The promise of Desktop Linux (DL) has been long coming. It's made significant progress since the mid-90s when GNOME and KDE came out, giving Linux users a somewhat modern desktop to work upon. However, it's been 7 years and DL hasn't progressed much at all since then. Today, DL is still nothing more than a UNIX-clone with a task bar, a start menu, and a desktop with some icons on it. But why has DL evolved at such a glacial pace?
Post a Comment
I think that 90% problems tha peaople have comes from difficult installation of programs and drivers to linux. This is also main reason why driver vendors doesn't support linux, there is just too many incompatible distros to support. LSB and FHS standard are nice, but there is much more unification needed in dostro world. As long as you need to read readme.txt before you install anything, 90% of population is excluded from the Linux world.
I believe that a lot that you speak of HAL and hotplug is trying to be solved. Or, at least, building the foundation of hardware identification, notifications, etc. so that programs can be built to solve the problem. DBUS will also fit into this category for communications between the system, applications, and themselves.
Right now, some of the things you speak of are addressed by the individual distribution--like network settings and such. This is because how they configure these varies from distro to distro. If you want a cross-distribution tool, look into the Gnome System Tools. It is written in a way that a backend can be written to each distribution to be supported. Kind of similar to Webmin.
Automounting of media? Covered by supermount. Pooled storage? LVM (Linux Volume Management). X11? Xorg is actively working on new features such as composites. See this OSnews article: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7634.
I believe you have some valid points, especially when it comes to the interaction of users with hardware and drivers as well as 3rd party installation of programs (which really doesn't happen all that often yet due to the lack of commercial applications at the user level). You've mixed up some major issues regarding hardware and such with some trite issues that are dealt with at the distribution level, or just aren't that important to begin with.
Cheer up, things aren't as bleak as you are making them seem.
The only complaints the author presents involves the lack of alpha blending and transitions, both of which are possible without breaking the X11 standard. Check out Keith Packard's work on XServer and Xorg at www.freedesktop.org.
The reason X11 is 20 years old and still chuggin' is that it's excellently designed.
Why do people keep bashing X11 without a single valid complaint? Reminds me of SCO...
This article has a good spirit, but ultimately fails in content and research.
I'll go through each of the points.
THE HARDWARE LAYER
discover and kudzu are two hardware detection tools that work. discover is recommended very heavily, as it does a lot of the dirty work involved in hardware probing, and does it well. It has a library (libdiscover2) which provides programmers with a way to get information on hardware information. Havoc Pennington has commented on getting hardware to "just work" and Freedesktop.org is hosting a project, HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) which is attempting to provide programmers with access to hardware in an elegant way. In other words, there are efforts underway here.
As for configuration for things like a network card, distributions like SuSE (with YaST) have provided ways to do this which are very similar to Windows for a long time. Yes, if you are running a barebones distro, you will have to edit this information "by hand" in /etc, but remember, Linux is just a kernel; it's the distribution that matters.
ON X11
X has already been identified as a bottleneck for desktop linux, but don't underestimate the power bad video card drivers have on this impression. Nvidia produces very good drivers for Linux that provide excellent performance in X. But X's free DRI support via the DRI project, although commendable in its effort, isn't up to snuff in terms of raw graphic speed. Plus, ATI's proprietary drivers are a joke. But this doens't have much to do with X.
X does have problems, but listen to the editors: it needs to be taken in a new direction, not scrapped entirely. Keith Packard is on the right track at Freedesktop.org. Y Windows is something entirely different from X in MANY ways, by the by. Read the paper by the CS student coding it.
ON GTK/QT LOOKING THE SAME
This is such a minor issue IMO, but desktop "pundits" seem to constantly latch onto it. Windows users deal with non-standard interfaces all the time, but they don't care. Look at ICQ, Yahoo messenger, WinAmp, iTunes, Easy CD Creator, LimeWire, to name a few. These are still popular and usable applications. And Mac OS, for all its uniform interface broo-ha-ha, has those metal apps and those aqua apps intermingled with blatant disregard for the user's sanity 
There are actually already efforts to unify gtk and qt, but it's pointless to me. Besides, KDE and GTK already look pretty much the same (I think GTK apps tend to look a little nicer), so who cares? The more important thing is providing a way for a Gnome user to start up KDE apps without having to load up a billion KDE libraries, or at least make that process less noticable.
ON "NEW" IDEAS
Pooled storage? This must be a joke. I can pop in a new hard drive and mount it wherever I want on my Linux system. What the hell is the author talking about?
Nautilus viewers. Guess what--they existed. In some early 2.x version of Nautilus, there was a "View As Music Collection" that was a music player. Was buggy as hell though, so they removed it. The framework for view panes is there though, just that nobody has been stepping up to code some new views.
BOTTOM LINE
Stuff author is clamoring for is already under development, so put on your coding hat and help out. Most ideas in this article aren't new, though some are.
By the way, I hate the tagline. "Why has DL evolved at such a glacial pace?" Glacial pace? It's taken Microsoft like 8 iterations of Windows to come to "Windows XP," with a UI not much better than Windows 95. In half that time a slew of DEs, Window Managers, and desktop environments have evolved and flowered on Linux. Glacial? C'mon. Give these guys some credit.
1. X11 needs to go
2. kernel should not be tied to hardware so much. there was a article about dirrent kernels few days back. there should a base kernel which handles all low level stuff (memory management, scheduling..) and rarely changes.
