Despite the constant predictions of “This year will be the year of the Linux desktop”, such predictions have yet to become reality. While the reasons for this are numerous, they all tend to boil down to Linux being built as a server and workstation OS rather than a home system. This article will focus on how a distribution might be designed to not only make Linux a competitive desktop solution, but to propel it into a leader in the Desktop market.
The Linux Desktop Distribution Of The Future
183 Comments
2005-07-03 1:04 am
Anonymous
We use Ubuntu. It IS supposed to be easy to use. It’s not. Install Ubuntu, the network isn’t configured automatically. You’ll have a hard time installing software you DO need to have your work done such as MS Office (OpenOffice isn’t compatible with some MS Word documents, they are all messed up), a PDF converter, and other software. Configuring WINE is really complicated and takes much time. There are always errors.
I presume you use Hoary version which uses OpenOffice.org version 1.14 that does not propertly support Microsoft doc format. Since you feel Ubuntu is not for you, you should try other distros such as Fedora Core 4 which provide OpenOffice.org pre-2.0(improved MS doc format support). It also provide KDE if you don’t like Gnome. Also check out http://www.distrowatch.org to look for a distro that suits you needs.
When you state Linux overall, you made a mistake that all Linux distros are the same.
2005-07-03 1:06 am
Anonymous
So before a piece of software can be installed on Windows the ISV has to submit it to Microsoft first so they can put it into their repository?
No, of course not. I never said that there has to be a single repository. None of the current system requires this.
but you’ve still got the problems of different package management types and a moving base system target.
Well, yes. That makes the situation problematic, not the machine query/download. That’s the whole point!
Just because on one operating system (Linux) there is a fragmentation on the package management part, doesn’t make the repository approach unusable.
You agree later on that for example Windows would be stationary enought.
So if you had a system with both the long time compatability (obviously doable, see Windows) and a dependency checking/resolving package managment (obviously doable, see Linux) you can easily query/find/install software machine-enabled.
Having the check for new versions, download and install handled in a single subsystem is IMHO way better than having each application call home at uncontrolable times, having non or very few checks on duplication.
ergo, you cannot rely on anything that will be pre-installed.
You are always basing your judgement of a repository based software distribution model on the situation of the current implementation in Linux distributions.
simply because if the system gets updated via the official method bad things will inevitably happen
How so?
As long as the dependencies stated by the ISVs package remain in the system, nothing has changed from the ISVs prespective.
You’ve also got more than one distribution to support doing this as well.
I see. Using a repository bases distribution model automatically results in more than one operating system distribution an ISV has to support.
Lucky that Windows don’t use that model yet, it would autotically lead to some other company distribution Windows as well.
Whatever though, you need a solid base system
Oh, so you think it can work given that the prerequistes are OK?
Did a miracly occur and all the bad things about respository based software distribution just vanished?
I guess they just never existed.
An ISV will not target apt-get, apt4rpm, urpmi and the umpteen other package managers
Yes I know “example” is a really difficult to understand word. Not your fault.
Now tell me how just much effort and cost that all is for an ISV.
I didn’t claim that the current package manager situation makes this viable, all I claimed was that a repository based software distribution method is a good idea and already used even on systems without common methods for dependecy checking, in which case the installers have to do it themselves.
Why do you think the ISV above has downloadable RPMs, DEBs etc. for each distribution?
Because they want to have their software run on different Linux systems?
The problem is that on a Linux distribution any package an ISV creates ties directly into the the base system itself
Yes
there’s more than one distribution, and worse, the base system isn’t consistent.
Yes, but absolutely independend from the distribution model.
But of course it is convenient to base judgement of a technology on the state of a broken implementation.
Its like saying video over data networks cannot work, because the modems in 1990 are too slow.
Like there is no progress
2005-07-03 1:12 am
Anonymous
I know this link. These are no alternative. Can the GIMP save as .PSD? No.
Incorrect, Gimp 2.0 and up can save as .psd. Looks like you didn’t check the extension while saving.
Can it work with layers? No.
It works. I wonde which Gimp version you used.
Does it work ok with anti-aliased? No.
It does.
Have I tried it? Yes, and I have insisted.
Looks like you have an entire different version. Probably from your Ubuntu experience.
How about OO.o ? Genuine Word documents are all messed up in OO.o, is it normal, come on? How can you work with crappy software in a compan
See my previous post. Look slike yo use OO.o version 1.14. You haven’t try OO.o 2.0 test, did you?
Overall, your frustration came from using solely Ubuntu (I suppose you use Hoary version).
2005-07-03 1:23 am
Anonymous
Instead of people saying “oh lord a troller”, maybe the community should take some note of good ideas. Just because Linux could be easier to use doesn’t mean it makes it a bad OS. Take some lessons and if you think you can create a more modern envoironment for living with the most powerful OS, then go for it. Don’t start telling others they are “trolls” because they have an idea. It’s you people who are the brick walls the Linux world comes to. Stop it now, because there will be a day when the brick wall will come head to head with a wrecking ball and just take a guess who will win that little conflict? Try to live a little. Aparently the Linux world is filled with communists or republicans that are too afraid of change (even though thats the part of the purpose of open source technology). Change is not always, but unstructured change is. This guy offers a very nice and easy way of getting something done.
