This is a commentary. From a Linux user who does tech support for Windows users and works in the real world of a corporate Windows network environment. 2004 has been touted by many as the year of the Linux desktop. Indeed with the backing of IBM, Sun and now Novell, the business world looks like getting a serious Linux desktop contender. But has Linux on the desktop really got what it takes?
Post a Comment
Not only should the OS be easily installable ... but a unified software (packages and updates) installer -- which is distro agnostic -- would be great for newcomers.
Something akin to autopackage perhaps ...
In a sense I agree with this article. Those are the steps that need to be taken in order for Linux to be widely adopted. However, I do wish it to happen. Sorry to say this but I dont want a ton of Joe Idiots running and breaking things on their own and blaming the os, or dumbing down the standards so to speak. I say leave Windows to Joe Six pack. I loathe the guy. I for one like choice, and as such Im not a fan of uniformed looks. If Gnome wants to be Gnome let them be Gnome, if KDE wants to be KDE let them be KDE. Each offers their differences. Though it really doesnt mattter. Some distros we see are already aimed at Joe User Like Xandros and Lindows. But then again we see idiocy in its fullest when people using lindows disregard creating a root password. As far as installation goes its not a valid need, since the ones aimed at Joe User have come a long way in making it easy, especially since most are derived from Debian whose installer lets say requires an active brain. As far as stablity goes, Linux is highly stable in the right enviornment and the right use. If people starting doing wrong things its bound to crash and burn, and of course they will blame the os much like they did with Microsoft. As for software goes, yes I agree we really dont have a popular software list with the likes of Adobe and Macromedia. I have to agree with that. However, they would come in the form of Proprietary apps, and they would only come after there is one GUI which is not going to happen any time soon. If one wants these they should use Wine and Crossover Office/plugins . In fact Xandros Pro comes with those, so again Its not an issue if Joe User versions of linux include it. Anyways, Ive been ranting for sometime but so help me if every distro becomes Joe Six Pack Aimed im moving to something like Open BSD, though I doubt that. Slackwares still the same, Gentoo still the same, Debian is still the same.
Nymous, I agree 100%.
Time to stop the insanity of depency hell etc.
The funny thing about Linux is that in general, it seems perfect for the desktop; even superior to Windows.
The problem is that no one seems to get the minor details right, and those details kill an otherwise worthy contender.
I am a case in point. As a graphic designer, I've been trying to move my systems over to Linux. I chose Suse 9.0 for my desktop PC because of its much-lauded installation tools and ease of use.
With the easiest installation procedure I've ever seen, Suse installed perfectly and detected all my hardware correctly. I've even managed to get my Adobe applicatoins working with Crossover Office. But it's the little things that Suse gets wrong that could blow it for me.
1. CD-writing, which is supposed to work out of the box with K3B, simply doesn't work.
2. Neither boot loader works properly on my system, requiring me to boot up with the Suse disc each time.
3. Even though non-Latin text is supposed to work out of the box (it even has multi-lingual installers), it doesn't. I need to be able to view and edit Japanese, and it's impossible with my Suse installation.
4. My KDE bar sometimes uses the wrong icon for links (the default gear), and changing it requires changing to root and changing permissions on some obscure files.
5. Fonts I install are not correctly recognized by most programs.
Everyone's needs will vary, but I suspect everyone installing Linux for the first time is going to have an experience similar to mine; some crucial details simply don't work, no matter how slick everything else is. What's more, Suse's "support", which is included when you purchase the boxed set, is laughable. For every single support request I've put in, they've sent replies (about a week later) saying they wouldn't help me, and that I should buy a more expensive support package. This is all for features that should work as advertised out of the box.
Even Windows 98 could do all these things fine! I'm at a loss right now as to whether I should waste several more weeks doing all my computer setup again with another distribution, or what.
Is Linux ready for the desktop? It should be. But only when they start fixing the details and not assuming that their half-hearted attempt is "good enough".
Paul D.
No, Linux is not even ready for the desktops of IT professionals. Linux will probably never be a mainstream OS. People will go where the software is, and the software will always be where the money is. Even in a best case scenario Linux won't even come near the desktop in at least 7 or 8 years, and even then as only a niche player.
* "...the end result is that today's Linux desktop can look and feel like a dog's breakfast."
- Dog's what? My KDE desktop just looks fine to me.
* "...however the addition of software to a Linux system is often more problematic when compared to a Windows environment."
- With apt-get on my Debian server and emerge on my Gentoo desktop, it's even more easier to install software than in Windows.
* "Yes Windows crashes, but then so do Linux boxes."
- in theorie maybe. Never seen a Linux box crash. Really! (Using it for 8 years now)
* "...such as Lindows and root passwords..."
- That's why people who know Linux don't use Lindows.
* "...does not involve a complete re-education."
- Those users learned to use Windows. So what's wrong with learning to use Linux?
I agree with the author that Linux is not ready yet for the desktop, specially for the not-so-very experienced computer user. But there are other reasons for that. (Hardware support is indeed one of them.)
The Windows (mostly UI) benefits the author describes are indeed points where Windows is better than Linux on the desktop.
However, Windows apps from 4-5 years ago were nowhere near as good as they are now. Linux apps tend to be on par with the Windows apps from years past.
But what's important to note is that true users will accept what they are given, particularly if shown how to use the software. I see Windows users every day who live with very much less than ideal software (oil and gas industry), and they don't seem to realize that from a UI perspective, the software is rotten.
Linux on the desktop will not fail PRIMARILY because of the points he mentions. If compared side by side to Windows, it will not have as good a look and feel. But it still can succeed, and it is still more than usable.
Heck, millions of Americans drive General Motors cars, and there are few intelligent people who could argue that GM cars are superior to Honda, Toyota, and Mazda (or some German brands). That's not to say Linux is like GM by any means 
The single factor that will dictate whether Linux will survive on the desktop is if it will run the software people need, perhaps through emulation, port, or even alternative feature-matching software.
I think the article makes some good points. I agree with the installation problems with Linux. I use debian and I have been very happy with the ease of getting new packages but what is also nice is that besides some applications such as a financial software or games, most Linux distros come with everything a user needs which makes the installation issue moot. Of course there are exceptions to this but it is still an important detail IMHO.
The killer is the hardware side of things. Having a cd to put in to install drivers for a digital camera, mp3 player, etc. is really the biggest issue to be faced. For myself I got a pocket pc for Christmas. I wish I could use it with mozilla mail and/or evolution (I use mozilla mail at work) so I could just use Linux but it just isn't possible now. This is similar to issues with not having photoshop/macromedia apps as well for Linux (bluefish, gimp, etc. are getting closer everyday thankfully). I think the commercial support will be the key and I do believe it will come but I also think that things must become more standard (ie packages, repositories, filesystem, libs, etc.). Just my two cents
If Linux wants to get mainstream, Linux needs companies like Adobe, Macromedia, ... to make native Linux software. Only then will the smaller companies follow. Windows is easier to use why? For example, you get a Windows CD with your digital camera and it even says on the box: "Supports Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000 and XP". Linux will be ready when the box says "Supports Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000, XP and also supports Linux.