3. dependency hell should be cleaned up. no not everyone has uber fast 1MBPS connections to use emerge/apt-get
No one person or group has enough control to make changes that impact several other projects.
There are simply to many involved parties and individuals for one person to say "everybody, please change this"
Linux is very layered, and changes can be made to one layer so long is it does not effect compatibility with other layers. This greatly limits what can be done to the system.
That, and even if such changes could be made, there would be another guy that wants to do it a different way, so instead of doing it, they just argue about who is right.
For as long as Linux is an open community project, it will mostly not change.
X11 is not the problem. I agree with Dev about exciting things like the Cairo project at freedesktop.org which will make X even better than it is now.
I agree that better hardware integration is needed. Project Utopia with HAL, D-BUS, and udev will achieve this, and will even include a GNOME front end for making hardware more user friendly on the Linux desktop.
Compared to where it was a few years ago, the Linux desktop is amazing and the pace of improvement is accelerating! Who here remembers trying to surf the web on a Linux box with Netscape 4.x and wishing just once that the fonts didn't look like total garbage. There was a time when everyone was seriously worried that Linux would not have a competitive web browser at all! I remember reading an article on it. Now there are several excellent web browsers.
Go back and play with KDE 1.x or GNOME 1.x for a while ;-) (KDE 1.x was really the beginning of it all, I was amazed by it at the time). Or better yet fvwm95 which looked and behaved horribly, even for its time.
The Linux desktop got there for me this year. It meets my needs perfectly, though I will grant you I am not a typical user. Still, it didn't meet my needs before. The pace of improvement is starting to really show. Wait another 12 months and if you have an open mind, you will be astounded.
As long as there are two dominant desktops(KDE and Gnome) and linux systems are cobbled together with programs/libraries with maintainers that might live in Outer Mongolia and have no accountability, then Linux on the consumer desktop will remain marginal at best. What needs to happen is for company(not some random hobbyists) to take the kernel and build from there.
Wait another 12 months and if you have an open mind, you will be astounded.
Yeah, and they year 2000 was supposed to be the year of the linux desktop. KDE will never be dominant because its based on a toolkit from a proprietary company in Norway. Gnome is technically inferior, but probably has a better chance in the longrun just for the fact that its underlying toolkit has a better license.
I don't get it when people say that having two competitive desktops is detrimental to linux. Since when is choice a bad thing? KDE and GNOME are both fully functional, they compete with one another vigorously, they offer the user choice and variety.
I don't understand what people have against variety. It is like they insist on a monolithic software culture... a one size fits all approach. Different users have different likes, needs and priorities.
I'd much rather see a healthy assortment of technologies and desktops that can interoperate using open standards, but allow for variety and competition. You just try to get every KDE user to use GNOME instead and see how they feel about it! Try and take Fluxbox away from the nerd accross the street and tell him that he must use GNOME with Metacity only. I don't think the response will be very friendly ;-)
I find some author remarks valuable, since I also think Linux lacks a lot of poslih, integration and API's.
But, in my opinion, the goal of GTK+ and Qt cooperation can be only intermediate solution, not "final soklution".
My ideal distro should support only one desktop, and even only one GUI library (GTK is my choice).
Reason is simple: when I start any Qt based program under Gnome it takes around 10 seconds just to start it the first time (loading Qt I presume). Gnome apps start almost instantly.
My point is: having dual/multiple toolkits supported is stupid in the long run, and makes Linux distros look slow and bloated, raising memory requirements big time.
"KDE will never be dominant because its based on a toolkit from a proprietary company in Norway."
Yeah, and that MS-DOS thing would never fly, heck those Microsoft guys are a loosely run gang of college dropouts and nerds from New Mexico... all they know how to do is make programs run in BASIC!
I am not a KDE user primarily (Go GNOME!) but even I know that Trolltech has released their toolkit (QT) under the GPL so referring to them as a proprietary company is a tad misleading.
The thing Linux needs the most is a bunch of clueless people posting on osnews every week opinion about what other people should do with Linux.
I think the biggest problem with gtk(this coming from a Gnome 2.6 user) is Glade. Its an absolute abomination compared to QT designer.
When Mono 1.2 is released in Feb with its new GUI designer, I think well see many new gtk developers.
When will be see real working solutions to desktop Linux unreadiness rather than rants.
How come we don't see opinion articles about how FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OS X, Window XP, Amiga, SkyOS, Menuet OS, RiscOS, OS/2 etc suck? And how some of them look like tricycles instead of concords.
No, it's always about how Linux isn't desktop ready. It's like Linux is the only OS that isn't desktop ready. And guess why it isn't desktop ready?
Because it doesn't work like the author's favorite "desktop ready" OS. Opinion articles are exactly what they are, opinions.
If you had to know my opinion on these so called "desktop ready" operating systems, I'll probably be skinned alive. I'd rather read patches, bug reports and desktop reviews than rants and bogus "opinions."
Here we go with another "Linux desktop" article. Can someone tell me what changed from yesterday? Oh nothing, so why the "news" item? Actually it's not news, it's propagandha hype. Can we end all those "ready for desktop" articles please.
What will make Linux ready is switching to some other kernel and building a complete system and not just a kernel. Yes some would say distros, but that's not solving anything. Linux has to become an operating system, not just a kernel, which is why all these articles are bogus to begin with.
