As I’m sure many have noticed, there’s been a flurry of articles recently regarding the Linux desktop and the direction it “needs” to go in. A few have been insightful and offered up valuable information regarding the future of desktop computing. Most, however, have been painfully ill-informed or even confrontational. After sitting back and watching the fighting break out in the trenches, I decided to pen something from the opposite side of the fence.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com. Some of the claims below don’t sound fair to our ears, but an opinion is an opinion and we respect that.
It’s the Design, Stupid!
Perhaps one of the greatest sources for the general confusion among critics and ire among the Linux community is that many of the critics are suffering from a case of what psychologists call “projection”. The projection hypothesis basically states that a given person will perceive in a project the goal that they themselves value the most. It’s a form of identification that is basically derived from the internal assumption that we are normal. If I am normal and I feel a project should progress in a given direction, any normal person should feel the same. Thus, a developer who is involved in the Linux movement typically believes that the unstated goal of the movement is to create an OS perfectly suited to his or her needs. It’s a subconscious fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless. Similarly, many who envision a Linux box in every home wrongly perceive that as the Linux community’s primary goal.
So what is the goal of Linux, exactly? Well, that’s the fun part… Linux itself is merely a general use kernel designed for high performance, scalability, and a certain degree of modularity. Alone, it’s not very useful. The Linux that most people refer to when they write their usability articles is actually known as GNU/Linux and is a whole suite of applications that surround and complement the kernel. These can be packaged and distributed in an almost infinite number of combinations with very different ends. The core of Linux is choice, and nothing illustrates that more than its design. By being almost completely modular, Linux offers users the unique choice of being able to pick the very best for their specific situation. These “pre-rolled” bundles of programs, settings, environments and kernels are called distributions. There are more distributions out there than I would care to enumerate. Suffice it to say that there’s one for you out there. If in the extremely rare case you find there’s not a distro to suit your needs, Linux affords you the flexibility to create your own operating system from the ground up, or merely alter a pre-existing OS. Neat, huh? Of course it is.
One thing that Linux is *NOT*, however, is centralized. Linux, the OS, doesn’t exist. Linux, in the general sense, is so broad and far-ranging that it cannot, will not and does not share a common goal between its specific distributions, with the one exception that it must be free (as in speech). Thus, it is completely reprehensible for any critic, reviewer or well-informed computer user to ever utter the words “Linux should…” The people that speak these words are suffering under the delusion that the entire Linux community is backing a single philosophy or goal (in this particular case, the march to take over the desktop) and that they have a way to improve it. This is most definitely not the case. There are more Linux boxes out there without monitors than there are with GUIs, so we’re going to check that misconception at the door right now.
Now, with that done with, let’s move on to the meat of the meal: why Windows is unfit for the desktop and how desktop flavors of Linux beat the pants off of Windows any day…
Hardware Compatibility
That’s right, I said it. The first words out of any Linux critic’s mouth are usually these two. The Linux community typically reacts violently to the frequent charge that “there’s no hardware support” in Linux. This is due mainly to frustration. The fact is, hardware manufacturers aren’t going to go through all the trouble of allocating resources to port their drivers to each OS on the internet. At least, not unless it’s worth their while (read: $$). This leaves Linux floundering in a chicken-and-egg quagmire. See, hardware manufacturers will only write drivers for Linux if it’s popular and will benefit the manufacturer, but the only way for Linux to reach this critical mass is to have the drivers that users insist on. It’s a vicious cycle, but the Linux community has a little trick up its collective sleeve: will. By sheer dint of effort, developers and hackers have created an awe-inspiring heap of open source drivers that, while occasionally not as featureful as their proprietary counterparts, still deliver where functionality is concerned. The only real areas where driver support is still lagging is in the rare goods arena. It’s simple logic; if there aren’t many people using a product, it’s a lot harder to find people willing to write the code to make it work. But then again, your average desktop user tends to use relatively standard, off the shelf components. The people who have the most trouble with drivers are, for the most part, not your typical desktop user.
A lack of drivers, however small it may be, is no strength, though. It’s a weakness that will persist as long as hardware makers are led to believe it’s more profitable to just write for the top two proprietary operating systems. So how could hardware compatibility possibly be a *strength* of Linux? Well, pop your Windows XP installation disk into your best friend’s Apple G5 and tell me what happens.
… nothing…
No new Windows installation. Heck, without an emulator, there’s just no Redmond OS on Cupertino hardware. And why is that? Hardware incompatibility, my friends. Windows is compatible with only one type of processor. In fact, because the closest thing to a desktop-ready OS that has come out of Redmond is Windows XP, the only type of processor that will support Windows is an i686. Furthermore, you need a hefty load of RAM to run the beast, but that’s another article in and of itself (be on the watch for a Longhorn rant… coming to a news site near you). Linux, however, is able to run on a dizzying array of platforms. In one incarnation or another, chances are there’s a penguin for your processor. Got a Tivo? That runs Linux. Wanna harness the awesome number-crunching power of your PS2 or XBox? I see Tux in your future. And if you’ve got a bunch of old, dusty, slow grinding 4/586s, I’ve got good news for you: Linux can breathe new life into those old boxes. They’ll be snappier than ever with a smaller base install and a relatively tiny memory footprint. Now that’s what I call hardware compatibility. After all, what’s the point of paying $1,500 on a good computer if it can’t even boot the OS in three years? Linux gives desktop users the unique option of actually being productive for longer by extending the functionality and life of their machine. And by being nearly universally compatible, it allows those in the market for a new system to resurrect old hardware or buy less expensive systems and still guarantee performace and stability. After all, a PS2 would make a great desktop computer: sleek, functional, fast and internet-ready… all for under $200. A PC with a similar feature set would cost much more (and lack the necessary element of style!). Try doing any of that with Windows.
Best of Breed Apps
The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS. This is desktop computing we’re talking about, not genomics. If Joe User is running some special app, chances are high that it’s already been ported to Linux (and probably a good number of other OSes, too). When it comes to common, uncommon, or even outright bizarre tasks, Linux has the bases covered. There’s so much free desktop software for the Linux platform it’s almost an insult to even pretend you’ve got some magical app that has only been designed for Windows and has no Linux counterpart. Why is it so unbelieveable? Because the current generation of Linux developers and contributors are users just like everybody else. They have needs. They have wants. They have time. And if they needed or wanted that program or that functionality, they’re the type of people who would build it. If a couple of people have a can’t-live-without application that hasn’t been ported or written afresh, it’s typically because those people belong to a niche group lovingly referred to as “the fringe”, or they simply haven’t done their homework. Basically, nobody has needed that app or all the Linux users have found a way to get by (or prosper) without it. Typically, this argument is made by those without the capacity for research.
However, the truly beautiful thing about free software is that one has full license to create an application to fulfill a need. If, by some freakish cosmic oversight, an application addressing your needs doesn’t exist, you may create or propose an idea and start a project. And if you aren’t a proficient coder, it’s ok! Developers are always on the lookout for a good idea and any kind of help, from design to documentation or artwork, is greatly appreciated.
That said, productivity and desktop applications in Linux are mature, standards-compliant and feature-rich. In contrast, Microsoft has been releasing the same Office suite since 1997, with the only visible changes residing in the formatting of documents and the creation of an increasingly crowded workspace. Native documents are often incompatible or inconsistent accross the major iterations of Office. You still can’t export to PDF format from the Office suite. Standards compliance and interoperability aren’t even on the radar. Heck, Outlook just got a “real” mail filter in late 2002. Compare that to Linux mail applications, such as Evolution, that can operate quietly and comfortably in any climate, even a hostile Windows-only office environment. OpenOffice can import and export into every format imaginable (and a few most people didn’t even know existed). Even the most basic office tools on the Linux desktop provide powerful functionality and are simple enough for grandma to use. Most of them (Gnome Office, Koffice, OpenOffice, etc) possess the capability to operate in a tightly integrated manner with no extra fuss. And many of them possess features that can be downright revolutionary at times (ex: Abiword automatically scales your document to fit its window by default. For those with lots of screen real estate, poor vision, or a comfortable bed or chair further from the computer, this is invaluable).
Ease of Configurability
What if you want to fiddle with the settings of your operating system in regards to that hardware we just talked about above? Here’s the catch: you don’t want to touch the command line. As far as you’re concerned, a desktop user should never even know that such a thing exists. I agree, and so do many of the latest Linux critics. But most are convinced you can’t do it. Many even contend or imply that configuration is easier in Windows. I can’t believe this. It hurts my head when I hear this argument made. The graphical tools are right there in front of you! KDE has so many configuration utilities, I’m convinced they’re violating child-labor laws just to code the stuff. Gnome has a painfully simple to use set of System Tools that is not only intuitive, but it packs a punch as well. This stuff is virtually grandma-proof. The tools are full-featured, flexible and incredibly powerful. And with new innovations in hardware abstraction, compatibility and configurability will get even easier! Yay!
With Windows, I must concede, the user is presented with what seems to be a rather complete set of utilities in the Control Panel. But, as any experienced Windows user or admin will attest, Windows’ configuration utilities suffer from a chronic case of wizarditis. The process is GUIfied to such an extent that only typical, average cases are accounted for. The wizards will simply not allow for “strange” or unconventional configurations. And they certainly won’t let the frustrated user enter in their own settings. One must ride the wizard merry-go-round armed with grit, information and determination, or drop down to do some low-level hacking. But wait! That’s not allowed.
I can already hear the grumbling, so to those naysayers out there, I have a challenge for you: have a computer illiterate (your stereotypical “my grandma” case) perform *any* configuration task in one of the Big Three Linux distros (SuSe, Fedora and Mandrake). If grandma absolutely cannot perform the task with the graphical tools these distros provide, I’ll pay her $10. Now, have her try to perform the same configuration task in Windows. Choose something easy and then something involved and complex. Run through a whole bunch of scenarios. Try to set each computer up on a network. 9 out of 10 times, I guarantee it will take at least twice as long to accomplish the same configuration goal in Windows as in Linux, if it’s even possible at all. The truly ironic thing about Windows configuration is that, to do it right the first time, you do have to be an expert. Or at least you have to know what each generalized, cryptic setting truly means. The prompts in most Linux configuration utilities are actually clearer and easier to follow, in my experience, than those in Windows. They accomplish this by not dumbing down the interface too unnecessarily. If a user has begun playing with Samba shares or DHCP settings, it’s safe to assume they know enough to get by without having to “idiotify” the descriptive names of settings and elements. Simple explanations tend to suffice. Windows developers could learn a few lessons here.
Ease of Installation
This is another sore spot for Linux critics. Linux, they argue, simply does not have a single, integrated, simple-to-use package management tool. And they’re absolutely right. Of course, look though I might, I can’t seem to find anything even remotely resembling such a tool for Windows, either. In fact, the OS barely ships with anything worth using (“I paid $300 for this? Where are the programs?”). No productivity software, a couple of games and a swiss-cheese, featureless, non-compliant web browser. And certainly no package management. I’m not sure where the theory originated that this is necessary for a successful desktop OS (or that Add/Remove Programs and Windows Update are in any way related to this), but if it were true, most distributions of Linux would already qualify as very, very successful. There are at least half a dozen fully mature tools for package management already in existence (apt, yum, emerge, pacman and red carpet come to mind), but I can’t seem to find too many of these kinds of tools for Windows.