On my own note: I’m sick of geeks running the design of an OS, and I think more innovative minds should design the way it’s set up, and let the geeks worry about the stability of the kernel etc. The file structure in Linux is the same complexity as KDE. Too many options and not enough productivity. I spend a week getting my KDE working the way I wanted before I was able to do anything for myself. That was years ago, and since then I switched to Gnome because it’s a lot easier to just get in and get stuff done. Like I said, take people who aren’t programmers and give their ideals a spin. Just because someone can’t produce something worthwhile doesn’t mean their ideas are crap. If that was the case we wouldn’t have video games. SOMEONE has to come up with an idea, and SOMEONE ELSE is usually the one programming it, while YET ANOHTER person does the graphics. Don’t carry the weight of the world on your shoulders.
2005-07-03 1:25 am
Anonymous
>You are more productive in Windows? Save for the time
>you need for maintanance.
Maintenance? What maintenance?
I haven’t got a single anti-virus/anti-spyware program installed on this W2K box and I’m running just fine.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve never even defragged the hard drive.
The DSL modem my ISP sold me serves as a firewall and as long as I do a bit of research (GOOGLE:programname spyware) before I install anything I don’t have to worry about that sort of garbage getting into my PC.
A few simple precautions are all that I’ve needed for a troublefree windows system.
The user interface issues that were pointed out are applicable to all desktop oriented operating systems, not just Linux.
Making an OS user friendly doesn’t have to compromise security either.
2005-07-03 1:34 am
Anonymous
“Installing Applications is complicated”
It is… sort of complicated. It depends. If you’re trying to install something random on a random distro, it can be a pain. However, this has largely been addressed by the various package management systems and online repositories. For example, installing something in Ubuntu is really easy, as long as you can do it through Synaptic. However, I still wouldn’t ask an average user to compile and all.
True! Compiling is for developers and packagers. That shouln’t happen to an end user. By the way have you ever tried to compile something for windows. In most cases that is much more complicated than ./configure, make, make install or rpmbuild -ba specfile.spec. But somehow, nobody accuses Microsoft for making a hard to install system because of that. Nobody blames Microsoft for not having one place where you can get 90% of the software running on windows, but instead let users spend valuable time searching the internet or speaking to sales people to get them.
I think that the main problem with Linux software installation is that it is too easy. Do you remember the old audio cassette decks where there was a tape type selector? There was no need for that selector, the tape type was mechanically code into the cassette. Letting the user have a button to switch made him feel in control, and a little bit like an expert.
Just double click on an rpm link on a website and click OK, or use some package manager like yum or apt takes this away. Even if windows users usually doesn’t change anything in windows install dialogs clicking OK a few times gives them the illusion that they are in control.
“Directory structures can be confusing to navigate”
It is a bit complex. Now, really, if you don’t know what you’re doing, you should pretty well stay contained to your home directory anyway, and anything you wouldn’t know what they were should be hidden. So, though I agree that the structure is a bit confusing to those who aren’t familiar with it, it shouldn’t really be an issue.
You can test this right now if you use Gnome. Just create a .hidden file in each directory containing a list of directories you wan’t to hide in that directory.
I have tested this for a while. I have hidden directories like /etc, /usr, /root, /bin, /dev, /proc, /sbin /lib, /sys, This really makes it easier to focus on the files you need for everyday use. At least if you are an ordinary office worker and not a programmer or sysadmin. There are a lot more ordinary users than progrmmers and sysadmins so it would a good idea to hide such files by default.
The authers idea of an application folder is also a very good idea. However I think he should leave the thinking on how to implement them to others. Changeing the well known Unix directory structure would break far too many applications. That shouldn’t stop us from showing a folderlike virtual federated application space. The user could install things by dragging rpm or debs into it, leaving an icon for each application.
The user interface, the auther proposes is not very well thought out. Placing icons on the desktop is not such a good idea. They will be covered by the documents the user work with. The Gnome “Programs”, “Places” and “Desktop” menu is a far better approach, even though some card sorting game probably could be applied to the contents of the menus.
In my opinion, that’s the ironic thing about all this, “What Linux needs to be ready for the desktop” stuff. Many Linux distros are already better than Windows. Fedora, Ubuntu, and SuSE– they’re all easier to install, easier to keep secure, easier to manage, and easier to update than Windows. KDE and Gnome are both as consistent and less ugly than Windows.