Then and only then will Joe User use Linux.
I agree with the author that the average home use is still better off wit ha computer running Windows. However, I do not agree with him on the subject of the company pc.
I think he forgot one crucial point here: most business users do not maintain/configure their own computer. They just use it for a limited amount of well defined tasks. Maintenance and configuration are done by certified professionals.
It is quite possible to create a desktop for the average company user, one that feels comfortable and is easy to use. The latest attempt of Sun is a good example. Also, KDE has a lot of tools - such as KIOSK - to produce a reliable and comfortable desktop, regardless which OS you migrate from.
Linux has reached a level where it is actually very interesting for companies to adopt as their main pc OS. Good quality Office suites that will do more than you will ever need are now actually available.
There is a cost involved for switching. Training and rewriting software do cost money. Ever tried to upgrade Windows from an old version? Based on current licensing policies you will have to get used to that because the average company will have to do so more often than in the past. Linux is a serious option for a company looking to save real money, and not just in hardware that won't have to be replaced every time you pop in a new cd.
That's why I think 2004 will be a big year for Linux.
Widespread business acceptance of the OS would give Linux the installed base it needs for the next step. That next step would be to convince hardware manufacturers for example to include drivers for Linux by default, rather than as an afterthought. It would convince software manufacturers that there is actually a world out there for them to sell their products, games or not.
Yes, I do think Linux has a bright future.
Cheers,
Jan
Time to stop the insanity of depency hell etc.
what if I told you that dependency hell can never be stopped, and Linux will never see commercial software partly due to the inibility to distribute and support applications for it. And that hardware support will always be more difficult than any other system. What if I said the UI will always be slow and second rate? Would you still think it is going to take over the world?
It doesn't matter how easy to use gnu/gnome/kde/linux is. OSX is way sexier and "consistant" than XP and yet people aren't running to that. And don't pretend it's the price: an eMac is about the same price as a crappy eMachine or low end Dell.
If a string of closed-source (so they can't be ported to windows) 3D games came out for gnulinux/BSD that were really innovative and were a lot of fun, and (for the hell of it) free as in 'free beer', it would do a lot more for the proliferation of linux/OSS than anything currently being done.
I'm all for open source software, it really can promote speedy development, but people aren't going to use linux just because it's free. In the US, most people using windows got it OEM, or pirated, so for most people Windows is free.
Until there are user-focused things that people can ONLY do using linux/bsd, people won't be compelled to switch.
Not in a business situation with Windows networking etc. I work with real customers, many using Windows for the first time. Yes, this is a small retail store in which customers expect some support from the local store, i.e. me. This means I hear a lot of questions about Windows. So here are the things Windows does that I get sick of explaining:
1.) Installations are not forever. If you can deal with Microsoft cutting the support you pay for with the purchase of the OS you must also deal with the fact that the registry will become oversized and or corrupt after a period of time. The lastability of NT systems is pretty good, most people get a few years out of one. But most people use Windows 98, and with a 6 month - 1 year lastability for most people this is not enough. These people are real people, they pay to have Windows reinstalled. At my store, this is an $80 charge. They blame me for Windows failing, I am sick of hearing it. Fix it Bill.
2.) It doesn't come with a Word processor. Explaining that they have to purchase Microsoft Office for more than they paid for the OS is hard to do. Or Word for a little less than the OS. People seem to think basic functionality should come with their computer, they're wrong according to Bill. Fix it Bill, I'm sick of the complaints.
3.) Anti-virus. Windows has virus problems, great, why doesn't it come with an anti-virus program? Because this would put Norton and Mcafee in a bad way right? Well too bad, I get sick of hearing about this one too.
4.) Windows update. SP2 fixes this, but there should be transparent, by default, updates to Windows on a networked machine. Because most users don't understand the need for it. I dislike explaining how I am selling them a shoddy product that requires security patches. I understand some, but the list is too long. Also, Windows update should work as a tree updating system. So I don't have to run it multiple times to get done. It's called dependencies Bill, it's an easy concept; even RPM solved it (apt.freshrpms.net).
5.) CD-burning software. This is probably for legal reasons, but Windows should move mp3's to wavs and burn them to a CD for the user.
6.) Pop-up blocking. Fixed in SP2. Seriously, I can't believe how they haven't implemented this yet. Move to the new millenium guys.
7.) "ok, click here than here then here then there." Do you know how hard it is to describe a dialogue over the phone to someone who doesn't know what a tab is? Command-line administration is a must. People can spell, they can't describe graphics though. Telephone tech support, no graphics please! GUI admin only is a step back in ease of use. I spent an hour telling someone how to reinstall drivers the other day.
Windows does some things really well. But it has some serious issues, and real people have real problems with the issues. It's the novice users who don't mind. Linux is a beginner/advanced OS (or distributions for both are available). Linux' problem is device support: Not enough devices' support it.
I'd say OS X rules the roost for a easy to use OS, but I don't use it alot so I may get corrected.
At least one of the major CG movie shops uses Linux exclusively. I think a few others do to, to some degree.
The problems you describe, I've not encountered. However, I'm not a graphic artist. I will say that I've installed many versions of many distros, and very rarely did I have any boot loader problems, CD burning problems, or desktop misbehaviors (as with your gear icons you mentioned).
Also keep in mind that Linux on the Corporate Desktop implies that systems will be installed, configured, and supported by staff that understand, or have access to people who understand the myriad details of Linux desktop system management.
I think some of the greater distro's should...... how will i say this...... combine forces and create a distro which has all the good (say not perfect) elements... for example, crossover office which people need too run some of the windows applications they can't let go... a clean system for updating... and as said before a stable desktop environment, maybe Xpde ( www.xpde.com ), so that people have the feeling they are working with something familiar.. i think a distro also must have the possibility to install and play games, for that they can use winex from transgaming ( www.transgaming.com ). Make it stable and you've got a perfect linux system. Then do some positive merchandising because people need to know what linux is and for what u can use it...
Cheers...
Yes, if they (the linux community) makes it easy (and pretty) to use as OS X. Actually if apple got some b@lls and were willing to forego their hardware they could easily have OS X on Intel. Though this move would cripple their company - they make most of their money off of hardware, not software.
Anyways, Linux does not have to worry about this, it can run on most hardware available, some time (and money) needs to be having a nice desktop env like OS X. I'm sure people here will say what is wrong with Gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc., however, those desktop environments (in my opinion [and probably the opinion of average joe]) are not as unified as the OSX Apple Desktop.
The other thing Linux needs to do is make installation of their OS easier - yes this means dumbing it down for people, grandma does not want to know how DHCP or PPP work, she just wants to get on the internet and so do 95% of the other non-CS computer users in the world.