Many will say that this is because most programs compiled and distributed for the Windows platform have significantly fewer dependencies (well, they’re actually distributed with the OS, contributing to the collossal bloat), so dependency resolution is largely unnecessary. Although this may be true to some degree, Windows distributed binaries are no easier to find than their Linux counterparts. There is no one-stop-shop in Windows. There is no organized distribution method by which a user could browse or search for a program by task and install it with the click of a button. Such entities exist in Linux.
As a result of an almost complete lack of standardization or cooperation, Windows installation files are typically scattered throughout the filesystem. And because there’s no guidelines dictating Start Menu entries, a user’s Start Menu can begin to resemble a waterfall of words and tiny icons. Many apps in Windows don’t register with the Add/Remove utility during installation, necessitating an uninstall from the included uninstallation program (which involves more hunting). With the above package management systems, this is all taken care of transparently. They’re certainly not perfect yet, but considering the complex role they play, it’s clear they’re a far superior tool to anything Microsoft offers.
Toolkits and UI
Interface inconsistency is another accusation frequently leveled at the Linux community. After all, the argument goes, how can one be productive with all those different toolkits on the desktop.
I contend that Windows is no better. In fact, it’s significantly worse. There is almost no consistency *at all* on a fully loaded Windows desktop. Case in point: fire up your favorite Windows burning app, word processor, pdf viewer, video app, audio app, chat client and web browser. Now, unless you’re using Media Player for both the video and audio functions, you should see 7 (count ’em) different toolkits staring you in the face. Heck, even if you limited yourself to strictly Microsoft offerings, you would still have to reconcile a different toolkit for each release of Office and other products. And don’t forget that your administrative panel still looks like it did almost 10 years ago.
With Linux, though, you can achieve consistency through the miracle of choice. Want a GTK-free desktop? Chat with Kopete, PIM with Kmail, be productive with Koffice… it’s all there. Your Qt hating friends can IM you via Gaim or email you with Evolution or Balsa. Browse the web with Konqueror. They’ll use Galeon or Epiphany. There are too many more for me to continue, but if you want to get a real grasp on just how vast and varied the offerings are, check out KDE-Apps.org and Gnomefiles.org. And of course, the beauty of open source is such that, if you like the guts of a program, but hate the interface, you’re allowed (even encouraged) to port it. And it’s so much easier than starting afresh!
Ease of Use
The last resort of the exasperated critic and the first card played by the computer newbie is this: Linux is just plain hard to use. It’s a tricky argument, because it’s too powerful and inflammatory to leave alone, but too vague and subjective to pinpoint. But what it typically boils down to is not that Linux desktops are hard to use, but that they are merely different. Change is hard on people, and it colors their opinions. Much of computing, especially desktop computing, is about expectations. And if things aren’t where users expect them to be, many people aren’t willing to expend the extra effort. Various usability studies (ref: Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug) have confirmed that most people don’t perform computing tasks in the most logical way, but simply in the way that first worked for them. If, for example, a Windows user had first gotten a program to run by opening My Computer and hunting around the filesystem for the program, the whole concept of the Start menu is completely lost on them. And getting them to change their habit, despite the clear advantage to the transition, will typically be met with considerable resistence. Now, if they’re going to be that entrenched about firing up a simple program, imagine how offputting a whole new desktop layout can be. For newbies and experts alike relearning can be too daunting.
That said, the Windows desktop is a mangled trainwreck where usability is concerned. Simple settings are often duplicated in different configuration windows. Many specific settings are just plain hard to find, as the design team wisely “dumbed down” the control panel into a handful of generic categories, each capable of housing a number of disparate settings. Internationalization is mediocre at best and downright nonexistent in many cases. The newest versions of Office, as has been mentioned before, assault the user with so many menus, toolbars and options there’s hardly enough space to work. Open up Outlook 2003 and see what I mean. It hurts the eyes. Buttons and prompts are placed and worded with no particular order or logic throughout the operating system, as if calculated to confuse the average user. And when a user finally breaks down and asks for help, the help files are useless, offering one or two vague options before referring the user to another help category or even more cryptic web support.
Many in the Linux community, on the other hand, have adopted a page from Apple’s book and are making usability a top priority. Both the KDE and Gnome projects have standardized much about the way their desktop environments operate, providing a consistent look and feel across the board. Gnome has gone a step further, however, and has pioneered the adoption of a common interface. The rules governing this advance, dubbed the HIG (Human Interface Guidelines), specify everything from icon themes and keyboard shortcuts to button placement and menu layout. All of these improvements have contributed to Gnome’s rising appeal to the corporate IT world as a replacement for corporate desktops. It’s rapidly becoming an out-of-the-box solution for ease of use and productivity.
The Verdict
As has become increasingly clear over the course of the past two years, Linux is not only ready for the desktop, it’s a better contender than Windows ever was. It’s sleeker and faster, often easier to install and setup, and it’s simple to operate. But perhaps the most impressive bit in all of this is the price tag: free. The TCO of Linux is a big smile. I know, that’s not what some consulting firms say. They claim Linux will eat up corporate budgets with user training, but I’m not impressed. Training is a one time deal, a single expenditure that proves its worth over time. How can that cost even compare to exorbitant licensing fees levied twice yearly to the major corporations or the pocketbook hit for every upgrade a user commits to?
There’s something romantic to the idea of an underdog. But when that underdog is clearly better fit for competition and *free*… well, I would have to say the race has already been won. Look out desktops everywhere, here comes Linux!
About the Author:
Brian Davis is been using Linux for five years now, and he still prefers the GUI. He doesn’t particularly dislike Microsoft’s products, but he does heavily prefer Linux’s features, stability and price tag. This is his first article.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
i think it is fine, though has its flaws….but if it wasnt ready people would have found an alternative that would have put microsoft out opf business by now
He’s so right!
But I’m not about to leave the ability to plug any printer I buy off the shelf into my Windows XP box and have it work without having to do anything else.
But comments like “Furthermore, you need a hefty load of RAM to run the beast” are not warranted.
Modern day Linux + KDE uses as much RAM as windows to run. He calls XP Redmonds first usable OS? Where does that leave Linux?
Windows 2000 was smooth and 98se was very light. 98se used much less RAM to load than XP or “Linux” (notice quotes).
***
Lets compare RAM usage of only the kernel, ease of install of Mandrake, software install of Gentoo, the security of FreeBSD, the support of Red Hat, the friendliness of Linspire, the price of Debian, and hardware support of all of them combined to one version of Windows and conclude that Linux _MUST_ be better.
Microsoft is hardly a perfect company and Windows is hardly a perfect OS, so why does coming up with valid arguments against it seems like such a difficult task for zealots?
Oh? So the fact that most applications are built for Windows and Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop has nothing to do with it?
I have been a Linux user since mid-1990’s and completely swithced to Linux on desktop in 2000. I wouldn’t touch any MicroS$$t product with a three meter pole.
However, I don’t really agree with this article. An average “desktop” user wants a system (s)he can use with no understanding of the computer internals.
Let me make an analogy:
For someone who can read, it’s perfectly sufficient that in a buttons is a text telling what each of them does. But for someone who can’t, it’s essential that the button (s)he must press, is of same color (s)he is used to.
This is also true for average windows desktop user. They are not really computer-literate people. They are used to pressing some buttons to get email sent/document written/pictures loaded from their digital cameras. They don’t and they don’t want to know what else can be done with a computer.
Their choise is MS, not because it’s good, because they couldn’t tell, but because they fear that if they buy another type of system, they can’t use it. They don’t care if a “hacker” or a computer expert comes and explains to them that MS system is bad. This is the first system they “learned to use” i.e. learned how to push the buttons. And they will stick with this system. The only way to penetrate this space is “to be like windows, but for less money”, i.e. the LindowsOS/Linspire approach. To be better than windows by offering more options just makes the system frightening for these users.
For someone taking the time to write a “Why this is not that great…” article on Windows after the barage of lame “Linux is not ready for the desktop (AKA it’s not like Windows)”. At least this begins to make this site look “Fair and Balanced” (forgive the election-speak 🙂
This website is all about seeking/observing alternatives to Windows, so it’s good that we look at it (Windows) from the standpoint of why we don’t like it. Instead of “oh that other thing (eg. Linux) doesn’t do this or that”…
Well then… As a solo recording artist, I make extensive use of many pieces of software – amp sims, softsynths, drum machines, etc, along side a multitrack recorder.
While I have found multitrack recorders that I like under Linux, I won’t be able to fully switch until Linux gets the Reason softsynth system. All the generic crap just doesn’t compare to the great sound, functionality, and power of the Reason system IMHO. Sure, I could get Buzz running under wine – but Buzz is overrated in my very strong opinion.
Also, I love Photoshop – I could get it running under Wine, although I haven’t bothered to yet. Gimp? No thanks, it’s still far behind.
I’m a huge Linux/BSD advocate, but Windows still has it’s place on my machines.
Disclaimer: I have read the whole article. I am an every-day Linux-based desktop user. And I still do not agree with this article.
The problem with Windows is that there’s no need to judge whether it is ready for desktop or not. It is already there. Even being a less than perfect solution, it is widely used and deployed, and sometimes it is better to have a bad solution working than to have a perfect solution being a niche product.
I don’t agree at all with the hardware compatibility section: I am sure that many (most?) computer users worldwide are really not concerned that Windows won’t run on anything but PC. They are never going to use something other than a PC anyway! What concers them most is the drivers affair: the unsupported-and-unique device they are going to buy some day will probably ship with Windows drivers only and may be not supported by anything but Windows. Sad but true. Also, users may be less than happy with Linux-based desktop performance on low-end machines: I have replaced my K6-2 500 MHz machine because while it was really fast and usable with Windows NT 4.0, it was not even nearly as snappy with Slackware Linux (with, in fact, less OS features).
I do not agree with GUI/widgets part too: it’s clear that you may find examples of non-Windows-widgets-compatible Win32 applications as well as a unified Linux-desktop (mine GTK2-only desktop, for example). But keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands Win32 apps out there and only some of them ‘behave badly’ — other keep the system default look perfectly.
The last thing I’ll mention is the system’s modularity: it’s great, but there should be more features included in the base Linux standard system and not left for implementation in some distributions. I, as a Slackware Linux user, want to have some bells-and-whistles that other distributions contain and I don’t want to choose another distribution. With Windows or FreeBSD, for instance, there is no such problem: there is only one distribution of each product and to get some features I just have to choose the right version.
Summing up: I find this article written rather just for the sake of being opposite. While it contains some right points, it’s rather concentrated on finding well-known flaws of Windows once again, and it doesn’t help GNU/Linux desktops (in contrary to these all articles which criticize Linux and in fact help it that way to be better in future).
1. From Page 1: “The people who have the most trouble with drivers are, for the most part, not your typical desktop user.”
This is just plain wrong. Anyone needs to bring in new hardware and use it at some point. It could be a new wireless mouse to a new scanner to anything. What is a typical desktop user? Someone who actually uses their computer?
2. “Well, pop your Windows XP installation disk into your best friend’s Apple G5 and tell me what happens”
So? Pop in Apple’s CDs into a PC and guess what happens. XP supports the PC architecture and associated hardware very nicely thank you very much. Apple supports the PowerPC architecture and associated hardware nicely too. Linux supports a lot of architectures, but not that nicely sometimes. If Linux really does compare to either XP or OSX in its level of support, then you can make your statement.
3. ” If, by some freakish cosmic oversight, an application addressing your needs doesn’t exist, you may create or propose an idea and start a project.”
So your “not your typical desktop user” will not have problems with hardware drivers but can program? Right. If you choose a stereotype to bash, at least stick to it please!
