“While I normally turn a cold shoulder to all those increasingly arcane ways of dividing people into two groups we keep inventing, there’s one that I think holds the key to Linux’s prospects for success on the mainstream desktop.” Read the article at LinuxAndMain.
Linux: Twelve Steps to Desktop Dominance
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
One of the thing I can’t understand is why there’s so little apps which use the loki setup utility…… it’s so easy to use
and why the loki setup utility doesn’t create a fake rpm whith all the information needed (using rpm –justdb stuff for exemple). It could work
just as the fink utility on mac os X (getting the source or the binary, fetch the dependance and install the soft, but it’s too complicated, the user would have to understand what is a compiler and where the apps are installed, so in fact).
So if more people could run loki setup utilty when the get a binary and remove the apps using a loki-remove apps, it would be great and simple.
But it’s not gonna happen, I guess
Last time I used the Loki setup tools I had to su to root, then type something like “sh ./install.run”. Intuitive for me, but not at all for a new user and it would a joke to say it’s easier than clicking on a RPM, just because it’s “more like Windows”.
I agree that the Loki (RIP) stuff rocked, but only for games IMO.
I would rather see something like this http://www.osnews.com/phorum/read.php?f=4&i=581&t=581 widely adopted for software packages.
As much as i hate Click ‘N’ Run, i do think they have the right idea. Give a good frontend to apt or a similar system, let the user just need to click on what he/she wants, and boom its installed. Its even better than a windows app installer if you ask me, you dont need to bother with where the app goes or anything.
Standardized menus…having to manually add entries into menus for each window manager is NOT cool, i dont care what anyone says. Thats one part i love about Debian, and there must be other distros that do the same. All the window managers share a menu system which is standardized. I’ve seen but a few apps that havent made their entry properly, or at all. They are, Evolution (which made a new Net group instead of using the usual one) and KMerlin which plum didnt do it at all.
These 2 things make up for a huge part of a new users confusion. All in all, the guy did have quite a few good points.
> Figure out how to get more
> Windows apps running, and
> running perfectly, under Linux.
That would be quite difficult if not impossible. Think of all the man-hours that has been invested in WINE, and how very imperfect WINE still is. Investing the same effort into writing native apps would have been much more productive. If you make the new app look and function like is MS counterpart, the learning curve would be drastically reduced.
As much as i hate Click ‘N’ Run, i do think they have the right idea. Give a good frontend to apt or a similar system…
There is a good graphical tool for apt called synaptic. The filters could use some work, but other than that it’s pretty easy to use.
They are, Evolution (which made a new Net group instead of using the usual one)
This was fixed in the latest release under Woody. Just do an apt-get update and then a dist-upgrade and everything should be good again.
Figure out how to get more Windows apps running, and running perfectly, under Linux.
I don’t see what the facination with Windows apps under Linux is. It seems that people pushing for Windows apps under Linux are sick of Windows and are looking for an alternative. The truth of the matter is that most Windows apps were written using the Windows API or a wrapper to that API, and are therefore as fallible and deserve to be treated with the same contempt that these users are treating Windows with.
I agree with almost everything in the article. You have to think like a user, not a geek. It might be helpful to push more UNIX classes in the schools, too. Every comp sci/engineering major gets lots of UNIX training, but if you go to “Joe Schmoe Commnunity College”, the intro courses are likely to be Windoze, MS-Office, and “how to buy a Windows PC”.
I also agree with bakasmack– most windows apps have one oustanding feature– they are widely used. e.g.– Office is widely used although it is a pretty expensive anbd sucky office suite. I don’t thing Win emulation is the holy grail to get people using LINUX.
I hate to say it, but all the above has been done. Mac OS X addresses EVERY point in the article. And you don’t need to worry about what distro to buy.
There can be only one.
And with that I mean that there can be only ONE linux desktop. Whether it will be KDE or Gnome or something else I couldn’t care.
But we need one desktop, one look and feel to all applications. And we need all the bright people working on just one DE.
Also integration. Make a Linux system behave like an integrated system, not a collection of glued-together pieces.Imagine being able to EASILY set screen resolution in KDE’s control center (where u should start by removing about 5000 options)
Just my thoughts.
“But we need one desktop, one look and feel to all applications. And we need all the bright people working on just one DE.”
If you want only _one_ desktop, then use only one for christs sake.
If Gnome would die today (which isn’t possible), the “bright people of Gnome” wouldn’t start working on KDE because they don’t think that KDE is good for the job. If KDE would die today (which can’t happen either), the “bright people of KDE” wouldn’t start working on Gnome, because they don’t like it much.
Just realise that “Linux” isn’t one system like Windows or Mac OS and two big desktops isn’t too much. We will never have a monopoly.
“Also integration. Make a Linux system behave like an integrated system, not a collection of glued-together pieces.Imagine being able to EASILY set screen resolution in KDE’s control center”
I think you will be able to do just that with Red Hat 8.0 and the Gnome Control Center.
To me, the real question is not if Linux is ready for desktop use for a large number of computer users. When
offered on-the-job computer training (compensated or otherwise), nearly all computer users will learn to use that
system, and by logical extension, use that system when they need to use a computer. What I want to know is:
Can any non-commercial, open source operating system (I am not just thinking of Linux, but the hobby OS’s as
well.) gain enough users to become a desktop mainstay? I would like to see that happen as I think that the
culture of information technology should not be dictated by commerical forces, but I’m not sure that is realistic.
Thoughts, anyone?
This goes back to something I said a few weeks ago. Most people who have complaints such as yours want Linux to mimic Windows exactly. That way you don’t have to learn anything new.
Sorry to disappoint, but that will never, ever happen. Linux is a platform by which any developer in the world can write and make available any application, utility, window manager, etc. that he/she wants. This usually occurs to satisfy some inner need; whether it be functionality, utilitarian or eye candy. Amazingly enough, for every bit of software released for Linux, there is a niche that it fills and people are happy. That is something Windows can’t offer since most Windows apps are driven by market data, revenue and the like.
