In the second part of the ZDNet interview, Linux kernel hacker Alan Cox explains why the world needs open source software on the desktop and why Linux was perfect for Iceland. Alan Cox is generally referred to in the open-source developer community as a “kernel hacker”–someone whose programming responsibilities cover the Linux kernel, or core, itself. His role of organizing and applying improvements is vital. At an interview with ZDNet U.K. in Swansea he spoke on the latest challenges for Linux at the high- and low-end, the arrival of revolutionary 64-bit hardware and why it’s hard to argue with the economics of open-source software.
Alan Cox: Linux Battles for the Desktop
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
When will they get it through their head? Linux on the desktop is a joke. It is never going to happen. The world does not need, nor does it want, Linux on the desktop.
Open source in and of itself is not a bad idea. Even an open source operating system for the desktop masses is not a bad idea. But Linux simply is not the OS for the desktop of the masses. It has too many problems that make it unfeasable for desktop use in the majority of cases.
http://www.lycoris.com
it just works.
Yo Simba,
Do you have any suggestions? You might be right, but I have yet to see any open source
operating systems at the level of maturity of linux. It’s sad to say, but most these that I
have looked into are still at the glorified bootdisk level, or less. Freedos might be the
exception, but oh gee whiz it doesn’t have a pretty GUI, so Joe Big Gulp will not use it.
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it could be argued that the dominant
proprietary O.S. has too many problems that make it unfeasable for desktop use. I do
not wish to beat a dead horse, however.
I will be happy to try what you suggest, but I doubt it can a user-friendly linux distro.
(Lycoris comes to mind.)
Yours,
Cuppa Joe
Well, I gave my lovely Mummy a KDE desktop and that’s enough for her. She uses Kmail, and Konquerer (with instructions to use Galeon if Konquerer can’t get into a site – apparently hasn’t happened yet). Konquerer can do Flash and she has a PDF reader for downloads.
Her printer (HP Deskjet 930C) was supported out of the box in Redhat 7.2. I think that’s it. KWord and whatever the spreadsheet are used for some work stuff for her. There’s a cron job to backup her home directory every day and she’s restored backups before (the filename is based on the date, and from the decompression program she can extract individual programs).
Now I’m not sure whether those uses account for 50% of users, I’d be more inclined to say it’s 90%.
(and yeah, Windows could have done it, but not out of the box, just like Linux)
Lycoris looks to me to be nothing more than Linux with a custom KDE desktop. This doesn’t fix the issues. Here are the main problems with Linux that make it unsuitable for the desktop:
1. Admininistration is too difficult. Sure this can be gotten around with control pannels and such that provide GUI interefaces to the text config files. But I still think the underlying concept of how UNIX control is handled make it too difficult. Also, there are too many things for the average user to mess up and then have no clue how to fix.
2. There are too many competing and incompatible standards in Linux. For example, how many hundreds of libraries are out there that do the same thing but have slightly different ways of doing it? This is a nightmare for the average user. It is too difficult to install software. There needs to be a standard set of libraries that programmers adhere too that it can be reasonably certain that the average user will have on their system.
3. X-Windows sucks. Sorry, but it does (performance wise and other). There needs to be an integrated GUI.
You are right in that there are no other projects as far advanced as Linux (with the exception of FreeBSD, but it has the same problems as Linux when it comes to desktop use). But just because there is nothing else as far along in development doesn’t make Linux a good desktop.
It might be possible to build a desktop OS based off of the Linux kernel and the Linux file system and such. In other words, it might be possible to do something without completely reinventing the wheel. Apple did this with OS X and IMHO, it worked extremely well.
It might be possible to come up with a desktop OS based on Linux that does not use X-Windows and such. This might be an ideal solution.
“Well, I gave my lovely Mummy a KDE desktop and that’s enough for her.”
Can your mummy install new applications or upgrade existing ones on this system? I doubt it. Not without assistance anyway. That is one major reason Linux is not a viable desktop platform.
> Can your mummy install new
> applications or upgrade
> existing ones on this system?
Sure she can, if she knows what she is doing. And if she doesn’t know what she is doing, she isn’t going to have much success with Windows either. I mean, Its not like your darling mummy needs to compile Apache with SSL.
Come-on people, what do most people do on their computers? Surf the web, send email, chat, maybe do the occasional simple word processing.
On my dual booting desktop, I used lilo to hide windows, placed the Yahoo messenger and icq icons on the desktop, and used like a minute to teach everybody how to login/how to find mozilla. All the three people using this computer transited without problems. Including my game-playing four year old. People may not use linux on the desktop, but that’s not because, its so undoable.
100% I agree with Simba.
Remember DOS? Remember Windows 3.x? Ordinary people did use DOS and Windows 3.x on the desktop, and some businesses still use those as a matter of fact. I challenge anybody to say that using DOS or Windows 3.1 is easier to user than KDE.
I am not particularly fond of X – I think we should completely redo the windowing system for linux, and hopefully add an X-comptabile layer.
Or maybe Murphy’s law will take care of the speed problems. That is, assuming the desktop pc is still relevant five years down the line.
“Come-on people, what do most people do on their computers? Surf the web, send email, chat, maybe do the occasional simple word processing.”
Yes I agree with that but this is NOT an excuse to ignore the fact that installing programs is a night mare. If Linux had “standard” libraries just like Windows, there wouldn’t be conflicts and missing files etc etc.
“Sure she can, if she knows what she is doing”
There it is again, “if I know what I am doing”. In Windows you don’t have to know what you are doing. It is a matter of clicking “Next” “Next” “Next” a few times and the program is installed! No conflicts, no missing files. The program gets installed on the spot! It even lauches it self if such an option is provided.
No conflicts, no missing files — You see? Linux needs to be like this! Linux needs standard libraries! Even if I use “rpm” to install a program, I wouldn’t mind using it as long as I get no “missing files” and “conflicts”.
“I am not particularly fond of X – I think we should completely redo the windowing system for linux, and hopefully add an X-comptabile layer”
Yes, that’s what I want to hear!!
“Sure she can, if she knows what she is doing. And if she doesn’t know what she is doing, she isn’t going to have much success with Windows either.”
I disagree. You don’t have to know what you are doing to install software in Windows. All you have to be able to do is follow prompts and answer questions. (“Windows is now going to install this. Is this ok?” “The version of Microsoft Installer you have is outdated. Windows needs to install an updated version before this software can install. Would you like to automatically install this update now?”)
It’s simple. Anyone can do it.
Then we have Linux where you try to start an application you just installed and all you get is something like:
“lib_i_do_what_5000_other_libs_do_but_in_a_different_way.so.4 not found”
And that is it. No clue how to obtain or install the missing lib. Or maybe the lib is already installed. Do you expect the average user to know that this error might be happening because they haven’t added a directory to ld.so.conf and run ldconfig?
You don’t need to know what you are doing to successfuly install software in Windows. You do need to know to successfully install software in Linux.
“Remember DOS? Remember Windows 3.x? Ordinary people did use DOS and Windows 3.x on the desktop, and some businesses still use those as a matter of fact. I challenge anybody to say that using DOS or Windows 3.1 is easier to user than KDE.”
First of all, I would suggest that Windows 3.1 is easier to use than KDE. Not because of KDE itself, but because of the underlying complexity of Linux.
But this is an illogical argument anyway. It’s basically saying “While it was this hard to use at one time and people learned, so its alright to make computers harder to use again since people had to deal with this in the past anyway.”
Why not go back to CPM? Or maybe even go back further than that to the days when you had to be a programmer to use a computer?
WELL SAID SIMBA!!
Oh, my God , I can’t live without windows. No new xp xq xr xx xz versions.
This must be the end of the world.
Please help me.(us)
I am optimistic that Linux will eventually be viable on the desktop for unsophisticated users. Lycoris seems to be awefully close, if not there already.
By integrating a really good user help system and burying the complexity of the underlying OS underneath a layer of well-coordinated user-friendly GUI interfaces, I think Linux can get there.
A lot of the underlying stuff may be pretty ugly and kludgy (expecially if you are going to stick with X) and you may have to put so many restrictions and constraints in place that the resulting OS might not even be considered a true Linux distro anymore. But, in principle, I can’t believe that it isn’t do-able if someone wants to do it badly enough.
<blockquote><blockquote>Can your mummy install new applications or upgrade existing ones on this system? I doubt it. Not without assistance anyway. That is one major reason Linux is not a viable desktop platform.</blockquote>Sure she can, if she knows what she is doing. And if she doesn’t know what she is doing, she isn’t going to have much success with Windows either. I mean, Its not like your darling mummy needs to compile Apache with SSL. </blockquote>Well, you guys both seem to know my Mummy pretty well. A little too well, if you ask me… hmm…
Again Simba, you’re being too vague. X-windows is slow? Prove it. Even a link about XFree4 (out now on Linux for a few years) would suffice. It’s difficult for me to respond because it’s very much ‘Linux sucks, Linux Rocks’ rather than specific issues.
