Lately, there has been a "Why linux isn't ready for the desktop" article every 3 days. Most of the time, these articles originate from a lack of understanding or acceptance of the open source system. I'd like to try to address some of the common arguments against linux here, and try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
Post a Comment
i want a decent IDE for gnome, go Scaffold go!
I don't have time to proofread, so I apologize in advance for any typos:
On ease of use ...
I've heard people say "Well, Linux isn't any harder to use, just different. If people learned Windows, why can't they learn Linux?" It seems to me that the way most people 'learn' Windows is to call up a friend, family member, or somebody who 'knows computers' to come to their house and fix/teach them whatever it is they want to know or whatever they need fixed. This isn't really an option in Linux for most people. If people won't use Google to learn about Windows and fix problems, why do you suppose they would do so with Linux? If my family or less computer-literate friends have problems with Windows (and they often do), they don't conult books or fire up Google, they call me.
On speed
In my experience, the default install of Windows is rather bloated as well, but you often hear people saying, "If you just turn off unneeded services, windows flies!". Please take this attitude with linux as well, to be fair.
Look here:
http://www.monroeworld.com/pchelp/xptweaks.php
Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner.
On hardware
If you want proof, it comes with your new hardware. Windows probably won't support your brand new video card at a decent resolution, or it might not even recognize your sound card. Windows simply doesn't ship with enough drivers, so you are forced to use a CD.
Oh my God ... are you telling me that I might actually have to INSERT A CD when prompted? That's terrible! But tell me, what's the alternative in Linux when the kernel doesn't recognize a piece of hardware? NONE of my hardware devices (except NICs) have come with a Linux driver on the CD.
On hardware
I know what you're thinking. "But {insert expensive proprietary app} isn't available!" Well then, Complain! Write to that company, and ask them to port the software. They won't port it unless they know people care.
Why? I'm already using an OS that runs all the apps I need just fine.
Maybe Linux just isn't the best OS to use if you're looking for a desktop OS. Personally, I think BeOS (ie, OpenBeOS) would be a better choice to convince people to move to.
Especially if there's a strong focus on portability between Linux and OpenBeOS.
Everyone has a different opinion as to what "Linux on the Desktop" entails. For some it means web browsing and checking e-mail. For others it means writing papers and spreadsheets. For these people "Linux on the Desktop" has been here for some time. Pick up Mandrake Linux and you're more than set. However for most a Desktop OS is uniform. It's consistent. It has readily available drivers. It's preinstalled when they buy their Dell PC. They can go to the store and purchase a game to play. These people are the majority. For them I believe Linux is not ready for the desktop. Unfortuantely. Untill there is one desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, whatever) and Dell starts selling PC's preinstalled with a Linux distribution Linux will have some hurdles before ever becoming a "Desktop" OS.
My $ .02.
Ciao!
..but linux is on my desktop, even at work in 'the enterprise'.
For people whose idea of "the desktop" includes Photoshop, InDesign or QuarkXpress, linux on the desktop may be *infinitely* far off. Yeah, yeah, Quark runs under OSX. That doesn't mean you'll see a linux port of it in a Galapagos tortoise's lifetime...
...try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
Wish I'd known that two years ago when I ditched Winblows for good and started using Linux on all my home machines! LOL :-)
Kreek
Lindows Insider
I am appalled at the fact you make Package Management seem like just another commonalityin linux and between distributions. I think this is a big problem. RPMS, DEBS, Ebuilds, OLM's...etc. Even if I do know my distribution is an RPM distribution, I most likely have to find not only a Distribution specific RPM, but the Distro Version specific RPM. Then I have to sit there and worry about dependancy problems. "So install from source!" Well that still doesnt solve my dependancy problem. Hmmm, last time I check 99% of all Windows software (freeware, shareware, and commericial) I have installed ran without requiring me to download some library. The 1% that did had the library on their website to download or they packaged it.
I am not against you, your article, or ideas. I just think one of the major KEYS to the success of linux on the desktop is Package Management and to dismiss it as something that is already in usable condition is doing nothing but contributing to the plight of linux.
Usable Package Management = When I am 99% positive that every piece of software I install will work without any hassels of dependencies, or distribution specific matters.
Please excuse any spelling/grammar mistakes.
Yeah, I understand that many people use Linux on the desktop, as I said, I use it too. But I don't think that's a valid argument. Hell, there's probably people who use QNX on their desktop. It doesnt mean most people can use it.
My Computer uses SuSE exclusively. After dual-booting between Linux and Windows for a few weeks I decided to throw the windows stuff away because I didn't need it. I can do all I need in Linux, so why use windows when I don't boot it anymore?
"Ready for the Desktop" is subjective. For me it is ready. People like my parents wouldn't see any difference to windows, because all they need is a word processor, E-mail, Browser and a little game once in a while. From what I see in my job most people will never need more on their private computer! But they have expensive computers for thousands of Euros AND expensive software, which they use not regularly. I ask them what they want to do with the computer they say most times: E-Mail, Internet, writing letters, use the digital camera. And when I offer them a cheap computer that fits their needs they would say: " Isn't that too slow for us? And our son told us we really need MS Office" I bet you see the influence of the so-called "Neighbourhood-Computer-Experts".
You have a point, but if you are buying a computer to primarily run those programs you would go with a Mac.
If you were buying a computer to work almost exclusively in MS Office, than you would buy a Windows.
If you just want a computer to surf the web, check e-mail, and is compatible with MS office documents then Linux is your computer.
If you want to do some C programming (or almost any programming for that matter) than Linux is by far better than a Windows.
It all depends on your needs.
But you'd be lying if you said a newbie couldn't jump on a modern KDE or GNOME desktop and successfully, get to the web, e-mail, and word processing applications.
"Kde 3.2 is almost ready for the desktop."
Mmmmm people have been saying this exact same sentence for years... only instead of 3.2 it said 1.0, or 2.2, or whatever...
Don't get me wrong, I *love* KDE, but it's definitely not as newbie-friendly as, say, XP's explorer or Mac OS X's GUI.
Let's just stop these 'Linux on the desktop'-articles.
If you like using Linux, use it. If you like Windows better, use Windows. If you like Mac OSX better, use that. If you like BSD, BeOS, ... (you get the picture, right?)
Why would you want to 'convert' people? Why do you even care! If (you think that) your OS is better, well, that's too bad for all the others then, because they don't know what they're missing. But why would you even care about them?
(and no, I'm not a Windows user. Nor am I a Linux user. Not OS X either.)