So why isn’t Linux “winning”? First, people are used to Windows and are scared of change. They don’t understand the difference, and they don’t want to have to relearn using a computer. Second, Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive practices which have damaged the ability of Linux applications to be compatible and interoperable with Windows apps. Those are the big reasons right there. That’s it. There are good Linux distros out there
Another factor is that Linux haven’t been this good very long. I would say the breakthrough was Ubuntu and Gnome 2.10. It looked good and was easy to use. The only thing that made it feel a bit unfinished was the inability to edit the program menu with GUI tools. Now there is such a tool called smeg. Hope something like that gets included in the next Gnome release.
If the system doesn’t look & feel good, commersial developers will not bother developing applications for it.
Now, that look and feel is right we probably have to wait a couple of years for the market to grow. This is what happened on the server side. Linux was ready on the server side for quite some time before it was taken seriously.
2005-07-03 1:39 am
Anonymous
While Linux works great as a server after much pain to configure (sysadmins know what I’m talking about)
No I don’t actually. Windows servers and all the paraphenalia that comes with it that doesn’t work doesn’t exactly save me any time.
I don’t know why people have this bizarre impression that Windows just works (or thinks that’s what the average user thinks) – it doesn’t. The average user doesn’t get that impression at all. As far as they’re concerned computers period, whether installed with Windows or Linux, are difficult to use.
Look what they need to do: Need to know the horizontal and vertical refresh rate, need to know the model of the video board, available video memory, need to configure X.org (It always fails at least 10 times until you find out what the problem is, configuration of X.org in text mode, set up samba (good luck), set up the printer (good luck too), set up the network (good luck too), configure the display settings, resolution, install software (good luck), installing software fails most of the time, especially if you compile the software.
If you get yourself a distribution like Gentoo or Linux from scratch then you need to do the above, and you probably deserve what you get. I’ve installed Linux many times and never ever needed to do any of the things you’ve described above. An install of Suse or Mandrake takes me around ten to fifteen minutes. It takes a lot longer than that to get Windows installed, and a few reboots as well. Even when I get it installed I have to re-install all the damn drivers, motherboard drivers, graphics drivers, sound drivers, wireless drivers………
Windows is not installer friendly and not a pleasant experience.
What’s the point? How do you run Autocad, Flash MX 2004, Corel Draw, Swift, 3DS or Plasma on Linux?
You switch to Linux, find alternatives, drive demand for the platform, and quite frankly, save yourself some money because if you’re buying the above you have more money than sense.
2005-07-03 1:52 am
Anonymous
It’s not. Install Ubuntu, the network isn’t configured automatically.
Well no, and neither does Windows. Operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows don’t do telepathy very well yet funnily enough. If you have DHCP then you may get an autoconfigured network, but there’s no guarantee of that on any OS.
OpenOffice isn’t compatible with some MS Word documents, they are all messed up
I’ve opened up a lot of complex documents with Open Office, including Powerpoint presentations, and never had anything messed up.
a PDF converter, and other software.
God, now I know you’re talking bollocks. How much do you think a PDF converter costs for Windows?! Open Office converts to PDF out of the box.
How can you work with crappy software in a company?
Well you obviously do. Besides, it’s how you use any software that counts and you’ve proven to be somewhat less than competent. I wouldn’t trust you with writing a simple document with Word, let alone creating a Flash presentation or using Photoshop.
Let’s put it this way – if you’re trying to do the things you say you’re doing, installing operating systems, administrating servers, setting up networks, converting PDFs, creating Flash presentations etc. then you’re not a Joe User, OK?
2005-07-03 2:21 am
Anonymous
What’s the point? How do you run Autocad, Flash MX 2004, Corel Draw, Swift, 3DS or Plasma on Linux?
You switch to Linux, find alternatives, drive demand for the platform, and quite frankly, save yourself some money because if you’re buying the above you have more money than sense.
There are *NO* alternatives to the above. Don’t invent a “solution”. I’m not buying this software for pleasure. The company has this software to meet the customers’s need. If you don’t meet the customer’s needs you’re out and he goes see your competitor, but you seem to have no clue what working, satisfying a customer is. You’re the kind of narrow-minded guy who tells his customer he’s stupid because he wants to use Oracle because Oracle is open-source and pricy. Linux has to respond to a market need and it fails miserably. Its community has a group of narrow-minded people that are selfish, they think they’re right and that the others are wrong because they don’t use their “superior” OS. If its were such a good OS, everybody would use it, come os, it’s free, you have it on CD-ROMs for free with magazines, Why would people bother going to the store and pay big bucks to something less good?! What’s your explanation? What is your “solution” if a customer comes and asks for “a Flash animation or I go and see the competitor”? How do you create a .CDR CorelDraw file in Linux to take to your printer for him to print your business cards? You’re clueless, sorry.