4. “) perform *any* configuration task in one of the Big Three Linux distros”
I agree with you on this one, but have you seen KDE’s configuration interface? Good luck finding what you want in that mess! GNOME has a much simpler interface, and we could all learn something from that.
5. ” I guarantee it will take at least twice as long to accomplish the same configuration goal in Windows as in Linux, if it’s even possible at all”
Ah the classic anti-Linux argument. Now for the classic counter-argument. You gurantee means nothing to us. Give us numbers and real data please. Thanks.
6. “I can’t seem to find anything even remotely resembling such a tool for Windows”
Let me introduce you to the Microsoft Installer (MSI). It is really good. There are others too that are awesome, like InstallShield.
7. “Many apps in Windows don’t register with the Add/Remove utility during installation”
Now that’s not Windows’ fault is it? A badly written app can mess up any OS.
8. Don’t even get me started on the usability issues.
I have used just about every operating system around over the last 20 years, some of them quite impressive, but I keep coming back to one single issue that has not been addressed by any of them.
Until someone designs and OS (and particularly apps to go with it) that are an order of magnitude better than what I use on a daily basis, why would I bother to switch. This is the single biggest reason why OS/2 and Mac etc have failed to overcome the windows world (not MS and the marketing dominance, although that makes it more difficult).
I am simply not going to invest a bucket load of time learning, installing etc etc a new system unless it gives me more than 100% improvement over what I use today. (Zealouts need not argue this point, as your judgement is clouded, and history supports my view)
I agree that Linux has most of its bases covered in terms of application software and obscure tasks. But not all of them. There is still room for growth in the DTP area.
I am continuously looking for an alternative to FrameMaker and InDesign and never found one. Yes, there is OpenOffice which is excellent (and I use that one), but it is not ready for prime time when it comes to professional layout that is easily achieved and ultimately will be shipped to a printer.
I will gladly accept suggestions here, if I fail to see a package though …
There is no questions about about it : Windows IS the Desktop (kind of). It’s a fact. Not a perfect Desktop, but the most used, by far (>95% ?). The real question is why does “Linux” has a such low usage ? That could be hardware support (*@#é& webcam/modern usb scanner/exotic usb printer), software (hey.. it’s not like Word.. silly but users rules) …
technical aspects aside, windows *is* on the desktop while linux at best is on the *corperate* desktop. when people try to analyse why, then i don’t realy see any reason to be so pissed off about it.
The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS.
BS or not, I have one such application for you: EndNote. Absolutely essential for scientsts and other people who write texts with lots of references, and do not want to use LaTeX. No, there is not ANYTHING equivalent for Linux (bibliographic.openoffice.org has been in a planning stage for more than two years without a single line of code written yet, and BibTeX is just too clunky and primitive to deserve comparison). That is why people doing science who need Linux are not moving from Windows to Linux, but to OS X.
And no, EndNote does not work under CrossOver Office.
Did you give scribus a try?
http://www.scribus.net/
And to most of the other posters out there, do you really think ignoring the article but calling the author names does prove your point?
And you pathetic bunch are calling others zealots, ROFL
Although I much prefer Linux to Windows, I really don’t think the author presented his case very well.
When talking about hardware support he should of brought up that linux comes with 95% of the drivers out of the box, and you don’t need to pay for an internet connection or have driver cds. Or how about software RAID? Windows can’t even do that as far as I could find. Or how about generalized APIs for devices, such as video capture…rather than having to rely on the manufacturer for an interface to your tv card, you can access it in a common way from Linux apps…same with cd burners in Linux, you don’t need a driver for every type of cdburner, you just fireup your cd burner software and go without even thinking about a driver in most cases, whereas a lot of new cdburners in windows require specific drivers.
I don’t think he really took the correct direction for the apps argument either. True a lot of windows apps have been ported and a lot of them can be run via alternate means, but how about most distros good selection of default apps. Windows out of the box leaves you with a bare ie, which is unarguably not in Mozilla/Firefox’s league, Outlook for email which stands a good chance of getting you and all your buddys the next new virus, No full office client, MSN Messenger which is not nearly as commonly used as AOL instant messenger, and a slew of other not best of market apps. You either have to find and download or find and pay for the rest. In a modern Linux distrobution you’re getting arguably the best browser out there, evolution which has everything outlook is going to get you sans the latest virus, a full version of open office, and GAIM instant messanger with support for nearly every protocol anyone could want.
I don’t think any Linux distro is a flawless desktop solution for most users currently, but I think the Linux desktop naysayers should also take a new user look at their own operating systems. Having used both of them for years I can definately say that there are a lot of things on each operating system which are just fubar to a new user, but I think if you put all the versions and future plans for windows together it really doesn’t solve anything yet. Meanwhile you mix all the best of breeds on Linux, add together plans for future parts of Linux distros and you’ll begin to see a very good picture.
and what about games?
MSI has nothing in common with the package management systems present in (nearly) all linux distros.
And for a good reason: Windows does NOT have the concept of packages.
I think the anon poster (…magd.cam.ac.uk) has probably never used a linux distro in his life, otherwise he/she would know this.
The various installers are simple hacks that drop files on the HD, but they’re surely not part of a centralized package database.
With the rpm system (and I’m sure with the deb too) I can know exactly from which package a single file on the HD came. I can UPGRADE packages on the fly, with the same program RUNNING with no problem. When I uninstall something I am 100% sure the program has gone completely away, without leaving a c:programsappname directory full of crud.
And with the handy meta-tools like apt and yum I can do all those things, and much more, with a GUI. (yes, there is a gui for yum, and is called yumi… never tried it though).
Pray tell me, how do I tell WHICH program dropped a dll file in my c:windowssystem directory?
At least linux has a supportive community willing to hear differing points of view written in a tongue-and-cheek fashion.
For the record, this was a draft. I sent it to Eugenia to see what she thought and if it was a bit too standoffish. She said she thought it was, so I was in the act of revision when I noticed that it had been published. This was not the intended final draft. To those who label me a “zealot”, I’m sorry to have appeared as such. It was not my intent.
I wrote it in the heat of the moment after reading 3 “Linux should…” articles in a row. My blood was a little hot. My point was simply that I think “Desktop Linux” is being held to a higher standard than just about anything else out there. That was the point of the title. Windows is undoubtedly ready for the desktop because it’s *already there*. But just because it’s got 90% penetration doesn’t mean it comes close to living up to the standards being set for Desktop Linux. Authors are continually posting articles stating that, if Linux can’t do the laundry, it has no place on the desktop. I found Linux to be difficult in the beginning, but famously easy-to use now. I have introduced friends to it who swear by it and will never go back. It has room to improve, as does any OS, but it’s certainly not crippled for the desktop.
That said, the article came out sounding like the fiery attack it was not meant to be. I did not wish to flame Windows or its users. I happen to use it daily. I’ll speak with Eugenia about its publishing (I probably didn’t make it quite clear that I didn’t want it published until ready). I hope this hasn’t completely ruined any credibility I might have. Consider this instead to be something more along the lines of a rough-hewn primer for those on the verge of writing another “Linux should…” article.
To those calling me out on the obscure programs, you once again proved a point. No, Linux does not yet do a good job addressing program availability in niche markets (a musician and a scientist), but that’s not within the realm of this article. It was about the Desktop, that mythical home- and corporate-user experience where only general use applications are needed. I think a few posters have rounded out my arguments much better than I did in the article (package management and driver availability, namely). LINUX ISN’T THERE YET! But it’s making fabulous progress.
The venom in my article was a product of the frustration I was feeling toward the *way* articles were being written, not necessarily any major frustration I have with Windows. Thanks and sorry if I wasted anybody’s time.
“Pray tell me, how do I tell WHICH program dropped a dll file in my c:windowssystem directory?”
—I don’t think the ‘average desktop User’ even cares about dll’s in the first place. As long as the app runs properly.
“With the rpm system (and I’m sure with the deb too) I can know exactly from which package a single file on the HD came. I can UPGRADE packages on the fly, with the same program RUNNING with no problem.”
—Are you crazy??? Two words ‘Dependency Hell’. I used to run RH 9 RPM’s. And when i tried to install some new app, or Let’s say KDE. What the heck do i get??? But in fairness Debian’s Apt-get works fine but still not that perfect..
“When I uninstall something I am 100% sure the program has gone completely away, without leaving a c:programsappname directory full of crud.”
—Check your /Usr/Bin
Think 1950/60’s, there were Porsches for the rich and VW’s for the poor, both did the same thing, & both can perform the same (with a little tweaking).
If you want a family PC for all to use.. get a windows box.
If you want to use your linux box, get your own PC, or dual
boot. Who actually cares which is better.
Horses for coarses, i use what i find best for the individual job, Sometimes a linux box, sometimes a windows box.
Cant people cool it with this an see what BOTH Parties will have to offer in the near future? sit back an observe, we NEED competition for evolution other evolution wouldn’t evolve!!!
Theres an awful lot of rubbish being spoken here and straws being clutched at by people who really arent qualified to comment on the technologies their casting aspirtions on. For example “in Linux, you don’t need a driver for every type of cdburner, you just fireup your cd burner software and go without even thinking about a driver in most cases, whereas a lot of new cdburners in windows require specific drivers” – where on earth does that come from? Ive owned all sorts of CD Writers from SCSI Yamahas to £20 Lite-ons and have never required a “driver” for one.
Ditto the pointless comparison about MSI technology and packages, no, theyre not the same at all. MSI technology is for the most part ideal for the purposes for which it was invented, if you want to slam it i suggest reading up on msdn about how it works first.
Also, rants about dlls being placed in windows system directories, thats just plain lazyness on behalf of distrubtors, dlls are searched for in the program directory firstly, then in the path of which C:windowssystem or system32 usually is in. Its unblievable that even the official PHP install instructions seem to suggest moving dlls to system directories, when all that is needed is for them to be placed in the path environment variable.
I agree entirely. This wasn’t a world domination article. It was an answer to questions and accusations raised in a dozen other articles. I look forward to Longhorn with as much excitement as Gnome 2.8.
While I have found multitrack recorders that I like under Linux, I won’t be able to fully switch until Linux gets the Reason softsynth system. All the generic crap just doesn’t compare to the great sound, functionality, and power of the Reason system IMHO. Sure, I could get Buzz running under wine – but Buzz is overrated in my very strong opinion.
You can get the same functionality in Linux by combining different apps through jack. Another option is apps like Beast or Spiral Modular, wich are really fun to use.
There’s also that you can run Renoise (for windows) in newest version of wine. Although IMHO there’s a lot more fun in the network of jackified apps and LADSPA-plugins.
Gee, and I thought this was a satire in the finest tradition of Jonathan Swift 😉
I nearly stopped reading the article when he asked what would happen when I put my Windows XP CD in my friends G5. What would happen? About the same thing that would happen if I put my copy of Slackware x86 in my friends G5.
You dont have any other choice. You cannot find a version of Windows compiled for PowerPC, right? However you CAN find a version of GNU/Linux compiled for it, with all the applications running natively.
What a moron.
No comments…
The driver issue is so lame. We all know that companies aren’t writing drivers for Linux. This has little…nearly nothing…to do with the “desktop readiness” issue.
Really? Several companies come inmediatelly yo mind: nVidia, Matrox, HP, Intel,… All released to work (more or less) on every flavour of Linux and on every processor (except for nVidia).
Microsoft is nearly assured that their product is what the consumer is looking for.