If you really want a *NIX that is easy to use for desktop users than just use OSX.
"Why would you want to 'convert' people?"
The more people we can get to use linux, the more commerical software(apps,games,DRIVERS!!!,etc) we can expect.
Ive gotton a couple of my friends(4) to switch compeletly over to linux and another 7 or so to atleast dualboot or play around with a liveCD. Every person that switches get us closer to better recongizition from the computer industry.
Ahh....we get to go through this again.....
It's really just another re-hash.....let's all up the osnews
hit counter so pump up their advertising revenue with another
linux desktop flamewar.
I just want to point out that "Oh, I use Linux as my desktop, so
it must be ready." is not a valid response to the statement that
"Linux is not ready for the desktop". I used linux as a desktop
back in 1992, it wasn't ready, but it was possible. I still don't
see it as viable for 'my desktop', and that is what this discussion
always degenerates into, everyone trying to generalize their
own desktop needs into that of everyone elses.
The term "the desktop" means that it is a completely viable
replacement for a significant majority of the population in
general, not for a significant population of osnews readers.
Also, in response to the comment about how X cannot be slow
because it is a 'protocol', and that only an implementation can
be slow. This is patently false. Protocols are made up of
data formats and algorithms that have their own computational
complexity. In CompSci, we measure that in such notation as
Big-O or Big-Theta. If a protocol is inefficient in the way that
it formats data, or the algorithms used, it is inherently slow,
regardless of the implementation. An implementation of a slow
protocol may be as highly optimized as possible, but it is still
limited by the protocol definition.
Since I do networking, I'll use that as an example....BGP is
inherently slow with respect to acting on network changes,
while protocols such as OSPF or IS-IS are very fast. Insert
RIP for BGP if you so desire.
And on the topic of open source. That is much less important
than open standards, formats, and protocols. I don't have time
to sort through the source for every application, but I do expect
them to follow standards to enable interoperability. That is what
the companies such as IBM mean when they talk about the future
being "Open", not the source code. The only people who really
care about 'open source' are coders who want to tinker. It is not
inherently better, just different, and to many of us, irrelevant.
- Kelson
I agree, these narticles aren't very useful or informative. Linux will work well for people who wish to use it. If you require a Windows only application, then it obviously is not the choice for you.
The OS a person uses is largely due to taste and availablity. If Microsoft were able to stop people from pirating it's OS, a lot more people would be tasting alternatives.
FreeBSD/Linux is already a 'ready' desktop for my brother and me, but not with my parents, grandparents and sister. My brother and I are able to work on Linux/FreeBSD at the full time at home and work as use TextMaker, printer and many others. :-)
I am appalled at the fact you make Package Management seem like just another commonalityin linux and between distributions. I think this is a big problem. RPMS, DEBS, Ebuilds, OLM's...etc. Even if I do know my distribution is an RPM distribution, I most likely have to find not only a Distribution specific RPM, but the Distro Version specific RPM. Then I have to sit there and worry about dependancy problems. "So install from source!" Well that still doesnt solve my dependancy problem. Hmmm, last time I check 99% of all Windows software (freeware, shareware, and commericial) I have installed ran without requiring me to download some library. The 1% that did had the library on their website to download or they packaged it.
I am not against you, your article, or ideas. I just think one of the major KEYS to the success of linux on the desktop is Package Management and to dismiss it as something that is already in usable condition is doing nothing but contributing to the plight of linux.
Usable Package Management = When I am 99% positive that every piece of software I install will work without any hassels of dependencies, or distribution specific matters.
Please excuse any spelling/grammar mistakes.
...the comment about when you buy Microsoft products you are supporting them politically made me step back and view this from a non-linux users perceptive.
Aren't computers ultimately about making life easier? I LIKE playing with diffeent OS's and appreciate a lot about Linux, but when it comes down to writing and recording music I don't want to mess around with tweaking settings and worrying about libraries etc., I want to plug in and go. I want to work on my music not on my computer.
That isn't a political decision, that's about having productivity. If Linux desktop systems do 80-90% of what users want, then it's even more inconvenient to reboot to get that 10-20% done.
Just my 2¢.
dPa
You make some valid counter-arguments to common points, although you could substantiate these arguments a bit better. I think you also neglect to play up some of Linux's strong points:
1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its a rather complicated and involved process. I could certainly teach her how to install Linux software, though. The process isn't any more complicated than starting up an app, double-clicking the program name, and closing the app. Automatic upgrades of all software on the machine? Synaptic's upgrade feature is 10x easier to use than Windows Update! The former upgrades your whole system in a couple of clicks. Windows Update requires many more clicks, and often requires you to run the thing multiple times for Service Packs or patches that need to be installed by themselves.
2) Lock-down. Kiosk (KDE) provides a very powerful way to lock down a Linux system. Soon, there will be nice GUI tools for it. A lot of desktops need locking-down. Consider corporate desktops, educational desktops, even some home desktops. If I've got an e-mail/internet station set up for grandma, I don't want her accidentally deleting a desktop icon and wondering where the e-mail program went.
3) Ease of maintainence. Linux machines handle abuse much better than Windows machines. Whenever people complain about Windows being unstable, Windows users come back with "stay on top of patches! don't run random programs off the internet! use a registry cleaner! use Norton utilities! use Microsoft's drivers rather than the manufacturers!" Well, its partially a fault of the underlying OS that those measures are necessary. When I used to run Windows, it was rock-solid for me. And this was Windows 95! But my dirty little secret was that I had my full install burned on a CD, and every month or two, I'd nuke my Windows partition (my data was on a seperate drive) and copy the image back over! Now, I've got several Windows machines at home, and they are all in various states of disarrary, because they don't tender-loving-care from their current users. Also, consider what happens when you get a new hard-drive for a Windows machines, and want to move your installation over. If you just copy it over, it is no longer bootable. And once you've made a Windows system unbootable, its nearly impossible to get it back. What happens when you move a Windows installation between machines? Linux will merrily redetect your hardware, while Windows will very often choke trying to reload your old hardware. And then compare the maintainence tools. You can administer a Linux machine over a low-bandwidth modem link with ssh. Try running remote desktop over 28.8kbps! Compare Linux's recovery tools (any CD-bootable Linux distro) to Windows' pathetic recovery CD!