Competing standards causing problems? Which ones exactly? Glibc is a defacto standard as is X windows. If you’ve used Dreamweaver and then gone back to the main OS in Windows it uses a different toolkit. No one complains about this. XP has a new toolkit (used in IE6 and Groove Network). Every version of Word used a non-standard toolkit until XP.
Futhermore, I don’t understand how configuring a Linux system is more difficult than Windows when you have GUI tools. That the configuration backend is a text-file IMO makes it simpler for GUI tools to be written (again, the only problem with plain-text is that each bit of software invents it’s own syntax, but interfaces are well documented). Most Windows software either uses INI files or the registry. I don’t see how this is better. At the Microsoft developer days in Wellington, New Zealand, a spokesman said that Microsoft have given up on the registry concept and will be heading for a centralised/standardised interface to distributed storage (so it can span many machines).
I would like to see a self-describing XML configuration file for each bit of software in Linux. Apparently KDE, Gnome, and Apache are heading this way.
ps. For the record, my mother couldn’t install programs in Windows either unless I talk her through it on the phone. She has installed Opera on Linux (statically compiled RPM) when I guided her.
(I don’t hold much hope for Lycoris either, but I’ll wait and see)
I’m eager to see what the Corel succesors, Xandros Linux, are going to do with their desktop distribution. They certainly are taking their time in doing so. Any one here has any news of their beta (released more than a month ago)?
Xandros promess to have some interesting features with a lot of value added, something that desktop wannabes like Lycoris, Lindows, Icepack, Libranet, Mandrake and such lack in my opinion. Xandros is backed by an $11M LGP investment and the former Corel engineers, looks to me like a very serious desktop pretender. I’m also very interested to watch how are they going to tackle the all mighty X nightmare.
I agree X sucks, most people that don’t swear by Linux equally think that X shall be Linux Major problem on the desktop, and from there to all the other problems like performance, stability, installation standards, configuration standards, GUI uniformity and a neat-clear-grasp antialasing fonts *everywhere*.
The OS installation problem has already been solved, great very easy installers have been built for Linux. So it is not so far from desktop prime time, once `the DOS of windowing systems` (X) is replaced by a modern one, everything else should come downhill for an MS-Windows Linux killer. An open project like Berlin or WHY will soon make it, in one or two years?
OBOS will sure make it earlier, but no multiuser soon. In the other hand if BlueOS succeeds in tossing away X while being Linux compatible, well that is really going to rock, a pity they have so few developers ’cause choosing the Linux kernel was a very wise idea INMHO.
Installing applications in Gentoo could not be easier. To install KDE for instance, all I had to do was “emerge kde”. That’s it. That single command downloaded all the dependencies (Qt, arts, etc.) and automatically installed everything flawlessly. Gentoo works on a ports-based system (instead of apt or rpm) which automatically handles dependencies and conflicts. It is seriously easy.
And their site is one of the most pretty, active and well documented Linux sites I’ve seen, but the installation of Gentoo is far from easy, tedious at least, and you have to rely on a broad bandwidth connection. And all the other issues discussed above remain there.
I want to update my OS, I open up a terminal (very scary) and type “aptget upgrade” hit enter.
So hard to do I wet myself every time or how’s this for scary I want to install a program in debian I again have to open a terminal and then type “aptget -i whatever_the_program_I_want_is_called” and hit enter.
If there are library dependencies then Apt will Get them for me instead of bitching like a bad news group. What I would like to see in Linux is OpenML (Open Media Library) and OpenSL (Open Sound Library) which like OpenGL would be cross platform and non proprietry unlike DirectX. Then there is a new GUI backbone to replace X and finally like in BeOS the capability for the OS to utilise a journalled file system so that any program I download, I can install to any bloody part of my hard drive I like or move it about ad infinitum and the thing still works. Try that with Windows or Mac?
Ahh the joys of computing, nothing perfect just somethings closer than others.
Piers
> You don’t have to know what
> you are doing to install software
> in Windows. All you have to
> be able to do is follow prompts
> and answer questions.
By the way, who says a pretty UI equals victory on the desktop? Apple already had a nice-looking UI, but it has yet to dent MS’s share of the desktop.
Remember the news just a short while ago? Just two years ago, whether linux could be a serious server OS was something you could “seriously” debate. People complained that the installation was difficult. When Caldera came up with the first (as I believe) graphical install, it made news on CNN! These days, a graphical install is nothing if not common.
Two years ago, you had this argument that linux was not ready for the enterprise because, you couldn’t get official technical support. Thesedays, you don’t hear that anymore.
Two years ago, you heared people, even MS, whine about the lack of a journaling file system for linux. Today, you have too many journaling systems to choose from.
So yes, linux may not currently be as pretty as XP on the desktop. But don’t grab those excuses too strongly. The good thing about linux is that people can take it and do or add whatever they want with it. Somebody might and probably would wake up one day and decide to, say, write a window-like installer for linux. I have used linux desktop for four years, and the progress on the desktop in this period has been simply amazing.
Wasn’t Corel the first graphical install?
It’s a war! Only one OS will be victorious! This makes me laugh every time I read it. I guess it makes a better headline than “Some People Like [insert OS here], Others Don’t”.
As to the unified Linux desktop, I say foo. I don’t use KDE or Gnome, nor do I want to be forced to do so. I’m more happy having a choice in the matter. I think it is very possible at this point to choose KDE and use only QT apps, which gives you a unified desktop. Or, you could choose Gnome and use only GTK apps. Also, I believe both KDE and Gnome give you the option to apply their themes to other apps, giving at least the appearance of unity.
I think from the perspective of a Windows/MacOS/BeOS user having a choice in desktops and window managers must seem chaotic and wrong. But from the perspective of a Linux user, perhaps not having a choice seems restrictive and wrong. Is one way “better” than the other? Isn’t it just a matter of personal preference?
As far as X being slow is concerned, that’s largely dependent on what desktop/wm you use. KDE or Gnome will be slower than say, Sawfish or Blackbox.
> When will they get it through their head? Linux on the
> desktop is a joke. It is never going to happen. The world
> does not need, nor does it want, Linux on the desktop.
Oh yes, how could I forget? Just because it doesn’t work for The Mighty Simba it won’t work for anyone. Simba doesn’t want it, so why should anyone else? All praise Simba, The Lion King!
People will choose what they like. They don’t need to be dictated to about what they should use by you, Microsoft or anybody else. Choice is good.
> Admininistration is too difficult. Sure this can be gotten
> around with control pannels and such that provide GUI
> interefaces to the text config files. But I still think
> the underlying concept of how UNIX control is handled make
> it too difficult. Also, there are too many things for the
> average user to mess up and then have no clue how to fix.
The same goes for any OS, including Windows (e.g. via the Registry) and MacOS X. If one sticks to graphical interfaces like GNOME or KDE, this problem can be mitigated.
> There are too many competing and incompatible standards in
> Linux. For example, how many hundreds of libraries are out
> there that do the same thing but have slightly different
> ways of doing it? This is a nightmare for the average
> user. It is too difficult to install software. There needs
> to be a standard set of libraries that programmers adhere
> too that it can be reasonably certain that the average
> user will have on their system.
Not even Windows does this. One reason why Windows applications are so bloated is that many contain duplicate features. Quite often you will get multiple versions of the same library scattered all over the filesystem. Just because Windows hides this it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. All it means is that programmes take too much RAM and hard drive space, crash more frequently, and force you to buy a more powerful system more often.
Besides, there are some strengths to having competing libraries and standards. GNU/Linux isn’t designed in a sterile environment like proprietary OSs, it evolves. Any study of genetics and evolution will teach you that diversity is good, and leads to healthy, robust growth. Take, for example, a field of cloned plants. They all have the same strengths, but also the same weaknesses. One disease or virus is enough to wipe out everything. The same goes for software. One virus can take out all the Windows systems, but other OSs will remain untouched. Because of this diversity, a worm like Ramen was only able to attack Red Hat systems. Red Hat was able to use the ‘immunity’ of other systems to develop a patch to fix the problem (which was released some months before Ramen was actually released).
> X-Windows sucks. Sorry, but it does (performance wise and
> other). There needs to be an integrated GUI.
X is not the problem. X has been proven to run quite nicely on PDAs and other low-performance devices.
If you use a fast toolkit and window manager and not try to do anything too fancy (i.e. only do stuff that Windows can do), X can be just as fast or faster than Windows. For example, using IceWM and GTK+ with simple Windows-like themes (i.e. no pixmaps or fancy theme engines) is faster and more responsive on my system than Windows ever was.
> Then we have Linux where you try to start an application
> you just installed and all you get is something like:
>
> “lib_i_do_what_5000_other_libs_do_but_in_a_different_way.so.4
> not found”
>
> And that is it. No clue how to obtain or install the
> missing lib. Or maybe the lib is already installed. Do you
> expect the average user to know that this error might be
> happening because they haven’t added a directory to
> ld.so.conf and run ldconfig?