Again that is BS. Because it does not matter if it is not what the user is looking for. They have no ways of changing it. Just complain and pray. In FLOSS word, you contact the developer, or make your statement visible, and if it is reasonable you have good chances that it will be picked up by some developers and introduced to the product. Or, HEI!, you can do it yourself or pay someone to do the changes, without having to buy any code from Big Company or request obscure deals with Shared Source.
*sigh* People are stupid.
Some more than others.
“Morons, I am sourrounded by Morons!” J. Klecker
You dont have any other choice. You cannot find a version of Windows compiled for PowerPC, right? However you CAN find a version of GNU/Linux compiled for it, with all the applications running natively.
Actually, Windows NT 4.0 was released for both the PowerPC and the DEC Alpha architectures, in addition to the x86. I am not certain if anyone bothered to buy these versions, but the NT kernel was designed with portability in mind. Hence they were able to make a version for Itanium, and now an AMD64 version is coming pretty soon.
Gosh, I remember back when I was in school, I thought Windows NT 4.0 was so l337. LOL those were the days. Back when Netscape Navigator was king!
I couldn’t find a content proxy filter like proxomitron (win), privoxy gets closer but not enought, anyway I could get it running with Wine, but it’s not the same.
KDE and Gnome were too slughish on my machine, I was satisfied with Fluxbox.
On win, I mostly use apps that I just have to unzip on a folder and run (I know that’s not the case with most programs on win, but it is with the apps I use), that’s all , this is the easiest way to “install” something.Even uninstalling is easy you have to delete the app’s folder and ready.
Installing apps on *nix it’s a bit painfull and sometimes problematic.
Finally, most apps on “linux” are not polished enough and on most distros fonts look ugly.
>About the Author:
>Brian Davis is been using Linux for five years now, and he >still prefers the GUI. He doesn’t particularly dislike >Microsoft’s products, but he does heavily prefer Linux’s >features, stability and price tag. This is his first article.
…Why Windows Isn’t Quite Ready for the Desktop huh?
It seems you aren’t quite ready for a OSNews article either. How do you define a desktop? windows is what everyone is trying to compete with how can you say windows isn’t ready for desktop when current desktop is essencially defined by windows itself – Linux / OS X only makes up a fraction of the desktop market.
Hmm. Some things I see in the article/replies
Rampent use of the term “Newbie”
Spelling Microsoft “Micro$oft” or the like
People missing the point.
Look, want to be taken seriously? Then leave terms like newb or Mico$oft out of your posts. It is stupid. Look, I can tell what side you are on, you do not need to point it out with annoying remarks.
About the article: I use Slackware, I get my work done faster in Linux, which is why I use, I am a huge fan of freedom of choice and freedom to explore, but if Windows allowed me to work faster, I would use it. Both have things that they are strong out. Windows is not crap, nor is Linux. Get over it, use what is best for you.
…it’s all about the apps. In a short time Linux has come a long way in getting the breadth of apps down. It does run the backoffices of dentist offices and the like. It does have plenty of support. But now those apps need to grow up.
Package pools are indeed a VERY strong point of Linux/BSD on the desktop. I’m a FreeBSD user, and I love it’s Ports-tree. Say for example, I’m looking for an irc-client. I can just check out the bunch of irc-clients FreeBSD offers me in it’s Ports tree. They’re just there, ready to install. Same goes for tools like apt-get, portage, swaret, urpmi, …
But if you’re looking for an irc-client on Windows, you’re on your own. You could search Google, ask friends or collegues, but no centralized Windows software pool exists.
(You may argue that no centralized Linux/BSD package pool exists either; almost each Linux distro has its own, but that doesn’t matter: a Debian user uses Debian’s package pool, and so on. They will all essentially contain the same packages, well-known stuff like apache, kde, gnome, firefox, gaim, mutt, … are found in any Linux package pool.)
I think the author was simply posting an article to counter all the anti-linux articles that have been here lately.
If it was supposed to be a serious article there would have been loads of mention of the continuing virus/worm/trojan problem that affects the Windows platform. This was ignored completely.
I agree with the author on some points, Windows users do not want to learn a different way to do things, so if Linux does not look and operate exactly like they are used to, they will stay with Windows.
However, if you set them up with Linux and say ICEwm, they say it looks exactly like Windows so why should they switch ?
Certain point it disagreed with:
Package management. Windows users have no proper concept of this… they download an app, unzip it, and run the setup/install program. Thats it. The program is installed and an entry updated in the Start menu and maybe an icon on the desktop too. To uninstall it, they run Add/Remove Programs or look for the uninstall program.
There is no point trying to explain about yum, apt etc as the Windows user will think that is a far more complicated procedure than clicking setup.exe
You can explain that you can update the complete system using apt, yum, urpmi or emerge…….. but the typical Windows user would simply think this is the same as running Windows Update.
OK hows this ?
Is there a Windows tool that lets you update from Windows 2000 to Windows XP ? No ?
Moving from one version of a Linux distro to another is simply a matter of running yum,urpmi, apt etc etc etc
I have NO version of Windows on any of my computers at home, and I am extremely happy with Linux on MY desktop, but I don’t think I should put my views to you that Linux is ready for YOUR desktop. If a friend asks me why I use Linux only, I will explain the benefits to him, I will also tell them what they can or cannot do with Linux.
It is not that Linux is not ready for the desktop… but users are not ready for Linux.
Until this happens, I will gladly give support to my Windows using friends
You guys n gals make me laugh. I use Linux cos its right for me. Even if you all used Windows, I couldn’t care less
Linux IS ready for my desktop; it’s just a case of “Are YOU ready to have it as YOUR desktop?” That’s the question; and that’s what raver31 is talking about as well.
“It is not that Linux is not ready for the desktop… but users are not ready for Linux.”
Sad but true.
Having worked in tech support in the past, doing phone support for an ISP, I can whole heartedly attest to the astounding lack of common sense that most users (people) possess. They don’t care or want to learn either.
They will happily use their crippled and trojaned computers, uknowingly spamming out Viagra emails by the thousands as they surf their pr0n, while fifteen programs are running in their system tray watching their every move. “Linux? Windows? Huh? What is that?”
Man, that sucks… having your rough draft posted on OSNews before you have the chance to fix it up. =/
On another note, in regard to upgrading from 2000 to XP… why would they want to let their users do that? O_o
The diffrences from 98 to XP are so great (or even 2000 to XP) that a user upgrading to either could render their machine too sluggish to be useful to them.
98 – would work great on a 166mhz machine with 48mb of ram.
Can you imagine what might happen if they rebooted, and 2000 or XP was on that machine?
Yikes!
Look, I enjoy Linux (have it on 3 of my machines at home), but there’s a place for Windows too. Not everyone feels like messing around in wine to get programs they *need* to work, and no everyone has a top of the line computer to handle KDE/Gnome (I use top of the line loosely here, since I have some rather slow computers
And I don’t really care for window managers like fluxbox).
If I want to play games, or print I’ll use Windows, thanks.
While I *might* be able to get the games I want working in linux, and while I *might* be able to find a semi-working printer driving (Linux drivers for my printer only let me print in black sadly, and not very high quality), do you really expect users to switch to an OS where they would very likely have to spend more than it would cost for Windows XP to get working hardware?
That’s the thing about linux… for most casual users that try it, it either works well, or it doesn’t work at all. =/
>Theres an awful lot of rubbish being spoken here and straws >being clutched at by people who really arent qualified to >comment on the technologies their casting aspirtions on. >For example “in Linux, you don’t need a driver for every >type of cdburner, you just fireup your cd burner software >and go without even thinking about a driver in most cases, >whereas a lot of new cdburners in windows require specific >drivers” – where on earth does that come from? Ive owned >all sorts of CD Writers from SCSI Yamahas to £20 Lite-ons >and have never required a “driver” for one.
Maybe you don’t understand the concept of a driver, but it doesn’t have to show up in “device manager” to be one. The burner programs like Nero for Windows have drivers in them for cd burners. If you get a brand spanking new burner, chances are or at least were a year ago, that it was not going to support your burner. So you have to wait for the new cd burner software or upgrade your old one or bla. I know this 100%: My father’s computer has an IDE CD burner which didn’t work with the version of Nero he had and some other cd burner programs he tried, my Firewire CD burner didn’t work with the newest version of Nero at the time, when I got it, it came with a cd with a Beta Nero on it which supported it though, 2 of my friends have had the same problems with IDE cd burners and have talked to me about it. If I got 4 people who have had this problem me and the people I know are either plagued with having rare problems or this isn’t a rare problem.
Of course Linux CD burning software worked with me and my father’s burner first try…didn’t get a chance to try it on the other two CD burners, but 99% chance it wouldn’t have had a problem.
It is impressive that you guys seem to be unable to read and comprehend the article.
So what is the author doing?
He is simply taking the points most frequently made against linux in those unbearable why linux isn’t ready articles and of course in every discussion about anything related to linux by people like you and shows that they are simply false.
Now you lot could of course have argued against the points the author made, but you instead chose to resort to name calling.
And then the author does something which you either simply ignored or were unable to understand. He takes the same points usually made against linux and applies them to windows. And lo and behold, according to the arguments people like you make against linux ad nauseum windows simply isn’t ready for the desktop.
Now isn’t that funny?
To sum it up, next time please read the article, try to comprehend it and if you don’t agree with it try to at least find some arguments against it. And no, insulting people is no alternative to arguments.
Although the article is severly flawed, in some essence the writer is right. He just should have changed the title: Why Windows is not the right OS for the average user.
With the viruswar going on and spyware running on 2 out of 3 Windows computers, that statement wouldn’t be that hard to prove. Would it?
Actually, Windows NT 4.0 was released for both the PowerPC and the DEC Alpha architectures, in addition to the x86. I am not certain if anyone bothered to buy these versions, but the NT kernel was designed with portability in mind. Hence they were able to make a version for Itanium, and now an AMD64 version is coming pretty soon.
In fact Apple even thought about licensing Windows NT to ship with their computers when they were in need of a new OS (This plan was dropped in favor of buying BeOS, but JLG pokered too high, and so on).
There are also rumors of a modified Windows 2000 version running on G5s as the development kit for Xbox2 games.
Someone made an intelligent comment about the inability to spell Microsoft correctly. There are 2 ways to spell Microsoft:
Microsoft and MICROS~1 (preferably the latter version, because it’s backward compatible).
OTOH, as long as people write Linux instead of GNU/Linux, why not Micro$hit (or whatever) instead of a correct and clean MICROS~1 ?
</sarcasm>
A very important point is that users don’t think logically, but just do things like they always did it. People had problems switching from Windows 98 to XP…
As luck would have it, my father switched from a Commodore SX-64 to a modern desktop computer half a year ago. I installed Gentoo Linux with a nasty script that changed DEs between GNOME, KDE and Xfce. He likes GNOME best and has no problems with the others, surprisingly he can work with Macintoshes too, although he never had one. He just can’t get the job done on a Windows machine and that is because it’s interface is illogical and inconsistent.
Although you didn’t intend for this article to published in this state- I still liked it.It was a joy to read. I think your article is a wonderful example of the difference between being “true” and being “correct”- you made a number of incorrect assertions but in general “truth” resonates through the article
.
You mentioned “projection” and how such a psychological process works-let me just add a little bit to this:
Linux is being held to an impossibly high standard and as irksome as it may be it is a Good Thing (TM). Linux has become a projection screen onto which all of the functionality and features of all operating systems which have ever existed are being projected. This is because of it’s openness. No one talks about what windows “should do” or “ought do” because people know it simply isn’t going to happen-more importantly they know that voicing their opinions and concerns will play no role whatsoever in terms of the eventuality of such things happening in windows.