Lastly, I can't stress this enough. Its all about the apps! If Linux had all the apps users wanted, today, companies would flock to it because its cheaper! They would gradually fix the shortcomings of the OS because of the potential cost savings! Its always been about the apps. Why did users flock to Windows 95 instead of MacOS? The latter was far easier to use, far more polished, and about equally unstable. They went with Windows for the apps! Why did users stay with Windows 95 instead of going to OS/2? The latter was easier to use, far more polished, and much more stable. Again, it was the apps!
@Eddy : You make two exellent points. 90% of users will not go out an install their own OS. They don't even know what an OS is. Until Linux comes preinstalled on grandma's Dell, it simply won't get the kind of market share that Windows has. Also, you are precisely right that it matters what you mean by desktop. If you mean scientific/graphics/programming workstation, public kiosk machine, educational machine, corporate desktop machine, or internet/e-mail terminal, then Linux is ready for the desktop. If you mean a replacement for your local Photoshop guru, then probably not.
It's a brilliant article, well-written, I agree with it all, and if I get a vote then I vote that it should be the last Linux Not Ready For The Desktop article, most of which should be "I'm Not Ready For The Linux Desktop" articles anyway.
Maybe soon it will be "Is ReactOS ready for the desktop?" "Is SkyOS ready for the desktop?" I kind of wonder if anyone really knows what "the desktop" is. It seems to me if you can find a few people sitting at their desk looking at the OS's console interface, and they are smiling, then your OS is ready for the desktop, since it is obviously sitting there doing what some user thinks it is supposed to.
I think one of the biggest things holding linux back from greatness is a universal installer. If you're in Windows and you download an application, you open up the folder on the desktop, click on it, and it installs. Simple as that. You don't have to figure out if it's the right one for your distro, go through dependency hell, or compile the source using the command line. Autopackage is moving along nicely and hopefully people will start writing programs to take advantage of it and then the distros will start incorporating it into their products. Until then, the packaging systems are much too varied and fragmented for linux to be accepted.
We've been running RH8 and 9 on our desktops for over a year. There is NOTHING missing from Linux in these distros. Sure, they could be better and I'm sure that the upcoming distros with KDE 3.2, kernel 2.6, the latest Open Office, etc are going to absolutely rule, but the RH8 and 9 distros are available NOW and work EXTREMELY WELL. ASAICT, the only people still talking about when Linux on the desktop is going to happen are those that haven't tried it.
> and try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
what for - have been using Linux on the desktop for about 6 years now 
and more to come.
Macromedia and Adobe have to port their authoring software to X11 (Linux)!
Interesting that the author chooses to point out that services is where the money is with linux. It seems that if so much consulting is needed with linux vs. existing desktop technologies this is a checkmark in the negative column.
That is one of the benefits that companies such as Apple and Microsoft have. Their software is engineered to be usable out of the box vs. bringing in an army of consultants ala IBM...
It is fine to be a fanatic - but people need to remember that in business it all boils down to the mighty dollar. If it costs me $200 in licensing from company A but only $50 in services / year compared to $0 in licensing and $500 / year in services from company B - the BUSINESS decision is pretty easy...
Talk to your average Joe CEO and he could care less about your social agenda.
> Linux isn't as easy to use
The author spends a lot of time saying how Linux is getting better. Thats great and all, but as it stands to day, it is not as easy to use as Windows XP.
> There are already lots of studies out there though, and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users.
Finally, he gets to the point, and says nothing.
> Linux isn't as polished
> What does "polished" mean? In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent.
Huh??? What does polished have to do with knowing the inner workings or not? It is about the user experence.
> No one in their right mind would say that Linux isn't moving towards polish. If you want to help, write something and give it to KDE, GNOME, or your favorite desktop distribution.
Say the author says Linux is not as polished yet. Next.
> Linux is fragmented
> All distributions ARE united, so its not like there are 100 different operating systems. What unites linux distributions? For starters, they all use the Linux kernel. They all use the GNU tools. They all use XFree86. They all use glibc. You get the point.
The author misses the point. All the parts he listed are nothing the user deals with. When you get to the part that the user needs to know, each distro is different.
> Package Management
Author misses the point again. THe problem with package managment is that a single package only works with a certain distro. This means there needs to be many packages for a single piece of software. Makes things more difficult for the user since they need to find the right one.
> Linux doesn't support commercial software/idealogy
I lost interest here.
> There Are No Drivers
Im back 
> Yes, there are. Linux supports more hardware than Windows, it's that simple.
This is desktop we are talking about. Stick with x86.
> But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing the big picture.
How is expecting hardware manufactures to provide drivers not seeing the big picture. This is a perfect solution to all problems. How is this a bad way of getting hardware to work? It keeps everybody happy. Manufactures can keep their secrets and users can use the hardware.
> That said, I understand "it works for me" isn't enough.
Nice that you included the main issue with hardware.
> Conclusion
Seems like all the author is saying is Linux is the way of the future, yet has nothing to support it other then his own beliefs. Not good enough for me.
Next.
BECAUSE, M$'s business model is not in the public's best interest. It is planned to stifle creativity, openness, and competiveness. It attempts to force us to buy low quality software at high prices and if you don't like it, find another planet bucko! It is designed to feed one man's megalomania. If that guy has his way linux users will become criminals, and I don't want things to be like that.
As a result I am out there helping people make the switch whenever I can. If you hold their hand at the start I find they can embrace linux. I've gotten middle aged business men, mothers and kids to convert over.
...then Windows is far from it.
Kernel 2.6 is ready for both desktop and production level usage. No Windows can match it and i even doubt that Lognhorn will.
Some of your points are interesting (like claiming that the average user needs tools to lock down his own desktop), but I can't believe you can say this with a straight face:
1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its (sic) a rather complicated and involved process.
I would not expect my mom to be able to find a package for her specific distribution, and for her specific version (since she won't be upgrading the distribution, of course). And no, synaptic is IMHO not very friendly to the user. It looks like it was designed to make all of the command line options available, not to facilitate program installation. Try explaining all of that, versus "double click the exe and click next." I respect your opinion, though. I guess, different strokes for different people's folks.
Usable Package Management = When I am 99% positive that every piece of software I install will work without any hassels of dependencies, or distribution specific matters.
Wow... You've got 99% certainty that all software will install on your OS? Man, which one is that? I'd pay good money just to see that. (No, WinXP does not count). When you get outside your Word/Photoshop/Heavy-commercial software, and into custom business apps, you'll find that DLL problems are still rapant.
//
The author misses the point. All the parts he listed are nothing the user deals with. When you get to the part that the user needs to know, each distro is different.