If you get yourself a distribution like Gentoo or Linux from scratch then you need to do the above, and you probably deserve what you get. I’ve installed Linux many times and never ever needed to do any of the things you’ve described above. An install of Suse or Mandrake takes me around ten to fifteen minutes. It takes a lot longer than that to get Windows installed, and a few reboots as well. Even when I get it installed I have to re-install all the damn drivers, motherboard drivers, graphics drivers, sound drivers, wireless drivers………
You’re pathetic. Be honest, you seem to know what you’re talking about, so if you install Gentoo from stage 1 or 2, how many days it takes to compile? Anyway, we’re talking about less difficult distros like Mandrake or Fedora. If you have installed Linux several times, you know you won’t install all the aforementioned in 10 minutes (OS, network, filesharing, software, WINE, etc…). You can count a whole day if all goes fairely smoothly. On Windows you just have to click “Next”. Anybody can do it. It takes an hour to install Windows. If you need to install drivers on Windows, please tell me about Linux! Hardware support is quite poor, and on Windows at least most drivers are integrated into the OS. On Linux they’re either unavailable or you need to find it on the vendor’s web site if there is one available. Many printers, webcams, scanners don’t have drivers for Linux. What do you do? Your vision of “I’m true, you’re wrong” doesn’t take you and Linux nowhere. Linux is in standby because it has many narrow-minded people like you who prefer command line to point-and-click, and above all, want to show the world they are able to use the command line whereas regular users can’t. Fair enough, we stay away from Linux the most we can, and you can stay with you “superior” OS. Good luck in your fight for a bare 1% desktop market share, what a good proof of massive adoption and satisfaction of the people!
The important thing in this world is the bottom line, buddy, you seem to be out of this world, I guess you get a montly fixed salary and it doesn’t make any difference if you take 20′ or a whole day to do the similar task. It doesn’t seem a big deal for you to tell a customer he’s wrong and that he should go see somewhere else because you won’t answer his problem because you don’t like the software you’d need to use to meed his need. Get a life.
2005-07-03 2:21 am
Anonymous
it’s great that the “masses” aren’t installing Linux. The Linux users are the true freedom people. Everyone else is using MacOSX and Windows. Evolution at its finest.
2005-07-03 2:26 am
Anonymous
Well no, and neither does Windows. Operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows don’t do telepathy very well yet funnily enough. If you have DHCP then you may get an autoconfigured network, but there’s no guarantee of that on any OS.
On the same machine, Windows shows my 2 NICs in my list of detected NICs. If I boot on Mandrake and type ifconfig, none of them show up. Anything wrong with Linux? Maybe it’s the end-user’s fault 
2005-07-03 2:40 am
Anonymous
No, of course not. I never said that there has to be a single repository.
There is one base repository that effectively dictates how compatible other repositories will be – the one you use to update the OS. Having multiple repositories the influence the installation of the base system is very problematic and not something an ISV will support.
Well, yes. That makes the situation problematic, not the machine query/download. That’s the whole point!
Errr, if it makes the situation problematic (which it does) then it’s sayonara. The machine query/download bollocks is totally irrelevant.
Having the check for new versions, download and install handled in a single subsystem is IMHO way better than having each application call home at uncontrolable times
You don’t need a repository based system to do that.
Just because on one operating system (Linux) there is a fragmentation on the package management part, doesn’t make the repository approach unusable.
There is always fragmentation – it’s unavoidable. No one install of a distribution is going to be exactly the same as another. That’s unsupportable for an ISV.
You agree later on that for example Windows would be stationary enought.
Because Windows is bloody stationary! You have one version install of the OS, and multiple service packs to target. Mind you, even that causes problems but it’s far more preferable to the situation you have with Linux distributions.
So if you had a system with both the long time compatability (obviously doable, see Windows) and a dependency checking/resolving package managment (obviously doable, see Linux) you can easily query/find/install software machine-enabled.
Yes, but no Linux distribution has that long-term solid base and the query/find/install still doesn’t work because you’re not going to find everything in a repository, multiple repositories create multiple incompatibilities and there’s no way of configuring the software through an installer.
You are always basing your judgement of a repository based software distribution model on the situation of the current implementation in Linux distributions.
F*** yes I am! The current implementation of Linux distributions is what’s out there, since that’s what is actually being discussed! Besides, it’s not going to work in any other way. I’ll take that as an admission that I’m right.
As long as the dependencies stated by the ISVs package remain in the system
Because every Linux distribution is a moving target no ISV can guarantee that at all.
Oh, so you think it can work given that the prerequistes are OK?
If the pre-requisites are OK then it is OK, but the point is that from Linux distribution to Linux distribution, versions to version, especially with multiple repositories, no ISV can ever guarantee those pre-requisites at all, they can’t develop for them and they can’t support them. That’s the point.
Did a miracly occur and all the bad things about respository based software distribution just vanished?
No, it’s just you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about and you’re going round in circles.
Yes I know “example” is a really difficult to understand word. Not your fault.
Ever heard of the word context ;-)? Whether it was an example or not is totally irrelevant – an ISV will simply not support umpteen package managers, end of story.