Errr...toolkits don't make an OS desktop ready. If so, how many toolkits do we have for Windows?
I'm on the y-windows list. The project got off to a good start then died. It was forked and development continued, but I haven't been paying attention. I'd place y-windows as a very long shot to replace x.
We don't see articles about how Windows XP and MacOS X suck because they are here at the average user's desktop and they perform well for that average user's needs. Parhaps they are not perfect, but really usable on their native hardware.
The whole OS world is now about searching for a Windows replacement. You can't change it. The first alternative was OS/2, first aimed to replace DOS, and then -- Windows. Due to marketing issues (IBM's faults and Microsoft's big wins) OS/2 failed. We have been left with Windows only.
The next one was BeOS. While the BeOS developers had seen it as a niche multimedia and content creation OS, the public tried to use it as a Windows replacement OS, especially when it became available for free. But BeOS failed, too. Unfortunately.
Now, there's only Linux left to fight with Windows. And I think that because of the Windows monopoly there's no reason to say "Linux is not aimed to replace anything". Even if someone decides not to use Windows right from the start, installs Linux only and is sure that Linux is ready for his or her desktop, in fact he/she has replaced the industry standard OS -- Windows -- with Linux. And there are lots of people who are willing to replace Windows -- in reality, by switching from it -- in the moment Linux offers the same features set with similar GUI. Noone can deny it, we just have to accept it and either keep Linux different and hear "Linux is still not ready for the desktop" voices once every week, or change it so that it seems closer to Windows and make more people switch.
And about FreeBSD, SkyOS, AmigaOS and the rest mentioned: they just don't seem to be an option for a Windows user. And that's why hardly anyone writes about them.
I am a day-to-day Linux user and Linux server administrator, and I see many points where Linux is far from catching up with Windows, especially on desktop. While it may be sufficient for some people, it doesn't mean that it should not be enhanced.
Linux will be ready for the desktop when their usable GUIs (ie KDE, Gnome) don't each up all a systems resources.
128-192mb of ram is insane. I'd rather use Windows XP, atleast I'd get compadibility.
I loves the old KDE, that would run fine on 64mb of ram. Now what are my choices? Using some POS like Fluxbox? No thanks.
--- "Linux will be ready for the desktop when their usable GUIs (ie KDE, Gnome) don't each up all a systems resources.
128-192mb of ram is insane. I'd rather use Windows XP, atleast I'd get compadibility."
Your perceptions on RAM usage are a bit skewed, both for Linux and WIndows XP, and as far as how much is too much.
I have a modern Gnome 2.6 desktop setup with a 2.6.7 kernel on a modern machine with 512mb RAM that I use regularly for various multi-media and gaming, but after booting and starting X Im generally using LESS then 100mb. After using it all day, and with Firefox, Gaim, and a few minor background things running to check my mail and update my xplanet generated background (so cool!), Im using only 113mb RAM.
There is no way Windows XP can be this lean. I know, I still have it installed, and I used it primarily for a while before I was finally comfortable to make the switch completely. Neither uses too much RAM though, not for a modern desktop anyway. Also, have you tried Vector linux? Its a great Win95-like graphical desktop that works ok on 32mb RAM.
If you want a light desktop, they are there, you are just ignoring them.
Please stop saying Linux isn't evolving so much.. As a KDE programmer I can tell you that this isn't true.
GCC, X.org, KDE, reiser4, QT4, the new kernel.. These only some of the great things that are in the "work in progress" list. The impact will be huge.
WAIT AND SEE...
Linux will be ready for the desktop when their usable GUIs (ie KDE, Gnome) don't each up all a systems resources
Yep, and when you use that one KDE app on your Gnome system you're bringing in most of the KDE libraries along with it. Today's linux desktop is more bloated than XP, unless you use one of the boxes, maybe XFCE, and don't run any QT/KDE apps.
proof is on my box at home: I have only ONE application that really forces me back into that other OS. And as soon as someone points me to something for creating video DVDs with menus and stuff, as easy and user friendly, yet powerful as DVD Lab on Windows, there's none left at all.
Anything else I use my box for, I can do (and in fact do) on linux as well as (if not better than) on windows. And that's not counting the "hee hee i don't care" i get every time I see the daily worm/virus/exploit warnings on various news sites.
Oh and for the Article: there's nothing left to say that hasn't been said already, so I just throw buzzwords around.
"SuSEplugger" "kernel 2.6 hotplugging" "subfs" "SuSEwatcher" "apt-get (apt4rpm)"
Only one thing left to be said: I fully agree with this comment here...
Here we go with another "Linux desktop" article. Can someone tell me what changed from yesterday? Oh nothing, so why the "news" item? Actually it's not news, it's propagandha hype. Can we end all those "ready for desktop" articles please.
Only one thing left to be said: I fully agree with this comment here.
Yeah, and then did you read his second paragraph?
What will make Linux ready is switching to some other kernel and building a complete system and not just a kernel. Yes some would say distros, but that's not solving anything. Linux has to become an operating system, not just a kernel, which is why all these articles are bogus to begin with.
proof is on my box at home
That arguement is tired, so stop using it. I think the yugo is a good car. The proof is *I* drive one to work every day.
I think diet cola is just as good, the proof is *I* drink it.
I think "Hooked On Logic(tm)" is a successful program, proof is you used it.