//
No, my point was that the user will deal with the same software. Mozilla, Evolution, GAIM, etc are all the same on every distro. The only thing that may differ is the default theme.
//
Author misses the point again. THe problem with package managment is that a single package only works with a certain distro. This means there needs to be many packages for a single piece of software. Makes things more difficult for the user since they need to find the right one.
//
I think you missed the point. You're still thinking the Windows Way. The user doesn't have to search for a package in linux. They just have to type "apt-get install program" or "yum program", etc. Like I said, the developer only has to release the source code,and people will make packages for him.
//
How is expecting hardware manufactures to provide drivers not seeing the big picture. This is a perfect solution to all problems. How is this a bad way of getting hardware to work? It keeps everybody happy. Manufactures can keep their secrets and users can use the hardware
//
The point was that hardware manufacturers SHOULDN'T keep their hardware secret. We all benefit from open specs. Look at the open hardware out there. There are wonderful drivers for it built into the kernel.
What happens when NVIDIA decides not to support linux? We're screwed. If the hardware/drivers were open, we don't rely on one company.
If you want people to use Linux then you better fix the sound drivers. ALSA is terrible. I can't listen to any sound files for more than 3 seconds without hearing it skip. And this isn't just limited to mp3s, its wavs and others. Support is another factor which is lacking. I'll join a channel of 100 people on IRC, does my question get noticed when I ask it? Nope. Do I have time to RTFM for every little problem I have with Linux? Nope. So you see, Linux really isn't ready for the desktop if you are requring anything to do with media.
Nothing like a 'Linux is (not) ready artilce to generate a lot of comments...
"Why would you want to 'convert' people?"
The more people we can get to use linux, the more commerical software(apps,games,DRIVERS!!!,etc) we can expect.
No. What you will get is that companies will start creating buggy, closed source drivers. And those are completely worthless. A driver should have a license that offers as much freedom as the rest of the kernel, or more. So ideally, manufacturer released drivers should be BSD licensed, or public domain, as that allows integration in all operating systems (closed-source, GPL-licensed and BSD-licensed)
But we can't expect them to write drivers for every possible OS out there. So hardware companies should provide the necessary documentation to write a driver under a completely free license, which has no restrictions whatsoever (so no NDA's, no long disclaimers, just free)
But as the majority of people couldn't possibly care less about this, this won't ever happen. But a few manufacturers will provide documentation, and so I'll just buy their stuff. And I don't care if it costs me more. I don't even care if their products don't perform as good as the others.
"1) Software installation. I would not want to teach my mom how to install Windows software. Its a rather complicated and involved process. I could certainly teach her how to install Linux software"
WHAT?? Hey, how hard can it be to click on SETUP.EXE and click on NEXT to install a software ? With good Install/UnInstall feature, lets get serious, DLL hell is prety much over since Windows 2000.
With Linux you have to think if this software is good for YOUR distro/version of distro AND if you have all the required libs AND having to worry about dependancy and all. When you do get to install the software, where is the ICON? Where is it in the Gnome or KDE "Start" menu? 80% of the time it's nowhere to be found. What about UNinstalling software? Where is the ADD/Remove software?
Linux is missing on EASY driver installation too. I don't mind having to search for them on the Web, but Installing them is a pain (very much so for Video Card). Every company provide us with Windows Drivers, how many of them provide usable Linux driver?
Linux is missing on GAMES, everything Adobe, something real close to MS Access, MS Frontpage, and the list goes on and on. And don't talk about CrossOver, that's only emulating Windows, the evil you, oh so want to get rid of.
> 1) Software installation.
I have installed many applications on MDK Linux by just pointing and clicking.
Once urpmi is set up, I find a rpm file and click on it. Instead of clicking on save, I click on "open". It opens up "software installer" automatically, and it just a matter of entering the root password and clicking on OK...
> upcoming distros with KDE 3.2, kernel 2.6, the latest Open
> Office, etc are going to absolutely rule, but the RH8 and
>9 distros are available NOW
Late Feb or Mar for MAndrake, KDE 3.2 and Kernel 2.6 are literally a few weeks away!
It was a year ago, (I'm 47 Months windows free), that I finally realized how ready Linux is getting. And my test of setting a non geek friend up with linux proved very successful, I offered to set him up with win, and he said NO!
So if you think that it's nat ready for grandmother yet, give it another look...
MarkP
WHAT?? Hey, how hard can it be to click on SETUP.EXE and click on NEXT to install a software ? With good Install/UnInstall feature, lets get serious, DLL hell is prety much over since Windows 2000.
---
You should try to teach your mother to do that. The biggest problem is when something unexpected happens, then it's usually "Huh? What do I do now?"
I should correct myself.
Instead of saying I know that 99% of the software for windows will install and run without a hitch (because the truth is I haven't installed every program made for windows), I should say that I feel MORE confident about a installing and running a Windows program than I do installing and running a Linux program. I am not basing that on the quality of the program or gui, etc. I mean if I download Windows shareware or freeware I have more confidence in it installing and working vs the same situation in linux.
But look I am not arguing about the quality of software and installations of either OS. You cannot disagree with me that installing a program in Windows is less troublesome or cumbersome that installing apps in linux. Sure there have been times when I installed software in linux (source and binary) and it just worked. But there are more instances in the linux world of installation problems than there are successes. And if installing software is still a major issue for beginners and novices, how good can that OS really be?
I am making this complaint because I love linux, but darn it, it just makes me mad that it took me over an hour to just install Audacity on Mandrake 9.2, a simple but cool sound editor, because of dependency and rpm problems. However when I installed Audacity on my Windows System it was installed, up and running, in less than a minute! To me, that says something about the OS, not the software.
"Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner."
You don't need one. You just need to choose the right 'Linux'. Despite the author's ramblings and ambiguities, there's a lot more to the situation than that.
Let me sum it up in a nutshell. I recently installed Slackware on a P75 with 40M RAM. It runs a graphical desktop (IceWM), with a word processor (AbiWord), web browser (Dillo) and more. They may not be the most powerful apps in existence, but they're modern, up-to-date and supported with security fixes.
Now go and install Windows XP on that same machine. Oh wait, you can't. It requires 128M. WinXP runs extremely slow on the minium-requirement spec, whereas a good Linux distro zips along fine.
Bottom line: Mandrake, Fedora and SUSE etc. may be big and bloated. But Linux per se, as evidenced with Debian and Slackware, is much MUCH faster than the equivalent Windows.