Despite my above complaints about Linux, I am impressed with some of its USB support. My wife plugged her brand new Canon A70 into my laptop (Mandrake) - even though the package warns that you need to install the CD in Windows for it to work - and Mandrake immediately found it, mounted it, and let us download images from the camera.
Anyway, even for Windows, getting cameras to work can be such a hassle that I usually use a CompactFlash card reader instead.
Paul D.
I think the only real thing killing Linux right now is getting Windows apps on Linux. If that happens Linux will really grow. If it doesn't happen Linux on the desktop outside of office use will falter.
Lindows and Xandros are both very good for home use. Both use KDE, both built on Debian, both simple to install, both useing APT for software installing and updating (Which really helps get over the dependancy heck we all hate)
But where are the Apps? Codeweavers is ok but it crashes much more running Windows apps on Linux then those same apps on Windows.
The problem here is not that companies like Adobe can't make money to port their apps to Linux (Being that most of those apps work on Mac OSX anyway) but they have license deals with MS that they don't want to mess up. Most of these companies know that if they deal with Linux companies MS will stop giving them deals.
So they wait, hoping Linux will get bigger and on the radar more and then they can finally have the clout to move to Linux.
We will see! I hope people will have the guts to go for it. I mean is Open Office can be ported to 10 different OS's, how hard can it be to move Macromedia products to Linux. I bet most of the companies have done it already (Including MS) just to see if it work or to have it on hand for when the time is right.
2003 was the year of linux. I switched my parents over around thanksgiving when their computer started mysteriously rebooting every time they printed.
Now it's impossible for anyone less computer-literate to switch. The year of linux came and went, sorry you missed it.
Not in a business situation with Windows networking etc. I work with real customers, many using Windows for the first time. Yes, this is a small retail store in which customers expect some support from the local store, i.e. me. This means I hear a lot of questions about Windows. So here are the things Windows does that I get sick of explaining:
1.) Installations are not forever. If you can deal with Microsoft cutting the support you pay for with the purchase of the OS you must also deal with the fact that the registry will become oversized and or corrupt after a period of time. The lastability of NT systems is pretty good, most people get a few years out of one. But most people use Windows 98, and with a 6 month - 1 year lastability for most people this is not enough. These people are real people, they pay to have Windows reinstalled. At my store, this is an $80 charge. They blame me for Windows failing, I am sick of hearing it. Fix it Bill.
Bill's company did fix it, Win98 is nearing end-of-life. Stop selling crap and move to XP already. You said yourself NT systems are better, and XP is an NT OS. They no longer sell licenses for Win98 to retailers and OEMs, only to system builders (and that stops in March), so why are you still selling it to customers? Hell, even paid support from MS stops in 4 days.
2.) It doesn't come with a Word processor. Explaining that they have to purchase Microsoft Office for more than they paid for the OS is hard to do. Or Word for a little less than the OS. People seem to think basic functionality should come with their computer, they're wrong according to Bill. Fix it Bill, I'm sick of the complaints.
They can use Wordpad, or start pre-installing OpenOffice.org if it's such a problem. Hell, you could even charge them for it if you wanted to.
As for bundling things in general, especially things that Microsoft previously sold (and MS sold Word before they sold Windows), this is the sort of thing that MS got in trouble over in the first place.
3.) Anti-virus. Windows has virus problems, great, why doesn't it come with an anti-virus program? Because this would put Norton and Mcafee in a bad way right? Well too bad, I get sick of hearing about this one too.
Make sure to tell the DoJ that before complaining to Microsoft... There are free antivirus programs available for Windows, too.
4.) Windows update. SP2 fixes this, but there should be transparent, by default, updates to Windows on a networked machine. Because most users don't understand the need for it. I dislike explaining how I am selling them a shoddy product that requires security patches. I understand some, but the list is too long. Also, Windows update should work as a tree updating system. So I don't have to run it multiple times to get done. It's called dependencies Bill, it's an easy concept; even RPM solved it (apt.freshrpms.net).
Why not sell the machines with SP2 installed, then? Beyond that, I do agree that it would be helpful if Windows Update downloaded the patches all at once and updated them in the proper order rather than requiring you to download certain patches independantly and reboot before downloading the remainder of the patches.
5.) CD-burning software. This is probably for legal reasons, but Windows should move mp3's to wavs and burn them to a CD for the user.
WindowsXP with Windows Media Player 9 already does this, as far as I know (though I've never done it myself because I don't like the sound quality of MP3s enough to do the conversion for the few players I have that can't handle MP3s natively).
6.) Pop-up blocking. Fixed in SP2. Seriously, I can't believe how they haven't implemented this yet. Move to the new millenium guys.
Install a browser that does it and set it to default, or install the google toolbar. I usually do both on every system I setup.
7.) "ok, click here than here then here then there." Do you know how hard it is to describe a dialogue over the phone to someone who doesn't know what a tab is? Command-line administration is a must. People can spell, they can't describe graphics though. Telephone tech support, no graphics please! GUI admin only is a step back in ease of use. I spent an hour telling someone how to reinstall drivers the other day.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I can usually manage phone tech support with the people that I do have to deal with on the phone. I've certainly had my share of long phone calls (upwards of 4 hours), but those were often either OS reinstalls or troubleshooting hardware I didn't have on hand. Most driver installations are fairly straightforward, but in the end it depends on who supplied the driver.
Windows does some things really well. But it has some serious issues, and real people have real problems with the issues. It's the novice users who don't mind. Linux is a beginner/advanced OS (or distributions for both are available). Linux' problem is device support: Not enough devices' support it.
I think I agree on this (if I understand what you're saying). I've been able to teach new users to use just about any OS that is even moderately suited to end-users. I've certainly trained people on harder systems than a current Linux distro with KDE or Gnome. New users are the ones that really do not care what the OS is, they just want to know how to do certain things without it getting overly complicated, and they want someone to be able to fix it when they have a problem. When I recently setup a computer for my girlfriend's father, I set it up with WinXP simply because I know I'll have a box with it installed at least until Longhorn has gone retail, which makes it easier for me to support over the phone if needed. On top of that, I bought him the O'Reilly pocket reference to XP, which I feel is not only a fairly strong and deep reference for the OS and the applications and tools that ship with it, but also starts out with enough of the basics for even the newest users to get along. I've yet to find a book I'd feel as comfortable handing to a new user for Linux, but I wouldn't be surprised if O'Reilly published one (either now or in the near future). In the meantime, my girlfriend is interested in knowing how to build a computer, so I'm planning my purchases for a <a href="http://www.mythtv.org/">MythTV box, which will, of course, run Linux, and while I'm at it she may learn a bit about Linux and some applications other than those commonly used on Windows.
Well my mother, grandmother, brother, roommate, me and my girlfriend all use Lindows 4 - 4.5 and all are happy.
