to place my money on FreeBSD, because we've already seen parts of it put into a much more popular OS (Mac OSX), and I'll be willing to bet that in the future, it will have its feet in much more than it has now.

the NT kernel is based on VMS. 1970ish technology, in other words. Its 35 year old technology, vs 40 year old technology for unix.

It's not based on vms, some of the design decisions of NT were modelled on VMS. They are 2 totally different things.

Edited 2008-10-06 11:11 UTC

Admitting room for improvement is not at all a problem for many of us. The issue here is that your original post would be very accurate if we where discussing Linux five years ago but shows a gross lack of knowledge about the current distributions.

Most of these Netbook Linux variants don't even expose the *possibility* of having a console. You would have to be an advanced Linux user to even get one. Dependencies are handled by the App installer.

Video support is great. It comes with most codecs you might encounter. Quite the opposite with Windows, which only comes with the damn Microsoft codecs that no one uses anyway, so every time for the first month you try to play a video you have to search and install yet another player that comes with the codec you need.

Please, if you don't know what you are talking about, keep your second hand opinions for yourself.

You don't actually know anything about Linux do you.. Either that or you just prefer to give completely uneducated opinions.

So, are you simply complaining that people aren't agreeing with you then?

"So, are you simply complaining that people aren't agreeing with you then?"

I am saying they are being inconsistent.

Edited 2008-10-06 03:42 UTC

Now that is a legitimate criticism of Linux.

Even long time veterans have also pointed out that the quality of the Linux installation is definitely not up to scratch when compared to Windows XP. It is unfortunate that so many OEM's prefer to just throw the software onto the computer and hope for the best rather than making a concerted effort to create a unique experience.

Personally if it were me, I would have created a Linux based distribution where the GUI sat directly ontop of DirectFB then ontop of that built an easy to use stream line GUI using QT Extended Edition. It would be light weight and easy to use. The problem as far as I see is that people are trying to turn the netbook into a 'mini-computer' when what should be attempted is turn it into a basic stripped down device which does a small number of things well and doesn't attempt to do everything.

This I can understand. I had some trouble selling my ASUS eeepc 701 (linux version). I had to be very specific with potential buyers that it did not run windows and in the end the person who bought it just wanted something for their kids to use the internet on. They had no idea how to use windows or linux so I figured it would be ideal for what they wanted plus a good learning tool should they wish to dig deeper. The price was certainly good too (much less than Retail).

As a side note, I've been using Linux for 6+ years, and still run it as my daily desktop on 2 PCs at home, but after a couple of months of using the linux eeepc, i hated it. I tried several different distros on it, and eventually went back to the default xandros. The 2nd benefit of the default xandros was that I could then sell the eeepc - which i did. I suspect winxp would've been just as painful on it, probably slower too.

These stats of linux returns being much higher simply tells me they are being sold without the purchasers knowing that they run linux. People should be encouraged to "try" linux at home via a livecd or something before deciding on a linux based laptop/netbook.

If people are simply buying them and then realising its not windows and taking them back, then these people are not looking for an alternative OS and therefore this is not a stat showing the failure of linux. More likely it just shows the failure of retailers to sell to the intended audience, choosing rather to sell as many items as possible than to make sure the product is right for the customer and vice versa.

Either way, I use linux simply because it works for me and its free. Its so much more convenient to do what I want with it and for me it seems much more responsive than windows. If linux does eventually die, then I'll be forced to switch, but until then i'm enjoying the ride.

Edited 2008-10-06 02:51 UTC

This raises the question again why Linux can't *look* like Windows. Of course, under the hood it's different, and any system-level stuff would be different... but somebody who is afraid of different looks would never get to that level.

Any attempt in that direction that I've seen so far stops at a certain degree. Some make the desktop look as in Windows. Even the attempts to reproduce the start menu are rare. Let alone anyone touching the applications, like giving Firefox an IE look-and-feel and slapping a blue "e" over it.

Note that I don't really like the idea of cloning Windows - I'd rather see Linux have a *better* UI - but if people want it Windows-like to switch, then so be it.

Although the above would have sounded like me 3 years ago - I disagree today. The reality is that Apple are growing a frantic pace. If people didn't like 'change' then no one would be considering moving to Mac.

I personally do not think that the opensource community copying Windows is the best solution; even Windows users themselves admit that the user experience isn't exactly up to scratch. For me, I'd sooner see the opensource world clone the Indigo Desktop from IRIX. Replace KDE and GNOME with a single desktop like Indigo.