I didn’t claim that the current package manager situation makes this viable
Your arguments fall apart totally right there then.
all I claimed was that a repository based software distribution method is a good idea and already used even on systems without common methods for dependecy checking
If it doesn’t solve the above problem then a repository based software installation system for third-party software is totally useless.
in which case the installers have to do it themselves.
Which they’re not going to do because they can’t. They have to depend on something being there. If the software package relies on a particular version of a package in the base system but the version is either later or earlier than it needs and that base component cannot be changed because other components depend on it then that’s it.
Because they want to have their software run on different Linux systems?
My God, are you really that dense? Did you not see the large amount of packages they’ve had to create, at great expense, just to support what should be one Linux system?!
Yes
Which means ISVs tie themselves to one distribution or put great expense into creating several versions.
Yes, but absolutely independend from the distribution model.
No it isn’t independent of the distribution model because software that ISVs create is tied to each individual distribution and even version.
But of course it is convenient to base judgement of a technology on the state of a broken implementation.
Oh wow, really? I’ll take that as a cop-out, because it’s become quite clear you’re going around in circles. The repository based software installation system cannot possibly work on a wider basis for ISVs to support Linux on a large scale.
2005-07-03 3:19 am
Anonymous
There are *NO* alternatives to the above. Don’t invent a “solution”.
The question is, do you actually need any of this software even if you were running it on Windows? No, you don’t.
If you don’t meet the customer’s needs you’re out
You don’t meet a customer’s needs by buying umpteen bits of utterly pointless software. Trust me, endlessly buying software is the quickest way to put yourself out of business. If you are using all this stuff then you’re spreading yourself too thin and you’re losing money hand over fist because there’s no way you’re going to use it on every single project so there’s no way any of it is going to pay for itself. If a customer is using a piece of software then there is absolutely no reason for you to go out and buy several licenses for yourself. You simply use what they’ve got themselves, and if it’s a new project then you have some input as to what will be used.
There’s such a thing as business focus and you seem to have very little of it.
You’re the kind of narrow-minded guy who tells his customer he’s stupid because he wants to use Oracle because Oracle is open-source and pricy.
Oracle is certainly not open source, but it is pricy. Besides, if you’re developing a solution for a customer then they don’t care what database it uses. If they’re already using Oracle then you use what they’ve got. You don’t need to buy every piece of software every customer you’ve got has!
How do you create a .CDR CorelDraw file in Linux to take to your printer for him to print your business cards?
Well, if I’m taking my business cards to my printer to be printed then that means I’m paying the money and he’ll accept any format I give him. For virtually all printers that’s PDF, which is universal.
You utter clueless twit!
Why would people bother going to the store and pay big bucks to something less good?!
You’ve got your wires crossed there.
What is your “solution” if a customer comes and asks for “a Flash animation or I go and see the competitor”?
It depends if it was worth the money. If I’m not a graphical company then he’ll simply have to go and see a competitor (except they won’t be a competitor because they don’t do the same thing). The money simply will not justify the cost. If I am then I’ll have one or two Windows machines lying around I can use Flash on, or subcontract it out. That doesn’t mean I can’t run Linux on my servers or my other desktops and save money there. As demand grows then we might see Flash on Linux. At the moment it’s nothing to lose sleep over. You simply use what you need at any given time.
You’re pathetic. Be honest, you seem to know what you’re talking about, so if you install Gentoo from stage 1 or 2, how many days it takes to compile?
It doesn’t take days, but I don’t care because I wouldn’t use Gentoo for that purpose.
If you have installed Linux several times, you know you won’t install all the aforementioned in 10 minutes (OS, network, filesharing, software, WINE, etc…).
Yes it does – all the software packages, and the equivalent functionality like Open Office that takes you hours to install from a fresh install of Windows.
On Windows you just have to click “Next”.
No you bloody don’t!
If you need to install drivers on Windows, please tell me about Linux!
I don’t install drivers on Linux. They come ready as part of the kernel.
Hardware support is quite poor, and on Windows at least most drivers are integrated into the OS.
No they’re not.
What do you do? Your vision of “I’m true, you’re wrong” doesn’t take you and Linux nowhere.
You obviously haven’t read my other comments around here.
The important thing in this world is the bottom line, buddy
Yer. And buying Autocad, Flash, Photoshop, Oracle, Corel Draw etc. for evey single customer and project you have is the quickest way to putting yourself out of business.
It doesn’t seem a big deal for you to tell a customer he’s wrong and that he should go see somewhere else because you won’t answer his problem because you don’t like the software you’d need to use to meed his need.
I never said I didn’t like his software – just that I don’t feel the need to go out and buy specific software for every job and customer I have. If the customer is already using the software then I’ll simply use what they’ve got. If it’s something completely new then he/she will go with what I think is most cost-effective, and I can guarantee you I can undercut anyone using Oracle ;-). That’s what customers want to here most. They don’t want to hear about what expensive software I’m using, because that’s not what Joe Users care about ;-).