If Linux isn’t a good desktop for you, then continue on you merry way with Windows. Linux fills a need that would be obliterated if it were crippled to the point of mimicking Windows.
I agree with your first point completely. When I first got out of school, I worked for the state government. They were all using DOS, WordStar and Wang computers. All of these things are more difficult to use than Windows by a long way. WordStar rivals vi in complexity in my opinion, and Wang systems were not easy for “joe user” either. I think those people back then would have found Linux fairly simple to use (providing they were trained a little).
This lackadaisical attitude towards learning anything in our society today is disturbing. So is the indifference of companies toward investing in their people.
On a side note. I loved the days at the government office when someone would come into my office and say, “I can’t get my Wang up”, with a straight face. While Linux is an outstanding OS, it just doesn’t provide the same level of humor as the old Wangs.
Instead of waiting for one desktop to win and put the others to extinction, KDE and Gnome could keep their various themes and looks — but adopt one special “default” theme which would look the same. This default theme would be of no consequence, since any KDE or Gnome expert user would choose another right from beginning.
The advantages would be:
a) that “default” look would be easily recognizable by most inexperienced users;
b) all documentation would display screenshots with the default look.
Also, it’s easier to agree on a default lame theme, every desktop could have a “recommended” or “optimized” theme selection for power users.
Let’s all use WindowMaker..it looks good and is easy to use!
WHY do all these news people keep talking about Linux as a Desktop OS ??? It’s NOT!!! BeOS is….
// CM
GNU/Linux wasn’t designed to be a server OS!
Ok, actually it wasn’t designed for anything… =)
But the GNU project was about a new general purpose operating system, _not_ a server OS. And I highly doubt that Linus wrote his kernel because he wanted something to serve his homepage from.
It is meant to be used by people, professionally and privat. Some software environments that are running on GNU/Linux (you know them) are especially designed for desktop usage.
Unix was not designed to be a server OS. When it was designed there was no such thing. It was designed to be used by end users.
And please read the article it says at the top that it is for people who want to see the Linux end Microsoft’s monopoly. “regardless of what Linux or any part of it ‘was originally meant to be'” Not for people who think Linux should be let alone in this regard.
The article does not say there should be one desktop. It says the experience should be seemless. Not quite the same thing.
I agree with the list but I think some things in it are impossibly hard. But then again to most hackers impossible is a challenge.
There have been some really good points in this discussion. One that really jolted me awake was when Camel said that people are so often unwilling to learn anything today. My God, that’s so true!! It made me remember that the personal computer revolution began before the GUI. My God, I had almost forgotten that. We had DOS and ProDOS and Atari and Commadore, etc. There were alot of people who sat down and learned how to use these systems, many of whom were not “naturals”, myself included in that group.
It brings up a conumdrum. I’m really dedicated to wanting Linux to be able to be used by everyone. But, Camel’s comment made me also remember that there are so many people unwilling to learn anything. Microsoft and Apple have gone to incredible lengths to try and overcome this yet, the vast majority of computer users are dead in the water if their printer suddenly stops responding or any number of things like that. The ease of use does call for a price to be paid and that’s usually the price. But, on the other hand, I also believe the other part of this that was mentioned – that these same people could learn, not only linux, but learn more about whatever OS or hardware they’re using if they had even a few days of training, good training. I mean, how hard is it to understand, if explained properly and you’re sitting in front of a GUI file manager, that with Linux there is the root level and then there is the user level and why it’s set up that way? It took me a long time to learn DOS with any skill. Learning the basic concept of what I said above is a million times easier than that. I see there are trade offs that have to be made, in dumbing down things or deciding to set things up so people will have to pay attention and actually learn and get the gist of the system as a whole. LOL, the vast majority of people using personal computers are still computer illiterate! <g>
I agree with most of the article.
The one area that I’d like to draw focus is the “Windows apps run on Linux” area.
Don’t get me wrong – I love WINE and I’m hacking through, trying to get an accounting app running. Ultimately, WINE for these sorts of applications is just a band-aid measure.
Somehow we need to break the “There aren’t many Linux users out there to warrant investment in a Linux version” mentality that is out there, and encourage these vendors to make native linux/BSD apps.
The sad thing is, a lot of these vendors make OSX apps, so a port to FreeBSD shouldn’t be *too* hard… There’s always the option of a WineLib compilation too.
Unfortunately many vendors are too used to the status quo. I offered to port a popular accounting package for $0.00 from the Mac OSX version which still went unanswered.
OS/2 claimed to be a “better Windows than Windows” with its Win-OS/2 support for Windows applications. The result? People don’t want to use an OS that has to emulate another OS.
Companies like Corel, Borland and IBM showing support is a Good Thing(tm). We need more of it – not just for Linux, but for BSD too.
11. Figure out how to get more Windows apps running…
Impossible. Even if someone does figure out how to do this, there are so many obstacles
– Win32 is covered by a lot of patents from Microsoft, and trust me, they won’t let you use it, not even with royalties.
– Microsoft also licenses a lot of patents, and it is impossible to keep Linux free of charge if you want to use these patents.
Of course, these points are moot if you live in Iran or China….
But this guy is talking about just the users. But what about the apps (except for that Windows apps on Linux thingy)? If you want apps on Linux, and no I’m not talking those from really big companies but rather small, sometimes shareware, companies. These companies make out the bulk of the apps made for Windows. And if we could create an IDE that beats VS .NET in every way, you could bet that you could see software you never seen before coming for Linux.
What’s good about Windbreaker? Blocky icons, no start button, no taskbar. What’s the “clip” for, anyway? You still have to use a text editor to change the desktop menu. It’s a step up from BlackBox, which don’t even have desktop icons, but that aint’ saying much.
Newbies should stick with Kde, because it gives them most of what they’re used to from Windows. Taskbar with clock and start button, integrated file manager / web browser, etc. If it don’t start with a “k” then it don’t belong on your desktop! The only problem with that is when ignorant folks go into KMart looking for Kde. It confuses them when they discover that Walmart, not the Big K, is the place to go for Kde. How come K Mart hasn’t sued for trademark infringement?