(Extra happy when some Windows bug or worm comes out and I tell them not to worry about their PC's because the worm is not for Linux and I have locked down your machines pretty tight using Firestarter)
I mean there are 100's of versions of Linux, it all depends on which version you use, not every version is going to work, and because one version doesn't work for you doesn't mean LINUX doesn't work.
I mean Linux is just over 10 years old. Hummmmm, how well did windows work when it was 10 years old? That would be 1993 when windows 3.1 was out and NT 3.51 was out. LOL! Come on.. LOL! Dos was working better then Windows then.
We've had this for some time, it's called apt-get.
Plus, commercial software seems to have little problem dealing with dependancies (when the developers actually build for the platform, and don't do silly things like building against the development version of libs).
Windows systems may not have the same eye-candy as OSX, they still have a uniform look and feel. Unfortunately, an historical precedent has given rise to a diverse and at times competing window environment for Linux, the end result is that today's Linux desktop can look and feel like a dog's breakfast.
http://www.reduz.com.ar/windowsxp_look.png
WHERE is your consistent look, huh?
Look even the WINDOW FRAMES are different!
so, where is windows more consistent in the look?
-toolkits? no.. in gnome/kde you can make them look very similar using themes (of course things like toolbars and file dialogs still differ..), but windows has similar problems with shortcuts, toolbars, and all kind of widgets.
-Then, app layout? not that either, even if KDE and Gnome HIGs are different, every windows app has it's very own layout.
I'm afraid to tell you that in this point (at least), you are wrong.
I use linux exclusively, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking "when it's good enough, the people will come".
OSX is living proof that they won't come.
People aren't looking for the best OS, or the most consistant, or the most secure/stable/easy/etc.
In fact, linux just needs to be "good enough" good enough that people won't get fed up and decide it isn't worth the effort.
What will move people to linux is exclusive apps and exclusive (and even better if they are free $$$) games.
The problem is open source. As long as the source is available, it's just a matter of time until linux loses it's exclusive apps because they get ported to windows.
I love open source, but it's hurting the proliferation of linux as much as it's helping it.
I mean Linux is just over 10 years old. Hummmmm, how well did windows work when it was 10 years old? That would be 1993 when windows 3.1 was out and NT 3.51 was out. LOL! Come on.. LOL! Dos was working better then Windows then.
NT was born in 1991(NT 3.1, the first version, was released in Aug 1993), so 10 years for NT is 2001, that makes it XP, quit a good OS for a 10 years old OS.
First of all, people calling the average user an idiot is himself/herself an idiot. I have tons of average user friends and I don't want anybody to call them an idiot. Computers are not very intuitive yet I think, even though we try to make it as intuitive as possible.
Here are more important issues. The linux libraries are not stable yet. They change a lot and break things. You have to recompile your programs for it, etc...
Second people on the linux expect you to have open source software. That's just a dream that will never be true for many number of software applications. Many so called open source advocates are pure idiots, they often bark the wrong tree, jump up and down like crazy, shout etc.. for no meaningful reason.
The real work is done by a handful of engineers and programmers. Most of these guys do not get help from thousands of programmers around the world. Developing a good application is extremely hard, and open source model doesn't not work for complex GUI programs. I like KDE a lot, but the programs do not function properly, lots of bugs, you just can't do any useful thing there.
I have seen only few open source applications that offer real competitive advantage over the commercial applications. Apache is one of them, Firebird (mozilla) is the second one. There may be others on the niche markets, but these are the ones that come to my mind when I think of serious, respectable open source applications. Apache doesn't have a GUI and it is a server program really. Firebird on the other hand is a gift from Netscape (and maybe AOL).
There aren't many companies that stand by the open source application. There is no credibility. Nobody will use Linux because an idiot on say Slashdot think that Microsoft sucks or that Linux is superior. Microsoft may suck or not, but Linux is not superior at all. People will figure this out sooner or later when they actually start to use open source.
Solving these problems require engineering force, it is that simple. Many people who are against these facts are mostly kiddies trying to make fun of few statements on others' comments. Not many number of people are constructive in this regard, so as I said the fate of Linux is not in the hands of the open source "idiots" but they are in the hands of the engineers and programmers who are willing to commit their time to these applications.
Here's that damn "Macs use expensive hardware" slogan again. Last time I checked, perfectly servicable G4 eMacs start at $799 (which includes the monitor, of course), and an iMac -- with an LCD screen -- bases out at $1299. That's competitive.
Upper-end Macs (let's just talk about the G5 for the moment) are pro gear that should be compared to high-end Pentiums, Opterons, and Xeons. At that point, the Macs start to look downright frugal. And they hold their retail value like nothing else: three-year-old dual 500 MHz G4s are still fetching almost a thousand bucks on eBay.
Windows and Office. I have a very difficult time believing that Linux will ever make serious inroads into the general corporate desktop because of the truly vast number of Excel, Word and Access files with embedded VBA macros (and database front-ends written in VBA) that companies rely on to get their work done every day. The corporate world is essentially locked-in by MS Office (OpenOffice is not compatible with VBA, which makes it pretty-much useless for the typical north-american/european office worker).
For certain specialized niche roles like manufacturing workstations and the like Linux may get somewhere, but on corporate desktops there is just no way. A senior IBM executive has recently challenged the entire company to move to Linux on the desktop before the end of this year as a gesture to prove to potential customers that Linux can do the job (see the story at osViews.com). I predict that this will not even come close to actually happening in reality.
Linux' only chance for serious desktop growth is in new technology markets where Windows and Office are not yet completely pervasive (the developing nations) and various organizations that wish to make a political/religious statement against Microsoft despite whatever pain it will cost them.
http://www.reduz.com.ar/windowsxp_look.png
WHERE is your consistent look, huh?
Look even the WINDOW FRAMES are different!
Of course you could customize your windows xp look too, i that to my [url=http://clientes.netvisao.pt/fagona/other/mydesktop.jpg]desktop[/url].
It's ready for servers.
It's ready for light-weight Business duties like vertical apps and OO.o.
If you don't mind editing .conf .rc files, VI and the Console then you can get a powerful desktop.
It's not ready for home uses (do people really need complicated at home?). Most home users still don't understand the concept of folders.
Linux as a long way to get to Mac OS X levels of usability. And it won't be ready for 2004 and neither 2005.
The mindsets of many of the linux users I know or read comments from is what will keep Linux from the desktop. We need applications, mainstream applications from the big players such as adobe.
In order to attract the big name application developers, they need to make money. Most of the time a suggestion is made to "buy" something Linux, the Linux users all scream that it should be free and they will never pay for anything.
This is a big problem.