Lemmy, checkt this out if you are interested in Linux DVD creation:
http://www.apple.com/shake/
http://www.apple.com/dvdstudiopro/
You're lucky that there aren't 3 or 4 incompatible linux-like kernels.
Erm... What do you call the Solaris kernel? the FreeBSD kernel? the Hurd? the AIX kernel? Darwin? But I suppose you're right. There's substantially more than '3 or 4' of them...
>The thing Linux needs the most is a bunch of clueless >people posting on osnews every week opinion about what >other people should do with Linux.
I wish OSNews had a moderation system like slashdot, because I'd put that at about +20.
A article like this was here yesterday, and today there is another!
WAIT!
I'm not against the author like the (almost) rest of you, I think the author not only has a good point but my own opinion is even more extreme, I won't say my opinion because I would be flamed with 200 comments or more but anyway I agree with the author of this article and with the other one.
But the thing is why that there are a lot of articles like this, probably because as more people start using Linux, either completely new to computers or comming from Windows, they that are not blinded by geeky and freedom (anarchy) dreams, can see the obvious and write articles about what they see...
So it's just a matter of time until these issues are fixed or another OS takes Linux place, my wish is that is wasn't so slow.
As for some of these stupid comments I have to say some things:
1. You are always babbling about freedom, so let people express their opinion freely on medias (OSNews for example)
2. Not everyone is a coder so flaming with comments about patches, fixes, coding and compiling is not nice, that's the programmer job, not users.
3. Comments saying to people go buy OSX are quite dumb because not everybody has the money to buy one.
4. To those who say that some basic features like desktop integration will never happen unless you pay the developers to do it, well... you are probably right and that means I'm (and probably many people) willing to pay about 100? to 150? to have a good Linux desktop, that work, behave and do what I expect from a desktop.
5. Finally about Qt, I don't see anything wrong with it, is GPL but even if it was closed source and commercial I wouldn't mind as long as it work and doesn't make the final product too expensive.
If you don't like Linux, if you find it unusable, don't use it.
You, like everybody else who contributes nothing but constant whining, won't be missed.
If you honestly would like to see Linux succeed on the desktop, then do something useful - file bug reports, join user communities and make it crystal clear what is is the 'masses' want, or get off your ass and learn to code.
Scratch your itch. Thats how it has to happen.
And it's the only way it's going to happen. Spare me your 'I don't have enough time, or I don't know how, or I don't see why i should need to'.
Thats just utterly irrelevant, either you personally make the choice to help, or you deal with the fact that nobody really gives a crap about what you want, and any support you get will be from companies who think they can make money from you eventually.
Basically, you might as well stick with Windows, because theres nothing for you in 'Linux Land'.
What pisses me off is how every other operating system is perfect, well except "desktop linux." I would love to see equal opportunity opinion whinning about how other OSes aren't desktop ready. Yes...yes we all know Linux sucks. But can we get over it already!
quit saying linux sucks.. linux fucking rules it's the FREE SOFTWARE on top of linux that SUCKS the kernel is pretty damn standarde, make all the software on top play nice, then get the kernel to add stuff. the only thing wrong with the linux kernel itself is that supermount has to be patched onto it.
It's a rant. So is this.
"The Current State of Desktop Linux"
Did the author expect the Linux desktop to be as good as a commercial desktop - with development being salaried work during working hours as opposed to voluntary work outside working hours? I think the current state is remarkable considering those odds.
"How To Fix The Hardware Problem"
Has the author tried YaST? Read about it? Never heard of it?
"Interoperability & Aesthetics Issues"
It'd be a mistake to fuse KDE/Qt and GNOME/Gtk. Let them evolve freely on different paths. Let them compete freely from different paths. It will make them stronger - also against Windows. It's not like one DL has 50% of the apps while the other has the other 50%. If an app is present in one DL and missing or no good in another then fill-in the void with a new app rather than bending the existing app to fit the void.
Why has DL not yet taken off in the work environment?
FUD. Inertia. No guts. Playing it safe. And the various Linux Office wares could be a little better. But that'll come. As time goes by more and more old systems reach retirement - like the NT systems in Munich and Paris. And by going Linux they are providing the leadership and push that others need to cross over. That in turn will increase the pressure for better apps. And suddenly the flood gates burst open.
This has to be one of the worst articles published on this site recently and it is running against strong competition.
So, why is it so terrible? Because no one is allowed to criticize linux? Because linux is perfect?
No, because the author doesn't seem to have a clue what he is talking about.
Take for example his claim that you have to edit something under /etc to get your networking working. This is simply false. Sure, there are distros where you have to do that, but if you take any of the more "userfriendly" distros like Suse, Mandrake, etc. you don't even have to know something like /etc exists.
I'm sorry, there is a lot of things to criticize about linux on the desktop but if you want to write a critique of the state of desktop linux do yourself and the readers a favor and inform yourself about the subject before writing an article. This way we may be able to read an article about the subject that is actually worth reading and that could lead to new ideas and a fruitfull discussion and not simply an uninformed flamebait.
This article runs arguments that are simply based on factual assertions that are simply false. For example:
How can I configure hardware from a graphical control panel on my GNOME desktop? The answer is I can't, because GNOME doesn't yet deal with that portion of my system. Why do I need to tell Linux what disks I have in my system? Because it doesn't know! Windows and Mac OS both know when I stick a disk in my drive.