If I did what you do I’d be joining the dole queue very quickly.
Get a life.
You’re going to need one, because if you’re in business at all the reposessors are coming for you.
2005-07-03 3:25 am
Anonymous
On the same machine, Windows shows my 2 NICs in my list of detected NICs. If I boot on Mandrake and type ifconfig, none of them show up. Anything wrong with Linux? Maybe it’s the end-user’s fault
Nice try ;-). For someone who hates Linux you seem to use a lot of Linux distributions, don’t you?
If you’d said a wireless NIC then you might have some credibility. As it stands Linux, within the kernel and out of the box, actually supports more NICs than Windows does. No one has problems with NICs on Linux, and if you are then no one cares because I know you’re in an extreme minority.
Anyway, all of that is pretty academic though because you made that up, didn’t you?
2005-07-03 3:32 am
Anonymous
David, you’re a typical linux arrogant, selfish, and narrow-mind morron. You don’t accept that you’re wrong on this. The discussion goes nowhere.
Wrong on what? Since you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what that topic above was actually about I find that funny. I take it you’re just randomly replying to stuff now?
I think you’ve adequately shown that you have no skills whatsoever to live, nevermind use a computer – Windows or otherwise. You wonder how these people get themselves on the Internet…..
2005-07-03 3:49 am
Anonymous
The question is, do you actually need any of this software even if you were running it on Windows? No, you don’t.
Yer. And buying Autocad, Flash, Photoshop, Oracle, Corel Draw etc. for evey single customer and project you have is the quickest way to putting yourself out of business.
You can’t say a user doesn’t need the software mentioned before, as you’re NOT that user. Many users want software because of the usability, features, and whatever other reason. Many actually need photoshop, flash, corel draw, quicken, and autocad as there aren’t any alternatives that can be offered in a GNU/Linux environment.
You’ll quickly refute that by saying gimp is a great alternative, but actually gimp is nowhere near the level that photoshop is at. If it was ready for everyone’s uses, then it would be used. Gimp is great for making quick images for an average user, but not for a professional. Same goes for macromedia products and other adobe products. And as far as Autocad, there is no alternative.
Until Linux software is availabe that is at the same level as it is on other platforms, then people will be more willing to crossover. I hope for that day, and that day is approaching sooner and sooner, for example MySQL. I’m all for OSS, but please don’t say people don’t need their Win or Apple software until there are real alternatives.
Linux is great for the average person people when they just need to use the internet, listen to music, word processing, e-mail and that’s where it ends.
Linux is not for everyone, take for example a school in Melbourne, Australia who were using Debian, but got fed up and switched to OS X.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1302841680;fp;16;fpid;…
There’s somethings that the Linux community need to work on as mentioned in the original article. I just hope the Linux community would accept the reality.
Until then, I’m happy with OS X!
2005-07-03 4:00 am
Anonymous
I’ve just GOT to chime in here. I have a personal pet peeve with people like Joe User.
I know, I know, don’t feed the troll, but…
What the FUCK gives you the idea that you can go about calling people narrow minded and arrogant and then go and say “Linux sucks, Windows rules” ?
Notice how the sensible people here are saying “Well, I know that Linux does not fair well here but…” and you are not? You are defending Windows as if you wrote it yourself!
You piss me off, you really do. And I don’t get pissed off often…
Now, on topic: Windows rocks the Desktop world, Linux kicks ass in the Server world and that’s that. However, Linux is making great headway in the desktop part and Windows *is* improving in the server part, admittedly not as fast but it’s getting there.
2005-07-03 4:01 am
Anonymous
“I’ll just write what someone once said somewhere:
If Linux is safer, faster, robuster, easier, better and it’s even free why isn’t everybody using it?
Think about it”
———
Think about this… if 97% of the people in the world drove a yugo, it still wouldn’t be a good car.
‘Nuff said.
2005-07-03 4:05 am
Anonymous
This article is too long. The whole “Linux is ready for the desktop” thing can be boiled down to one sentence:
Linux will be ready for the desktop when people have to use it at work.
2005-07-03 4:08 am
Anonymous
>> On the same machine, Windows shows my 2 NICs in my list of detected NICs. If I boot on Mandrake and type ifconfig, none of them show up. Anything wrong with Linux? Maybe it’s the end-user’s fault
> Nice try ;-). For someone who hates Linux you seem to use a lot of Linux distributions, don’t you?
Yeah, this Joe User certainly has tried a lot of distros. He must be some kind of Linux zealot… LOL
Now, in every thread like this it is possible that someone just comes by to make noise. And worst, sometimes a “Knight” for Linux also appears and they start to battle, letting other readers baffled. This is an old tactic to create turmoil and eliminating rational discussion. I guess this is what we could call “polluting” a discussion.