IMHO
Dealing with the waves of virii that use Windows XP makes it harder for "the desktop".
Windows Product Activatoin dose not welcome users in to the frendly world of Windows XP. And running games at 60hz was an experience until Nvidia and ATI make there own fixes for the problem.
Making alot of Windows XP's API under wraps dose not help the Dev's.
Sending an email to MicroSoft about a problem dose not help us. I got replies from Suse 9.0 2 days after I emaild them and I did not say anything about support options.
Not letting user see the inner workings is find untill something gose wrong.
Not letting companies look at Windows XP API's and source code dose not aid development.
My wife uses it and my daughters use it. I don't have worry about spyware, I don't worry about viruses, I can fix their problems remotely (which hardly ever happens compared to the daily click start crap, right click the icon crap and tell me what it says crap.) My duaghters can use gaim to talk to her friends with out having to deal with the crap that clutters the desktop that AOL and others spew.
I had Windows XP on my home PC because of the mtyh that it would be easier for them to use and get whatever they needed done. The reality was that it was easier for them to put crap on the PC and break things. Which made my life harder by having to go back and patch, clean, reinstall remove what ever was giving them grief. And usually with them standing over my shoulder asking when I was going to be done because they had a paper to write, and email to respond too or research for homework.
Not any more... I use Fedora Core 1 and now I have almost zero complaints....I did not have to retrain them to how use this complicated and cumbersome Liunux system. My 37 year old wife, my 12 and 9 year daughters seem to be of exceptional intelligence because they picked it up quickly and I rarely have to help them....
I do give them the option... I have two hard drives on this system and one with Windows XP and the other with Fedora ...
But you know what ? They never use XP ... I dunno why ... Maybe you enlighted folks out ther can explain this phenomenon.
Windows isn't ready for most users's desktop if you ask them. Most users just live with it and since they don't care about this kind of things, they won't change either.
Do I care ? No. I like linux for everything it is ! Varied but always the same, improving in every aspect very fast, rough on the edges or polished to death (debian or xandros), ultra sophisticated, and keeping things simple.
What I like in perticular is that what I learn, I learn it for all linuxes an also unix.
Linux is great for me.
> No, my point was that the user will deal with the same software. Mozilla, Evolution, GAIM, etc are all the same on every distro. The only thing that may differ is the default theme.
The user also needs to deal with installing software, installing hardware, updating if needed, making the desktop look pretty, dealing with users etc. These are usually handled by some distro specific software.
> I think you missed the point. You're still thinking the Windows Way. The user doesn't have to search for a package in linux. They just have to type "apt-get install program" or "yum program", etc. Like I said, the developer only has to release the source code,and people will make packages for him.
I am not thing the Windows way. I am thinking the distributed way. Windows just happen to use this approach. I want to install application X. I can go to the developers site, download the package and know it will work in Windows XP. The same cannot be said using a repository. Using a repository, I am stuck with what is there.
Honestly, both are fine approaches and one is not better then the next. I just prefer distributed.
> The point was that hardware manufacturers SHOULDN'T keep their hardware secret. We all benefit from open specs. Look at the open hardware out there. There are wonderful drivers for it built into the kernel.
You can't change the world. Windows works in a way to keep everybody. You propose a way to make users happy, but piss off the hardware manufactures. This does not seem the best solution to me.
> What happens when NVIDIA decides not to support linux? We're screwed. If the hardware/drivers were open, we don't rely on one company.
But you already rely on the company to make the hardware.
Harware company makes everything releated to a piece of hardware. OS developer makes everything related to the OS. Software developer makes everything for the software. Everything just works for the user. Everybody has their role, everybody does their job and everbody is happy.What is wrong with that? The way you put it users, hardware manufactures, and software developers need to play by the rules of Linux.
One thing that few have spoken of is OS diversity. I own five computer's and run a different OS on each of them: Debian, XP, OS-X, FreeBSD, Fedora. Now granted I love Linux the best, I'm not going to rip on another system do to the simple fact they all have their pros and cons. I can play state of the art games on XP, compleatly customize my Linux installs, enjoy the beautiful 3D GUI of OS-X, etc. I say just either try out a few different ones and go with what you like most. If you don't have the luxery of being able to experiment then stick with what you have now, just realize that you might be missing out on something that you might like better!
Some of your points are interesting (like claiming that the average user needs tools to lock down his own desktop)
---
Its not that average users need tools to lock down their desktop. Its that many administrators need tools to lock down the desktops of average users. It might surprise you, but nearly half o fall desktop machines are at workplaces. Those machines have very narrowly-defined roles, and its a big help to the IT department if they can be locked-down so the user has only what he needs to do his work and no more. This lock-down functionality is also important for public machines and machines used in the educational market. Even in the home-market, it would be nice to lock-down the desktops of young children or complete computer-neophytes, especially if there won't be a knowledgable computer user around for long periods of time.
I would not expect my mom to be able to find a package for her specific distribution, and for her specific version (since she won't be upgrading the distribution, of course).
---
But you don't have to do that. You start up the package manager, and it takes care of all of that for you. Hell, I don't see why even power users would want to bother with all that!
And no, synaptic is IMHO not very friendly to the user. It looks like it was designed to make all of the command line options available,
---
KPackage's UI is a bit better than synaptic, IMHO. Let's try installing the GIMP in kpackage:
- Select "new" packages tab
- Find "gimp" in list
- Click "install"
- Click "install"
...wait...
- Click "done"
Kapture, the new APT front-end for the KDE Enterprise project, should be even simpler.
Try explaining all of that, versus "double click the exe and click next."
---
Its hardly that simple. First, you have to *find* the package. For the average free program (winamp, AIM, etc) it involves navigating an often complex site, sometimes filling out a registration, and downloading the installer. At this point, you've already put in more clicks than the KPackage route. But let's continue. Now, you double-click on the installer. What happens next depends on the program you are installing. You see, there are lots of different Windows installers out there. Sometimes, you can just get away with clicking 'next' several times, then 'finish.' Other times (the MS Office installer, for example) you have to enter your license key, then select an installation mode (minimal/standard/complete). (At this point, my mom has already called me up to walk her through it). Then, it prompts you asking what folder to install it in. If you tell the user to ignore all the prompts (which is dangerous, for reasons I'll explain in a momement) you can, at this point, do "next," "next," "finish."