Let’s all use WindowMaker..it looks good and is easy to use!
I’m using Window Maker. The default look looks butt ugly (took me a day to make it look reasonably nice) and it isn’t as easy to use as it seems. But then again, I’m Window Maker’s target market: geeks.
What’s good about Windbreaker? Blocky icons, no start button, no taskbar. What’s the “clip” for, anyway? You still have to use a text editor to change the desktop menu. It’s a step up from BlackBox, which don’t even have desktop icons, but that aint’ saying much.
Blocky icons can be fixed easily, right click on that icon and change it! But as for being a easy to use system doesn’t mean it must copy Windows user interface. Many Windows users end up not knowing how to do things, many disregard computing as hard because of Windows. Many, including once Windows zealot David Coursey, say that OS X has a better user interface, in terms of ease of use than Windows. But guess what? Mac OS X isn’t even close in looking like Windows. What is needed is a logical user interface, where with clear icons and text, users can figure things out themselves.
And lastly, try using WPrefs.app (the default top right icon) to change the menus
Taskbar with clock and start button, integrated file manager / web browser, etc.
KDE’s Kicker may look like the Taskbar, but in reality it differs a lot from the Windows taskbar. For example, icons aren’t placed in a Quick Launch manner. Also, KMenu differs a lot from Start menu, try comparing the two. How? For example, when you open the menu, the program categories are already there, as opposed to Windows, where you won’t have to select “Programs” (or Windows XP, “More programs”). And this gives KMenu a cluttered look.
As for Konqueror, it differs a lot from Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. When you enter an URL in Windows Explorer, what it actually is doing is swapping WE for IE. The toolbars, menus and sidebars are changed. The integrated feel comes from standard stuff like Favorites. (IE is integrated into the OS, but not into the file manager. IE and WE work closely with each other, but aren’t one app).
How come K Mart hasn’t sued for trademark infringement?
In other words, KMart can sue any other company with names starting with K?
“Newbies should stick with Kde, because it gives them most of what they’re used to from Windows. Taskbar with clock and
start button, integrated file manager / web browser, etc”
And where do you go to find a Linux GUI that is _not_ an imitation of
Windows?
Some of us are used to using something better.
Great! Beos was designed as a desktop OS, not as a server OS. I’m sure that it’s a better and more advanced desktop OS than Linux is. But that’s irrelavent. I wouldn’t say Linux is designed to be anything in particular other than a general purpose OS similar to unix. It can make a decent desktop OS, though. Millions of people use linux as a desktop OS.
Beos is dead. I’d love to be running Beos or Amiga or one of these spinoffs from Atheos/Comsoe, etc. They keep changing names monthly. But these systems have no users, poor hardware support and few developers. Give it up already! The lead developers disappear for months and refuse to answer email. As for the effort to create a free or open source Beos, the same goes only moreso. These systems don’t have a chance.
Mac OSX – too expensive, limited to proprietary hardware. Not as good as linux for a desktop system, acutally, without multiple desktops. Some people say OSX is prettier than Linux, but you can make linux as pretty or as ugly as you like.
So you have two choices: Microsoft or Linux (and other free unices such as BSD which can run linux desktops such as Gnome and Kde).
Beos is like Ralph Nader running for president. Nader didn’t have a chance, and people who voted for Nader just handed the election to Bush, the candidate these same people liked the least.
So, if you want to insure total victory for MS keep on promoting the use of Mac, Beos, AtheOS, Amiga and other desktop alternatives. Or, you can support Linux and free unix, which does have a chance to keep building its user base worldwide, because it already is being widely used as a server and to a lesser degree as a desktop OS.
Lou’s article is basically a wishlist of things that we already know we need if Linux is to become ‘dominant’ on the desktop. Unfortunately the article failed to mention the little problem of GPL and how that virtually makes a viable business model impossible in the desktop scenario. That is why I completely agree with Rasterman’s statement that ‘Linux has lost the race for dominance on the desktop’ (see OSNews for the full skinny). The problem is that Linux will never become as polished as Windows, or have as good driver support etc because there is no viable business model to support such development. Unfortunately, Lou’s wishlist is destined to remain just that, unless someone gets to make a buck actually implementing it.
BTW I am using XP Pro on a Sony PCG-FX605 and it is very slick (and very reliable). Linux is still a great
dev platform, but XP whips its ass as a desktop OS and not just because of ease of use (IMHO).
~ Codefire ~
Well. I’ve done Application Directories/Bundles. Basically, the directories look like:
Blah.app/
.directory
bin/
share/
.directory is a application/x-desktop prefs file supported by both KDE and GNOME. KDE reads this file by default. Tells the file mananger what to execute/which icons to use, etc.
Then there are ‘groups’ of applications:
LotsOfBlahs.bundle/
Blah.app/
Bleh.app/
.directory
If you click on an .app, it launches the application.
If you click on a .bundle, it looks like a directory, with icons for each application.
I’ve also modified all of KDE CVS to use this system, with kdebase/kdelibs the only parts not using it. So on your desktop, you get an ‘Applications’ folder (which is actually a .bundle.)
Inside that are ‘Network.bundle, Graphics.bundle, Utility.bundle’ with each app that comes with those kde tar.gz’s.
I’ve also modified the K menu to have a ‘Applications’ entry, and it just lists all your different Applications in the ‘Applications.bundle’ on your desktop.
Want to uninstall an application? Drag it to the trash. It disappears from the menu! And leaves nothing on your system.
On top of all this, I wrote an ‘application manager’. This is sort of like red carpet/click-2-run/whatever. Except that it ties in with the bundles stuff. So each application you can download comes in an .app format, all ready for you to be used. I’ve played around with packaging OpenOffice, Mozilla and the GIMP. All went pretty well. The application manager will keep track of all .app/.bundle’s you install, and you can easily delete/upgrade software. You can also download a Blah.app.tgz and just click it and it’ll launch in the application manager and add itself to the system.
All this is coming soon. I’m planning to post a proposal to KDE soon. No free time for the next few weeks/month or so, though.
… Also.