This sort of error only really happens for binary packages if:
1. You are installing a binary that wasn’t made for your distro.
2. You are not installing using a package system like Mandrake’s urpmi or Debian’s apt-get.
How often is a Windows app updated, on average? Once a year? Once every six months? Usually not more often than that. A novice user doesn’t have to upgrade his/her application set every week. In that case, they have two main choices:
1. They can choose a distro that is updated relatively often. When a new version is released, all a user has to do is pop in a new CD (either bought or downloaded from the Internet and burned) and do an ‘upgrade’ install. For example, Mandrake is updated every six months, and sometimes more often than that with ‘MandrakeFreq’ releases. Krud (http://www.tummy.com/krud/) is updated monthly. Mandrake allows easy updates which don’t even require a reboot (‘LiveUpdate’).
2. They can use a package updating mechanism like apt (for DEB or RPM), rpm-get or urpmi to solve dependency problems when updating. For example, Mandrake’s Cooker can be accessed via urpmi to obtain the latest packages. Otherwise, urpmi can be used simply to access official (stable) RPMs.
> You don’t need to know what you are doing to successfuly
> install software in Windows. You do need to know to
> successfully install software in Linux.
True, but only to a degree. Windows is a convoluted mess because of this. GNU/linux is trying to avoid that. Back when I used Windows, I found that I had to format my hard drive and reinstall everything every six months in order to maintain a decent level (by Windows standards) of performance and to reclaim some hard drive space. I don’t have to do that with GNU/Linux.
> First of all, I would suggest that Windows 3.1 is easier
> to use than KDE. Not because of KDE itself, but because of
> the underlying complexity of Linux.
A good GUI doesn’t require too much interaction with the underlying system. For the most part, KDE does a good job here. Does it need improvement? Yes, definitely. Will it improve? Certainly. What you seem to be doing is looking at GNU/Linux GUIs today and saying that because of their current state they will never be viable desktop GUIs. You ignore how rapidly they have improved over the past few years. Do you really think that GNOME and KDE won’t improve over the next few years? The hardest parts have already been coded; all that’s truly needed is some extra consistency and polish.
> But this is an illogical argument anyway. It’s basically
> saying “While it was this hard to use at one time and
> people learned, so its alright to make computers harder to
> use again since people had to deal with this in the past
> anyway.”
>
> Why not go back to CPM? Or maybe even go back further than
> that to the days when you had to be a programmer to use a
> computer?
I’m sorry, but that is “an illogical argument” in itself. Again, there is plenty of room for improvement — it just takes some time. Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know.
I hope there will always be 2 majors OS to compete at least. Linux and Windows are in open war, great ! That make both developer/designers teams to work twice harder to kick the oponnent ass. And the winner is always the user.
Now, Windows rule on desktop.
Now, Linux rule on servers.
Now, Microsoft corporate attitude suck.
Now, a big part of the linux community (the loud teenagers script-kiddies) suck.
Let them fight and see what will happen in the futur ! Personnaly, right now, I prefere Windows because it’s the OS that fit the most my personnal needs. As soon as an OS let me do my tasks better, I’ll change in a second. I don’t beleive in “an OS is a religion”. Or maybe I’m wrong and just a whore … 🙂
>>So yes, linux may not currently be as pretty as XP on the desktop. But don’t grab those excuses too strongly. The good thing about linux is that people can take it and do or add whatever they want with it.<<
Well if KDE wouldn’t have screwed over some of the CVS on KDE 3 (Beta 2) then KDE would have something to really compete against XP and OS X with Mosfet’s Liquid effort. There needs to be some discipline with KDE and GNOME when it comes to consistency in regards of development.
Here is a great design that can only get better;
http://www.mosfet.org/liquid.html
It’s quite simple — they are merely Window Managers. One must win, totally obliterate the other, claim and maintain its dominance with the developer community, and oust X protocol, just for a simple list of tasks to work across every god-forsaken application for Unix/Linux:
1) Copy and paste. This is never consistent in any installation of Linux/BSD, as some programs use the old basic window data sharing protocols, others use KDE, and still other use GNome. Even though the libraries available are suppose to “smooth it out” for any circumstance, it rarely does. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. One example? Merely copying a link off the konqueror http addr line and attempting to paste it into Mozilla’s addr control line, or vice-a-versa, worked about 40% of the time for me. This means that for anything to ever work right, choices must be abolished (no X server + Xlibs + X wmgr libs), but one set of libraries that does it all, coupled to a tightly designed dispay control software package that implements it all) or programmers have to test their software systems with an infinite number of competitor and/or free software they have no interest in supporting. Yeah, sure, that is gonna happen really soon now, given the laws of capitalism and the “choice” that most boxes ship with Winblows, which can provide this sort of consistency.
2) Speed. Say what you will, X is a dog when running KDE or GNome. Except it can’t even bark in real time. You will hear numerous excuses about this — Linux kernel is not pre-emptible (which recently it became officially selectable to be pre-emptible). Funny thing is, BSD is, and it sucks on BSD too. The even more damning thing about KDE and GNome is that, removing either or both from the system and running even native KDE or GNome programs over a fvwm window manager, proves that its the KDE/GNome layers that are what is sucking down resources. And things that live w/fvwm, while not looking as flashy as either WM, usually run pretty well.
3) None of the Window managers can prevent a errant program from requiring the downing and restart of X. One misbehaving program can cause the entire window manager to freeze and become useless. This again plays to the complexity inherent in both “platforms” (or X-shims as I call them, because they are nothing like a “platform”). So you may say “just do x, y, then z to get it to unfreeze”. Let me repeat the question, “Why the hell does this happen again?”. Rinse, repeat. NT was loudly criticized for moving GUI drivers into the kernel at 4.0. I used to be one of the detractors. But the truth of the matter is, X windows can be just as deadly to your system stability as a kernel driver for windows graphcis — you are touching complex hardware. I believe that X does have some sort of conformance test, but I know of no such test for the KDE and GNome projects. If there are, they aren’t good enough yet, or no one is using them.
4) KDE nor GNome seriously address content management (not to be mistaken for content rights management). There are almost no defacto standards for file type extensions in UNIX. Not like Windows is the model of content management or anything, but at least 98.6% of the time, Windows Explorer will find the correct program to start to open a file with. This is a point that Open Source could leap frog Windows, but absolutely nothing has been done. Instead, KDE and Gnome seek to become more flashy and cool looking, thinking that people somehow will mistake this for “usable”.
5) KDE nor Gnome make no bones about being able to know anything about the system they are running on. They are completely unable to protect me from kernel rebuilds, modules.conf modifications, or cuddle me through a installation of a digital camera. In other words, again, they are strickly to make a nice desktop picture to put on the back of Linux boxes. Until “Mummy” or “Daddikens” can plug in a digital camera from walmart into a Linux or BSD box, and have it pop up a “New Hardware Wizard” icon box, and proceed to suck a prebuilt driver for their system off of the included CD, without “Mummy” or “Daddikens” considering even the slightest thought of what may be happening, then KDE and Gnome will remain stupid flash with no real purpose other than to make people think a lie, that Linux can be like or better than Windows or MacOS.
I am sure at this point that I have offended a great number of folks reading here, and that there will be flaming heaps of repulsive email to be escavated from my inbox in the next coupla days. Well, if that is the case, then I a apologize for being the one to have to throw cold water on the parade.
David
I pass alot of cars, but I don’t pass “corvettes”, if you want to email me.
1 Cut N’ Paste: KDE did a non-standard thing here. It’s fixed in KDE3. Linux Sucks.
2. Your example doesn’t prove X is slow as I hope you’re testing X and the GUI (if not it’s not a good test for 99% of users). This isn’t evidence to contradict yours, just that your conclusion is false. Again – I hear that X is slow, but there’s no evidence. The appropriate test would be the same GUI on the Framebuffer. Linux Rocks.
3. An errant program crashing X hasn’t happened to me for years now (not since the 4.0 upgrade). It does suck arse. I hate it. Linux Sucks.
4. The idea of defacto file extensions is silly when there are better ways of determining a file type. Specifically which file types does a GUI on Linux have trouble identifying? (I don’t know much about this). Linux Rocks.
5. On Mandrake’s latest beta 4 I can plug in a camera and get images off. I’m told the compatibility isn’t good but I guess I was lucky. It seems that work is underway here too. Linux Rocks.
The Linux desktop does need more software in order to be able to configure it. This is happening with each upgrade. I still need to occasionally go into the command line. I shouldn’t have to. There are some beta tools for Apache that I’d like that aren’t included in either Redhat or Mandrake, and when they’re more mature I’ll ask they be included in Mandrake.
1 Cut N’ Paste: KDE did a non-standard thing here. It’s fixed in KDE3. Linux Sucks.
2. Your example doesn’t prove X is slow as I hope you’re testing X and the GUI (if not it’s not a good test for 99% of users). This isn’t evidence to contradict yours, just that your conclusion is false. Again – I hear that X is slow, but there’s no evidence. The appropriate test would be the same GUI on the Framebuffer. Linux Rocks.