Also, have in mind that Linux is making a great stride towards being one of the main OSes. It is becoming an interesting alternative for embedding, displacing Unix on servers and — ready or not — it is being used on the desktop, even if this displeases some folks (like my countryman “Joe User”).
A /. troll writing a stupid article about what linux needs to do to succeed on the desktop. Just what we’ve been waiting for.
And you don’t even have to read far to know that it’s not worth reading the whole thing
“Installing Applications is complicated”
No, it isn’t. It’s different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn’t complicated.
“Directory structures can be confusing to navigate”
Yes, Joe User and my mom don’t use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please…
And don’t tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn’t.
“Interface is confusing and inconsistent”
While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn’t more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.
“Steep learning curve required to understand system functions”
As is the case with any OS out there.
Seriously, linux has to compete against a system that has an installbase of more than 90% on PCs world wide, against a system that comes preinstalled with about every new PC, a system that most people associate with computers.
Did it ever occur to people like batsy that being a hughe success on the desktop in this kind of cirumstances might take some time, no matter what the directory structure of Linux might be?
…I do agree with your assessment;
Seriously, linux has to compete against a system that has an installbase of more than 90% on PCs world wide, against a system that comes preinstalled with about every new PC, a system that most people associate with computers.
There’s nothing hard about using Linux as-is as a desktop environment. Only thing is, most people have used some kind of computer — usually Windows — and associate “the computer” with what they first learned.
That said, people seem to have no problem adapting to new web pages…so why should an OS be any different? They aren’t going to install or manage the sucker — and they will probably do less fiddling with Linux than the current market leader Windows (no virus/trojan problems, better security defaults, …).
I have to agree with everything the article says.
I tend to agree with the first comment
as for adapting to new web pages – why? “zero install” 
if Linux was zero install… you’d have something going there… and well yes i know of the live cd qemu thing… 
I agree with everything the article said too.
Linux is a server operating system
i like a database filesystem, but not on the gnome/kde level – i want to be able to access my docs without kde or gnome. a LUKS driver for a DBFS would be nice.
his comments about the confusing directory structure are true. for a home user, windows does:
1. c:Program Files
2. c:Windows
Linux does:
1. /bin
2. /sbin
3. /usr/bin
4. /usr/sbin
5. /usr/local/bin
6. /usr/local/sbin
why not:
1. /applications
2. /system
and move /lib to /system/lib
would be much easier to understand for most home users…
this could be done easily by hiding and symlinking all those directories to /applications
While I don’t follow everything , for the most part I would have to aggree.
as someone who doesn’t know how to use windows, i personally feel that mouse-oriented operating systems are far more convoluted and hard to use than unix. accomplishing any task other than downloading and installing software seems impossible. i don’t see how windows users can actually get around to computing anything on their computers when they have to spend so much time doing stupid mouse tricks.
such predictions have yet to become reality
No, they are already reality.
Desktop is a concept with more than one market.
2004 has seen more than one decision of companies or governmental agencies to go for Linux on their desktops.
Which means that the Linux offerings of late 2003 must have finally been good enough, which makes 2003 also a year of the Linux desktop.
Obviously the consumer market for the Desktop is the most difficult one, as it is the broadest, but I am sure Linux will also make it into that one.
So unless there is no further progress, every year is currently a year of the Linux Desktop
Over the last couple of years, I have given computers with Linux installed to two people. Both people were very nearly computer illiterate at the time I first set them up with a Linux box. While both are intelligient people, neither has more than a high-school education. One of the two is a grandmother.
Both these people are now happily using Linux on a daily basis (currently SimplyMepis is my distro of choice for unsophisticated Linux users). Neither of them has turned into a power user – but Linux meets their computing requirements (mainly Internet access, email, and the odd bit of word processing) just fine. Neither of them has ever managed to get a new piece of software installed, though. (Yes, even Synaptic is too complex for many people.) And yes, one of the two has in fact installed software successfully on a Windows 98 system.
I agree with the author of the article that Linux is indeed lacking in some things, most particularly IMHO a comprehensive, uniform, cross-distro, GUI-based set of configuration tools, and a single GUI software installer as clean and easy to use as, say, Firefox or Kmail. I have hope that eventually both the Gnome and KDE projects will incorporate something like this. But – and it’s a big but – imperfect though Linux is, the increased resistance to viruses, worms, and malware alone more than makes up for this.
Linux is not perfect, for sure. But it’s already BETTER than the alternatives in many ways.
-Gnobuddy
That article angered my soul. He “faults” Linux on some of its greatest strengths.
1. Package Managers: I don’t know about you, but I like being able to install any program I want without having to search the web for it, waiting for it to download, and then running the installer. I simply type in a command followed by the name of the program, and it installs itself, hands-free. And this “dependency hell” people are always whining about hasn’t been a problem for me in years.
2. Directory Structure: Oh noes, teh directory structure is different from Windows. Yeah, it is different, but once you’re used to it, its also much more logical, and if we’re talking about the average user here, they’ll never see anything other than their home directory anyway.