The applications that you can chose from in the application manager will be very limited – the best program for every job. Your office suite will be OpenOffice. Your graphics editor will be the GIMP. Your web browser will be mozilla (of course, konqueror is also available.) Your cd writing software will be CDBakeOven.
Oh, the application manager will be completly seperate from the underlying system package management. It’ll work on every distrobution.
I haven’t used Windows for a while (except publicly available machines at the libarary and at my parent’s house) but GPL has not hurt the development of the linux desktop at all. Rather it has allowed that development. Without GPL and similar licenses developers would have had no incentive to work on a number of free desktop systems for linux.
I find the linux desktop to be a lot more versatile and just as polished as Windows, The Windows desktop is blah, and the only reason why many people say it’s easier to use is because that’s what they are used to. Device and driver support with Linux is good. Actually linux supports a lot more devices than MS, which only runs on Wintel architecture. Linux runs on almost anything. Where this will really pay off for linux is in the move to 64 bit architectures for desktops as well as for servers.
Software installation is a problem, but people are working on this – binary installs of packages similar to the Windows Install Shield. These articles don’t miss the point because they encourage people to work on such things.
Back to your main point – the incentive. The incentive is mostly for corporations and governments to save money by using Linux instead of MS, and also to protect their data’s integrity and their privacy and even their national security from MS spyware and back doors. Microsoft’s Paladium effort will fail outside the US and may even fail in the US because corporations don’t want to rent their software from MS approved sources or buy into Microsoft’s increasingly exploitative licensing schemes. It may take some time for this to reach “joe user” but when he is used to linux at the office and in school he will be looking for linux in consumer outlets for his home system as well.
Have you heard of OS X lately..? BSD/Unix are said to be server OS – so how do you argue that?
An OS is a Desktop OS if it is easy enough for use for avarage Joe. Linux in the form of a Debian from 3 years ago is not, but todays Lycoris maybe is…
OSX is one as well, while a quick install of OpenBSD tells you that it is not… I don’t see your point.
Tom Barta ms office isn’t “a sucky office suite”. If it was no amount of marketing would make it dominant (before you say windows sucks realize it was never nearly as bad as ms haters said it is, if it was it would’ve died long ago). Try handing one of those freebie alsoran office suites to a clerk or secratery and it’ll be off their pc and in the trash in half a day.
Secondly all this talk of people should be willing to learn is rediculous. If you know how to drive a car would you learn how to drive a car configured completely different just to make people who drive it happy? No because either your happy with your car or you hate the concept of cars in general and would rather you didn’t have to use one at all. Group 1 won’t switch because they’re happy, group 2 doesn’t care enough to switch.
I really liked the article, all of the points are very valid but then again there all points windows users have said linux needs to improve on in order to get them to switch for years now. But when we (windows users) say them you get zealots insulting you for picking on their os, which to them is perfect. I guess it takes a linux user question linux’s perfection without being called stupid.
either Linux advocates get their acts with their speech, either they just stop complaining.
When Linux zealots started the campaign “Linux on the Desktop” (OTD) they were surprised to meet oppositionnot from Microsoft but from users. Why ? Because the “monopoly” exists because users are okay with it. They are *happy* with using MS products. Well, they complain about them being this or that sometimes, but they’re mostly okay with them. And with the XP era, the products are not only rock stable but easy to use too. There is even remote desktop and multi user features for power users!
“Most people who have complaints such as yours want Linux to mimic Windows exactly. That way you don’t have to learn anything new.”
Well, I go to work at 8am, come back at 7pm, eat, read news on the web, answer my mail, have fun with my future wife…. then it’s 11pm, I feel tired, go to bed, read a book… fall asleep… same thing the next day. On the week end I code a lil bit for a few websites using php, go shopping, see friends….
now, what should I sacrifice in order to learn how to use Linux ? The shopping part ? The reading book one ? Some sleep ?
Not everyone is student or jobless (which I am right now, so consider the above as hypothetical), and TIME is the most precious resource people have. Now if I have to learn for 30 hours how to use my system, or I can buy winXP 300 euros, that means I value my time less than 10euros/hour. Actually, most of people value their time MUCH higher than that.
“That is something Windows can’t offer since most Windows apps are driven by market data, revenue and the like. ”
False. It is not because of “market” that some apps are only available under Linux but because of who code the apps. But if you say: “due to its lack of market, Linux lacks many apps”, that would be true. To this day, I never ever missed a single app on windows. I always found what I needed, and there are a lot of freeware (which I use most of the time).
” Linux fills a need that would be obliterated if it were crippled to the point of mimicking Windows. ”
Linux is flexible. It can serve a lot of purposes. It can be a desktop OS (although a broken one for now), a server OS, I personnaly use it as a firewall/dsl router here on a 486. This OS is fantastic and I hope the “Linux on the desktop” crowd will achieve its goal: bring a functionnal desktop for me, so I’ll get rid of the last piece of paying software I have on my comp.: the OS.
What’s good about Windbreaker? Blocky icons, no start button, no taskbar.
The “Start” is conveniently a right mouse click anywhere on the desktop. The taskbar is an equally convenient middle click anywhere on the desktop. Many Windows users have their taskbar autohide to get it out of the way. It’s much less movement to right or middle click wherever you’re at than have to move to the bottom of the screen to activate the taskbar.
What’s the “clip” for, anyway?
To “clip” appicons to.
You still have to use a text editor to change the desktop menu.
No you don’t. The third icon in the top right-hand corner launches WPrefs, which allows you to do all that, or, if you installed Debian, menues are automatically set up for you. No need to edit menues in any way (of course the same is the case with any window manager under Debian).
It’s a step up from BlackBox, which don’t even have desktop icons, but that aint’ saying much.
What’s wrong with not having desktop icons? You can have them under BlackBox if you want to. Even Microsoft seems to think desktop icons aren’t very clever since they’ve removed them from Windows XP by default (exept for the Recycle Bin).
…Unfortunately the article failed to mention the little problem of GPL and how that virtually makes a viable business model impossible in the desktop scenario.