3. An errant program crashing X hasn’t happened to me for years now (not since the 4.0 upgrade). It does suck arse. I hate it. Linux Sucks.
4. The idea of defacto file extensions is silly when there are better ways of determining a file type. Specifically which file types does a GUI on Linux have trouble identifying? (I don’t know much about this). Linux Rocks.
5. On Mandrake’s latest beta 4 I can plug in a camera and get images off. I’m told the compatibility isn’t good but I guess I was lucky. It seems that work is underway here too. Linux Rocks.
The Linux desktop does need more software in order to be able to configure it. This is happening with each upgrade. I still need to occasionally go into the command line. I shouldn’t have to. There are some beta tools for Apache that I’d like that aren’t included in either Redhat or Mandrake, and when they’re more mature I’ll ask they be included in Mandrake.
You have made some good points.
> 4. The idea of defacto file extensions is silly when there
> are better ways of determining a file type. Specifically
> which file types does a GUI on Linux have trouble
> identifying? (I don’t know much about this). Linux Rocks.
Try typing ‘<tt>file FILENAME</tt>’ at a console. It should be able to identify the type of the file. Nautilus and Konqueror can do this as well.
> 5. On Mandrake’s latest beta 4 I can plug in a camera and
> get images off. I’m told the compatibility isn’t good but
> I guess I was lucky. It seems that work is underway here
> too. Linux Rocks.
Gphoto is quite good, and was developed without the help of manufacturers. Unlike Microsoft, GNU/Linux doesn’t have the worship and devotion of hardware manufacturers (yet), so its developers must reverse engineer most things themselves to get them working.
> The Linux desktop does need more software in order to be
> able to configure it. This is happening with each upgrade.
> I still need to occasionally go into the command line. I
> shouldn’t have to.
It’s a work in progress. It’ll get there, but only after some time.
Just look at Apple. As you know OS X is based on BSD. So it’s not the problem of UNIX that you can’t make a ‘distro’ which is userfriendly to use and configurate !!
It’s a problem that a lot of the Linux-hacker are not taking with each others instead there are a lot of groups which program different window-managers who are not fully compatible to each other. If they would stay together and not compete each other Linux could go there where Apple is. They would have a Linux where the ‘normal’ User doesn’t have to care about UNIX !!!
But probably it will never happen 🙁
Thoems
I think it those who say Linux will not make it as desktop OS and say the othe way for *BSD is a little bit prejudice. Why on most are saying “Desktop Linux” not “Gnome Desktop” or “KDE” as what “OS X” not “FreeBSD Desktop”.
It is not FreeBSD that make way on desktop but OSX with the new GUI. FreeBSD with X base GUI as suck as Linux with some X base GUI. FreeBSD is worse on desktop since the hardware support is not as rich as Linux. OS X jut great on Apple hardware.
Currently in my opinion the best Desktop OS is Window$ family but I don’t like it. Let wait and see the future. I’m hoping that what happens to Linux as server OS will happens again as desktop OS. Linux/GNU/OSS is improving as the M$ product improve in stability but without huge development cost as M$ have spend.
First of all, I have to say that saying it is difficult to install Linux apps isn’t really a valid argument anymore. When I was trying out Slackware, I’d just download a package and type in pkgtool and select that package and a few minutes later, it was installed. Of course, it took me over a month to find out about pkgtool, but that’s a different story
The only downside is that one application you need that isn’t available as a package for you distro. It doesn’t happen often, but it happens. And when it does and you try to compile it, you have about a 50/50 chance of it working.
Secondly, X windows blows. I have been trying for almost a month to get it working with my S3 Trio64 (a card Windows has detected without problems and without drivers since Win95 OSR1). The only thing I get (even after trying xf86cfg and the various other methods) is signal 11. Why does this have to be so damn complicated? What little documentation there is available is useless and they even took the X86 FAQ down because it was so old and nobody ever bothered to update it.
Finally, you can’t say that Linux is not ready for the desktop because as soon as you do, some pundet will come on here swinging his dick, bragging that he got Linux and KDE/Gnome running on his 8086 w/64k RAM and it runs faster than does Win95 ona P4-2ghz beast with 512MB RAM, and that it does everything he needs it to and it’s easier to use than Windows.
Fact is, everyone’s ‘desktop’ is different. Some will chosoe to use Linux and some won’t.
Windows pundets need to realize that Linux does indeed work for some people. Linux pundets need to realize that Linux is not the end all of operating systems and not EVERYONE will embrace it if they weren’t ‘forced’ to use Windows.
‘Nuf said.
<em>You might be right, but I have yet to see any open source operating systems at the level of maturity of linux.</em>
<p>
Beos is mature and quite capable of being a Desktop OS. BeOS is not open source, but http://www.openbeos.net OpenBeOS is. This project is only about 7 months old, but well on its way to becoming the open source desktop operating system that Linux would like to become. OpenBeOS will get there far sooner that Linux will, and yes indeed “Joe Bib-Gulp” will be able to install the OS, install apps, and adninister the system far easier that he could handle Windows.
…is often easier on a Linux box than on a Windows box.
People saying it’s not are probably talking about Linux 0.99 and distributions without package systems.
I’ve been learning some unix lately and I’m finally starting to get it. Many people like GNU/Linux for the same reason I loved my VW van.
With that van I could feel every rumble the motor made. You could tell instantly if something wasn’t right with it. There was one (count ’em, one) simple fan belt on the engine. It was air-cooled so no radiator to contend with. Stick shift so the only fluid the thing had was regular old oil.
My point is that GNU/Linux (or the other free unices) are like that van. One day I got tired of the sink behind the passenger seat so I pulled it out. If you get tired of KDE, you can just pull it out. I could do most repairs on that van myself with a minimum of tools. Unix configuration is just a bunch of text files/scripts.
For minimalists and control freaks like me, something like OSX won’t do. They’re missing the point with folks like me. I want the control. I don’t want the air conditioning, power locks, power steering, cruise control, and anti-lock brakes. A huge part of OSX is closed — it’s a sealed bearing, a black box with the instructions, “Don’t touch this. Please call your dealer for repairs.” If your attitude is, “I don’t want to admin my machine, I want to <em>use</em> it” then I say walk right this way, there’s a Apple OS that you might like.
To those that say opensource/free unices are too hard to use; well, many have said this before, but I’ll repeat it: computing is hard — anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
—j
“Well, you guys both seem to know my Mummy pretty well. A little too well, if you ask me… hmm…
”
Na. I don’t know your mummy at all. Your mummy could be the Augusta Ada Byron for all I know, in which case of course, complexity would not be an issue.
“Again Simba, you’re being too vague. X-windows is slow? Prove it. Even a link about XFree4 (out now on Linux for a few years) would suffice.”
I think this is fairly common knowledge. Frame rates and such under X-Windows tend to suck, even with accelerated drivers. There are simply too many layers here. It needs to be scrapped and we need to start over.
“Competing standards causing problems? Which ones exactly? Glibc is a defacto standard as is X windows.”
Sure Glibc and X windows are fairly standard. But then we have a bunch of competing toolkits such as GTK, QT, OpenMotif, Fox, etc. Then we have various other incompatible frameworks such as Bonobo in Gnome, and other frameworks that people can use instead if they happen to prefer them. This might be great for programmers, but it is not for end users who have to have 5,000 different libraries on their system that do the same thing because some programmer decided he didn’t like the way one library implemented something so he wrote a different one.
“ps. For the record, my mother couldn’t install programs in Windows either unless I talk her through it on the phone. She has installed Opera on Linux (statically compiled RPM) when I guided her.”
Statically linked are the key words here. Anyone can install a statically linked binary. But statically linked binaries are a waste of disk space and such. This is why libraries were invented and why dynamically linked binaries were invented. So that one doesn’t have to compile common libraries into every application that needs them.
“All praise Simba, The Lion King!”
Thank you bery much. :p
“People will choose what they like. They don’t need to be dictated to about what they should use by you, Microsoft or anybody else. Choice is good.”
Of course people will choose what they like. If you want to run Linux on your desktop, fine. But the people who think they are going to make Linux into a desktop platform for the massess are living a pipe dream. It simply isn’t going to happen.
“Not even Windows does this. One reason why Windows applications are so bloated is that many contain duplicate features. Quite often you will get multiple versions of the same library scattered all over the filesystem. Just because Windows hides this it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.”
That’s the point. It hides it so the end user doesn’ have to care about it. The average end user doesn’t care, doesn’t need to know, and doesn’t want to know because all it will do is confuse them. This is not to say that end users are stupid. It’s just to say that we live in a world of specialization. The average end user uses their computer to do work. They don’t use a computer for the sake of using a computer. They don’t want to have to care about how the computer works as long as it does work. Windows includes and installs the necessary libraries automatically. The end user doesn’t have to worry about it. This isn’t true with Linux. (Sure some of the commercial applications like StarOffice and its spinoff OpenOffice have the installation process nailed down to a Windows friendly level, but most Linux apps have a long way to go.)