Now, as for telling the user to ignore prompts. There is a very real danger there that they'll start doing just that, and hitting "ok" for everything. I made the mistake of telling my mom to do that, and as a result of an Altavista search gone awry, had to figure out how to remove an adult toolbar from her browser 
Same thing for me. My parents and my brother share one computer running XP. I made three partitions: C: for the system and two others for Data. I don't know how, but they got dialers, viruses etc. My brother installed many games and filled one partition completely with games (15 Gig!) and crippled the system so much, that I gave up helping them. I explained why separate user-setups are good and why you should install programs where I intended them to install. I jut gave up. Maybe I suggest a SuSE-Install for all of them with everything they need (the usual stuff: E-Mail, browser, Office) and dual-boot with windows for the games.I think they can learn it. Hey, I had to learn it without help, so they will with my help, I think. With the right setup noone gets affected and I can sleep better ;-)
linux is ready for my family as desktop.
And Ben Mazer,
Great article!!
i'm with you!
This is the fourth Linux on the desktop article in ONE MONTH. At this rate we'll have a mind boggling 48 this year!
In one word... Warez.
The piracy rate of music software is estimated at about 8 illigal versions to 1. Illigal copies of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office are used all over the world. Copies of Adobe Photoshop are everywhere.
It makes Windows very attractive if you have thousands of pounds worth of commercial software for free. The Linux alternatives, while good, cannot compete with getting commercial software for nothing.
I think that the one thing that will move millions of people to Linux will, perversely, be strong copy protection combined with hardware DRM in Windows.
I am always surprised no-one mentions this. It's the dirty little secret of Microsoft Windows's success.
While I would like to agree with this article and say that linux is ready for the Desktop I sadly have to say no way.
I run several of the major distos as servers and desktops (Mandrake, Suse, Fedora/Redhat, Gentoo (those are what I have running right now). I find that the two that are the easiest to use by far are Mandrake and Suse. However this is even once you get them configured - For instance:
I have a newer ATI vid card (9600 Pro), to get acceleration on all every one of the distro's I have to install the kernel module (steps are slightly different with almost every distro), install the driver itself, and then run the config which basically is xfconfig requiring the whole Horz/Vert sync on the monitor. While this in itself is ATI's fault it still hurts, and hurts badly. Expand this to scanners/printers/dig cameras/etc and the issues just keep growing.
Your normal user would not know where to start, hell your normal user can barely figure out how to get a toolbar back after they "accidentally" removed it.
Other issues are in fact standardization. Is KDE or Gnome the linux desktop....... umm well it depends on what you want right? Well your standard user doesnt want choices, they need a familiarity and know that they can sit down and expect the same behavior every time from an OS. I personally like the choice, they dont. Going beyond just the GUI - whats your text editor? whats your shell editor? hell whats your shell? these choices are all things that just confuse those poor helpless users - ask them and your likely to get a question back at of "well whats best?" - tell them its just a matter of personal preference and take a picture of the look you get...... cause it will be priceless.
Now "Linux isnt as polished" - well it isnt. I find polished (for desktop use) to be having an easy GUI to do just about whatever you need. This simply isnt the case, some distro's are close but not complete. Once again personally I love having the ability to open a file and modify/look at whatever. Your average user is scared to death of this - and at times to make the OS work you have to do this.
And then theres applications and compatibility. How many IE specific web sites are out there? Expecially Web Apps! Sorry you cant use your online turbo tax anymore/etc (actually not even sure turbo tax maybe Moz compatible - but you all get the point). Once again not the fault of Linux, but still a huge downside. Then take your applications and installation. Could you imagine your typical user searching rpmfind to resolve dependencies? I think not.
Lastly to address the comment on X isnt fast. Well, it is fast but unfortunatly just not as fast as XP/2003 on a newer machine. How can I prove this technically? Well I cant nor have any desire too. For me its a matter of having a dual boot system and noticing that the XP/2003 gui is just a little bit snappier on the same exact hardware (Gnome or KDE) - that all the proof I need.
Linux makes a great server and a great desktop for the technically advantaged. However ready for the common desktop? No way.
Any time you make a choice about your money it is a political decision. You're choosing who's pockets to line, who to make rich, which company to support. Any time you make a choice about what technology to use -- in almost all technological arenas, not just computing -- you are making a political choice. You're choosing to put more pollutants into the air rather than less, or to consume a resource rather than use a renewable one, or to support a system that's heading for DRM and more spyware. The fact that no one recognizes this doesn't make it false; on the contrary, it's why the world is in many ways quite horrible, and going downhill fast.
"In a society driven by money, EVERY purchase you make is inherently political."
No, In a society driven by money, EVERY purchase you make is inherently economical. This is just the sort of thing that makes linux zealots look like morons to the rest of the world.
About as moronic as the supposition that there's much difference between money and power in the modern world? I'll buy that.
I'll remember that next time i buy some m&m's, i think the red ones may be political.
Hi,
I'm a long time Linux user, 6 years at least. Well I agree there are many
drivers for Linux, but the truth is they tend to suck compared to those made
for Windows! Many are not as full-featured, or optimized as what you usually
get with "CDs" on Windows (And that's one of the reasons why I still need to
have Windows).
I'll take a simple example of hardware that is widespread: A 3dfx voodoo 3 gfx
card. This card has 16 Mb of RAM. First the kernel module tdfx.o has been kind
of abandonned no one is fixing the bugs or maintaining it. With XFree86, your
desktop (2D) can't have only maximum 1024x768 if you want to able to use 3D,
which kind of sucks if you have a 17" monitor. But they even recommend to set
the desktop at 800x600 because even 1024x768 is unstable. Try a Linux desktop at
800x600 some day and see how usable it is. On Windows you can have 1280x1024 or
more and use 3D without problems. For me that is an issue. And last time
I asked if there were plans to fix that, I just got flatly ignored or some
idiot replied something like: tough for you, buy a new video card. Heh well,
I guess you don't pay for Linux, but you pay for the hardware that works with
it.
Second example: yet another video card which is not supported correctly. I
have a Compaq laptop with a SiS video card in it. Windows can do 640x480@16bpp,
XFree86 can only to 640x480@8bpp. Have you ever tried Linux at 8bpp? Needless
to say you don't just replace video cards on laptops.
Third example: I have another PC which I use for recording which has a
S3 Virge DX in it. This card has some 3D capabilities... of course they're not
supported in XFree...
Fourth example: My sister has a PC with some other SiS video card in it which
support 1024x768 on Windows, and only 800x600 on XFree.
4 PCs: 4 video cards that are not supported to the full extent. Now ain't there
something to worry about?