No it doesn’t. The problem is not the GPL, but rather for some sophmoric reason many companies are trying to make money by exploiting Linux (Lindows comes readily to mind) instead of making money by writing Linux apps.
There are many companies that make a lot of money writing Windows applications. There’s only one company that makes money writing Windows itself. Companies need to follow the same model with Linux. They should let RedHat, SuSE, Debian, etc. provide the platform and they should provide the services, utilities and applications. Then Linux is just as valid a business model as Windows.
There aren’t any laws that say you can’t write proprietary apps for Linux. In fact several companies do. MainConcept’s MainActor and Borland’s JBuilder and Kylix come readily to mind. Companies just need to produce something and quit trying to exploit the work of others, which is the only thing that I see hindered by the GPL.
The problem is that Linux will never become as polished as Windows…
Nvidia’s closed drivers exist contrary to what you’re saying. A company doesn’t have to give up it’s secrets in order to work with Linux.
Unfortunately, Lou’s wishlist is destined to remain just that, unless someone gets to make a buck actually implementing it.
I disagree. Companies can make money on Linux today just as they can on Windows. I have already addressed this above.
BTW I am using XP Pro on a Sony…
I have used Windows since Windows 1.0 and DOS before that (and during that since Windows 1.0 sucked) and every 32-bit version of Windows even invented. I have never once had my registry corrupted on any of them except Windows XP. Since February when I installed XP at work (as you all probably know by now, I don’t use Windows personally anymore) I have had my registry corrupt no less that five times. XP may be stable for you, but my experience is that it is flakey. If I must use Windows, it is 2000. Not as stable as Linux, but better than any other Windows offering.
” Tom Barta ms office isn’t “a sucky office suite”. If it was no amount of marketing would make it dominant (before you say windows sucks realize it was never nearly as bad as ms haters said it is, if it was it would’ve died long ago). Try handing one of those freebie also ran office suites to a clerk or secratery and it’ll be off their pc and in the trash in half a day.”
Well, Appleworks is pretty good, and VERY cheap, and available for Mac AND Windows, and it probably doesn’t have 1 percent of the Windows market. Wordperfect when it went out of business WAS definately better than Word. E.g–you could see codes, and you could easily turn off all the stupid/annoying features. No, Office is big because it is MS is a monopoly and won’t fully document the .doc format. .Doc should be a fully open standard, like HTML.
” Secondly all this talk of people should be willing to learn is rediculous. If you know how to drive a car would you learn how to drive a car configured completely different just to make people who drive it happy?”
No, you would switch to LINUX (hypothetically) for its merits. One merit would be serious stability. I’ve used a lot of Win2000, and I don’t know how you stand having to be so gentle to avoid the Blue Screen of Death. My Mac never crashed so much even in the bad old days of system 7.5.
As for driving a car: It’s funny, but I get into a new car and in a few minutes, I have figured out where everything is. Things are in different places, but you are on the road in no time. I can switch between Win, IRIX, classic Mac,and
OS X with very little pain. But I spend as little time in Win as I can because when something breaks, it requires a call to tech support MUCH more often than other OS’s. Win is not designed to be serviceable by the user, though, I’m better than most people I know at solving the problem.
to Jay:
” the vast majority of computer users are dead in the water if their printer suddenly stops responding or any number of things like that.”
Correct! MOST users are on the phone within minutes of a problem occurring. Is this because they are stupid or lazy? Sometimes, but most often because Windows does not lend itself to self-service. One thing I like about the Mac is that it does much better in this regard– not perfect, but better. OS X (to my surprise) seems to be better than classic Mac. You know where all the preference files are (in /library) and they are editable XML documents (preferences needed to be trashed and rebuilt in old Mac OS). Applications are bundles; drag and drop installation– the user does not need to worry about putting supporting files in the right directories. No registry. LINUX would do well to emulate some of this stuff.
IDEA: Darwin, the OS X BSD-based kernel is open-sourced and X86 compatible. What about instead of picking one of the 50 Linuxes, people just collaborated on a nice non-Apple, non-proprietary GUI for Darwin? Why not? BSD is supposed to be better than LINUX (don’t flame if this wrong– I am an advanced user; not a UNIX guru).
Secondly all this talk of people should be willing to learn is rediculous. If you know how to drive a car would you learn how to drive a car configured completely different just to make people who drive it happy? No because either your happy with your car or you hate the concept of cars in general and would rather you didn’t have to use one at all. Group 1 won’t switch because they’re happy, group 2 doesn’t care enough to switch.
That’s like saying you shouldn’t need to learn to read since television has a standard ON interface and tells you what you need to know. I don’t mean to insult you, but I think only a fool claims that learning is rediculous.
Without exploring different possibilities, you stunt your potential. Without learning new things, you remain stagnant and ignorant. Without trying and learning new things, you are doomed to remain the slave of whatever knowledge you currently possess and are never able to make educated decisions, but rather follow another’s path to partake of their fate rather than being the master of your own.
I really liked the article, all of the points are very valid but then again there all points windows users have said linux needs to improve on in order to get them to switch for years now. But when we (windows users) say them you get zealots insulting you for picking on their os, which to them is perfect. I guess it takes a linux user question linux’s perfection without being called stupid.
I have an easy solution for Windows users who want an OS that runs their Windows apps really well. Use Windows!!!
Again, if you don’t like the way Linux works, don’t use it! If you are adverse to learning, don’t. Is it really that hard to grasp? People act like things they already know (such as Windows) never took them any effort at all to learn. That is asinine.
I’m the kind of person who, once I decide I want something, makes it happen. I guess I just don’t understand people who don’t take the initiative and sit idley by waiting for someone else to care for them.
Finally, if running Linux isn’t important enough to you to invest some time learning, then what makes you think the rest of the world holds you running Linux in high enough regard to invest their time and effort in programming all of your desired changes?
Until I read the posts by Mr “Anon,” I never understoof what the term “flamebait” meant.
People who voted for Ralph Nader didn’t throw away their vote or hand the election to Bush – the expressed their right to choose the best candidate possible. If Bush won, so be it, but not everyone is also running scared and choosing the lesser of two evils.