“Any study of genetics and evolution will teach you that diversity is good, and leads to healthy, robust growth. Take, for example, a field of cloned plants. They all have the same strengths, but also the same weaknesses.”
I am a biology major concentrating on behavioral ecology. I assure you that you do not need to genetic diversity to me.
Your comparision is invalid. The point of biological diversity is that it gives natural selection something to work with. So yes, here biological diversity is good.
But there is no natural selection in computers. In computers, diversity is not necessarily a good thing because it results in incompatibilities and steeper learning requirements. To use a biological analogy, we are not talking about diversity within a species here. We are talkign about speciation. And when speciation occurs, the two new species usually can’t produce viable offspring because they can’t breed with each other. This is what is happening in our computer world. Speciation is occuring, and we are losing the ability to interoperate. In this case, that is not good.
“Does it need improvement? Yes, definitely. Will it improve? Certainly. What you seem to be doing is looking at GNU/Linux GUIs today and saying that because of their current state they will never be viable desktop GUIs.”
Even Red Hat has abandoned the idea that Linux will be a viable desktop platform.
I once read an article by an Dvorak in PC Magazine.
<http://http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%253D1493%2526a…
The article was on voice recognition technology. In it, the author argued that it would be better if the current technology didn’t work at all rather then the situation we have, which is that it “almost” works. He argued that the underlying core that the current technology is based on is fundamentally flawed, so that it will never work. But because it “almost” works, programmers keep trying to tweak and improve the existing technology instead of just accept the fact that it won’t work and they would be better off just starting over.
I think Linux is in the same boat. It almost works on the desktoop. But it is fundamentally flawed so that it never will actually work. But because it almost works, programmers would rather keep trying to tweak and improve a concept that is flawed at the core rather than simply start over with the goal in mind of making a desktop OS.
“To use a biological analogy, we are not talking about diversity within a species here. We are talkign about speciation. And when speciation occurs, the two new species usually can’t produce viable offspring because they can’t breed with each other.”
To clear up any confusion that might come from this, what I meant was that the two new species usually can’t interbreed and produce viable offspring. They can of course, breed with other members of their same species. I should have clarified that.
<blockquote>I think this is fairly common knowledge. Frame rates and such under X-Windows tend to suck, even with accelerated drivers. There are simply too many layers here. It needs to be scrapped and we need to start over.</blockquote>So, what, some bloke at the pub told you?
Redhat are a more server-oriented company. Continuing ‘Unix is for serious servers’ is good for their business. The desktop will come too, but it’s not the type of thing to hype for a company that does most of their business in servers.
The rest of your points I pretty much agree with. I guess it’s a more general belief about which development model is best. I’d prefer many things on many operating systems and let them FIGHT IT OUT IN THE WAR OF THE DESKTOPS
I’m also skeptical of Linux on the desktop in the general consumer market. But on corporate desktops supported by IT, there may be a better chance.
Windows has long suffered the requirement that IT people must be around to help with basic problems. This past week MSFT’s “easy enough for mom” windowsupdate.com website broke all our Win98 boxes that connect to Netware servers. It took IT experts to fix the problem.
My sister-in-law can’t view PDF files on her home PC, despite getting the latest Acrobat. I’ve been unable to remotely diagnose this. My mom can’t view a VideoCD on her nearly-new Windows box. My sister wasn’t able to remove a nasty Outlook virus, and needed an ex-boyfriend IT consultant to remove it.
I’m not saying Linux for home users is going to fix these problems; but considering you’ve got to have IT staff to support Windows, Linux on corporate desktops isn’t as unthinkable as it seems.
<blockquote>Sure Glibc and X windows are fairly standard. But then we have a bunch of competing toolkits such as GTK, QT, OpenMotif, Fox, etc. Then we have various other incompatible frameworks such as Bonobo in Gnome, and other frameworks that people can use instead if they happen to prefer them.</blockquote>I think it’s fair to say that harddrive space for multiple libraries isn’t something that users care about. Drives have been a few gig for years now and that’s quite enough currently. They would care about speed loss from multiple libraries clogging RAM (though I have 512, it’s similar on my machine with 128). They’d care about their interface looking different from app to app.<p>I haven’t noticed any performance problems in running Gnome and KDE apps side by side. Different standards absolutely screwed the clipboard between KDE and Gnome (is there a workaround for those that can’t wait for KDE3?). So far as the look of applications goes, RMS – that dirty GNU hippy – has proposed a unified theme system for both KDE and Gnome which I think is an excellent idea (though I’ve already said this, natch).
The Linux OS is written by and supported by the communists and thier allies. Be a true patriot! Support the capitalist movement! Long live Microsoft!!!
The main reason I believe Linux cannot become a great Desktop OS is because the deafening blow has already been dealt to it. (IMHO), Look at all the linux distro’s out there, does the average user know wtf is the difference between RedHat and Mandrake? They may see a few screenshots and see gnome or kde running, but how do they know the core differences?
I heard quite a few Linux distro’s that mentioned that are striving to make Linux desktop friendly. The only problem is they are all seperated into groups working against eachother when they should be working with each other tackling the harder issues, not just covering problems up with Layers and Layers of UI. To me that’s just creating more problems.
Mac OS X was a success because instead of treading through beaten down trails they made there own and solved many problems they would’ve had using XFree86 as the GUI. (I have a PIII 500 with a GeForce2 Video card and it runs Linux slow
IMHO that’s a big problem with Linux).
>>The Linux OS is written by and supported by the communists and thier allies. Be a true patriot! Support the capitalist movement! Long live Microsoft!!!<<
1.. 2.. 3.. all together and say “FLAMER BAIT!!!”
Simba, I think you’re way off on the X being slow bit. I could see it if you were using a vesa or an fbdev driver, but with any of the accelerated drivers, X is _fast_. I can honestly say I have never been working and thought to my self, “Damn, I sure wish X was faster!” Have you? If so what were you doing and what were the syptoms? And are you sure it was _X_ slowing you down? Heck, if I break down and go over to the dark side, I can even install the binary only nvidia drivers and play Unreal Tournament at Window’s level framerates. I mean that alone should demonstrate that the X protocol isn’t inherantly slow. Now, I probably shouldn’t make conclusions until I’ve heard your experiences, but I will say that X has always been plenty fast for me, even on a pentium-133.
“Yes I agree with that but this is NOT an excuse to ignore the fact that installing programs is a night mare.”
apt-get install <program>
or
dpkg -i <program>
Ouch! The nightmare is killing me!
“There it is again, “if I know what I am doing”. In Windows you don’t have to know what you are doing. It is a matter of clicking “Next” “Next” “Next” a few times and the program is installed!”
Well, if you had ever installed StarOffice on Linux you would know that it’s just as easy to install software on Linux if the software comes with an installer. So the problem is not with Linux, but rather with people who want to delpoy a program, but don’t want to go to the trouble of writing a pretty installer. Windows doesn’t do anything more for you in this area than Linux does. It’s just an installer program that someone wrote using Wise, InstallShield, etc. The operating system is irrelevant.
“No conflicts, no missing files”
You’re joking right? You obviously have never been victim to MS releasing an incompatible .dll file. Where do you think the term dll hell came from?
“— You see? Linux needs to be like this! Linux needs standard libraries!”
Linux has standard libraries! Besides, how is this going to help you with pretty install programs? The two are unreleated.
“WELL SAID SIMBA!!”
I disagree. I think what Simba has been saying is that because Linux isn’t a Dummies operating system, that it can’t be used as a desktop. This doesn’t make any sense.
It’s like when you read a review on computer books at Amazon.com. You’ll find a book that has 4 stars and when you read the negative 1 star comments, it’s usually something like, “…this book is definitely NOT for beginners!!! The whole thing was over my head! The author is a bastard!”
Did it ever once occur to these dolts that once they’ve learned VB in 21 days that they may want to learn MORE? I for one am glad that at least some publisher make books for people who want to continue their education and expand their skills.
To me Linux is like the books for people who already have mastered the basics. Windows is like the Dr. Seuss of the PC world.
The argument that Linux can’t be a desktop because neophites can’t figure out how to recompile their kernel is stupid. Most people don’t know how to optimize their Windows machine either (which is possible), but last I looked it is being used as a desktop.
I think there are lobbyist here just giving posting to flame Linux lover. Plese Linux lover, don’t get pissed off and just take their bait as a challenge to improve Linux until it can make way to the desktop and maybe can take over the world market share from M$.
NO MORE M$ MONOPOLIST, LONG LIVE LINUX AND OTHER OSS.
I have read a lot of comparisons of Linux vs. Windows and read a lot of Linux can’t be a desktop arguments here today. I just wanted to make a point.
Everyone who claims Linux can’t be a desktop have made very invalid comparisons. This is not just the case on this forum today. It happens all the time.
The reasons these comparisons are invalid is they compare installing Word to recompiling your kernel. They compare installing and using AOL’s Instant Messenger to configuring Apache to use Tomcat as a Servlet container. How about we compare apples to apples people?