Take a look at this, for example:

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/dynaweb_docs/0620/SGI_Developer/boo...

Copy everything down to the letter, then spruce it up. I'm sure with some updated icons and nicer fonts, it would be a great desktop for the average user. Its completely graphical and designed from day one specifically for non-technical people. The great thing is, also, it would be good on netbooks due to the minimalist design which ensures that maximum screen space is left to the end user.

But weren't you saying the same thing about OpenSolaris 3 *months* ago? And Linux before that? Haiku in another three months, maybe? And then how about SkyOS as the one to rule them all?

I never made such a claim. I don't know who you are reading but I've never been a 'SkyOS' fanboy. Haiku would be great as an end users desktop but I never claimed it to be the be all and end all of operating systems which can replace everything. As for OpenSolaris - the only thing I ever advocated about that was countering the claims by some that "OpenSolaris is dead".

If you are going to bring up accusations against me - at least base them on facts rather than wishful thinking.

Edited 2008-10-06 04:22 UTC

I'm basing my observations upon what you have posted on OSNews and in your blog. OpenSolaris was going to be your primary OS. At the time, you were trashing Linux because of some problem with your wireless that OpenSolaris supposedly solved. Then, after a while, OpenSolaris was dirt because it failed to live up to its promises. Now Apple is the cat's pajamas. My speculations about your relationships with Haiku and SkyOS are just that: Forward looking statements.

Edited 2008-10-06 04:39 UTC

Kaiwai: I am not sure what desktop window manager that is, but everything you see there can be done on Linux today. The problem is that what you see as perfection, someone else sees as old or outdated or cluttered. People only have one Windows desktop to criticize. They either like it or they don't. With Linux, you can build your desktop however you want and everyone has a different opinion of what is best. So no one agrees about anything except that their way is better.

I said what it is in the previous parapraph - its Indigo desktop.

If it can be done today on Linux - then why hasn't it been done? why are we meddling around with half-haked Windows clones rather than building on something that actually *WORKS* and was designed to work properly rather than something that is a adhoc piece meal approach to development.

What I want isn't necessarily a clone, but an acceptance that cloning Windows UI isn't the panacea that will address all of lifes problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_Magic_Desktop

External links

Maxx Interactive Desktop (MID) MID4Linux

http://5dwm.org/maxxi/home.html

If Thom Holwerda had not imposed a secret GNU/linux distribution *Beta* blockades on OsNews , I would have submitted the link.

http://osnews.com/thread?331904

4DWM + Motif are ideal for Netbooks. I agree with you.

The frantic growth of Mac OS is positively irrelevant at this point. The data that I've found suggests that the Macintosh user base has grown by a factor of three. That is phenomenal. But tripling the size of the Macintosh market means that the Windows market has shrunk by less than 10%. The fact that 10% of the market can adapt to change shouldn't be too surprising. What would surprise me is is 90% of the market adapted to change.

NOTE: those 20$ to 30% figures that I've seen around the web are pure nonsense in this case since they are based on revenues. The cheapest Mac is significantly more expensive than the cheapest PC. Even something like the integrated screen in the iMac will distort prices upwards in favour of Apple. It also says nothing of people who buy Macs and end up installing Windows once they decide that Mac OS X is not for them.

> Although the above would have sounded like me 3 years ago - I
> disagree today. The reality is that Apple are growing a frantic pace. If
> people didn't like 'change' then no one would be considering moving to
> Mac.

I think you should be careful when talking about "people" in general. I seriously think that those who switch over to a Mac are not the same as those who are afraid of anything looking different. The former want a cool system that works and are willing to pay a certain price in terms of time to get used to a new system. The latter do not want to invest any time at all, and simply want what they are used to. (just to underline my point that my opinion differs from yours, 3 years ago, I'm counting myself to the former group).

The sad reality, however, is that Linux isn't viable for either group, nor is it viable for the "old Mac crowd": It does not look and feel like Windows. It does not look and feel like a Mac. It is not a system that "just works" and delivers a polished user experience. Although its internals aren't that bad per se, there seems to be nobody who really takes it to a place where it would fit any of the above-mentioned user types.

MS Windows clearly has more commercial apps available for it than Linux has, including proprietary hardware support and drivers. That is by far its biggest advantage. But many ordinary PC users do not actually have very demanding needs for such software: a basic text editor, email and a web browser is often all they need.