First point - control panel. A lot of distros provide graphical config tools. They all work on a gnome desktop - Yast and Drakconf. Both work on the gnome desktop. They are not part of gnome, but so what. They are available on end-user oriented distros.
With respect to disk identification, why is it on Mandrake that every time I put a CD-R in my burner, K3B opens automatically? I find that quite annoying, because I burn using the command line, but there's auto detection going on. Why is it when I plug my digital camera in to a usb port, an icon appears on the desktop for a graphical application that will download photos off my camera? Why when I put a music CD in the drive, KSCD opens? Why is it when I change my motherboard, cpu, graphics card, and sound card (leaving my hard drives as is), and reboot after that massive change, linux boots, detects all hardware, configures it, and I'm up and running without reinstalling th OS, or manually installing any drivers? Because linux is capable of doing this. Your factual assertions are just plain wrong!
Then there's software. Drakconf, and urpmi solve the problems discussed. A wizard to set up network - just like windows. A package installer that resolves dependencies without user input - and it's graphical as well. Furthermore, there are many package managers that do this for other distros - apt, yum, portage. Again, factually inaccurate.
X11 - I don't know enough about X11 to respond to this. However, I do know that kde3.2.3 on kernel 2.6 feels just as snappy on my pIII 600mhz laptop as Windows NT on my big arse overpowered desktop machine at work.
KDE/Gnome - What is the obsession with consistency. There is no consistency in Windows, so why does KDE/Gnome need to live up to such high standards. Despite this, there is a tool (GTK-QT theme from kde-look), that will faithfully reproduce the kde theme that is installed on gnome/gtk based apps. Hey presto - consistency (at least on a superficial level).
To argue that the Linux desktop has not moved very far in 7 years is just a joke. I started using linux when Mandrake 8.0 was released. The desktop has come a long long way since then. kde has become more featureful, and yet less bloated and quicker. When compared with Windows, that is a fantastic acheivement. The key application areas are now repleat with high quality apps: K3B, Digikam, Kino, Kaffeine, Gaim, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, Gimp and on and on. A lot of people that see my desktop who are windows users just drool at some of these apps. To say that the desktop has not progressed seems farcical. Nothing is perfect, and Windows is far from perfect, but this article is an insult to the developers who have spent the last 7 years taking it to the heights that now is.
Linux has almost everything it needs now to make a good DE. Unfortunately OSX has a few additional tricks which put it anywhere from 1 to 4 years ahead of Linux in its GUI, but most of that useful functionality can be copied or is currently available in metacity. Other windowmanagers might catch up to OSX sometime in the next few years, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Anyway, the problems Linux faces are mostly just taste, style and having a person/group focused on providing a simple default configuration. This will be addressed eventually, but until then we have to deal with the ugly defaults chosen by Redhat, Slackware, etc. I haven't seen the latest Linspire, SuSE, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake configs but I would assume they aren't much better. Mandrake is probably the most user friendly, from my perspective, but its been a while since I looked at it.
I would tell you what is needed, but I think it would be easier for me to show you. So I'll continue my work and one day will be ready to contribute my idea of the perfect linux DE if someone else doesn't beat me to it first.
X11 is a big problem, the configuration sucks, selecting a resolution sucks, using different mice and tablets sucks. wacom tablets are supported by the kernel but x11 uses it's own driver which just doesn't work.
Not even to mention the 20 different window managers which
are either slow or lacking in features, write ONE that does work.
I still like the BeOS way of doing things most of the time.
I think the most fundamental mistake people have when it comes to Linux is assuming all the developers out there are working together towards some kind of utopic-distribution for the average Joe. Seriously, this is not the case.
It is clear that the people who write these pieces want to help. Opinions and criticism are helpful, but this stuff is so old and reiterated. It isn't helping. Helping is doing some kind of development, words don't do much. Not all development is code.
My take: stop posting bs of users who just found out about that OS called "Linux" and think they are all knowing while they don't even have the capability to do some basic research.
I know it's the season for cucumbers, but that's not a valid reason to post bs.
KDE and Gnome aren't the only usable desktops/X-environments available in Linux. Yes, they have useful system configuration tools but several distro makers offer similar tools, so KDE or Gnome are not really necessary at all (think of Libranet's Adminmenu). Once you've got your system configured to your liking, there are better alternatives to the bloated KDE and Gnome.
XFCE4 looks and feels nice and you can configure it's behaviour graphically. I like WindowMaker's look and feel even better, and WindowMaker also has a graphical program to configure the desktop. Fluxbox is a bit more simplistic but it has nice looking themes. My point is that you can install any of these smaller desktops and use them to launch your usual desktop applications. They are good-looking, easy to use, stable and fast. And they don't imitate Windows.
If you want to convert the Windows desktop users to using Linux on the desktop, you should offer something different, preferably something better. If people are offered KDE and Gnome as the only usable choices in Linux, they will inevidently feel that Linux on the desktop is the free but uglier, slower, and less user-friendly version of Windows. Instead, Linux distros should offer Windows users something refreshingly different. IMO, they should forget about KDE and Gnome altogether and build their Linux desktop around XFCE4, WindowMaker or Fluxbox.