My parents use Windows ME. What do they do with their computers? They type letters, they type and read email, they use the web, they play Windows games, they balance their budgets, they use Photoshop, they scan pictures, they print things, they do very basic things. This is what a desktop consists of is it not?
Now, let’s look at any of the popular Linux distributions that are out today. I, for example, am running a distribution (which is excellent by the way) called Libranet. By default, without me having to install anything more than just the Libranet GNU/Linux CDs, I have word processors, I have several email clients, including Evolution which is almost exactly like using MS Outlook only without the security problems, I have my favorite web browser, Opera, and access to about 5 others, I have 400MB of games of all different types, I can either use a spreadsheet or Gnucash to balance my budgets, I can use gimp to do anything I could do in Photoshop, I can use xsane to scan pictures, I can print, I can do any basic thing that I want to do. Is this not a desktop? Yes, it is.
Now, if the Linux bashers wish to go further and talk about recompiling their kernels, configuring Apache, etc. Then let’s be fair and make these comparisons. Let’s compare Linux at this level to using Windows 2000 Advanced Server and how easy it would be for your mom to do the following tasks.
Let’s have our mom set up an Exchange mail server and a Domain Controller. Let’s make her set up Active Directory and create VPN accounts and RAS connectivity. Let’s install Visual Studio .NET and have her write a .NET applications in C# and then deploy this application across a network of Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000 machines that don’t have the .NET framework installed.
Can your mom do it? Mine can’t. She wouldn’t even know what I was talking about.
I think I have made my point. Therefore, to all the comparison makers, if you are going to make comparisons, please make valid and accurate ones. I have been using Linux as a desktop for a number of years. Please don’t tell me that it is not possible to do so since I know otherwise.
“Of course people will choose what they like. If you want to run Linux on your desktop, fine. But the people who think they are going to make Linux into a desktop platform for the massess are living a pipe dream. It simply isn’t going to happen.”
That’s probably true, but not because of any technical merits or lack thereof. Microsoft has a lot of money and they have deals with hardware manufacturers. They have used this monopoly to kill several companies and products (Dr. DOS, BeOS, OS/2 and Netscape come readily to mind) and I’m sure they will use this monopoly to keep Linux off of as many desktops as possible. It doesn’t prove that Linux can’t be used as a desktop anymore than it proved BeOS sucked (which it didn’t).
I’m not a Linux basher I use Linux, I’m just tired of having to Recompile my kernel, and su root everytime I want to install a program and dash around looking for libraries.
Ximian Red Carpet is great, I think that it’s our closes chance to making Linux a desktop OS, but we still have a way to come.
Unix is a great OS it’s just that for so long it’s been developed, for developers and the computer l337, now people that aren’t great with computers are looking at it as a Desktop OS. And this is why we have so many mixed Opinions about Linux.
If I wanted to make a Linux distro that was as inflexible, easy and overly-stupified as Windows, I could do it. But, it seems like such a fscking waste to limit a decent, useful, configurable OS in such a backassward way. It’s simply just not worth my time, because I DO know how to use Linux on the desktop. The fact the vast majority of Windows users are to lazy, ignorant or uninterested to learn how to use Linux does not bother me one bit. Why would I want to push it on them? Why DO people push Linux on those that don’t want it?
Pushing Linux on people just makes it my responsibility to make it what they want or leave them alone when they say they don’t want it. I’m just going to sidestep that whole ball of wax and leave them alone. Then I have more time available to make Linux what I want it to be, which is NOT Windows (you fsckin retards!) That’s the point. If I could make Windows into the OS that I wanted to run, I would use it.
Ohh, and I really hate that I have a choice of about 20 different mail clients. And it really fsckin sucks that when I’m not at home I can telnet into my machine and work from the command line. And why the fuck doesn’t it automatically share my harddrives with all of the people on my IP subnet? Linux is so lame!!
Is your desktop ready for Linux? Probably not, complex systems are usually not intended for the mentally retarded.
“complex systems are usually not intended for the mentally retarded. ”
The F word is, you moron. Do I care to have a choice of 20 email clients ? Me too under Windows ! You can access your command line from telenet ? Me too under Windows (and trough GUI too if I want) !
Evolution is not intended for the mentally retarded. Clone304, stay away from WindowsXP.
> when I’m not at home I can telnet into my machine and
> work from the command line.
Ok, that’s it. Say what you want about Windows users but let’s keep this civil: Please use *some* kind of secure shell when logging into the home computer from work.
I have been a Windows user for years. I have been an admin of Windows servers. I know those systems very well and in depth. But, even with Mandrake 8.1, I have trouble with Linux. I have repeatedly tried to install software on Mandrake, and I regularly screw up the OS to the point that nothing runs. I just wish I could go back to the good old DOS days where I could install a program by copying it to a directory. Then drag a shortcut to the executable to the desktop, or start-type menu. I know that it would suck up gobs of drive space, but with 80GB drives available, I would be willing to do it. To uninstall, just delete the directory. There would be no more library incompatibility, and software installation would be simple. You could install the same app on any version of Linux, without having to compile anything. Perhaps my views are overly simplistic, and my naivety of Linux grossly apparent, but I just want somthing simple. I would like to spend more time on other things on my computer than pulling my hair out trying to fix a bad install. Linux has the potential to be very nice. BeOS was very easy and worked in the fashion I have described above for installations. Atheos seems like a nice OS, if Kurt would allow more to contribute (He doesn’t seem to have the time anymore).
On a side note, I tried to set up X and KDE on FreeBSD. I gave up. I don’t have the understanding to install it and get it working on my video card. Mandrake or Redhat were so much easier.
Good luck to all those who are trying to make Linux a viable and easy desktop. With the division of labor across all of the various projects and distributions, it may take a while before it gets simple enough to work and update it without spending too much time. I wish the devs would pool resources more efficiently.
Stuck in Windows land (for now),
Any Nonmouse
If your only problem with Linux is that RPM dependencies don’t work, resulting in missing libraries and such, you should try Debian. The package downloading tool apt-get automatically handles dependencies for you. Sure the install is a scary looking text-only system, but it’s not *that* bad.
“I can honestly say I have never been working and thought to my self, “Damn, I sure wish X was faster!” Have you? If so what were you doing and what were the syptoms? And are you sure it was _X_ slowing you down?”
MPEG video at 30 frames per second does a number on X-Windows even with the accelerated drivers. In X, it is extremely choppy. In Windows, it is extremely smooth. There is an example where the lousy video performance of X is glaringly obvious.
“For minimalists and control freaks like me, something like OSX won’t do.”
Have you every actually used OSX? OSX gives you a great deal of control. Hell, you can even get a real UNIX command prompt.
“Is your desktop ready for Linux? Probably not, complex systems are usually not intended for the mentally retarded.”
And this my friends, is a shining example of the average maturity level of the typical Linux zealot. Probably a high school student, probably using Linux cause he thinks it makes him “cooler than his friends that use Windows.”
I know medical doctors who are cardiac specialists and such that can’t run a computer. Are they mentally retarted? Of course not. And I would be willing to bet their IQ is around twice as high as yours.
I will tell you what is retarded. And that is insisting that everyone should have to learn to be a UNIX admin just to do their work. That is stupid. Let the cardiac specialist concentrate on treating someone’s heart disease, not on figuring out which version of of some library he needs on his Linux box to install his new software.
“Everyone who claims Linux can’t be a desktop have made very invalid comparisons. This is not just the case on this forum today. It happens all the time.”
I’m not saying Linux can’t be a desktop. There are plenty of people using it as a desktop. What I am saying is that it cannot be a desktop for the masses. And it is stupid to try to suggest that Linux is ready for the desktop of the average user. It isn’t.
“I can use gimp to do anything I could do in Photoshop.”
You apparently haven’t done much advanced image editing or graphics design. gimp is no where near as powerful as photoshop. Sure gimp can do everything that the vast majority of what “amateur” graphics design and image editing people need to do. But it can’t do everything that Photoshop can do. It can’t even come close.
“I can print.”
You can print what you need to print. Now find me Linux drivers that take advantage of all the features on my high-resolution photo printer. As far as I can tell (and I have looked), they don’t exist. And this is true for the vast majority of printers. There are very few Linux print drivers available. And Ghostscript doesn’t support advanced features for most of the printers that it supports.
“I disagree. I think what Simba has been saying is that because Linux isn’t a Dummies operating system, that it can’t be used as a desktop. This doesn’t make any sense.”
I’m not saying Linux can’t be used as a desktop. I’m saying it is not a desktop for the masses. Why should the average person move to something far more complicated than what they already have if what they already have can do a better job at doing what they need to do? That doesn’t make any sense. Why should someone make their life more complicated?
It goes back to what I have said many times already. The average person just wants to do their work more efficiently. They don’t need to know, don’t want to know, and don’t even care how their computer works as long as it makes their work easier. This doesn’t make people stupid as some here ahve suggested. It just means they have a life outside of computers. Computers are not their primary job and probably aren’t even a hobby for them. Computers are simply a tool that help them work faster and more efficiently.