MS Windows may also still have a small advantage in usability over Linux-based distributions, from a newbie point of view, but the difference is not big, and in many respect Linux, like Ubuntu or SUSE, may be easier to use than MS Windows too.

Like already said, people are just more used to MS Windows. Actually many have no idea that there even exist completely different operating systems. Such people would find Mac OS X as "difficult" as Linux too, only because it is a bit different from MS Windows.

The basic computer teaching that people get, in schools etc, tends to be way too MS Windows centric everywhere too (isn't MS Office plus Internet Explorer usually all that people are taught about at basic computer classes?). Actually even many so called IT pros may often seem like complete IT invalids if they get in front of a computer running anything else than MS Windows. It is a MS-centric IT world...

I think you're underestimating how many ordinary users have pet Windows apps that they don't want to do without. Lots of people deal with MS Office files, use a particular photo editor, love software like iTunes, etc. Convincing them to use Linux alternatives would be very difficult.

When their favourite software doesn't run on their Linux Netbook, they're going to take it back and look for something else.



My experience does not support this claim. I know plenty of normal Windows users who've picked up a Mac and had a very easy transition. Mac OS is simply much easier to get to grips with than any current version of Linux.

Ubuntu is the distro that often gets recommended for newbies, yet I've seen some pretty experienced Mac/Windows users struggle with it and give up.

Take installing Flash for example. In Windows or Mac OS X it's a matter of following on screen prompts in the browser. Do that in Ubuntu and the user ends up with a tar.gz file that needs to be dealt with from the CLI. Even if they try to follow the instructions, there's a good chance they'll end up making a mistake, like downloading the i386 version for their 64bit system, and fail to get it working anyway.

Not a problem for experienced users, but this kind of thing trips up new users all the time. I don't think Windows/Mac users are used to having to track down tutorials, or deal with things like adding repositories to a package manager, just to get that kind of thing working.

Of course Windows has it's quirks too. The fact that people are used to it, or know someone who's familiar with its issues, does give it a big advantage. To compete on an equal level, Linux really needs to be unambiguously easier to setup and use. I'd argue that Mac OS X achieves that, while Linux doesn't come close.

Naturally there are many sorts of computer users, having all kinds of needs and skill levels. But I was talking about grandma-kind-of users (no offense to grandmas though, in many work places where I've worked, some of the most skillful employees in IT have been some of the oldest women working there) who do use and buy computers too.

I've met many computer users who know practically nothing about, say, image editing. Many computer users have enough trouble trying to figure what, for example, this "new thing" called Internet really is and how to use it. Believe me, I've been giving education and advice to such people in IT related basic tasks, and my home nation is supposed to be one of the most advanced in IT and having one of the highest education levels in the world.

An enlightening example: a customer, a middle-aged man, comes to me angrily inquiring why Google doesn't work on the public work stations available there. I find out that the problem is simply that the browser doesn't have a visual Google bookmark ready to click in its bookmarks toolbar - like what he is used to. I patiently explain to him that actually it is pretty easy to find Google despite that: just type the Google address to the browser address bar. He is thankful as I type the address for him, but I'm left wondering if he could do that all by himself even after that. And he obviously has used computers before too, so he isn't a total newbie. Total newbies have hard time understanding even things like what a computer mouse or a cursor is and how to use the keyboard...

To such users, it really makes no big difference whether the browser they need happens to be running on Linux or on MS Windows. But it is true that they would probably expect that they can just go and buy software from a shop and run it on their PC regardless of the operating system it requires. Concepts like operating systems and their different requirements are far out scifi to such computer users.


Maybe. And often the same software is available for both Mac and MS Windows, which makes transition easier.


Commandline?? Tar.gz file?? When have you tried Ubuntu? Ubuntu asks whether you want to enable restricted multimedia repositories. Flash, and lots of other multimedia-related things, are readily available in ubuntu-restricted-extras package from those repositories. Actually, if you need Flash, it is quite likely already installed on your Ubuntu after the basic installation and configuration routines are done. No need to go to the Adobe site and download anything.

Ubuntu also has very good guides in many languages explaining things like this if you needed to do that. Now how difficult is it to open your graphical software management front end, search for Flash, and do a few clicks with your mouse? Installing software from Ubuntu repositories is just different than what you usually do in the MS Windows world (downloading an exe file from some web site etc.). People used to the Ubuntu way, would probably find the MS Windows way more difficult and troublesome.