Why do I call this a troll article? Quite simple, cause that author did not mind to verify if his claims still are valid, if at is worked on solving them. For the hardware detection problem for instance I just want to ask what he guesses, why the entire Linux kernel has become hot-pluggable, why sysfs has been introduced, why devfs is obsolete now. Did he ever hear about freedesktop.org's desktop bus (http://freedesktop.org/Software/dbus) and their hardware abstraction layer (http://freedesktop.org/Software/hal, http://freedesktop.org/~david/guadec2004-hal-and-gnome.pdf) - First programs for it exist, the virtual file system of GNOME 2.8 will be able to use it. Only purpose of this stuff: Make hardware gadgets easy to use.
Same ignorance applies for eye-candy like transparency in X11: Transparency was one reason for the XFree86 fork (know Keith to fight for it for years now). The next release of the xorg-server definitly will contain true transparency plus window-update notification (aka. DAMAGE extension) - which allows efficient support for on demand remote user support via VNC (as known from windows). Did he mention the VNC problem? Don't know, as I give up reading the entire article, after being upset by the initial thesis.
X11 doesn't suck. The examples you gave are examples of Xorg/XFree86 sucking, not X11.
My first computer experience (1982) was on a DEC PDP-11 minicomputer. Starup consisted of flicking a few switches and it was command line only from there.
My first computer was a Commodore 64 in 1983.
Some other "fun" experiences - using a teletype terminal on a HP 300 mainframe and a Sanyo desktop running MSDOS 2.0 (I think) with a single 360k floppy and no hard drive.
I'm always amazed by people who seem have to have only being using computers for 5 or so years saying that something isn't ready for use. If you were properly taught to use a CLI you would probably think a mouse and GUI was a a silly way to operate a computer. "Desktop readiness" is mostly a matter of familiarity with the OS.
I switched from MacOS 8.6 to Win 98 and found the experience strange for a few months until I became familiar with windows. The same thing when Itried Linux- once I became familiar with a system it was desktop ready.
You know you are winning when they cannot tone the rhetoric down. If Microsoft was not fearful, they would not send all of these paid astroturfers out en masse.
I have it on good word that they have a whole group of people that they pay to comeo out to osnews.com and even slashdot and post endless anti-Linux tirades.
I mean, if Linux is so hopeless, leave us alone. Don't write about it.
some of us poor windows n00bs want more thn anything for linux to suceed, but we feel that will only occur when the 'usability' approaches that of the current flavour of windows.
i dual boot with windows and SUSE, and i am trying to transfer as many of the thing to linux from winblows as i possibly can, but i cannot run all my games on Linux otherwise the transition would be complete.
i installed UT2k4 on SUSE the other day (you may laugh but for me it was a triumph), and i had to mount the blinking DVD in order for SUSE to recognise that it was really a collection of CD installation disks, i mean WTF!?!? yes i managed it (with assistance), but seriously guys this has to change.
Lemmy, checkt this out if you are interested in Linux DVD creation:
http://www.apple.com/shake/
http://www.apple.com/dvdstudiopro/
and software for apple hardware and mac os x is helping me how?
yes, i saw, shake is available for linux as well. for the little amount of five thousand us dollars. which still does not account for the fact that shake is not for dvd creation, only for special effects. now, go ahead and compare that price tag with the $99 for DVDLab.
"However, it's been 7 years and DL hasn't progressed much at all since then"
we can say that of windows since windows 3.1...
Let me guess, suse <= 9.0...
since 9.1, suse uses subfs for exchangeable media, no more mounting of cds...
How many articles are people going to write about how DL is not this and is not that. And how come all these writters seem to ALWAYS overlook Linspire, Xandros and Lycoris??
I don't get it when people say that having two competitive desktops is detrimental to linux. Since when is choice a bad thing? KDE and GNOME are both fully functional, they compete with one another vigorously, they offer the user choice and variety.
Unfortunately having two desktops limits the choise. Once you have chosen your desktop environment applictiations from other environments will look foreign and give your desktop and inconsitent look & feel. E.g. if you have a KDE app in Gnome you will have to manage font and color settings both in the KDE way and in the Gnome way.
I'd much rather see a healthy assortment of technologies and desktops that can interoperate using open standards, but allow for variety and competition. You just try to get every KDE user to use GNOME instead and see how they feel about it! Try and take Fluxbox away from the nerd accross the street and tell him that he must use GNOME with Metacity only. I don't think the response will be very friendly ;-)
The secret of a succesful desktop environment is having good defaults. Even if there was one standard Linux desktop environment there is no reason to disallow individual users from making their own choises. If the geek doesn't like Gnome he will have no problem installing his favorite Fluxbox.
The secret of a succesful desktop environment is having good defaults. Even if there was one standard Linux desktop environment there is no reason to disallow individual users from making their own choises. If the geek doesn't like Gnome he will have no problem installing his favorite Fluxbox.
Finally someone figured it out. This is what sucks in windows, you can't tweak it enough without getting a buggy environment (Litestep etc etc). Linux problem is that nothing is consistent ever however tweakable for the experienced. So they really not even competing with eachother... I'd say Linux main competitor is the BSDs and other Unices but not Windows. Even if some distros try to be consistent it is impossible as GNU/Linux in it's nature is inconsistent.