You draw the most outrageous conclusions from such simple things.
> MPEG video at 30 frames per second does a number on
> X-Windows even with the accelerated drivers. In X, it is
> extremely choppy. In Windows, it is extremely smooth. There
> is an example where the lousy video performance of X is
> glaringly obvious.
I don’t see what makes you so sure that the cause of this problem is X. You seem like the kind of person who would blame the engine if a car seemed ‘a little slow’. The problem could lie with the transmission, the fuel or even a flat tyre. Yet people like you instantly come to the conclusion that the engine is bad, which in turn makes the whole car bad. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, yet you are looking at only one link, ignoring the rest, and blaming that one link for all problems in the chain.
Similarly, your problem with playing MPEG video could lie with just about anything. What software were you using to view the video? Were your libraries up-to-date and installed correctly? Please don’t tell me that you are blaming X because you can’t play video properly on a 386 with 4MB of RAM, Red Hat 4.0 and Xanim. Get a decent up-to-date system and use a good player like MPlayer or Xine. I have a Pentium II 350MHz system (i.e. certainly not a speed daemon), and I have many video files that work great with MPlayer and Xine, but not with Windows Media Player. Some of these files are WMV and ASF files (MS’s own formats), which can be played with MPlayer and Xine using Windows DLLs through emulation.
> Have you every actually used OSX? OSX gives you a great
> deal of control. Hell, you can even get a real UNIX
> command prompt.
OSX is a fine OS (I recommend it to all my Windows-using friends), bit it still doesn’t offer enough control to suit some of us.
> And this my friends, is a shining example of the average
> maturity level of the typical Linux zealot.
I think most “typical Linux zealot[s]” don’t act this way (fortunately), but there are just enough to give the rest of them a bad name. The same goes for the advocates of many other OSs (Mac users come to mind).
> You apparently haven’t done much advanced image editing or
> graphics design. gimp is no where near as powerful as
> photoshop. Sure gimp can do everything that the vast
> majority of what “amateur” graphics design and image
> editing people need to do. But it can’t do everything that
> Photoshop can do. It can’t even come close.
I know quite a few graphics professionals who have switched from Photoshop to The GIMP, and are much happier because of it. All The GIMP is really missing is some polish (documentation, wizards, etc.), filters and CYMK support. For many professionals who design only for the screen (e.g. web designers), this isn’t too much of a problem. Filters can be written as people need them, and Script-fu is more powerful than the Photoshop equivalent.
> There are very few Linux print drivers available.
There are many drivers available at http://www.linuxprinting.org/, and all are open source.
> It goes back to what I have said many times already. The
> average person just wants to do their work more
> efficiently. They don’t need to know, don’t want to know,
> and don’t even care how their computer works as long as it
> makes their work easier. This doesn’t make people stupid
> as some here ahve suggested. It just means they have a
> life outside of computers. Computers are not their primary
> job and probably aren’t even a hobby for them. Computers
> are simply a tool that help them work faster and more
> efficiently.
Firstly, GNU/Linux is not written to be exclusively a desktop OS (unlike Windows, which is why Windows is such a poor server OS). Dumbing it down in the manner you suggest will simply compromise its position in other areas. Does this mean, as you suggest, that it is doomed as a desktop OS? I would say that it isn’t. Who says it has to be dumbed down? You may want to take a look at <a href=”http://www.tuxreports.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=art….
I swear I read about eight massively incorrect “technical statements” from tech-heads in here… (Linux-using or not)
And that’s not counting the people who are 100% ignorant of human/computer interface concepts swearing by command line activities and text files and scripts. Normal people (of which there are a lot more of than techies) DO NOT LIKE THE COMMAND LINE!!
One more rant… Isn’t it called “The X Window System” for christ’s sake? I remember reading a book about Linux and X that made a big deal about the fact that people have ruined the name by calling it “x windows.”
“I know quite a few graphics professionals who have switched from Photoshop to The GIMP, and are much happier because of it. All The GIMP is really missing is some polish (documentation, wizards, etc.), filters and CYMK support. For many professionals who design only for the screen (e.g. web designers), this isn’t too much of a problem. Filters can be written as people need them, and Script-fu is more powerful than the Photoshop equivalent.”
Someone designing images for the web is hardly doing advanced graphics design. Designing images for the web is a no-brainer. After all, we are talking about monitors here that are lucky if they can do 96dpi with any degree of accuracy. I can use a standard clone brush to fix defects in images for the web and no one will ever know there was a defect there.
Now try printing that same image at 9600dpi. The defects that you so painstakingly airbrushed out will be glaringly obvious. There is nothing advanced about image design for the web.
BTW, the lack of CMYK support is a huge issue once you get into the world of commercial printing. RGB doesn’t mean a thing in this world.
And there are many other areas of gimp that need improvement besides the ones you mentioned. It’s selection tools leave quite a bit to be desired for example. Gimp’s lack of a magnetic lasso for example is quite limiting.
“I don’t see what makes you so sure that the cause of this problem is X. You seem like the kind of person who would blame the engine if a car seemed ‘a little slow’.”
And you seem like the kind of person who assumes too much. I tried multiple players (none of which could understand video cd by the way). I was using a 2.4 kernel that I custom compiled for my machine, and I was using the accelerated driver for XFree 4.1. System was a 733. And the hardware is not the issue since I played the vidoes under Linux and Windows on the same machine.
Why do I think X is to blame? Other than I eliminated most other factors? Simple. X is known to have poor performance. It’s a relic. There are two many layers and there is no direct video access.
Now why don’t you tell me what kind of video you were playing that you said performed fine under X? Was it 720×480 30 fps full motion video? Or was it simple animation at a lower resolution and probably also a lower frame rate?
“I think most “typical Linux zealot[s]” don’t act this way (fortunately), but there are just enough to give the rest of them a bad name.”
The typical Linux zealot does act this way. Note that I make a distinction between Linux zealots and Linux users. Zealots are extremests.
BTW…
“There are many drivers available at http://www.linuxprinting.org/, and all are open source.”
Like I said, they don’t support most of the advanced features of the printers. They don’t support the high resolution 2400dpi printing. They don’t support color matching. They don’t have support for different ink saturation levels based on paper type (plain, matt photo, glossy photo, etc.)
So no, decent print drivers for Linux for high resolution printers do not exist.
“You seem like the kind of person who would blame the engine if a car seemed ‘a little slow’. The problem could lie with the transmission, the fuel or even a flat tyre. Yet people like you instantly come to the conclusion that the engine is bad, which in turn makes the whole car bad.”
I’m a “joe” regarding cars. If I need to buy one, and try two models and see the first is a bit quirky, and the second is fine, I’ll choose the second without any hesitations. I don’t care what was the problem with the first one. I don’t want to loose a single second asking me if it’s really the engine, or maybe just a little glitch in the transmition. I DON’T CARE. I want a no-brainer car that let me driver without thinking about what’s under the hood.
And it’s why I think the masses of “joe” computer users will not change from Windows to Linux, just for the sake of it. Windows offer security (as in not complicated), user-friendly, higher chance to be compatible with the job work / neighbor friend, etc.
Some posting still comparing installing prepacked Window$ application to building Linux application which is not right.
Simba is quite true on some aspect but too Window$ extremest. For me I admit currently Window$ is the best desktop OS but we don’t know the future. Linux GUI maybe slow in some aspect but he should try copying large file in Window$ (or formating a diskette) and at the same time doing some other things. Try to compare the speed with Linux system.
He also should try to work on large project such as editing multiple source code file. For me I get a headache with a lot of windows sacttered around my desktop on Window$ desktop but I can manage it with multiple virtual desktop in Linux system.
He also must know that most of the printer driver for Linux are from third party not from the OEM. With this situation around Linux still can print so could he imagine if the OEM are not threaten by the so called monopolist.
“He also should try to work on large project such as editing multiple source code file. For me I get a headache with a lot of windows sacttered around my desktop on Window$ desktop but I can manage it with multiple virtual desktop in Linux system.”
Personally, I don’t like virtual desktops. And just minimizing windows to the taskbar works fine for me.
“Linux GUI maybe slow in some aspect but he should try copying large file in Window$ (or formating a diskette) and at the same time doing some other things. Try to compare the speed with Linux system.”
This hasn’t been true since Windows 3.1. Windows 95 and higher can format a floppy in the background and I won’t even notice it is doing it.
Also, Windows 2000 seems to be a lot better with zip disks than Windows 98. I can copy a 70Mb file off a zip disk to the HD in Windows 2000 in under a minute. (I bet Linux can’t beat that time for a 70Mb file off a zip disk).
“He also must know that most of the printer driver for Linux are from third party not from the OEM. With this situation around Linux still can print so could he imagine if the OEM are not threaten by the so called monopolist.”
I do know this. But I don’t care. I don’t care whether the drivers are from the OEM or from a third party. I only care about whether they can do what I need to do or not. If they can’t, then I can’t use them.