The fact that users do have input into what is becoming of Linux is something that too many people simply oversee. Of course this openness to change makes the dynamics around Linux infinitely more complex than what one is used to concerning Windows- it’s really just a function of dynamic feedback-based self-definition.
For the first time since the inception of home computers the Whatness (quidity) of an OS is becoming less important than the How- and the openness of Linux is structurally embedded in Linux due to the way in which it is developed. This structural openness renders Linux as being projection field of unlimited possibilites and opurtunities. Of course all of these percieved possibilites will never be fully implemented-but Linux remains a superset of functionality compared to any other and all other OS’s. (and just to make this clear: all OS’s which are based on free software are subject to the same dynamics-so this applies as well to the likes of *BSD, Syllable, OpenBEOS, Reactos, etc.)
Most OS’s have had problems adapting the the specific use to more general use patterns-abstracting away from the original design features(bugs). But Linux has the opposite problem: Linux is so unbelievably generic that the real difficulty of Linux is limiting it to only do one thing really good-at least from the moment that one is talking about Linux beyond embedded device applications-or where the application *is* the device(eg. kiosk,router, etc.) which is yet another point for Linux!.
Linux will probably never be as “good” at being a single-user desktop lacking network integration as older versions of Windows were-Linux simply can’t compete with such bugs(“features”). Linux is conceptually a descendant from UNIX- which was the operating system for trully massive mainframes serving thousands of users in a seamless networked environment. It’s kind of funny how to see how Linux is considered “inferior” to Win95 by some and to think about Linux running on the massive Big Irons from IBM, HP, SGI and Sun.
But for those who don’t understand the power of Linux and and don’t know how to put it to their advantage these features are merely “bugs”(ie. X 5ux0rz – Wind0ze ru13z!). The last big hurdle I see for Linux, taken as a whole, is figuring out new and unique ways of rendering these features convenient, intuitive and appealing to those who have no experience with such. When friends of mine come over and see me working on “my machine” only to realize that I am actually just doing an nx session on the server I administer 10 Km away they are kind of stumped with puzzled expressions on their faces. Much the same as when I try to explain to our LTSP users that *nothing* is being stored on their local machine and that they can just hit the power button at any time without any danger of loosing their data-or why a 486 w/16 MB ram from 1989 is unbelievably fast with such a nice desktop. Or the millions of people unknowingly using Linux to connect to their ISP and providing a local network in their homes and offices-after all they are “using” Windows XP even though Linux is what is actually connecting them to the world and their machines together-and running most of the web….
Your article is just a whee bit ahead of it’s time
Microsoft and MICROS~1 (preferably the latter version, because it’s backward compatible).
Now that is funny! Well done.
</wipe tears of laughter from eyes>
There are also rumors of a modified Windows 2000 version running on G5s as the development kit for Xbox2 games.
I heard this as well. I wonder how they are going to make the X-Box 2 backwards compatible however, if they base it on the PowerPC 970?
I think you article was well written. You did generalize on some of the points you could have made clearer. There is alot of people missing the points of the topic due to a lack of understanding of both OS’s as a Windows 2000 and Gentoo user. I can understand the lack of printer support, but most common hardware is support. Most OS’s have a HCL (Hardware Compatability List) You might want to clarify the installation disk since people think you meant installing Windows XP on PowerPC instead of a windows cd for an appplication on a MAC or vice versa while a OSS app install on a variety of architectures.
Just my $0.02
*sigh*
Yes, someone said it allready but no, that’s not the point of the article. For future comments please keep in mind that actually reading the article helps a great deal in commenting on it.
@Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net)
If you say so…
Windows not ready for the desktop? I guess that’s why it has DOMINATED on the desktop for the better part of 15 years, eh? How OS News could allow this trolling nonsense to be published is beyond me, aside from the traffic-generating effect it has no doubt had. (Oh, wait, that would be the ONLY reason to publish it…) It’s in poor, poor taste.
How could any article dealing with operating system advocacy really be considered “poor taste”? Did he use foul language? Was the article littered with links to raunchy porn?
Come on folks, step back a bit and try to control your rabidity. Be civil…
LOL, that was a very funny article. Heck, at first I though it was intended as humour. You have some good points there but as a Linux user myself, I’m sorry to say your article is too biased. Its almost a troll article…
But it’s true Windows isn’t ready for *my* desktop… after a clean install the only editors you have are notepad and wordpad (without syntax highlighting, of course) and where is my compiler? Of course, the average user has different needs.
@ralph: My comment is DIRECTLY pertinent to the discussion of this article. I didn’t bother to read other people’s COMMENTS before posting my own. I read the article, and please keep your FUD as to wether or not I did to yourself.
@Chris Dunphy: I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were in bizarro world, where a level, rational response like mine could be characterized as ‘rabid’ and ‘uncivilized’. The fact that a Linux advocate like yourself makes such a characterization speaks volumes about the headspace that many Linux people are comming from…
(For the record, if the siteadmins check their server logs, they’ll discover I’m running Linux, and have been for the past month and a half.)
Funny indeed. ;-D
In case you didn’t notice, assuming you hadn’t read the article was actually doing you a favor.
The difference is I don’t take myself too seriously. I am not out to prove that Linux is “better” than Windows, because frankly I don’t care what other people use. I do collect penguins however, I proudly wear my Thinkgeek.com T-Shirts, and I love to have fun with my geek image here at work.
I found this thread highly amusing, as I am working tonight and the network is quiet. Heck, I may install a 98-SE box down the road so I can play Wing Commander: Privateer again. Gosh, that game was the best… DOS ruled.
For starters, the “windows isn’t ready for desktop” was a humoristic reaction to the “Linux isn’t ready for desktop” statement. He shows some examples of why windows isn’t perfect and still isn’t considered “not ready for desktop”.
You can easily find scanners with no support for windows XP (only for windows 9x). Hey, windows users, how do you explain that? What about the support of hardware made by bankrupted companies?
The usability issues in windows are *real*, guys. There’s a reason why mac os x is considered “easier to use”.
Can you tell me how you clear the list of recent documents under windows XP? Exactly, everybody knows how to do it. Now, explain me why the “properties” of a taskbar is realted in any way with the list of recent documents.
Same goes for the MIME type configuration. Everybody knows it’s under tools -> folder options (translation from spanish). Now, can you explain me how “folder options” has anything to see with system-wide MIME type preferences…
Or in other words, why Microsoft hasn’t corrected the usability errors he did in 1995. 9 years ago and _still_ they don’t fix it…
Someone pointed out that linux eats lots of memory and windows 98 less. That’s true, however, we’re talking about _real_ OSes. I can hardly call “Operative system” to something which doesn’t supports multiusers (that goes for the “beos design is great”fans too, BTW)
There’re other things to say about windows, for example the “installing linux is difficult” morons don’t realize that there’s a step in the windows installer which ask you to partition your disk. That’s not easy, unless you dedicate all your disk for windows of course. BTW, that step of the windows installer isn’t in graphical mode. Ah, I forget: Windows installer kills your boot loader, so if there’re other OSes you’ve to reinstall your boot loader. I can’t call that “easy”, sorry.
The title says “Why Windows Isn’t Quite Ready for the Desktop”, but the article ends up making excuses for GNU/Linux. The whole article sounded defensive.
“Why Windows Isn’t Quite Ready for the Desktop?”
It is already there. Whatever people’s idea of the perfect desktop OS might be, the fact is that Windows is already on the desktop, and has been for a long time.
I’m experienced enough with Windows and Linux, last week I had to build a PIII450 for my father, I tried to put Debian Sarge on it, I had a hard time to make alsa work there, just to find the packages were buggy (but that’s another history) at last I could make it work fine.
With only 128mb it was crawling but it was working. I gave it to my father with KDE XINE and XMMS.
After two days my father (who is not totally computer illiterate but is not a hacker either) said to me:
a) This is very slow, I do not like the media player, I prefer media player classic or bsplayer.
b) I do not like the desktop dragging things is slow, there are too many buttons on the taskbar, I do not know what are they for; you have installed too many programs I’m never going to use.
c) Where’s emule?
d) Everything takes too much time to load.
After easing all of his pains, simplifying the desktop and uninstalling software… he discovers the audio is jumping, and that he cannot play videos at full screen because it does skip too many frames…
Tired of spending hours with the machine I did install windows 2000, took me 20 mins to find out all the drivers and software, two hours later I had a system that could play videos at full screen and play mp3 without jumping.
It is not the fastest system ever, and yes you could argue that 128 are not enough even for smooth operation with windows, which is true.
Well all of that doesn’t matter, there are some facts that can be learn:
1) My father didn’t mind the alien setup if it wasn’t because the apps weren’t working smoothly and the system weren’t very responsive.
2) KDE is overcrowded of software, options applets… too many editors too many games, too many everything (yes I know you can put a simpler version of it, but then it is too simple, and still too many everything everywhere) I do not know how to explain it better. It is fair to say that it is becoming better and it is moving on the right direction, it is just not there yet.
3) Overall the machine does work much much slower when using the GUI with X11+KDE than when using Win2k. This is not an impression it is noticeably faster. However while on the command line and running services windows don’t get even close. It simply runs at light speed doing anything conceivable. Why is X11+KDE that slow??? Why! Why it takes the whole thing down? Why does it takes that awful amount of memory and swaps that much????
That was using Debian Sarge + 2.4.26, no unnecessary daemons running on the background, no nothing the machine was fat free. Please no trolling about lightweight desktops like XFCE and Fluxbox, for a normal user those are a no-no.
Very funny, I myself a Non-MS person ends installing Win2k to make my life easier. And that’s the point, for a majority of people even with so many gripes Windows makes their life easier. It is not a matter of being ready or not, that’s a childish approach.
The matter is that unless UNIX-Like+X11+(put your preferred desktop here) start to integrate better with the underlying OS Linux is a pain in the ass for many people. I “Mr geek” doesn’t mind not having a GUI and doing everything on the console, but my father “Mr average user” does, and is used to something that doesn’t flicker, that always copy and paste well, and that is more responsive than the average UNIX-Like+X11+(put your preferred desktop here)
That’s the fact.
Don’t forget Windows XP runs on 64 MB RAM. And it runs pretty well with that memory, if you are using basic apps and Office functionality. It doesn’t fly but it’s quite usable — even on a very ancient Cyrix M II i686 266 Mhz.
The article is not well thought out and is somewhat absurd — Windows is here on the desktop, and people building GNU/Linux will have to try extra hard to surpass it and get market share.
GNU/Linux should keep its freedom of expression but there should be a strong competent leadership that admits only the best components to be included in a distribution. Let’s not fuel the flames arguing about other “minuses” of Linux, but for one I can’t stand typos and lack of documentation so prevalent in the Linux world. The average person does notice that and goes back to Windows.
It’s a question of wants and needs and choice.
(1) I have SUSE installed and sometimes dual-boot into it, although not all of my hardware is working yet. I still need some of the applications I am using on Win2K and I do not feel that there are adequate replacements. Linux will be ready for my desktop once I change the GRUB menu.lst default to it. My choice.
(2) On the other hand, when providing Windows support for friends plagued by bugs, viruses and unstable software install leftovers, I increasingly feel the want to convert their PCs to linux. Would make my job easier sometimes. But it’s their choice.
(3) Every now and then I see interesting Linux applications which are not available for Windows except as expensive commercial packages. MrProject / Planner, for example. Some scientific packages for high school use. Maybe Umbrello, although I haven’t fully compared it to ArgoUML yet. When this trend increases, there may be a need for people to actually switch to Linux or to dual boot it to get the additional functionality.