The days of Windows innate inadequacies (no patches, sucky IE, no firewall, no anti-virus, etc.) are fast coming to an end. PC vendors are just starting to sell Windows XP with piles of excellent freeware enhancements (like MyIE2) pre-loaded on every box they ship. Take a look at this...
http://www.go-l.com/winxp4l/winxp4l/index.htm
This company ships a radically customized and enhanced version of Windows XP on every machine they sell.
Here's that damn "Macs use expensive hardware" slogan again. Last time I checked, perfectly servicable G4 eMacs start at $799 (which includes the monitor, of course), and an iMac -- with an LCD screen -- bases out at $1299. That's competitive.
You can get a 2.4GHz P4 w/ 17" CRT from Dell for $599 (499 after mail-in rebate) right now. Alternatively, there's a 2.4GHz 14.1" laptop for $799 (699 after mail-in rebate; and for the record, I normally agree that Mac laptops are at least competetively priced). You might get near the Mac prices if you try to match feature-for-feature, which is an interesting exercise, but overall it comes down to what the user wants, and I really think a Mac would be more cost-effective for many users if you had a little more flexibility in what you could or could not include (though, granted, it's more expensive to be more flexible).
Upper-end Macs (let's just talk about the G5 for the moment) are pro gear that should be compared to high-end Pentiums, Opterons, and Xeons. At that point, the Macs start to look downright frugal. And they hold their retail value like nothing else: three-year-old dual 500 MHz G4s are still fetching almost a thousand bucks on eBay.
On the other hand, Opterons and Xeons are definitely not usually marketed to the same space that the high-end G5s are usually marketed towards. A 3GHz P4 can be had for less than $1500 depending on what you want in a system, and high-end AMD chips can be had for less in most cases.
In the last year PC prices have dropped significantly with less than a 1GHz increase in clock speeds (I bought a 2GHz P4 about 18 months ago and it wasn't the top speed CPU then, either). A little over a year ago you couldn't buy a 2.4GHz CPU for $599, never mind a complete computer with the CPU in it. This is where the Mac side of the house tends to have problems, as the speeds generally don't increase as quickly, and as you said yourself, the prices don't drop as quickly, either. Good for the person selling the computer, bad for the person buying the computer.
IMO Linux is easier to use than windows
couse of
* the ease of update
run swaret, it'll upgrade your system, no reboot, no "This component must be installed separetly etc..."
* the ease of installation
download and type installpkg [a-to-z]*[z-to-a].[abc]
[u] in windows world u'd have to setup.exe -> next [x5] but if i want to install 100 apps?
[/u]
* stability
i system is running for several days now [updated to 2.6.1]
[u] i never saw a BSOD in Linux[/u]
* the bundled apps (or choice)
no need to install a compiler, word procesor, thing like mozilla etc..., firewall
sure there are some cons in Linux, but it works for me
> She may have problems with viruses and she might have security concerns about the internet, but mostly she wants to be able to do her homework and now she wants to hook up her new camera and print some pictures.
My webserver gets about 700 requests a month for exciting things such as '/scripts/nsisslog.dll' and '/MSADC/root.exe?/c+dir'. That's an iPlanet on Solaris btw . My desktop gets 5 requests to ports 17300, 27374 amongst others (I forget) per hour. Not to mention the steady plink plink of of lone stray probe ICMP echo requests.
All from zombie machines whose admins (clueless lusers) like the mythical 'Jane' have 'security concerns' with gaping port 139 or whatever. Their attitude is akin to going to a beach or the Himalayas and leaving behind heaps of trash - hey, they had a good time, damn the environment. What utter cowdung!
You're actually advocating the use of an OS that is so fundamentally fscked up it isn't funny. Yes, it *does* get some things right in spite of this but that's no excuse for its brokenness and shoddy QA.
Couple that with the numerous commercial Unix vendors who couldn't get together on a consistent, sane, non-ugly looking graphical environment in the 90's, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Linux is complicated in a way that pleases those comfortable with computers (those who program and otherwise know how a computer works without being afraid of reformating their hard-drives). A corporate changeover to Linux would be more successful than individual changeover from the simple standpoint that a few people who know how to manage Linux would handle hundreds to thousands of desktops installs and profiles. Since more companies want to limit what users can do on a PC, Linux can, in many ways, be beneficial here.
The serious drawback, as pointed out earlier, is application side. Financial companies in particular use VB code to manage routine tasks in Excel and Access. I do not know where OpenOffice is with regards to Macros, but without being able to easily convert from VB to whatever OO would use would put a big damper on acceptability. Getting the financial institutions - especially accountants would be a great boon for Linux.
On the other hand, the majority of PC users rely on ease-of-use. They rely on not knowing how an Operating System works beyond a few odds and ends. For someone who could care less about which OS they use beyond ease of use and "will my favorite program run on it", the computer novice will shy away from Linux.
The psychological warfare is where Linux also has to win out: getting over people's fears of change and unfamiliarity. I need to get back to work now, I have some Macros to write for Excel.
Thats My system , not i system
and
And I remembered that i had seen a BSOD in linux aka kernel panic! 
When i installed linux on an Athlon box with via kt133 mother board with geforce 2 mx and installed nvidia drivers and switched agp to 4x
Of course you could customize your windows xp look too, i that to my [url=http://clientes.netvisao.pt/fagona/other/mydesktop.jpg]desktop[/url].
So what? This doesnt avoid the legacy apps to look different than those which use the XP toolkit.
the only way is to get XP to look ALL exactly like win95.
"Linux has great potential as a desktop computer with some definite advantages over Windows but until Linux matches some of the key features of the Windows desktop then any mass adoptions are likely to limited to specifically targeted niche markets and newly evolving ones."
Darn, I wonder if the writer of this article has been asleep for the last few years because really this article has nothing new to say. Same old story and a really boring conclusion.
I think the author draws the wrong conclusion because of inconsistent criteria. The question is "can Linux make it in the mainstream", so the first obvious task is to decide what is "the mainstream". Well I would suggest as we are talking about a desktop OS then the ability to be used as the main desktop OS in a corporate setting would qualify as the mainstream . As many corporations are already using it and with SUN and IBM supporting it the way they appear to be the answer is clearly yes it CAN make it, but will it? Well lets look at the requirements.
Uniformity of appearance - Linux can look how it needs to look, not an issue. Windows XP looks nothing like 2000, the entire menu is different by default, some items cannot be changed back to the old style at all. Application menus have changed. There is a serious lack of consistency to Windows appearance.
Consistent behavior - Linux's behavior is as consistent as any OS. Even so the behavior of either is consistent enough for anyone. This is not an issue
Ease of use – No serious argument can be made that Windows is easier to use than Linux. Both have point and click, menu driven GUI which anyone can use with equal ease. Applications ease of use are determined by the application design itself which has nothing to do with the OS so is not an issue here. For example Adobe will be able to code as easily for Linux as for windows and there will be no difference in their applications if they don't want there to be.
Ease of installation – An argument can easily be made that Linux is much easier to install than Windows. Users don't install Operating Systems anyway, Tech Support does. Not and issue.