I don’t care much about OS monopolies either. And neither does the average consumer. I don’t care who supplies my OS as long as it does what I need it to do.
Simbe please read my word carefully. I didn’t say just copying the file but I said “try copying large file in Window$ (or formating a diskette) and at the same time doing some other things”. I am not questioning a single task matter but talking about more than 10 GUI application at the same time where your window$ taskbar will be full of minimised application. And of course I am talking about Win95 and above not the other primitive.
If we are talking about care or not, I think other Linux user also don’t care whether Window$ is superior than others or not or whatever you say or flame Linux. For me I just like it because od the same reason you care about your beloved OS, it does what I need it to do.
And one more thing, I don’t think you speaks for the average user but your goodself.
“I am not questioning a single task matter but talking about more than 10 GUI application at the same time where your window$ taskbar will be full of minimised application. And of course I am talking about Win95 and above not the other primitive.”
I can do this in Windows 2000 with no problem at all. And in fact, I think Windows 2000 handles it better than Linux. It is no secret that Linux’s process scheduler has some issues.
“If we are talking about care or not, I think other Linux user also don’t care whether Window$ is superior than others or not or whatever you say or flame Linux. For me I just like it because od the same reason you care about your beloved OS, it does what I need it to do.”
This really isn’t true for most Linux users. The average Linux users is running Linux on their desktop for one of two reasons:
1. Because they are a hobbyist that likes to tinker with internals. They don’t do real work on their systems.
2. They are running it out of principle because they don’t like Microsoft.
“And one more thing, I don’t think you speaks for the average user but your goodself.”
I think I speak for the average user. This is simple supply and demand economics. Alternatives are available but consumers aren’t using them. This means people are willing to pay for and use Microsoft software even if they are a monopoly. People simply don’t care as long as what they have works for them.
The bottom line is this: For the average consumer, Windows is the best option available.
>It is no secret that Linux’s process scheduler has some issues.
If we want to find issues, it is the same with Window$ but you just keep you eyes close and you ears shut. Please be noted that I’m not in any way trying to make you a Window$ convert as I am.
For you info, none of your 2 GOOD reason (assumptioms) meet mine.
There will be no supply and demand if there are element of forces behind. Could you please buy me a Fujitsu Mini notebook without preinstalled Window$ at the price minus the OS price? Is this means “willing to pay” for you?Luckily some computer OEM lately start giving an option not to have Window$ preinstalled but Linux instead. Does this means they start to accept Linux as the desktop OS?
As I previously mention, I’m not saying Linux is the BEST desktop currently but if you look at it progress and user growth, it will be the best alternative to window$ since OSX not supporting other hardware except Apple.
“There will be no supply and demand if there are element of forces behind. Could you please buy me a Fujitsu Mini notebook without preinstalled Window$ at the price minus the OS price? Is this means “willing to pay” for you?Luckily some computer OEM lately start giving an option not to have Window$ preinstalled but Linux instead. Does this means they start to accept Linux as the desktop OS?”
#1: You don’t pay very much for Windows preinstaleld anyway.
#2: Most computer vendors will charge you more for a Linux pre-install than for a Windows pre-install. Why? Simple because their support costs for Linux are higher, and because it generally requires a custom install.
Probably around 99% of computer users want Windows on their system when they buy it. This is called mass production. It would probably cost you more to get a system without anything installed because that would require custom handling.
And BTW, the average user IS willing to pay for Microsoft Office, even though they can get OpenOffice for free.
“Please be noted that I’m not in any way trying to make you a Window$ convert as I am.”
I’m not trying to convert anyone. I use Linux when it makes sense to do so. I use Linux on servers for example, or on backend systems that do number crunching. But Linux on the desktop simply doesn’t make sense at this point in time.
I come to praise Simba, not to bury him.
I have been following this conversation over the last few days, and have come to some
conclusions:
1. Simba is not a linux-hater. He wouldn’t be spending this much time posting to this forum
if he didn’t care about this topic. I think that he would be quite happy with an operating
system like Atheos or a unixen running Berlin for its graphics, provided that either had the
applications. (Maybe someday, like Openbeos.) Above all, I think that Simba subscribes to
a toolbox approach to technology, where the best tool is chosen for the job.
2. Operating system zealotry is a big waste of time. At this point in time, there is nothing in
computer science worth getting zealous about, at least until Bill Gates owns all of us
.
3. Name-calling and cursing in a public forum does not achieve the desired effect. This will
only make one look stupid and coarse, not to mention mean.
Please carry on…
>But Linux on the desktop simply doesn’t make sense at this point in time.
I agree with this but please don’t say anything about the future because we still don’t now. But of course the Linux hardcore will keep improving it to make it a good desktop OS.
And also please try not to speculate base on you ASSUMPTION such as the 99% value because there are also good desktop such as OSX that own certain percentage of market share.
Regarding the office software, OO is very new (not even ver 1) after major migration from old SO desktop style. Not many average users even know about this except people like us. Let wait and see what the future will be for OO or SO and stop speculating unless we got paid by M$.
“And also please try not to speculate base on you ASSUMPTION such as the 99% value because there are also good desktop such as OSX that own certain percentage of market share.”
This was based on your statement about OS preloads so my discussion was limited to PC hardware. OS X isn’t a factor.
“Regarding the office software, OO is very new (not even ver 1) after major migration from old SO desktop style.”
This migration made it more user friendly and more like Microsoft Office though. People absolutely despised the SO integrated desktop. OO should have far greater success than SO 5.2 did. But people still aren’t taking the bait. (Granted OO has some serious shortcomings too, that make it unable to compete with Office. For example, although it does have a spell checker, it does not have a dictionary.)
“One more rant… Isn’t it called “The X Window System” for christ’s sake?
No, it’s actually the “X Windowing System” and I don’t think they named it that to benifit deity.
Printing:
Actually, I have done tests on my printer both in Windows and in Linux. The result is the same both in quality and resolution. Also, I haven’t tried it yet, but turboprint is supposed to be quite good.
I’m not concerned with this, however, because I do everything electronically and only seem to use my printer to print test pages either from Linux or Windows.
GIMP:
Actually, I find GIMP much more useful (especially in its scripting capabilities) and much more responsive than Photoshop.
I don’t consider myself a graphic artists or anything, but using Photoshop in 2000 and GIMP in 2001 I was able to bring in about $40K by creating graphics for marketing pamphlets and educational software, so I’m no neophite.
Actually, can you write gimp scripts? I don’t presume to know your skill level, but don’t you think it’s possible that you only find gimp lacking because you are an amature at it?
Linux and the BSD family are better than Windows period. Why? It has nothing to do with ease of use, asthetic beauty, technical merit or anything else. It is simply because Linux and *BSD can do everything that Windows can do, but unlike Windows they also offers their users an indescribable technical orgasm that you just can’t get anywhere else.
Do you really know SO? All the shortcoming in OO addressed by SO. I think you are too M$O oriented and keep on posting base on your ASSUMPTIONS.
“Do you really know SO? All the shortcoming in OO addressed by SO. I think you are too M$O oriented and keep on posting base on your ASSUMPTIONS.”
Yes, I know SO quite well. And these are not based on assumptions. Here are the current problems with SO as opposed to OO.
1. As mentioned, most people despise the SO integrated desktop.
2. Sun discontinued the StarOffice 6 beta program several months ago. So right now, if people want it without the evil integrated desktop, they are stuck with OO.
3. Sun has announced that they will be charging for non Sparc versions of SO 6, so it will loose its appeal as a free alternative to Office.
4. SO is not totally open source. Some parts of it that Sun licensed from other companies cannot be open sources (and this is why OO has no dictionary).
I think you are the one basing your posts on assumptions. And you are also setting double standards. On one hand, you argue that open source software is great. But now you are resorting to closed source and commericial alternatives to Office because of the limitations in OO. And not only that, you are resorting to vaporware which is not even available to the public right now, and probably won’t be until at least May.
“Actually, I have done tests on my printer both in Windows and in Linux. The result is the same both in quality and resolution. Also, I haven’t tried it yet, but turboprint is supposed to be quite good.”
I’m also assuming you don’t have a photo printer that supports resolutions up to 2400dpi. Sure Linux can match the quality on most printers that do 600dpi printing and such. But if you have a printer that has a photographic mode with an extremely high resolution, I would be willing to bet that you can’t get a driver for Linux to support it.
Another gripe about printing in Linux: There is no HP JetDirect software available for Linux. This can make IP printing a major pain in Linux. You have to write nasty Perl scripts and such that can redirect STDOUT to a TCP/IP port.
“Actually, can you write gimp scripts? I don’t presume to know your skill level, but don’t you think it’s possible that you only find gimp lacking because you are an amature at it?”
I can’t write gimp scripts. But even if I could, it’s not going to fix some of the fundamental features that are lacking in gimp. For example, I can’t script CMYK support. Nor can I script a magnetic selection tool. The lack of these two features makes gimp somewhat limiting.