And that’s what an OS / Desktop is for, at least in my view. Not the looks, not the administration, but the functionality I get from it.
When it comes to common, uncommon, or even outright bizarre tasks, Linux has the bases covered. There’s so much free desktop software for the Linux platform it’s almost an insult to even pretend you’ve got some magical app that has only been designed for Windows and has no Linux counterpart.
Yes, if you keep repeating a lie long enough, people will start to believe it. I’d almost be willing to snail mail $1,000 to anyone who could find me a decent alternative to Reason. (And for the morons who are going to post it, Reborn and Finalscratch aren’t it, sorry.) Dreamweaver also. Even the author says …
If a couple of people have a can’t-live-without application that hasn’t been ported or written afresh, it’s typically because those people belong to a niche group lovingly referred to as “the fringe”, or they simply haven’t done their homework. Basically, nobody has needed that app or all the Linux users have found a way to get by (or prosper) without it.
Sorry man, but I think this is more than ‘a couple of people’, for sure. I hope Linux pundits will one day understand that you can throw all other arguments out the windows because this is the only thing that matters. I don’t give a good goddamn how free it is, if it doesn’t have the apps I need, the OS and all the ‘thousands’ of apps that go with it are worth exactly what it costs – $0.
I’d almost be willing to snail mail $1,000 to anyone who could find me a decent alternative to Reason.
—
thats a niche market application. sure. it doesnt have a one to one replacement.neither is there replacements for many cool linux apps.
The article was a nice though, but spent too much time defending Linux.
Rather, Windows is plagued by as many problems as Mac or Linux is (and yes, I work with ALL three daily). Anyone suggesting that one is easier to use than the other is smoking crack. Seriously, everytime I read an article on Linux not being ready, the complaints I hear are the same. And what’s funny is that pretty much every complaint I hear I can make for Windows as well.
Why? Hey, the proof is in the elusive “common user”, which my office is full of. And when they have problems installing software (they do), uninstalling it (even more so), setting up the internet (haha, fat chance), installing drivers for hardware (because Windows XP is several years old, mind you, and SuSE comes with more hardware support), installing MS Office, and finally, network support, because Windows randomly decides to change it’s own network settings (yes, it does).
Working with Linux and Windows at work, I can honestly say I spend less time with the Linux users than with the Windows users, and the Linux user has all the tools that he needs. And, the top it off, he never used Linux before! He was a big time Windows user.
Anyways, the article shines some light on an interesting point: We hold Linux to a higher standard than Windows. If we were to take a look at Windows with the same scrutiny that we did Linux, it would fail.
Heck, just starting off with the installation, according to your average “Linux is not ready” article, Windows would fail. Windows installation doesn’t start off in a graphical mode, but rather, a text, Debian/Slackware like mode. But installing the OS in that mode is usually the kiss of death for a Linux desktop install.
As to the argument that you can just plug in stuff and “it works” – BS, you need to scavenge around on the internet ages, if the hardware was old enough not include WinXP drivers. And try the speed of WinXP when you haven’t installed 3D drivers – Dog Slow!
Fantastic article BTW!!!
Ben
This is perhaps the worst written article I have ever read on OSNews, all it is is some Linux zealots attempt to try to be funny and frustration with the fact Linux is nowhere near ready for the desktop.
You must be new here. This article is of equal quality with all those “Linux is/is not ready for the desktop” articles recently posted. It’s point are equally just as valid as those same articles.
You must be new here. This article is of equal quality with all those “Linux is/is not ready for the desktop” articles recently posted. It’s point are equally just as valid as those same articles.
Awesome
Two hours to go before I get to go home. Please, keep ’em coming.
OK. I expect to be called a troll or a Linux zealot for this, but anyway..
Few month ago, I bought an USB Bluetooth dongle, to make use of BT in my cell phone.
30 minutes of googling, installing a few packages trough apt-get and it was working in Debian/Sid. No need to rebuild the kernel, the default kernel from the distribution had al the necessary drivers.
Company-provided Windows 2000 – I expected just to plugin the dongle and use it. Did not happen. I plug it in, “new hardware” window appears… searching for drivers… then I hear the disk go wild… and after cca. 10 minutes Windows finally concludes it has no driver for this device.
Pray explain, why looking up a the vendor-id and device-id in a table (that’s how Linux does it), take >10 minutes in Windows? On a decent computer (Dell Latitude C640 – P4M 1.8GHz, 1GB RAM, 40 GB disk).
UI consistency is broken in Microsoft’s own applications. At least in of them and that’s enough to piss me of everytime I fall for it. Which one? MS Office 2000. I mostly use Word and Excel. Both have two rows of the minimize, maximize and close buttons. One on the title bar, one on the menu bar. Those on the menu bar, of course, work only for the current window, as expected. From experience (Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, Word, Mozilla), I expected the buttons on the title bar also to affect only the current window. If I press the close button, I expect only the current window to close. It works so for all the applications I listed, but not so for Excel. It closes ALL Excel windows. Plainly incosistent.
Another incosistency is the distinction between “processes” and “services”. An Unix daemon is a normal process, which can be stopped/killed by the kill command, as every other process. On Windows (2000, NT4, 2003 server from experience), services show up in Task Manager, but you cannot kill them from there. OK, ok. I know. I should use the “Services” application from Control Panel. Well, that’s just not possible sometimes, when the service gets fubar and does not react to such requests. If you don’t want to reboot the machine (which you sometimes don’t want to do), your only way is to get a 3rd-party (!) utility (in the sense that it did not come with the default system installation) and use it. Voila, you can kill a service as any other process. It’s just Taks Manager being a pita.
I am in know way your typical “desktop user”, just wanted to illustrate that in my case (of which I care more
HW support is better in Linux and Microsoft’s UI is not consistent at all.
Now go on and call me a zealot. I don’t care.
I’d almost be willing to snail mail $1,000 to anyone who could find me a decent alternative to Reason.
—
thats a niche market application. sure. it doesnt have a one to one replacement.neither is there replacements for many cool linux apps.
Right, which is one of the reasons why I’m not using Linux
Well how about we leave it at: Use the OS you want!
I like freedom, so choose Windows (any version) if you want or if you are forced (like I am at work). Choose Linux (any distribution as correctly stated in the article) if you like it (I use it at home because my girlfriend tends to do stuff that makes Windows break, (read Viri and Spyware), and because I love to tinker with it, I automate things, and love to be part of the community). Choose Palm on your handheld, or Linux on your Sharp, or Symbian on your phone… who cares, feel free.
Now is Windows ready for the Desktop: Yes. Is Linux SuSE 9.1 or MacOS ready for the Desktop: Yes. People work with these OS on the desktop, so they are ready for it. They might not be ready for your desktop, or you might not be ready for them. Again, feel free to choose (I love competition).
On thing I disagree with a lot of people, is that Linux is here to stay. Why? Because I will use it.
Will Windows stay? If you use it, it will. See if I care.
Ohh, and yes I have a Windows partition on my home PC. I paid for Windows 98! It was the best OS at the time (1998) for MY needs. I still use it, infrequently, to run some games on it.
Ahh, and I use Windows utilities on Linux (dvdshrink) using Wine. I could care less that it is a Windows tool. Its free and does the job well.
If people could just be as passionate about removing import tariffs for poor countries, pushing renewable energy etc., this world would be so much more a better place to live.
I was hoping for an article on the deficiencies of Windows, but instead it was about Linux. The article was mistitled. Brian said it was a first draft, so all’s well that ends well, I guess.
By the way, this article takes the cake for the most abuse reports I’ve ever seen.
“Windows is undoubtedly ready for the desktop because it’s *already there*.”
Too bad you didn’t put that in the first paragraph of your article. Instead you just proceded to tell everyone why Linux is ready for the desktop by arguing that it is just as good as Windows. You didn’t even do a very good job of doing that.
“The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS. This is desktop computing we’re talking about, not genomics. If Joe User is running some special app, chances are high that it’s already been ported to Linux (and probably a good number of other OSes, too).”
Utter bullshit. Linux lacks a LOT of applications.
Case in point: Medical patient management; legal case management; document assembly.
There’s a huge market out there for these, but no one’s listening….
According to the statistics, 90% of the world’s desktop computers run a version of Windows.
I expect the expression “ready for the desktop” refers to something that is a suitable alternative to Windows for a significant percentage of its users. Unfortunately no one knows what it means. It is too vague and fanciful to be of any use and, when applied to Windows itself (which has 90% of “the desktop”), quite meaningless.
I assumed that the article was not meant to be taken entirely seriously and, on that basis, found it rather entertaining. I think it is a pity the author has subsequently apologised for its publication.
There can be little doubt that a good Linux distribution offers at least an adequate alternative to Windows for home users. I can’t see too many companies running Lotus Notes on Linux boxes for a while and I suspect that many users will have a favorite application such as MS Access, Paint Shop Pro or something more esoteric that they are loath to leave behind. But the advantages of Linux now seem to me at least to outweigh the disadvantages, which might lead to that 90% market share being reduced to, I don’t know, maybe 87%?
The author says it is not the goal of Linux to be installed on every computer. I doubt Sun or Novell would agree with that and I hope they manage to do something about it without once using the expression “ready for the desktop”.
right…
ever heard of the File, Edit, View menu selections in windows?
Almost every major windows program (and a majority of the small ones) in the universe uses these standardized menu features. maybe GNU/Linux programs should work on getting standardized menus before we go talking about how windows GUI consistency stinks.
notable exceptions to the above rule in the windows world are of course ported FOSS apps and Winamp
I’ve been using Linux for about five years now.
I’d have to say, that on old hardware with <P200 less than 32mb ram, most users would be better off with Win95 or 98.
Sure, they are insecure and unstable, but they will run a hell of a lot faster than an equivalent Linux desktop on the same hardware.
Just mirror the OS and re image it every few months after it falls apart. Microsoft took a great many trade offs against stability to get that kind of speed (graphics in kernel, no proper memory protection etc etc), but it’s still speed.
I use fluxbox and a stripped down Slack on old machines, but the average user is not going to be capable of configuring and setting up the apps to get it working nicely.
Trying to discuss issues like this, it happens time and time again. Instead of the mines better than yours mentality, why don’t people start to see the OS/Computer for what it is: a tool – and a very powerful one in creative hands.
Go forth and think alternatively – scientists wouldn’t have got anywhere if my methods better than yours mentality prevailed. Invent stuff, think of ideas, make things better try not to cause division.
As sombody pointed out, this community is a passionate one, yet seems to be intent on destroying itself through pointless arguments and un substantiated comments. A good argument is a technical one.
I’d also like to suggest on a side note reading ‘As we may think’ by Vannevar Bush to those who havnt read it.
>>No doubt someone has said this already, but I’ll say it anyway:
Windows not ready for the desktop? I guess that’s why it has DOMINATED on the desktop for the better part of 15 years, eh? How OS News could allow this trolling nonsense to be published is beyond me, aside from the traffic-generating effect it has no doubt had. (Oh, wait, that would be the ONLY reason to publish it…) It’s in poor, poor taste.<<
No doubt someone has said this already, but I’ll say it anyway:
CDE dominated the business desktop for roughly 15 years and most of us are happy that it’s almost gone, aren’t we?
I’m sorry, but this whole thread is so funny.
Was that a reply to my post?
Yes, consistent menus are a good thing. However, I illustrated a concrete example of incosistency in Microsoft’s own product. I was not discussing menus. If you are trying to reply to my post, please learn how to have a discussion. Don’t reply to something I have not said.