In addition many sound cards, even with ALSA, are not fully supported. Even a
plain emu10k1 isn't supported entirely. That was admitted recently on LKML.
Linux on Desktop? What about a usable Direct Connect client and a an office
suite that doesn't take 2 minutes to load? (Well actually KOffice, I have high
hopes for it, but it's not there yet). What about working file transfers
for MSN, AIM, Yahoo, Jabber (Without having to use 4 apps)?
On a positive note, with KDE 3.2, Linux has made a BIG step forward on the
Desktop. Now one can have a snappy, easy to use (although not for system
tasks yet), coherent desktop.
As far as "you can't demand from developpers" stuff. Well of course you can't,
but if Linux has pretentions to be a desktop OS, then some things have to
be addressed. Else Desktop Linux will be hot air.
//
I'll remember that next time i buy some m&m's, i think the red ones may be political.
//
Well, what if the company that makes M&Ms(Mars?) was torturing children? Would you still buy them?
That is my point. The M&Ms may taste delicious and be reasonably priced, but giving a company money will just help support any injustices that they are commiting.
The article attempts to be comprehensive, and is written in a "I am your friend" tone. Well it's not a good article.
1. "you have no right to demand ANYTHING"
Well actually, as a user, I do have all the right to demand. If you want to claim that your product (be it Windows, Linux, the DVD player, whatever...) is good for me, then I will tell you why it is NOT. The customer is always right, and if you really care about making Linux good for everyone (i.e., put it on the desktops) then you better listen buddy.
The comment about demands came under the "Linux isn't as easy to use" heading. Let's us start with basics of referencing: The author states "and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users". Care to share these please? As an advocate, I really would like to get my hands on those studies.
Following on: "It's fine if linux isn't perfect for everyone yet". What? The section kicked off by saying that the author has found Linux to be easy, and has taught it to several people with no problems. That is what they call a contradiction, I believe.
2. Re polish: "In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent."
I disagree with this definition somewhat, but I'll use it anyway: I've had endless problems using GUI network config programs when setting up my network. It turns out that they edit 'random' files, and the only way to get my network up and running was to figure out which config files to edit manually (hard enough) and then figure out the format (varies from file to file, but certainly easy). What's the point of having a GUI if it doesn't work.
Further, people ALWAYS moan about editing the registry. I've edited the registry many times in my life, and frankly, it's as heart-stopping as editing config files manually. But guess what? I haven't come across a situation that requires registry editing in over 2 years. Yes Windows XP is very good in this respect.
3. "Linux is fragmented"
Yes it is. Go to distrowatch.com, and look at how every distro has it's own customised interface (be it KDE, GNOME, XFCE...). Further, each distro has its own set of tools, its own set of nice things, and its own set of quirks.
Then here is a gem of a quote: " Installation is something few people will have to do, so it's not that important for compatability,"
What on Earth are you on about? Have you ever used a computer? Few people will have to install software? Oh just get a clue.
"Package Management isn't that important either,". Again, what are you talking about? Why is MS investing hours of research into library control (COM, COM+, ActiveX, etc)? Why did MS invent the MS Installer? Why are there tens of installer systems (Nullsoft's, installshield, etc)? The answer is simple: People NEED to install software, easily, and installations must NOT mess up the system.
4. "Some people say there should only be one or two distributions".
I actually agree. But I still would like to see some sort of consolidation, or some sort of standardisation.
5. "Linux moves too fast"
It does, but the speed (which is GOOD, IMHO), is not an issue. What is the issue is backward compatiblity. Windows versions tend to be backward compatible, and there is no reason why OSS developments should not be. It's just good programming practice IMHO.
6. "his is an ideological stance, and no one has a right to say that the "open source idealogy" is wrong."
And you can't say that the closed-source idealogy is wrong either. Freedom goes both ways. To use your sentence: " People with different beliefs will just have to get along."
7. "How would a business make money?"
Why don't your write up a business plan and submit it to some VCs. You seem to be clued up on business models too.
8. Buying MS software supports them politically.
Let me get this right: You are saying that using OSS means you cannot avoid the idealogy, and that's OK. But if I use MS software, the politics that come with it are not OK. Sweet. Just leave politics out of technology and give me something that works.
9. "Linux is slow"
I like this section. It raises some good points, and I never say that Linux is slower that Windows: Sometimes it is, sometimes it is faster. Overall, my life is not better or worse if I choose one or the other (based on speed).
10. "There Are No Drivers"
It is the manufacturers responsibility to release drivers. To comment on a couple of things:
"But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing
the big picture"
"Ideally, the drivers would be allowed in the standard kernel (and be open source)"
Why is it so bad to expect to have a CD come with hardware? And why should the drivers be open source? Remember that it is in the best interest of hardware manufacturers to create drivers. Don't tell them they have to be open source.
11. "No Applications"
OpenOffice is good for general use, and so I won't quibble here. Evolution trumps EVERYTHING else available, be it under Windows or Linux or anything else. Mozilla (and the associated browsers) is excellent. However, the situation is very far from perfect, but is constantly improving. This argument is the most valid at the moment, but it is losing validity with time.
Finally, let me go back to one point. We really need a good installer. Not an OS installer, but a software installer. I don't want to go ./lalalala to get something to work. I just want something as simple as the MS Installer. IMHO, debian packages are an excellent starting point, but it can be a lot better.
Funny, you think giving money to a company that's a member of the National Foreign Trade Council isn't a political act? It's as political as giving money to someone who's collecting for a political party; the only difference is that the political party is likely to use it in less destructive ways. As I said, just because no one recognizes it doesn't make it false. Spend your money where and how you like; but applying the word "moron" to people who are intellectually honest enough to recognize what their own choices mean for the world they live in, much less to an author who's obviously going to read your comments, isn't exactly a demonstration of superior wit.
Unfortunately, you're kind of in the minority. Linux supports all the major cards out today in 2D (SiS, ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox, and Intel). The other vendors really aren't shipping very many cards today, and between ATI, NVIDIA, and Intel, you've got a majority of the new computer market covered. As for anyone who cares about 3D performance, they have an ATI or NVIDIA card. NVIDIA has 100% support for Linux in their drivers, and ATI, though not as good, has supposedly gotten a lot better with recent releases (I don't own an ATI card so I can't say first-hand).
@Anonymous (videotron.ca) I can verify that I've only had one problem with KDE apps not being installed in the KMenu, and that was with KControl in the prerelease debians for KDE 3.2-RC1.