Reliability – Give me a break.
Working support for a very large company, supporting more than 15,000 users, I think I am qualified to say that the users don't care what OS they are using. They simply want to get their emails without someone having to show them where the menu option they used Friday has gone since the update of outlook over the weekend to the latest version. They want to have the word processor application work without freezing and having to call Tech Support so they can end task on winword.exe for the 10th time this month or share their database with their colleague who is using an older version of the database program which is no longer compatible with their new version. Consistency is obviously not a strong point of the worlds "favorite" software company but really is not a problem for Linux.
Linux clearly can and will make, Windows did with much less going for it.
I am not sure by what people mean by "Is Linux ready for the desktop?"
If they mean: "Can Linux achieve widespread consumer adoption in mature, MS-saturated markets (U.S.) through millions individual consumers choosing to purchase and install it or to purchase computers with it pre-installed?", I think the answer is "No", but I think that is true for any OS (even a hypothetical OSX for x86). MS Windows, at OEM pre-installed prices, is priced below the perceived hassle cost level for most consumers in such markets. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the "lite" version of the MS office products (and availability of OO, AbiWord, etc. on Windows enables the semi-informed moderate users to avoid these costs).
If they mean: "Can a non-enthusiast install a recent Linux distro and use it productively to perform day-to-day computing activities such as Internet use (browsing, e-mail, news and IM), moderate office tasks (writing personal and business letters, preparation of spreadsheets in connection with personal financial matters, viewing and editing documents from work), amatuer multimedia activities (digital cameras, image manipulation, scanners, CDs and DVD playback and burning, digital music) and a wide variety of games (not necessarily the big name ones), such that he would not always be yearning for Windows?", I think the answer is "Yes". The installs of recent distros are no worse (and likely better) than a Windows install, the packages that come with a distro are generally sufficient for ones needs and packages of other software are readily available on-line for the major (top 5 or so) distros. Hardware compatibility is not the issue it was a few years back -- my USB-connected digital camera and scanner are automatically recongnized by my Linux distro with no additional software or adjustments required; on Windows, I would need to use the CDs they came with to install drivers and software (and the software is really ugly and bloated junk). I will admit that getting hardware acceleration of graphics cards to work is something that requires a little knowledge/confidence.
If they mean "Can a business or institutional environment operate adequately with a Linux-only environment?", I definitely think the answer is "Yes". I think most office workers could operate adequately with the following (and the boss could hand out CDs containing the entire set, as well as Windows versions of many of the applications, at no additional cost):
1. Browser: Mozilla Browser/Firebird or Konquerer (these are already better than IE).
2. Email: Mozilla Email/Thunderbird, Evolution or KMail (now if only IBM would show its Linux support by releasing a Linux-native version of Lotus Notes or whatever their Notes successor is called).
3. Office: OpenOffice, AbiWord (less ambitious than OO Writer but coming along nicely)/Gnumeric/Dia or KOffice (of course, MS Office document format compatibility for interchange/collaboration with external parties is an issue, but the gap is being closed)
4. Pdf Viewer (both X11, Gnome and KDE have them (also, you can get Acrobat for Linux; OO can save to Pdfs, for external distribution of documents)
5. Environment for In-House applications: JVM, Python or Perl support (w/ libraries for Tk/Tcl, Gtk or Qt GUIs)
As a couple other people pointed out is there really a incentive for most people to switch? The answer is no. If MS had just kept on upgrading the Windows 95/98 codebase and windows was crashing left and right then maybe people would be giving alternative oss a second glance. But now XP/2000 is out there and it's pretty stable. Actually, I've got XP Pro and Slackware 9.1 on my new Sager notebook and the wireless driver will completely lockup my Slackware system on a regular basis. I don't blame that on linux, because its not open source(it's a wrapper you compile around a closed binary, ala Nvidia), but you can say the same thing about vendors that write crappy windows drivers.
RE: Fred
You're exactly right, we've been hearing this for years and 2004 will come and go and windows will still have the vast majority of the desktop marketshare
@Mac people
I just got a new notebook with a P4 3.0 ghz w/HT, 1 gig of dual port 400 ram, built in wireless and ethernet, ATI Radeon 9600 Mobile Pro graphics card, 15 UXGA screen running at 1600x1200, etc... I paid $2k even for this. Is there a mac notebook that will give me that price-performance?
KDE and Gnome are fine desktops. They're similiar enough to windows where I'm sure most people can navigate around them without too much problem, but there's still not as many apps and most PC OEMs aren't giving users options of having linux pre-installed.
What are these "mod cons" that make a Windows desktop?...
* OS transparency
Hahahahahahahahaha...ahgaha.ahjsdbghja..... Windows transparent? I've seem rocks more transparent than Windows.
IMHO:
One common misconception is that there should be a unified package management among GNU/Linux Distros. At first it seems like a good idea, have one package and install it on any Distro you happen to use. It seem's to be great especially for Joe User. But once the wonderful unified package were installed, the advantages over different packages for different distros would end. In fact, the trouble with package management would simply be moved from pre-installation (huh, what package is the right one for my distro?) to post-installation (it was installed so simple but why doesn't it work?).
GNU/Linux Distros from different vendors are differen't operating systems. Red Hat isn't Mandrake, Mandrake isn't Debian, Debian isn't SuSE, etc. It doesn't do any good to ignore this fact. It starts right at the core: No vendor uses Vanilla Linux from kernel.org. These kernels all have (different) patches applied to it, the Distros kernel hackers do alter things, etc. pp. Then different compilers get used which too could have been altered with (different) patches. Aside from different patches applied and additional development done at the kernel, it could very well be that the version of the kernel used is a totally differen't one.
This repeats at every level of the operating system. Sure, these Distros all have GNOME and KDE with nice Themes. But they all patch the sources, again may use differen't versions etc.
All these Distros have different configuration tools, aside from those delivered with KDE and GNOME which usually are only useful when configureing your desktops look and feel.
You know the list of differences could be easily bigger than the whole article above. It's not enough for a unified package management that things with all those differences have the same projects as roots and the same names. Yes, there are packages that work or do even work very well when used on another Distro than that they were packaged for, but this is not and will not be true for all packages.
Most "solutions" that get suggested during discussions about "how Linux should be" to be easy for Joe User (sadly) take the same attempt: eliminate choices. A unified package management, a unified look and feel, only one toolkit for GUIs, only one desktop environment, etc. No difference, no choice. It's (mostly) as simple as that.
Although it would be nice from a ordinary home users perspective, to not have all these choices (which undoubtedly add complexity) it's not going to work.