Same goes for an OS – nothing is dead or fruitless unless everyone gives up hope. With comments like those by Anon, he helps kill the enthusiasm. Choose what works best for you, not what someone else tells you is best.
No, you would switch to LINUX (hypothetically) for its merits. One merit would be serious stability. I’ve used a lot of Win2000, and I don’t know how you stand having to be so gentle to avoid the Blue Screen of Death. My Mac never crashed so much even in the bad old days of system 7.5.
I ran Win2k (and now WinXP) 24/7 at school. I usually have a few terminals open, ICQ and AIM are always on, along with Outlook Express. I run Office and Photoshop frequently, and I usually use between five and twenty open IE windows. Not to mention that I often use Winamp visualizations, play games, burn CDs, scan images, and access my digital camera, and other things that stress my hardware. In three years, I saw maybe five Win2k bluescreens (due to my overclocking, I believe), and since September, I haven’t seen one with XP. Not to mention that I usually reboot once a week or so. My trusty old 68LC040 with 7.5 crashed constantly.
I suspect that you’re either lying or you have some seriously falty hardware.
Please forgive me…I meant to address my comment toward Camel and not Tom Barta. My mistake completely.
(and, while I’m at it, might as well mention a typo: “falty” –> “faulty”)
It’s not my post you were replying to. I’ve never owned a Mac and therefore couldn’t compare “my Mac” to Windows. However, I do have the following to offer.
The secret to your success with Windows 2000 is rebooting once a week. I use Windows 2000 at work (on the same machine that XP dies on constantly by the way) and can leave it up for about 3 months before things get too slow and unresponsive and I’m forced to reboot. I run MSOffice, VisualStudio 6, VisualStudio.NET, Photoshop, several build tools, Burn CDs, FTP uploads and downloads of several hundred megabytes on a regular basis, command windows galore, etc. Top running time: between 3 and 4 months. Even if Windows were more stable, which it’s not, updates force reboots whenever I do them.
On the other hand, at my current job, the uptime of my Linux development box (which does at least as much as my Windows box, plus serves Servlet based database web apps to the company and our customers) has been the entire 8 months I’ve worked there, and at my prior job, it was 2 1/2 years (which was the full length of my stay). I applied many security updates during that time, but not one reboot. Service to patrons of my web apps was never down.
Now in my years of experience with the two and looking at these two senarios, it is evident that Linux wins in the stability and reliability realm hands down; which is why I use it.
”
I suspect that you’re either lying or you have some seriously falty hardware.”
“I use Windows 2000 at work (on the same machine that XP dies on constantly by the way) and can leave it up for about 3 months before things get too slow and unresponsive and I’m forced to reboot”
I’d say you are both very lucky. I can’t comment on
my (dell) hardware, though. It’s company issue (though
instability seems endemic throughout the organization;
not just my machine). Perhaps we have really stupid IT
people who installed W2000 poorly. I am surprised
XP and 2000 differ so much for you– I thought
the code base was mostly the same. I have only used
2000.
Camel: You’re absolutely right; I had it right originally. I made the mistake of doing too many different things at once and then saw a sentence in a post of yours which sounded a little like what I had quoted, hence my “correction.” Please accept my apologies.
Now in my years of experience with the two and looking at these two senarios, it is evident that Linux wins in the stability and reliability realm hands down; which is why I use it.
Your example compares 3 months of uptime with Windows 2000 to 8 months with Linux. If you think you can sell Linux to the mainstream (which this article addresses; not servers) by saying, “It’s so much more stable! With crummy Windows, you have to reboot every three months!” all I can say is good luck.
Tom Barta: If you’re really bluescreening as much as 7.5 crashed (usually once a day or so), I’d suggest you look at the error the bluescreen reports. Oftentimes you can tell it’s a hardware issue.
________________________________________________________
“That’s like saying you shouldn’t need to learn to read since television has a standard ON interface and tells you what you need to know. I don’t mean to insult you, but I think only a fool claims that learning is rediculous.”
———————————————————
No, you *do* mean to insult. That’s all Linux advocates are good for, calling everyone that dares to point out Linux’s many unending inadequacies “fools” or lazy. Even your own television example exposes the inadequacy of Linux. If I buy a television and the ON button doesn’t freakin’ work, I *DON’T* make a new life’s work of studying the manual for that particular tv, I take it back and tell the salesman to cram it, then I get a different one that works without a bunch of excuses. Computers are no longer a plaything of the elite in-crowd, they are common everyday APPLIANCES like a refrigerator or microwave oven or CD player. People don’t study special manuals before expecting to use them successfully.
___________________________________________________________
“Without exploring different possibilities, you stunt your potential. Without learning new things, you remain stagnant and ignorant.”
———————————————————–
This is really all you Linux advocates are good for, calling people names.
___________________________________________________________
“Without trying and learning new things, you are doomed to remain the slave of whatever knowledge you currently possess and are never able to make educated decisions, but rather follow another’s path to partake of their fate rather than being the master of your own.”
———————————————————–
That sounds more like a description of typical Linux advocates than their detractors.
___________________________________________________________
“Again, if you don’t like the way Linux works, don’t use it! If you are adverse to learning, don’t. Is it really that hard to grasp? People act like things they already know (such as Windows) never took them any effort at all to learn. That is asinine.”
———————————————————–
Oh, so now anyone who criticizes Linux is just “adverse to learning”. And anyone who thinks using Windows comes natural is “asinine”. FOOL! Do you not realize that the people who you adress here have actually *used* Windows, and know that you don’t know what you’re talking about?!?!? I never met *anyone* too stupid to use Windows. That’s how it became number one, nobody had to be trained for 6 months before they could be productive with it.
I’ve done my share of trolling and flamebaiting myself, but I think I speak for many when I say that reading your witless posts is becoming tiring, and that the biggest reason many of us don’t use Linux is not because of it’s many shortcomings, but because we don’t want to be part of any movement that has people like you for members.