I don't even want Linux to "succeed on the desktop". As far as I'm concerned, BSDs or Solaris or Haiku or SkyOS are better choices as their future seem to have far wider options than the current GNU development model.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2004/view/e_sess/5195
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3450
"Did he ever hear about freedesktop.org's desktop bus (http://freedesktop.org/Software/dbus) and their hardware abstraction layer (http://freedesktop.org/Software/hal, http://freedesktop.org/~david/guadec2004-hal-and-gnome.pdf) - First programs for it exist, the virtual file system of GNOME 2.8 will be able to use it. Only purpose of this stuff: Make hardware gadgets easy to use."
I agree it is mostly usable for the home end users, but its not only for hardware gadgets. See above! See any sane review of it. It's for ALL the hardware including when you plug in an external harddive, out in a CDROM, etc etc etc
ON "NEW" IDEAS
Pooled storage? This must be a joke. I can pop in a new hard drive and mount it wherever I want on my Linux system. What the hell is the author talking about?
He is talking about logical volume management LVM. This is already available in Linux. But most distros doesn't turn it on by default though. The idea is that you have an extra layer of abstraction between your mount points and your physical media, making it possible to extend and schrink the available storage space available at each mount point.
This is very handy e.g. if your mail system requires your inboxes to reside on /var/spool/mail and you get out of space. You just add some more disk and to the mount point holding /var/spool/mail. No need to copy files to a new and larger disk, just add some space.
"The thing Linux needs the most is a bunch of clueless people posting on osnews every week opinion about what other people should do with Linux."
Genius!
> Hey idiot, what should a DE be other than a task bar, a
> start menu, and a desktop with some icons on it?
Ever heard of Ion or things: no fucking taskbar, desktop icons, etc. but still fully useable:
http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/
And btw: no matter how much you disagree with somebody there's no reason to call somebody 'idiot'.
if some the windoze sheeps really find it to be a more intuitive WM, then try to install XPDE on your box.
Maybe it makes migrating to linux a less frightening experience.
http://www.xpde.com/
Now, there's only Linux left to fight with Windows. And I think that because of the Windows monopoly there's no reason to say "Linux is not aimed to replace anything". Even if someone decides not to use Windows right from the start, installs Linux only and is sure that Linux is ready for his or her desktop, in fact he/she has replaced the industry standard OS -- Windows -- with Linux. And there are lots of people who are willing to replace Windows -- in reality, by switching from it -- in the moment Linux offers the same features set with similar GUI. Noone can deny it, we just have to accept it and either keep Linux different and hear "Linux is still not ready for the desktop" voices once every week, or change it so that it seems closer to Windows and make more people switch.
>
>
The parasites you are refering to can go and off themselves as far I'm concerned.
I don't care about them and never have or will. I don't care if they never switch from Windows to Linux. I use Linux because *I* want to and not because a bunch of idiot Windows users think the OSS world *OWES* them asomething.
What pisses me off is how every other operating system is perfect, well except "desktop linux." I would love to see equal opportunity opinion whinning about how other OSes aren't desktop ready. Yes...yes we all know Linux sucks. But can we get over it already!
If it makes you happy, I could whine about both windows and MacOS, there is plenty of reasons in both of them. But unfortunately neither MacOS nor Windows follow a development model that makes it worth while. When whining at Linux you can at least hope that some skilled developer will pick it up and do something about it.
"...because a bunch of idiot Windows users..."
"...Hey idiot, what should a DE be other than..."
"...if some the windoze sheeps really..."
Now this is one reason why I lost my interest in Linux, OSS, and especially its community.
Too bad, I really liked Mandrake.
And a lot of people have lost interest in you and your constant whining about "linux should be like windows".
Mmm, I didn't write this article, so I'm not really sure what you mean.
it is an absolute support NIGHTMARE!!!
i've worked 3 years in tech support before getting a porgammer job and even the tiny differences between different windows versions where complicating support. when offereing tech support for inexperienced users, having two desktops doubles support costs (at the minimum) and in many countrys you are required by law to offer tech support for a coomercial product.
Now this is one reason why I lost my interest in Linux, OSS, and especially its community.
Too bad, I really liked Mandrake.
Well, I'd say, your other reasons were a reason why you got to read something like that, especially if you repeated them endlessly.
I hope that at the same time you also learned that really _nobody_ (who you dont pay) actually cares or even should care for your reasons. Nobody owes you anything.
If among various OSes MS Windows or even the Mac OS meets your needs the best, just stick with that. Theres nothing wrong with choosing the best tool for the job and nobody will whine about your decision.
I wished those article "authors" actually tried to *use* their Linux distro (better yet: try a few) before telling others what they should do.
I am telling you, I've used Linux for about 2 years now and using SuSe for a bit over one month now and ditched XP (well it's still on my dual-boot but I don't use it any longer). But I can tell you only now am I beginning to get 'loose' of the Windows "brainwashing" (or "Windows paradigms" if you prefer to be more tactical about it).
I think Thom Holwerda uses SkyOS or Beos or a Beos-clone (wasn't he author of that Haiku or SkyOS article of last week?).
Thom appears neutral to me, so I don't think it's any use getting all hot-headed on him.
What is desktop Linux? I'm using Linux only for more than 2 years. Because it's more comfortable and easier to use for me. How can you say that i don't have a linux desktop? Of course I do! It fits my needs far better than Windows "desktop".
Hardware.