I believe that for example GNOME and KDE shouldn't be crippled and uglified in an attempt to sell them as one DE to the user. Instead differences in look and feel and function should be accepted and cleanly worked out. It would make Linux Desktop way more easier to use when DnD would be compatible between GTK+, QT, etc. Additionally GNU/Linux distributors should stop trying to make the Desktop _appear_ as easy as Windows. They are differen't! A KDE/GNOME desktop will never be as easy as a Windows desktop. But a KDE/GNOME desktop could be as easy as a KDE/GNOME desktop.
What I'm trying to say is that instead of trying to imitate parts (specifically the easyness) of other operating systems the vendors should allow GNU/Linux to have it's own identity (and easyness). Take a vanilla KDE and develop apps for system configuration and administration that make users believe they were part of KDE. Just like they were developed by the KDE project. Developing these configuration/administration applications with an eye on differing from another vendors KDE is silly. Let KDE look and feel like vanilla KDE on every distro; distro vendors could then concentrate and compete on delivering the best _implementation_ instead of the (seemingly) best _alteration_. Of course they could use GNOME instead of KDE or implement both of them.
OMG, I didn't want to write a book. I'll stop here, I think what I'm trying to say is relatively clear.
Regards, David
P.S. I'm not saying that windows shouldn't be imitated because it's UI were bad or something. It's simply point that neither GNOME nor KDE actually is the windows UI. By imitating it you gain nothing but comments proving that the original is better.
The problem of Linux is that it is based solely on technical achievements. Developers have no problem switching the graphic engine, sound engine, memory manager, virtual memory, default packages, X manager, or anything else in the operating system. Backwards compatability is at most a second thought. What this means is that it is a completely moving target. You cannot have this kind of moving target and have people build products for it. For example, Return to Castle Wolfenstein currently works great on certain distributions of Linux. It doesn't work out of the box on some distributions since they use different sound engines. However, in 4 years, I will be surprised if it is even playable on any distribution. By then, not only will Linux have a completely incompatible sound system, but X might also be completely changed too.
Good point. The moving target is a major problem. My wireless driver has versions compiled for Redhat or Suse and 2.95 or 3.2 GCC. This is just a nightmare for vendors.
Until an alternative OS supports commonly-used business applications, it isn't going to be considered for the corporate desktop.
Period.
Tools like Mozilla/Firebird and OpenOffice are a good start, and those address a good general business need, but some businesses require more specialized software that is only available on one or two platforms (Windows and sometimes the MacOS). For example, both of my previous employers used UTS and T27 terminal emulation software that was only available for Windows, and both also had specialized disagramming packages (Visio add-ons) that I've not seen equivalents for in the Linux world (things like dia are a good beginning, but they don't run third-party Visio extensions).
For home users, Linux isn't going to be all that appealing outside of its current boundaries until it supports a large selection of popular games!!
I can't tell you how many people I know who would switch to it if it supported this or that title. It's doing well in the FPS (First-Person Shooter) area, but other areas have almost no representation!
It isn't about the desktop, the "ease of installation", or the consistency of Windows. It's a lot more basic than that. If a platform won't run the software people want to use, people won't want to use that platform...
"Consistent behavior - Linux's behavior is as consistent as any OS. Even so the behavior of either is consistent enough for anyone. This is not an issue"
Speak for yourself. I find it a pain in the ass not being able to copy and paste anything but plain text between many Linux apps. That's a problem I've never encountered in Windows or Mac OS. Keyboard shortcuts, menu layout, drag and drop behaviour, file dialogs and online help are also much more consistent in Windows and Mac OS apps IME.
"Ease of installation – An argument can easily be made that Linux is much easier to install than Windows. Users don't install Operating Systems anyway, Tech Support does. Not and issue."
That's true if you only consider corporate desktops. If Linux is going to become a mainstream home desktop OS then easy installation and configuration is important. IMO that means easy to use graphical tools for everything, no more reading man pages and editing config files to get things working.
For example, Alpha Centari doesn't run on Windows XP. Four years ago it ran just fine on Win 98. Should I therefore conclude that Windows is not ready for prime time because it doesn't support my favorite game? Games are notorious for using any platform specific trick to gain performance. DirectX is also a moving target.
If I give you my 1990 era dissertation in MS Word, do you think you can read it on Windows? (Sadly, the answer is no.) If I open the LaTex version on Linux, it works just fine. (And Linux didn't even exist when I wrote it!) I think that the ability to read old text and data is more important than the ability to run games. Open standards really are important.
Until the developers stop the shotgun distro approach and unify under a single banner. And we all know how likely that will be, considering the levels of arrogance and zealot-ism in the Linux community.
For those who like Fedora. Read this. I think you can get it working on SUSE too. I hope this eventually becomes the default for future Fedora versions.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&...
Articles and more articles have stated that Linux is or is not ready for the desktop. Even more articles have stated what is needed for Linux to be ready for the desktop.
The reality is that Linux and software made for it make a very good operating system. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but for some it works.
Is having an operating system based on Linux neccessary for the desktop? What can Linux do that MacOS and Windows can't? Why should there be three or four desktop operating systems?
The last question should be answered by those who want Linux to have one desktop environment and one package installer.
I like using Linux, Windows and FreeBSD but I hope the future of computing doesn't need arguments about which operating system is best in order to survive.
I would also like to think that having a big beige box for a computer will soon be in the past.
The discussion should be how to use the computer and not what the computer is using.
Linux is as ready for the desktop, any desktop, as any other.
Does it have the refinement of Windows? Nope, but that doesn't mean it's not ready.
Is it as pretty or integrated as OS X? Nope, but that doesn't mean it's not ready.
Can it run every concievable application or piece of hardware? Nope, but that doesn't stop OS X users, and some say they pay more for the privledge.
Some might say Linux is "behind the curve", and others will counter "Which curve?".
For business owners who would rather have a system that helps their operations work efficiently rather than being able to install every CD that goes on sale for $4.99 and CompUSA, Linux is perfectly viable.
For home users that would go to an Apple store, were they willing and able to go to and support a local "Linux" store, they'd have similar out of box experiences over a wide variety of tasks. This store would carry preconfigured machines, supported hardware, and support to get it all working. Just like an Apple store. Just like a Windows store.
Are there things that the PC with Windows can only do? Of course, same as the Mac, same as Linux.
It would be nice if there was more consumer oriented software for the Linux platform (Things like Print Shop, not high end, not low end, just Mom end software). But, of course, you need consumers first.
Windows CAN do a lot of things, but not all people NEED it to do all of those things. They need it to do what they need it to do. And for many, Linux can do that.
Okay, I'll get modded down but here it goes...
How many of these Linux is/not ready for the desktop/mainstream/joe user articles do we have to endure?
If the authors theories were correct, Mac OS X will be the dominant desktop operating system today. In reality, it is not. Linux might never become the a mainstream operating system. And even if it does, I'm confident it will be by accident.
Let's examine each factor the author considers vital for Linux' mainstream acceptance and dominance.