All these comments about Be being dead etc and Linux being soooo huge. Let’s just face another reality. Quantity isn’t the secret, quality is. Linux is just staying behind striving for being what BeOS still is, and what OpenBeos is going to be in less than a year from now, Note that’s more like 5 years in front of Linux.
Because BeOS just has 1 really good office suite, doesn’t mean that it’s worse than linux having a 100 bad ones.
As long as Linux is as tweakable as it is, it stands no chance on the market….
So if you want to break competition start supporting BeOS instead, this entire debate is mumbo jumbo. Has even half of you guys even tried BeOS?
and what OpenBeos is going to be in less than a year from now
I’ll send the OpenBeOS guys the best of luck and I hope that they surprise us all, but do you really think that there will be a feature-full release of OpenBeOS in under a year? Please. I’d be surprised if they have even a general app server done which allows basic applications, let alone anything that can match the current BeOS R5.
I think Linux has all sorts of faults, but it’s got way more applications (and general usefulness) than BeOS does. I was a BeOS user/developer from PR2 on, but come one, man. It’s time to move on.
Please. I’d be surprised if they have even a general app server done which allows basic applications
App server is prototype 6 and next one will be the final one.. then it’s testing and bug fixing… that’s less than a year mate.
let alone anything that can match the current BeOS R5.
The new file system has benchmarks that is better than old FS. The filesystem is completed and in alpha phase. Give it a test if you like.
I think Linux has all sorts of faults, but it’s got way more applications
Quantity is not same as quality. You know that as well as I do. The responsiveness and the feel of Be is not gonna be replaced by Linux in several years, what will that take 100 ghz, 1 petabyte of ram?.
I was a BeOS user/developer from PR2 on, but come one, man. It’s time to move on.
I agree, Be is dead. I left that thought long ago, OBOS is not…. So don’t count OBOS out mate.
We both will be winners when it hits R1
I think you will be able to do just that with Red Hat 8.0 and the Gnome Control Center.
The Red Hat tools are actually in a folder, acessible from Nautilus.
And where do you go to find a Linux GUI that is _not_ an imitation of Windows?
Believe it or not, but KDE is not a Windows imitation. Sure, some irresponsible companies could blend it into one, but it remains the fact that KDE and Windows, though they might look the same, aren’t the same.
Beos is dead. I’d love to be running Beos or Amiga or one of these spinoffs from Atheos/Comsoe, etc. They keep changing names monthly. But these systems have no users, poor hardware support and few developers. Give it up already! The lead developers disappear for months and refuse to answer email. As for the effort to create a free or open source Beos, the same goes only moreso. These systems don’t have a chance.
Hmmm, none of the systems you have mentioned had changed names. And you are basing BeOS, Amiga OS, Cosmoe on Kurt’s dissaperance.
Beos is like Ralph Nader running for president. Nader didn’t have a chance, and people who voted for Nader just handed the election to Bush, the candidate these same people liked the least.
I thought Sore… I mean Gore, would win, but, damn that stupid Florida voting machines…
The problem is that Linux will never become as polished as Windows, or have as good driver support etc because there is no viable business model to support such development.
I don’t know. Corel managed to put NDAs on it’s code, preventing it being used by anyone else. Nvidia makes propreitary drivers. And the list goes on. The reason why entities that don’t sell Free Software fail is because most of the buying power in the Linux market are free loaders or FSF hippies.
On top of all this, I wrote an ‘application manager’. This is sort of like red carpet/click-2-run/whatever. Except that it ties in with the bundles stuff. So each application you can download comes in an .app
I see a possible conflict with this. GNUstep and Mac OS X uses the .app format, and could cause confusion…. Besides, I would like to see the code. Post it on the net, somewhere. (Besides, maybe you should make it compatible with deb and rpm and ports etc. because KDE wants to stay distro free).
I find the linux desktop to be a lot more versatile and just as polished as Windows, The Windows desktop is blah, and the only reason why many people say it’s easier to use is because that’s what they are used to.
I had began my geek days with using KDE 1.2.1. Then I went on with KDE 2.1 (I skipped that horid 2.0 thing). After that, I moved to KDE 3.0. Then a few weeks ago I moved to Window Maker. Now I’m using Windows until I get DSL (I’m stuck on a winmodem). And I know I’m telling the truth, Windows XP is way more polished than KDE and Window Maker, and other DEs and WMs I have tested like GNOME 1 and 2, E, XFce, etc. I’m more used to KDE 2.0/3.0, but I got used to WM and to Windows XP very fast.
Software installation is a problem, but people are working on this – binary installs of packages similar to the Windows Install Shield.
Contrary to popular belief, I have seen a lot of people who can’t install apps on Windows. Maybe they could be more successful on Mac OS, but who knows?
Back to your main point – the incentive. The incentive is mostly for corporations and governments to save money by using Linux instead of MS, and also to protect their data’s integrity and their privacy and even their national security from MS spyware and back doors.
Hmmmm, a lot of governments are moving to Linux to stop being dependant on an US company, and also for cost reasons. But the only proven spyware installed in Windows is that it tells MSN what songs you play… I doubt that have national security risks. And if it does, they could use things like WinAMP. But as for security, it is an issue, but I doubt Microsoft purposely put it there and release a patch for it a month or two later…
As for Palladium, it would be successful because Intel and AMD are supporting it. Heck, the initiative was started by Intel.
An OS is a Desktop OS if it is easy enough for use for avarage Joe. Linux in the form of a Debian from 3 years ago is not, but todays Lycoris maybe is…
Windows users that are confuse about Windows would find it hard to use Windows. Those people that are so used to Windows would find it hard too, for it isn’t a proper clone.
… Many Windows users have their taskbar autohide …
I do that. The taskbar steals too much real estate.
What’s wrong with not having desktop icons? You can have them under BlackBox if you want to. Even Microsoft seems to think desktop icons aren’t very clever since they’ve removed them from Windows XP by default (exept for the Recycle Bin).