Of course. On the other hand, it's much easier to be alive in the world if you can pretend that your choices don't have consequences or moral content. That's why it's such a popular way to live.
when you'll be able to get your mp3 device (such as my creative jukebox) work as fine you wish, you could talk about the fair use of linux....
when you'll be able to have your tv-out working out the box without an inch (not even mention my drx3..), you could talk about the linux easy of use......
When you'll be able to edit a simple avi file in order to make some work on it (including reencoding a divx and its subtitle in one files), we could talk about the easyness of linux......
And for now, I just don't want to talk about the incredible difficulty of getting old-binaries work after a distro update.
I'm talking about wordperfect8, applixware and Houdini (just to say I was able to make them work using a lot of non standard tips ).
That's for the old apps I enjoy (please don't tell me OpenOffice is fine, I don't have a P12 12GHZ to get it run at the speed and at the reactivity I expect from a 500 mhz machine (which is enough for high desktop task) )
If your distro is a little old, you'll be soon into the dependency hell problem and I know what I'm talking about, I'm still with my mandrake 8.0, updated and tunned by hand) and sometimes I just don't want to compile stuff again and again so welcome to (requires -> glibc (2.2.3)) come on ! I've got 2.2.2-99 and it doesn't work ??????????????
Note that I'm using GNU/Linux since 98 as my only system and now, I grew up and I'm tired of putting my hands in every corner just to make some usefull stuff with my computer.
Just to make your laugh : just try to get flyspell.el work with ispell and a french dictionnary.
The latest environnement may be easy but just if you stick to the line, if you want to install something unusual, you'll have to be a sysadmin.
Djamé
ps : All of my peripherics are working fine but none except the soundcard and the scsi card were working out of the bow
(webcam, graphic tablet, nvidia card, tv card, dxr3, cd-writer)
reps : one of my favourite game in this time is to get garnome2.4 compile, could you believe when you download everything, it still lacks some stuff ?
when I read that, it's obviously coming from somebody who has never try to compile gnomemeeting or gaim (whith the gnutls stuffs) by hand....
"linux easy for all of us" lol.
"mail, web surfing and some wordprocessing for all of us"
for the rest it's not ready if you don't dig out everywhere...
please forgive my tone, but I'm tired about all this buz about linux and desktop, there's no simple AND powerfull video apps, no simple AND powerfull sound apps like fruity loop, and except for those shipped with the loki installer, no apps installable by your mother, my uncle or his aunt.
I'm a geek, an otaku, a nerd, whatever you want and I know how to get things work and I did for 6 years now, but I shouldn't have to. Do I know how a phone work ? no and I don't care. Do I know why my car doesn't start anymore ? no and I don't care, my garagist knows and it's enough.
Computer should work like that.
I don't feel like quoting...
Anyways, Windows has blackbox, I don't hear people complaining... and litestep has been available for ages. I don't hear people complaining.
It's like saying, "omg this guy is working on osx, he doesn't help to acomplish the IT dream of making windows the only OS available!"
Something is worse: Microsoft never complies with standards.
Yeah, TCP/IP (wasn't standard first), http (not html for sure!), ANSI C (i gues that is required), and that's all I can think of.
And on top of that, they try to fuck the xml standard...
I've been reading these articles for 2+ years now, at least. It's old already, and who cares. I've been using Linux as my primary desktop since 1999, but I don't recognize this need for Linux to push other OS's off of the desktop. These articles used to be written in the tone that if Linux didn't take over the desktop, it'd fail, as if going out of business. An insane line of reasoning, but that was the underlying theme. After reading these for a few years, I also get the idea that some people feel they can only achieve success or happiness through someone else's failure.
If Linux has what is required to make you happy when you use it as a desktop, then that's great. More power to you, go off and be happy. If it doesn't, then perhaps it's best if you use something else. Either way, I don't need to keep hearing about it. Thanks.
It seems that I'm a strange breed of *nix user, as a teenager I wanted desperately to be able to use Unix systems, to be able to touch, use and understand the system. It was a source of lust in the same way that some people are obsessed with performance cars or motorcycles or lately hot-rod gaming rigs. For me, the whole big hoopla about Linux and *BSD being open source is little more than a diversion. The important thing about these free Unix-like systems is the fact that they ARE Unix-like.
I haven't been touched by the ideology and zealotry of the open source community in the same way as a lot of people whose introduction to Unix style OSes has been through open source software. I support open source software as a concept, and have made a few contributions here and there, but I'm fully able to separate my desire to use a quality, high-performance operating system from my belief that software can be free. I don't believe that ALL software SHOULD neccesarily be free, I think that there is a place in this world for all sorts of profit models from computer software.
It would certainly be nice to have the choice of using a free or commercial version of all software, but to be honest, I don't think that my favorite games would be of the quality that they are if people weren't willing to fund them properly, and ID software's hybrid open/closed model proves that closed/open source philosophies are not mutually exclusive.
Anyway, enough about philosophy and on to my point. Your article is self-contradictory, on the one hand you say that Linux is a constantly moving target, and difficult for closed source vendors to deal with, but you don't see that as a problem because everything should be open source. Then, later in the same page you say that people should be pressuring vendors to make their software available. Obviously this is not going to happen while Linux distributors are holding a gun to the vendors heads to release their software's source code -something which just isn't possible with many closed source programs, because they have integrated licensed components that the vendor doesn't have the rights to release to the public. Both netscape and star office sources remained unusable for extended periods of time because of this problem.
The source of these problems is ideological zealotry, and bigotry against closed source vendors. Something which is actually for the most part absent from commercial vendors. They are just companies who want to see a return for their shareholders. Plenty of people would buy Photoshop for Linux, even though Gimp is available. What's stopping Adobe from porting their app to Linux is that it won't work in a year's time, not a lack of audience for their software in Linux. What's stopping your webcam vendor from shipping a driver for Linux on the CD is that any given binary driver may only work on one kernel version, with all the right options compiled in. There needs to be a stable driver API, even if it's just a wrapper.
It's time for people to stop defending this ridiculous state of affairs and start pushing for proper backward compatibility in Linux. There's more than one meaning to the word stability, and while the kernel may be stable in the sense that it doesn't crash, the API for programmers is the most unstable of any popular operating system. This is not a good thing, it is not an advantage, it is not a feature. It is a limitation, imposed on all users of Linux, and it needs to be addressed, not swept under a carpet of zealotry and idealism. If Linux is to be truly free, then people need to be free to sell software for it, otherwise it's no better than Micr