Yeah, they don't - because they just consult - all the time - their closest computer competent friend in order to get help in some basic things that they themselves feel helpless with. I know, I've helped many MS Windows using people who were not total computer newbies: in basic tasks like image editing, to setup Skype or a scanner etc.

But - I would claim that - persons who use something like Adobe Photoshop fluently would be quite competent enough to easily learn to use Ubuntu Linux too. It is not about Ubuntu being too difficult. The real problem here is - however - that (for example) Adobe Photoshop is not available for Linux (equivalent GIMP or Krita would be) which makes the jump from MS Windows (or Mac OS X) to Linux feel too big for them - too many things are and feel simply different to them.

Edited 2008-10-06 21:14 UTC

In my experience most users fall somewhere between that extreme and the knowledgeable "power user". Even users with very basic needs are often used to particular applications. I think they're generally the people least likely to want to re-learn something else.

For example, I know someone who just uses their computer for internet access and straight digital photo printing. She only uses the software supplied with the camera and hated the (IMO far superior) alternative I suggested.

If I setup a Linux system for her, I know she'd try sticking in the CD that came with her digital camera and would be frustrated when it didn't work. Even having to deal with different software to access her photos would be a deal-breaker for her. I know other people who'd feel the same way about their MP3 player's software.



I installed Kubuntu 8.04 quite recently to play around with KDE 4. Flash definitely did not work out of the box, it definitely did not appear in the standard repositories accessible through Adept Installer, there was nothing clearly indicating how to make it available. I know enough to search online and add the necessary repositories to access commercial software like Flash, Opera, etc. but that isn't true for a Linux newbie.

I think the average Mac/Windows user, new to Linux, is going to follow the prompts in their browser when they try to access something like YouTube and find that it isn't working. That's especially true if they've tried the graphical package manger and failed to find what they need. In Firefox they're directed to the tar.gz file on Adobe's site.

Actually, having a quick look online, I've struggled to find a tutorial for this that actually uses the GUI. All the ones I found direct the user to open a terminal and type in commands. Trivial stuff for an experienced user, but off-putting for some Windows/Mac users who've never even seen a CLI. In contrast, tutorials for Mac/Windows software never use the CLI unless it's absolutely necessary.



I wouldn't make that assumption. I know some people who are fluent at using particular applications, accountants who work all day on Sage, Photoshop experts, digital musicians, etc. yet still struggle when it comes to configuring their system. I think quite a few would run back to Windows as soon as they had to touch the CLI (it may not be 100% necessary, but it's still the method used by most tutorials) and deal with the remaining usability quirks in Linux.

No there is a real serious issue. You buy the computer. You surf the Internet. You download a utility. You run the utility and it says, "sorry, but this can't be run since it is Linux."

Customer: "huh I thought this was Windows."

I have completely given up with Linux on the desktop. Heck OSX went from nothing and has factors more adoption than Linux. Linux on the desktop is DEAD...

On the server, well that is a completely different story... There I would argue that Windows is pretty braindead....

You know, even if Linux had 0.5% market share, that is still a big amount of users. What do i care if my neighbor turns blue in fear if Linux is mentioned? Linux does everything that I want it to do and does it a lot better than Windows without annoying me with WGA, incompatibilities and all that for free instead of an ridicules price tag - Vista Ultimate retail costs $439 in EU... one would have to be an complete idiot to pay that load of money for such an insanely flawed product.

So even if Linux market share would be 0.1%... that is still enough people to get great support and enough developers. To me, Windows is dead on the desktop.

What you say is disappointingly common ... but fortunately, not quite universal.

http://www.liliputing.com/2008/09/pioneer-dreambook-light-il3-now-a...

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...

You can have Ubuntu with the price of the machine, or any one of several Windows options installed at extra cost.

http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/about/

Interesting to see that there is some indigenous innovation in electronics left in Australia, and that we don't really have to put up with what the big-name chain stores want to foist upon us.

yes you can have ubuntu but i don't want ubuntu just as much as i want windows. i've seen those sites but my complaint was with retail. i think it's great to see those kind of options but it needs to be in jb hi-fi where john buys his next pc.

retail is the battleground not the web. i want to be able to buy a desktop with the latest release of debian, nothing pre-installed, just a dvd and bubble wrap.

May I suggest that the real solution is genetic engineering?