Uniformitiy in Appearance -- The two major Linux desktop operating systems are GNOME and KDE. Contrary to the authors misconceptions, both desktops, and applications developed for them, have a more uniform appearance than anything you'll observe on Windows or even Mac OS X. Yet the Linux desktop might still never become mainstream.
Consistent behaviour – Even the author acknowledges that windows isn't a consistent platform, usability wise. Contrast that with GNOME, for example, where all GNOME applications act and feel the same. All GNOME applications share the same common keybindings. All GNOME applications after a crash will permit the user to force quit the application via a dialog box. All GNOME application share and use the same icons, the same widgets, the same menu, the same toolbar, the same theme to mention but a few. Again GNOME is the most consistent desktop environment I've used, yet it isn't dominant and might never become mainstream.
Ease of use -- Anyone who can use windows can use GNOME. It is more difficult for a Windows user to use Mac OS X than it is for the same user to use GNOME or KDE, at least from my observation. Yet, the Linux desktop isn't mainstream and might never be dominant.
Ease of installation -- It takes far more user intervention and steps to install a software package on Windows, than it does on a mordern Linux desktop. An illustration is in place. On Windows, to install OpenOffice.org I need to do the following.
1 Launch a web browser
2 Surf to OpenOffice.org's website
3 Download OpenOffice.org's compresser installation directory
4 Uncompress the OpenOffice.org's compressed installation directory
5 Search for the setup executable
6 Click on the setup executable to launch it
7 Follow the setup instructions, many of which are 7 steps or more long.
8 Exit the setup phase.
On a mordern Linux desktop I'll need to do the following:
1 Launch a terminal emulator
2 Input the following command – install OpenOffice.org (Syntax may vary based on your distribution)
3 Close the terminal emulator
Need I say more.
Reliability -- No brainer, Linux is more reliable than Windows is. What's further interesting is how you contradict yourself. You make it sound as if the Linux server and the Linux desktop are two different versions of Linux when it fact they are one and the same. Relaibility? Do you know how much the Sobig virus caused the world economy? As it stands today, Linux is even more reliable as both a desktop and server operating system than Windows is, yet it still is not the dominant desktop operating system and might never garner mainstream support.
OS Transperancy -- No other desktop operating system is as transperant as the free Unices, Linux inclusive. For every generic task you can do on Windows or Mac OS X, you can do the same task on a Linux desktop OS. The keyword is "generic".
Isn't it about time we should get past the stereotypes associated with Linux and focus on advocating freedom, choice and open standards. When users begin to appreciate and understand the tenets of open and free software; when users begin to see the benefits of free and open standards; when users pressure their vendors, both hardware and software, to support open techniques and fair competition; when users refrain for patronizing proprietary and closed standards; when users want control and transperancy, then Linux will become mainstream.
Until then, Linux will continue to be stereotyped as the difficult to use, difficult to install, inconsistent, opaque, user-unfriendly operating system designed by geeks for geeks. It's unfortunate, but it's true, and this article proves just that.
so what was the criteria? mainstream use? the most mainstream os out there , realistically speaking, is win98 ergo the zeitgeist, is linux the KERNEL on par with it, no; IS fedora core / mandrake / suse ready for public consumption? yes, on supported hardware.
Quicken and quickbooks works under wine more or less the same performance as under 98; spcss works fine under wine, the company are porting it over to the linux distributions by way of QT.
We have a variety of goverment institutions mass-deploying various distributions into their OS ecosystem, It would seem that it is indeed ready for them.
The apps are coming, not very fast, but they are; The only thing left is for the critics to comply with the times and start trying to forget their "bias" and start evaluating the myriad of OS's on equal terms.
I grew up with computers being something of a technology thing, I enjoy all OS's, pros and cons aside, i know my way around the big irons, i enjoy the challenge of dissassembling the firmware on cellphones, writing demos with EVAS, playing icewind dale on winxp, being smug about the tool 'SMS' compared to the unix counterparts...
so shoot me, i prefer open interoperability not market tie in..
Christian Schaller: here's your shotgun Sir!
Mainstream is Britney Spears, McDonalds, Windows.
Mainstream is mediocrity.
Who wants Linux to be mainstream?
you can't make such a blanket statement and say that linux is not ready for the desktop.
it's ready for my desktop. it's ready for quite a few of my freinds desktops.
it's perfectly ready for anyone that can identify their needs and find out what alternatives are available.
Most home users do what? Play some games? Type some basic letters? Surf the web and use email? Name me a distro that can't do those things?
I use xandros desktop 2, and coupled with codeweavers crossover office and plugin, I have an internet experience just as rish as any windows user. Plus, I can run MS Office and send work home for after hours catching up or whatever...and we are heavily dependant on excel and silly macros. we pay some guy to do nothing but come up with new "geewhiz" features on our spreadsheets. he makes them look like webpages and everybody thinks he's a friggin genius. he thinks he's a friggin genius even....anyway, the point is, I can get all my work done, I can surf and email, and I can play games like solitiare, spider solititaire, frozen bubble, tetris, sokoban, etc that keep me perfectly happy. my wife is happy enopugh too.
so tell me again how it's not ready for the "desktop"?
it's different yes, but I spect no greater effort learning linux than I did learning windows.
in a corporate environment you have an IT department to set stuff up for you. once it's set up, explain to me how an average user couldn't use their desktop? cut and paste? once they get used to middle mouse button cut/pasting they'll probably never go back to the old way. i actually wish windows could implement some of linux's great features like that. different yes, but not up to par...I don't think so.
I agree with this article -- it's the small things that will break the Linux experience for most end users.
ie:
Mandrake 9.2: The playlist is xmms does not show (some how the bkground colour, and fgcolour are the same)
Knotes: I _love_ this program (this is my big desktop tool discovery of 2003), but the 'notes' often move location, and have to be resized
Fedora Core 1: Change the default login screen -- now it won't change back
Fedora Core 1: damn if I can get the macromedia flash plugin installed on mozilla or konquer
k3b -- had issues with it: I'm not asking for the quality of Nero, but at least easy cd creator
Mandrake 9.2: Live update changed all my pref. back to default
Kdict: type the word 'dogs' you get nothing. Type the word 'dog' and you get the definition
galeon: I like the features, love the 'tabbed browsing' over that in Mozilla, but it is not compatible as mozilla (doesn't render pages correctly.
konqueror: _great_ file manager, but as a browser -- it lacks in rendering.
Mozilla: Love it all *but* I have two issues:
i. Java support is a bit buggy still (ie: try using Sun's iPlanet web software)
ii. www.nvidia.com menues got recently fixed, but what about the menues at www.atitech.com ?
KDE: I hate the volume control for the system tray -- Gnome, did it right!
OpenOffice.org: try open a M$ Excel or Word file with form objects -- they don't appear right, and some don't function correctly. I don't care if the macros work, but I should be able to place a 'check' in a 'check box'
I wonder how many debates of a similar nature there were when people first started using PCs for homeus