Excel from MS Office 2000 is inconsistent and I can prove it to anyone willing to listen/watch. That is what I was talking about. Not about menus.
BTW, I just checked and both Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird have the File, Edit, View menus. So much to “exceptions to the above rule in the windows world are of course ported FOSS apps”. Exception of an exception..
Anyone know if there’s a way to customize Windows XP to look and behave like Window Maker? It would be great to have Clip, Dock, appicons, and right-click desktop menu also on my Windows XP desktop.
I thought this article was going to be about how Windows was not ready for the desktop, not a “Linux vs. Windows” comparison which has been done many time before. I found nothing new in this article and want 15 minutes of my life back that I spent reading this.
There are replacement shells (some can run on top of explorer.exe, some as replacement for explorer.exe, some as both) which can do what yer asking, see shellcity.net for an extensive list (I prefer BlackBox4Windows, but LiteStep is also damn cool). I’m sure there are themes/apps to mimic WindowMaker for some of these shells.
Plus there are stand alone dock-like apps such as yzDock and ObjectDock. Happy hunting
Here are my observations:
Hardware:
While talking about Linux on the desktop, nothing matters other then x86, PPC and I guess x86_64 since they are the only desktop platforms available. Xbox and PS2 and not desktop systems. The author has a point with older machines, but that may change going into the future as current machines become the old machines since win2k is great.
Apps:
Linux has some great software, but there is some that requires Office. For example, my girlfriend required all her assignments for university to be submitted in Word format. Not only word, but Word XP since that was what the Prof had and school supported. She would use nothing but Word due to the POSSIBILITY of something going wrong. Not to mention OpenOffice is available in Windows.
Config:
Windows config’s beat command line, no doubt, some Linux configs beat Windows, but where is the assurance that ALL configs in Linux have GUI’s? Not just for system commands, I mean everything. I know my system can’t because of the wireless I have (must use driverloader).
Installation:
Author didn’t really talk about installation. For the record, both are super easy, no point really getting into it.
Package Management:
Why is complete package management needed? What can’t apps take care of themseleves.
Also, Windows binaries are much easier to find. What a program from developer X, goto the developer X website and download it. What an app from developer X in Linux, hope your distro has the new version available.
Package Managers make the user dependednt on the distro and the developer. Windows only makes you dependent on the developer. In other words, both have their trade-offs.If linux could ever make it so I can download the latest package from the developer and install it, no matter what Linux I have, then they got something.
UI and toolkits:
UI inconsitency is a problem for every system. Developers always want their app to look different. Linux ain’t perfect either. I have Gnome/GTK system, but have no quality cd-burning software since I don’t want qt and kb3. Mutiple toolkits and UI are a problem for all system that even Linux has not solved.
Ease of Use:
It really is based on what you are used to.
Nothing like hearing the same generic crapola from the readers… While folks are here arguing opinions on things, others are out changing the status quo.
Hey! I just found out!
This is the revival of the good ol’ PC vs Mac debate, Atari vs Amiga, Amiga vs PC, and so on.
Good entertainment, but personally I have begun spending less time trying to find out wich tool is the best, and more time trying to *create some content* with the bloody expensive box I just bought. Windows, Linux and OS X are just great for doing that, and we should also be glad that there are several good alternatives, it could very well have been M$ only.
“Good entertainment, but personally I have begun spending less time trying to find out wich tool is the best, and more time trying to *create some content* with the bloody expensive box I just bought. ”
Good point. Perhaps a better way to compare OSs would be to ask people ‘What have you *done* with this OS and it’s apps that was easier and more efficient than doing it other OSs?’.
I remember the ZX Spectrum VS C64 debates.
(Of course the Spectrum was miles better, but there are always some poor fools who make the wrong choice
Endnote does work under Crossover office. I use it every day. At least, version 5, which is what I have works great, including the Microsoft word “Cite While you Write” or whatever they are called.
Additionally, Kaspaliste is actually more powerful than Endnote. I am planning my switch to it. Built on top of a full-relational database, it allows you to link texts, context with bibliographic information and search it in an awesome number of ways.
And bookcase is coming along very nicely and has many of the pieces to make it a future endnote replacement already there.
Obviously, you have not looked very far.
“Windows XP only runs on one type of processor”.
Fact: Windows XP runs on both 32-bit x86 as well as 64-bit Itanium architectures.
You could make the argument that Microsoft sucks, but you don’t have to make false statements to do it.
-Sigh-
You could have said “Linux runs on more platforms than Windows”. That’s not quite as devastating, but at least it’s true.
My $.02.
I have two batch files, each with the lines
echo name >> mplog
date /t >> mplog
time /t >> mplog
According to windows task scheduler, one is set for 6:30pm, the other 5:15am execution.
Read the log file everyday, both report being executed at 6:30pm!!! Dead wrong, according to the files it touches and app logs the 5:15am batch goes off at 5:15am as scheduled, not 6:30 as logged. This has been going on since they married the local task scheduler to IE for some stupid feature no one wanted.
Windows is perfect, the guy can’t possibly have a point…
nxt
to be honest i didn’t even read your post. unlucky coincidence?
but to clarify my post. I was referring to this gem in the original article.
“I contend that Windows is no better. In fact, it’s significantly worse. There is almost no consistency *at all* on a fully loaded Windows desktop.”
someone needs to inform this guy what consistency means.
almost all windows apps have the same File, Edit, View paradigm.
even Firefox and mozilla and OO.o find it worthwhile to follow the windows interface. is that not the very definition of consistency?
as for the FOSS comment, a great majority of the smaller less funded ports of FOSS software will not generally follow the F,E,V paradigm. i’m not blaming them. afterall, they don’t have to port their software if they don’t want to. a lot of really small shareware/freeware authors hardly ever follow the guidelines.
UI consistency is hard work. not even apple can follow their own damn HIG.
but to say that windows has less consistency than a gnu/linux distro? you gotta be smoking something.
I got news for him, I ran XP on an i586 and it didn’t cause any random errors, I don’t think it’s compiled for i686..
Secondly, someone said early on about 98se being a choice. Sorry Charlie, but multi-user OS’s don’t compare to hacked up single-user mode OS’s with odd memory management schemes.
I saw the title and hoped the guys would maybe do a parody. Go through an install, talk about all the troubles he had, complain about finding a driver, and make a joke at the end.
This wasn’t exactly the best defence of desktop linux. It’s more like an attack upon previous reviewers.
Hist best point remains though. You don’t get much for the $150+ you spend on Windows XP (that’s about right for XP Pro OEM?).
>While talking about Linux on the desktop, nothing matters other
>then x86, PPC and I guess x86_64 since they are the only desktop
>platforms available. Xbox and PS2 and not desktop systems. The
>author has a point with older machines, but that may change going
>into the future as current machines become the old machines since
>win2k is great.
You would be amazed how many non x86 Linux computer are uot there. win2k is not great It can do absolutly nothing LInux can do not so what is you point?
>Linux has some great software, but there is some that requires
>Office. For example, my girlfriend required all her assignments for
>university to be submitted in Word format. Not only word, but Word
>XP since that was what the Prof had and school supported. She
>would use nothing but Word due to the POSSIBILITY of something
>going wrong. Not to mention OpenOffice is available in Windows.
OpenOffice is free ,powefull and can save to PDF. I have written a lot of documents using OpenOffice.org and had absolutly no problems
with Word compatebility. Anyway you can use Word under LInux or Apple so no need for Windows i your REALLY need it for some strange reason.
>Windows config’s beat command line, no doubt, some Linux configs
> beat Windows, but where is the assurance that ALL configs in Linux
> have GUI’s? Not just for system commands, I mean everything. I
>know my system can’t because of the wireless I have (must use
> driverloader).
Every administrator knows that a command line is about 1000x more powerfull if you know what you are doing, scripting/piping command etc. is all not possible in a GUI and a GUI is always sucking more mem and cpu cycles. Even MS admits it they are wrking on a full replacemnet for the CL in their nest server OS.
>Author didn’t really talk about installation. For the record, both are
>super easy, no point really getting into it.
I will, apt-get, yum, urpmi , alien, dpkg, cnr etc. LInux is king here.
>Pacakage Managers make the user dependednt on the distro and
>the developer. Windows only makes you dependent on the
>developer. In other words, both have their trade-offs.If linux could
>ever make it>so I can download the latest package from the
>developer and install it, no matter what Linux I have, then they got
>something.
Oh you must be joking right?. tar, cvs, apt-get.
>UI inconsitency is a problem for every system. Developers always >want their app to look different. Linux ain’t perfect either.
Nobody sas Linux is perfect but its better…
>I have Gnome/GTK system, but have no quality cd-burning software
> since I don’t want qt and kb3.
For Gnome you could use the built in burner from Nautilus. Besides that that are dozen GOOD burn utilities from Gnome look: http://www.gnome-apps.org. You could also use GearCD for LInux.
>Mutiple toolkits and UI are a problem for all system that even Linux
>has not solved.
Why should it vbe solved i like different looks for different programs.
>It really is based on what you are used to.
or on your needs.
>>OpenOffice can import and export into every format
>>imaginable (and a few most people didn’t even know
>>existed).
You lost me on that statement. Last time I checked, OOo still doesn’t play nice with WordPerfect files, despite the fact that the WP file format is published and unchanged over the last six versions. And if you boot up OOo and WP and compare the doc formats each can read and save to, I’m sorry to say, OOo can’t be squared with your statement about it.
Is it important to work with WP-format files? I’d say so. Take the example of word processor usage in law offices. In a study by the Wisconsin Bar Association, roughly 38 percent of law offices used MS Word, but 45 percent used WordPerfect. http://www.wisbar.org/bar/reports/techsum00.pdf
Looking at historical usage in the law office market, WordPerfect, though usage is now reduced, was king, and it was the law office market that drove WP to the top of the over-all word processor market. It still dominates in the law office market.
As Bill Gates has said, meeting the word processor needs of law offices is critical in the battle for dominance because the sophistication of word processor needs means that if you meet those needs, you meet the needs of nearly all other potential users.
But OOo clearly isn’t attempting to compete in this area. If it was, it would play nice with WP files. (BTW, tools for development of WP file format translators are available in the free WP SDK downloadable from Corel’s FTP site.)
Your article also evades rather than addresses the fact that a multitude of specialized apps available on Windows have no counterpart available on Linux.
Let’s try something illustrative and very basic: Throughout the U.S., most courts require that briefs longer than 20 pages or so include a table of authorities, indexing every legal citation in the brief to each page number where the citation is discussed. Such tables are commonly 2-3 pages long single spaced. Even using either Word or WP, it’s usually going to take an hour or more for an way-above-average typist to generate a table of authorities using their special table of authorities features. And last time I checked, OOo still doesn’t even have such a feature, meaning that OOo tables of authorities must be generated manually using cut and paste techniques, or you’ll have to go through some very wasteful work-arounds using OOo’s indexing feature.
Moreover, courts around the world are moving to electronic filing of documents (as opposed to paper-based records). The lawyer who can hyperlink individual citations in a PDF file to a web-available legal database’s data has a not insignificant advantage over an opponent who doesn’t bother. It makes it easy for a judge to check the citations to make sure you’re accurately portraying what they say. Using Win32 and WP or Word, I can use a tool like WestLaw’s CiteLink
http://west.thomson.com/store/product.asp?product_id=WestCiteLink&c… not only to scan the file and automatically form the hyperlinks, it will also automatically produce the required table of authorities, all in mere seconds.