The apps from top layer are not supposed to communicate with the bottom layer. Try to study more about layered architectures. Even my Linux knows when I stick anything in my computer. But it doesn't do anything on its know, it would have to know what i want to do. But it can't, noone else can know what I want to do! That Windows "action predict" system really sucks. I have just put a CD into my computer, containing many different files, how do you know what am I going to do with it? View the images? Play the video? Check the total size? Copy something? Search for some content? Burn another track on it? Rip the audio part? No, boy. I just put it in to protect it, because i cannot find the original plastic box for it!
Do not compare to Windows. Compare to your memory. Do you know how to do it? If not, ask some one else.
I plugged in my firewire hard drive into the windows box and after several month of perfect work it decided not to show it up on the desktop (even in the hardware manager). So, what do you do? Reinstall the OS?
I plugged my mp3 player and copied some music on it. Now I want to pull it out. Windows says that I can't do it right know. Ok, I wait one hour. Nothing changes. I wait another 5 hours. Nothing changes. Finally I pull it out anyway. The files are damaged. So, what do you do? Reinstall the OS?
"Other Computers" in windows sharing don't show up, even after several Windows professionals tried to fix it, with cooperation of everyone in the local network. They failed. So, what do you do? Reinstall the OS?
I choose to switch the computer of. It says it cannot stop the battery meter (on my desktop computer, the only battery hold the CMOS memory alive), and than, instead of switching of, it ends up with well-known BSOD. So, what do you do? Reinstall the OS?
Firing up any HW accelerated game leads to immediate reboot. Windows even don't recognize it and do'nt check the disks afterwards. So, what do you do? Reinstall the OS?
The problem is. We tried to reinstall it completely many times, but these problems didn't go away. Linux runs absolutely ok on that box, memory+disks+hardware tests pass without any problems.
These are daily problems. Every day, some critical flaw comes out on that windows box. Do you dare to call this "desktop ready"?
Why do you think that alpha blending and transitions are modern features? They are modern fashion. For proper work you don't need it. Desktop environment may be very cute and usable without them. And it is, indeed.
Why do you mix up Gnome and KDE apps? Do you mean, that desktop ready means having no other interfaces to choose? Use just one of those. I use neither. I stop pretending that Windows are consistent. Try to install all the applications from the CDs you get with your computer. Those CPU temperature meters, strange multimedia centers, add winamp, CDR Win, Avid, Cooledit, some video players and enjoy the "consistent desktop". When in Rome.... When using Linux-like system, stop behaving like a Windows user.
Linux made by Geeks for Geeks. Yes, you understood. Not for average Windows user. "The user's Home directory should be the center of the Linux desktop rather than the root filesystem." said the saint Bill. Any reason? What the hell is Home directory, that it is so important for you? What do you store there? Apps? no. Data? no. Just configuration and a few private files, nothing else. Average joe cannot accidentaly trash any system files when not in Windows. My computer is made of bare metal, not rubber-duck-plastic.
Pooled storage? Like two harddrives behaving as one big? Do you mean RAID? Well it's not OS-thing at all, man.
Nautilus, hm... How do you wnat te dive into directory with more than 20000 minutes of music, if it tried to scan it in advance? I just use one keypress for the music to be played. Do you really think it is too much?
Why should be inatallation web-based? Do I really need to connect my computer to the internet, to be able to install anything? How would you click on that link on a computer without a monitor? Or do you really mean that I need a monitor just to run my router? Oh my god, nobody told me that ;-)
Welcome window? Why would I switch the computer of? When I want to read mail, a read it. When I want to read RSS, I do it. I can't image, that I can save that one keypress I need to do that.
You complain that other people just complain, and do not propose anything. OK, here it comes: I suggest you not to tell me what should my desktop do. I am the only one to decide it.
And I recommend you to use Windows. Because they are the best desktop around for you. Windows look like Windows, they have applications compatible with Windows, they even sometimes behave like Windows, and finally they have all the Windows bugs, that you are a must-have for a desktop to be called READY!
@ drynwhyl
I hope that at the same time you also learned that really _nobody_ (who you dont pay) actually cares or even should care for your reasons. Nobody owes you anything.
Of course they should care! They lost a potential customer! Your post makes sense in total, but this remark doesn't at all.
If among various OSes MS Windows or even the Mac OS meets your needs the best, just stick with that. Theres nothing wrong with choosing the best tool for the job and nobody will whine about your decision.
That's the whole point! People do whine about it! for instance, in the time I use Windows (BeOS is my main OS) I prefer IE. I just like it, never had any problems with it. People yell at me for that! I'm called a troll, and MS idiot etc. simply because I prefer IE! That's crazy!
@ Anonymous:
I think Thom Holwerda uses SkyOS or Beos or a Beos-clone (wasn't he author of that Haiku or SkyOS article of last week?).
I've used almost every OS for the x86 platform. But yes, BeOS is my main operating system. Windows is my second. And yes, I was the author of that SkyOS article/interview.
Thom appears neutral to me, so I don't think it's any use getting all hot-headed on him.
Thank you.
What pisses me off is how every other operating system is perfect, well except "desktop linux." I would love to see equal opportunity opinion whinning about how other OSes aren't desktop ready. Yes...yes we all know Linux sucks. But can we get over it already!
There is a good reason to that: Linux (and not Slackware, Mandrake, RedHat, Debian, etc) has been hyped as a desktop replacement for Windows (and had that ambition) for years. A lot of people have said that it was on the path for world domination, and Microsoft's demise.
That hasn't been the case with any other OS.