I don’t know. Early screenies of Whistler showed there were absolutely no icons on the desktop. But I guess they back step and placed the Recycle Bin. Heck, even in Beta, no icons were on the desktop in OS X, but if you like now, it can be done optionally. 🙂
I have never once had my registry corrupted on any of them except Windows XP. Since February when I installed XP at work (as you all probably know by now, I don’t use Windows personally anymore) I have had my registry corrupt no less that five times. XP may be stable for you, but my experience is that it is flakey. If I must use Windows, it is 2000. Not as stable as Linux, but better than any other Windows offering.
Weird, I had the registry corrupted twice on Win98 and once on Win2k, but never on WinXP.
Well, Appleworks is pretty good, and VERY cheap, and available for Mac AND Windows
The version for Windows, IIRC, is version 4.0. Plus, costing the same amount, and have a similar feature set, MS Works sound like a better deal. It has better Office support, anyway.
Wordperfect when it went out of business WAS definately better than Word. E.g–you could see codes, and you could easily turn off all the stupid/annoying features.
Not my father, who dreaded his government office job because it requires him to use that. He uses MS Word at home, and accroading to him (I just spoke to him), he found himself more productive on Word than WP. But that was a long time ago, during the Win3.1 and Win95 transition. Besides, most people don’t even care about the tags behind the document.
No, Office is big because it is MS is a monopoly and won’t fully document the .doc format. .Doc should be a fully open standard, like HTML.
Just like any company, it has the right to keep it closed. It has after all have always been keeping it closed. OpenOffice.org done a lot to have Office compatiblity, but they have only 2 full time workers on it. If Sun was really serious about the market, it would have have 20 or 40 workers working on the filters.
No, you would switch to LINUX (hypothetically) for its merits. One merit would be serious stability.
Sure, if you are hosting a warez trading site with 3,987 Linux freeloaders on your PC, Windows XP wouldn’t be good enough for you. But for task most, if not all, Windows user do, you wouldn’t get problems.
I’ve used a lot of Win2000, and I don’t know how you stand having to be so gentle to avoid the Blue Screen of Death.
Most BSODs in Windows NT has been attributed back to the hardware. This is apparently true if you are using a VIA chipset (though the Socket A ones have been fairly okay). Personally, I have seen an BSOD on Windows 2000 running some code to take advantage with a bug. There is a URL somewhere….
My Mac never crashed so much even in the bad old days of system 7.5.
I have never seen anything more funnier than this. System 7.5 was crap, it is mostly emulated 68k code back from 1984.
But I spend as little time in Win as I can because when something breaks, it requires a call to tech support MUCH more often than other OS’s.
LOL, I have never called for help to use something on Windows NT (2k and XP). If I had a problem, the solution is normally just as hard as in Linux (sorry, never used a IRIX system, nor have I used an OS X system till it crashes).
Win is not designed to be serviceable by the user, though, I’m better than most people I know at solving the problem.
Well, problems like registry problems and so on are just as hard to fix on Linux, and I imagine it is the same on IRIX and OS X (and yes, I know Linux, IRIX and OS X doesn’t have a registry, but it has its share of problem).
BSD is supposed to be better than LINUX (don’t flame if this wrong– I am an advanced user; not a UNIX guru).
FreeBSD may be better than Linux. Same with NetBSD and OpenBSD, but certainly not Darwin.
Again, if you don’t like the way Linux works, don’t use it! If you are adverse to learning, don’t. Is it really that hard to grasp?
Most Linux zealots can’t grasp that. Especially FSF hippies, they think we must use GNU/Linux to protect our freedom…
I run MSOffice, VisualStudio 6, VisualStudio.NET…
I thought you said you didn’t use VS.NET because it is slow and bloated?
Now in my years of experience with the two and looking at these two senarios, it is evident that Linux wins in the stability and reliability realm hands down; which is why I use it.
No one, including MS, could deny that Linux is more stable than Windows 2000. But does the stablity is really much needed by desktop users? Doubt it.
I am surprised
XP and 2000 differ so much for you– I thought
the code base was mostly the same. I have only used
2000.
A lot of changed have been done to XP. But it didn’t warrant a NT 6.0 version, so it cost a NT 5.1 (2k was 5.0).
No, you *do* mean to insult. That’s all Linux advocates are good for, calling everyone that dares to point out Linux’s many unending inadequacies “fools” or lazy….
He made a valid point there. I don’t think he is a Linux zealot (if he is, he is an embarrassment to the community). All he is saying that everything requires learning. If you want a smaller learning curve, don’t use Linux for all he cares :-p
This is really all you Linux advocates are good for, calling people names.
The last person I called names was Speed, which is a Linux zealot. I’m a Linux advocate, though often I sound like some anti-Linux pig living off the forums.
I never met *anyone* too stupid to use Windows.
Try meeting my mother
That’s how it became number one, nobody had to be trained for 6 months before they could be productive with it.
I have been trained for a week before I could use Linux without help.
Because BeOS just has 1 really good office suite, doesn’t mean that it’s worse than linux having a 100 bad ones.
Gobe would be more of an contender to MS Works and AppleWorks than MS Office. And OpenOffice.org beats it flat. Plus, it is unclear whether Gobe would port Productive to OBOS, but Linux and Windows would have a version.
As long as Linux is as tweakable as it is, it stands no chance on the market….
Hopefully, nobody would listen to you. If it stops being tweakable, I would say “hello, BSD!”.
So if you want to break competition start supporting BeOS instead, this entire debate is mumbo jumbo. Has even half of you guys even tried BeOS?
I have BeOS. It have cool features like the file system. But I don’t particully like the kernel, the R5 graphics system, and the fact it isn’t multi-user.
Quantity is not same as quality. You know that as well as I do. The responsiveness and the feel of Be is not gonna be replaced by Linux in several years, what will that take 100 ghz, 1 petabyte of ram?.
Try 500mhz and 256mb of RAM (but that varies on the WM you use). Besides, Linux doesn’t support 100 ghz, and 1 petabyte of RAM (it is still having trouble supporting RAM in terabytes…)
We both will be winners when it hits R1
R1 would be a clone of BeOS R5. I think I would wait for R2 to try it. (I have R5 BTW)