Can you give me a web link to where I can obtain an equivalent tool that will run on Linux and work with OOo? I very much doubt it. Moreover, I could list examples of more than a dozen mission-critical apps for the law office that have no equivalent except on Windows or Mac platforms.
You make the fundamental error of assuming (and I stress that you provide no citations to empirical data on this issue) that: (a) if Linux meets your needs, or (b) meets the needs of “most” computer users, Linux is superior to Windows even for those in specialty niche markets. There are approximately 1 million lawyers in the U.S. alone, and both their needs and the needs of their staffs can’t currently be met on Linux, unless we’re counting those few willing to “dumb down” their requirements and avoid the benefits of profession-specific software. And that doesn’t begin to address the multitude of other specialty niche computer users.
Candor requires that you withdraw your arguments to the contrary, or show that Linux can in fact meet the needs of even the relatively huge (and affluent) law office market. But next time around, let’s see some citations, please!
BTW, I use Debian on my home machine, and I’d love to stop paying for commercial software designed for Win32. Despite advocating Linux where it’s appropriate, I object to ill-informed claims that Linux and FOSS are ready to replace Windoze for all desktop purposes. They aren’t.
“UI consistency is hard work. not even apple can follow their own damn HIG.”
You just opened a can of worms man. The single most sensible desktop OS, as for usabilty, and you’re trying to compare it to Windows?
Inconsistencies are easily found in preference dialogs, basic interfacing and other things. Look at media player… Just because the menus are the same doesn’t mean it’s consistent.
At any rate, it’s not really a problem, it’s just the fact that no one has perfect UI consistency and it’s not all that important anyway.
So far, NO OS has been ready for the desktop! I’ve been using windows since 95 (I’m young, give me a break), and I think its a better desktop OS than Linux or MacOS. Sure it has its flaws, but its the same flaws any other OS has.
Sure, you can have issues installing hardware, but look at some Linux distros, good luck installing anything other than the basic hardware (forget about networking, or printers, etc).
So what if its $80 to get Windows, in my opinion, you are getting a quality product thats undergone enough testing to show that its a rock solid desktop OS (unlike Linux, where you have to WORK get it running as a desktop).
If it wasn’t a desktop OS, why is 95% of the pc userbase running it? This is why Microsoft releases security patches every couple weeks, to stop potential problems. I have NEVER been broken into, or severly hurt by a virus, these are potential problems. I’ll bet if Linux was the mainstream OS, there’d be just as many security holes.
As for speed, I see no difference. I TAKE CARE of my Windows installation. I don’t let it get bloated with adware or garbage, and it runs just as fast as a fedora installation. Windows is only as slow as you make it.
This might have made sense 10 years ago, but now, no way.
I’m not really saying that Linux is more consistent than Windows. Even though, if you stick to one desktop environment and one widget toolkit (e.g. GNOME and gtk+), you can get pretty consistent environment.
I just presented my experience that not even Microsoft’s own products are consistent, so anybody claiming “Windows is better than <whatever>, because Windows has a consistent UI” is wrong and should not claim this.
Ditto for better hardware support.
“One thing that Linux is *NOT*, however, is centralized.”
Oh is that why I have to go to my centralized Windows repository in order to get new software for Windows XP? Oh I’m sorry thats Linux.
“Compare that to Linux mail applications”
Most of which are also avaiabable for Windows. On top of that installation is easier and less “centralized”.
“OpenOffice can import and export into every format imaginable”
Thats why Windows users use OpenOffice too. Isn’t it great that with Windows you actually do have “choice”.
“If grandma absolutely cannot perform the task with the graphical tools these distros provide, I’ll pay her $10”
Can I get that in cash? I can’t get half of my computer literate family members to get anything done besides use the applications I set up for them in Linux. Installing software is beyond all of them even with the supposedly simple tools with graphical frontends such as yum and apt-get. In one case I couldn’t get my father past the log in screen in Fedora Core II, I watched him and it took him 10 minutes to figure out how to properly click on icons, type either username or password, and then click enter or do more undocumented clicks on icons in order to log in. Finally in this case it took my intervention to get him logged in. It’s strange that he’s never had this type of problem with Windows; even when he used it for the first time.
“No productivity software, a couple of games and a swiss-cheese, featureless, non-compliant web browser”
And if MS haters had their way it would be illegal to ship these games, the browser, and Media Player.
“There are at least half a dozen fully mature tools for package management already in existence (apt, yum, emerge, pacman and red carpet come to mind), but I can’t seem to find too many of these kinds of tools for Windows.”
And many Windows users are living more productive and satisfied lives because of this important detail. Hey linux users, go check out linux program called im-ja at http://im-ja.sourceforge.net/. Oh whats the problem it’s not available in your distro? It’s not in your precious repository? Oh you use KDE and it only works in Gnome? Well you could always roll in tar and install it from source grandma. Well better luck next time. At least have great japanese input support with Windows right out of the box.
“there’s no guidelines dictating Start Menu entries”
And every Linux distro follows the same guidelines as far as icon placement in the Menu.
“Interface inconsistency is another accusation frequently leveled at the Linux community”
It seems to me that this is a complaint that is more often from Linux users and not Windows users. Windows users don’t seem to mind when applications don’t look exactly the same but at least they all apps in Windows tend to use the same system dialogs. In Linux it’s a different story.
“Want a GTK-free desktop? Chat with Kopete, PIM with Kmail, be productive with Koffice… it’s all there.”
So what your saying is that if a user wants consistancy with Linux they must eliminate at least half of the applications available to them? This is as bad advice as telling a Windows user to use all Java applications to avoid system crashes, it’s not a solution just a bad side effect of reality. Reality being that Gnome and KDE still have many incompatabilities and are re-reinventing the wheel in parallel.
“Simple settings are often duplicated in different configuration windows”
Look at how many places display resolution can be set in a common Linux Distro. Take Mandrake 10 Official for example. With about 4 different locations that would let me change my resolution I couldn’t find the resolution toggle that actually worked. I agree that Windows has this same problem in some cases but from my expierence Linux distros are no better.
I myself am a Linux user and I really hope it becomes a more viable Desktop OS but I simply can’t agree with most of the points made in this article. If limitations with Linux desktop distros could actually be addressed and solved instead of argued about, myself and others may find ourselves switching completely over to Linux. As things currently stand however, I must dissagree that GNU/Linux is not yet usable enough as a desktop OS for many people. Maybe in the future, but thats a big MAYBE.
Why does everyone complain that windows is insecure? Ok, the default system is insecure, but give me 30 minutes and a broadband connection and I will give you a working OS that should have no problems at all!
Stuff you need:
Mozilla Firefox (or any other browser)
Mozilla Thunderbird (or any other mail client)
Miranda IM (due to MSN hard-coding)
Spybot S&D
Ad-aware
Spyware Blaster
Regcleaner
Avast home edition (or another free anti-virus package)
That’s it! It doesn’t take that much time to get all these applications running, and once they are you’ve got a system stable enough for home use (of course, servers are another story. Of course you also have to check the MS security bulletin at least once a month, but the updates are very simple to install…
As such I would like to use linux as my ‘main’ OS (and I have some experience with it), but my USB ADSL modem doesn’t have linux drivers (support told me that they don’t support UNIX[-like] systems). Until I get linux drivers that are as easy to install (or at least don’t involve mandatory compilation) as their windows counterparts, I won’t be able to use linux. I wish BeOS would still be a viable option, seems like such a good OS.
When Linux and Windows ever come up, all I tend to see is bickering about one or the other from self proclaimed zealots who feel they are far supperior b/c they may know how to grep, write shell scripts, compile their favorite FOSS app, and edit test files from the command line (btw, none of those are super powers) or the onces who fell that Access can be used in an enterprise environment and feel that it’s ok to over charge for what seems to be and endless line of beta software sold as a first class product.
There should reallly be no reason why an argument is made. People do what make sense and is efficient, from a financial and an implementation perspective.
While windows is a premature product, for the most part, it’s what has market dominance. No bad how it may suck, it’s what other companies develop applications for. Granted, I could use vi (thanks Bill Joy) to edit text, it’s not really efficient for creating documents w/outlines, pictures, etc. I’m not trying to get into a flame war about why I should just use Open Office. There are tons of other types of software for which this applies. It goes beyond an Office Suite. Which reminds me, over 20 years innovation at a giant software company and all they can produce is desktop OS that used as a server and a somewhat polished office suite that is over priced.
I will say that as an OS, Linux is a very polished product and works excellent as a server. Linux has also come a long way on the desktop, but KDE and Gnome, along with the Windows GUI still need to be polished. Everyone has a feature they wouldn’t mind seein in their favorite GUI (including Mac OS X and IceWM).
There are tons of great software for Linux, but really, there is a huge demand and need from the third-party software companies to release their product for Linux for it to become popular on the desktop.
Considering how far Linux has come in the past 10 years, MS should abandon the server OS, and focus on their desktop os and office suite. they should port Office to Linux, as well as develop their Networking/Server software to run on Linux.
What’s a “bald face lie”?
Stories like these make me not want to read osnews anymore. FUD like this is just as bad as FUD coming out of microsoft. Yes, windows is lacking in some areas. But linux is lacking in just as many, perhaps more. Some usability features in linux distribtions are certainly ‘there’, but there is no consistancy accross distributions. There are many problems with linux as a desktop OS, and these issues need to be acknowledged and addressed. Thats it.
Where exactly is the article spreading FUD?
Anyway, nobody is disputing that linux is not perfect and nobody is disputing that it is a good thing if shortcomings are criticized. Just look at the mailinglinst of any large OS project. There is a lot of criticizing going on.
But the points you normally read in many of the why linux isn’t ready articles the author refers to and you read in discussions like these here are to a large extent not valid as they are simply not true. I can’t see anything wrong with the author pointing that out.
You can get a WP filter for OO.o here:
http://libwpd.sourceforge.net/download.html
Agreed! I think we will see, well I hope that Longhorn will have more security as default like OS X. Linux now being number 2 on desktop according to hp, MS has to compete. While linux isn’t elegant in style like Mac OS, it does have security features that would make it a great desktop OS in the near or some say right now!
“Why does everyone complain that windows is insecure? Ok, the default system is insecure, but give me 30 minutes and a broadband connection and I will give you a working OS that should have no problems at all!
Stuff you need:
Mozilla Firefox (or any other browser)
Mozilla Thunderbird (or any other mail client)
Miranda IM (due to MSN hard-coding)
Spybot S&D
Ad-aware
Spyware Blaster
Regcleaner
Avast home edition (or another free anti-virus package)
That’s it! It doesn’t take that much time to get all these applications running, and once they are you’ve got a system stable enough for home use (of course, servers are another story. Of course you also have to check the MS security bulletin at least once a month, but the updates are very simple to install…
As such I would like to use linux as my ‘main’ OS (and I have some experience with it), but my USB ADSL modem doesn’t have linux drivers (support told me that they don’t support UNIX[-like] systems). Until I get linux drivers that are as easy to install (or at least don’t involve mandatory compilation) as their windows counterparts, I won’t be able to use linux. I wish BeOS would still be a viable option, seems like such a good OS.”
>> You can get a WP filter for OO.o here:
http://libwpd.sourceforge.net/download.html
I’m happy to say I was partially wrong. Maybe there is hope for the legal profession and Linux getting together down the line. But I am sorry to have to note that the filter is still one-way and still lacks the ability to import critical features of the WP format, according to the features page for Libwpd.