Evert wrote:
———————————————————–
why not:
1. /applications
2. /system
and move /lib to /system/lib
would be much easier to understand for most home users…
this could be done easily by hiding and symlinking all those directories to /applications
———————————————————-
Check out GoboLinux ( http://www.gobolinux.org/ ). They have already done essentially this very thing.
-Gnobuddy
ok, thanks, looks interesting 🙂
That all would be cool if:
One (very fat one) will allocate 10G$ at that project.
They will take linux and do all that insane thing to it not looking at what people say.
Will not call result Linux as it is not Linux as we know it.
They will make their 10G$ back by sales if they’ll charge 20$ a copy in 4-5 years, i guess.
Of course, this plan need some more work on APIs and kernel APIs, but that could work… If one willing to spend 10G$.
Though I agree Linux sometimes needs a polish, I think this guy is wrong.
Installing apps is different on Linux than on Windows or MacOS X.
Some people like it, some don’t.
I really think Appfolders are a bad idea: they are not abstracted enough.
It should be easy as automatic to install an uninstall programs.
Deleting some folder is not abstracted enough IMHO.
Filemanagement: A user should NEVER need to see anything of the system, NEVER.
I think all desktop Operating systems try to hide it more or less.
Database filesystems are very good…….for power users.
Not for John average: they are too complicated.
Desktop: I doubt your applications icon would scale to a lot of programs.
I am more a fan ot the GNOME layout: a hierarchical menus ‘applications’,’places’ and ‘system’.
Most people want to (ab)use their desktop for files.
Filters are a really good idea, but again, only suitable for power users IMHO.
“Installing Applications is complicated”
It is… sort of complicated. It depends. If you’re trying to install something random on a random distro, it can be a pain. However, this has largely been addressed by the various package management systems and online repositories. For example, installing something in Ubuntu is really easy, as long as you can do it through Synaptic. However, I still wouldn’t ask an average user to compile and all.
“Directory structures can be confusing to navigate”
It is a bit complex. Now, really, if you don’t know what you’re doing, you should pretty well stay contained to your home directory anyway, and anything you wouldn’t know what they were should be hidden. So, though I agree that the structure is a bit confusing to those who aren’t familiar with it, it shouldn’t really be an issue.
“Interface is confusing and inconsistent”
The question I have about this is, which interface? “Linux” can have any number of interfaces. Though I’ll admit to preferring OSX to anything else out there, both KDE and Gnome are good. Certainly no worse than Windows.
When you get down to it, I think that would generally be my take on things: Though I prefer OSX, many of the Linux options are good, at least no worse than Windows and probably better.
In my opinion, that’s the ironic thing about all this, “What Linux needs to be ready for the desktop” stuff. Many Linux distros are already better than Windows. Fedora, Ubuntu, and SuSE– they’re all easier to install, easier to keep secure, easier to manage, and easier to update than Windows. KDE and Gnome are both as consistent and less ugly than Windows.
So why isn’t Linux “winning”? First, people are used to Windows and are scared of change. They don’t understand the difference, and they don’t want to have to relearn using a computer. Second, Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive practices which have damaged the ability of Linux applications to be compatible and interoperable with Windows apps. Those are the big reasons right there. That’s it. There are good Linux distros out there.
I really think Appfolders are a bad idea: they are not abstracted enough.It should be easy as automatic to install an uninstall programs. Deleting some folder is not abstracted enough IMHO.
The author agrees with you. Read the rest of the article. He’s talking about disk images being used to contain the application.
Filemanagement: A user should NEVER need to see anything of the system, NEVER.
The author agrees with you. The only thing visible to the user are the documents and application files.
Database filesystems are very good…….for power users.
Doesn’t every movie user type “find The Super Secret File” and the Super Secret File is found? (grin)
Desktop: I doubt your applications icon would scale to a lot of programs. I am more a fan ot the GNOME layout: a hierarchical menus ‘applications’,’places’ and ‘system’.
Most people want to (ab)use their desktop for files.
The author agrees with you. Quote: “[The Applications] label can theoretically contain anything, including sub-labels”
Filters are a really good idea, but again, only suitable for power users IMHO.
A very true statement. But why should only idiots^H^H^H^H^H novice users have all the fun?
you know, the fact is that more and more people using laptop as their primary computer. and this is where linux has many other problems besides those it already has as a desktop system. furthermore, many laptop-related problems can’t be cleanly resolved without laptop manufacturers providing some linux compatibility. there are things which are presumably standardized like power management, and yet there are always some caveats when you want to have the same functionality on Linux as you have when runing Windows on your laptop. Trying to use Winmodem (that is, Linmodem) can be a royal pain in the neck. Always potential problems with soundcard. WLAN may not necessary work. It’s no fun to run Linux on some generic laptop.
Over the last couple of years, I have given computers with Linux installed to two people. Both people were very nearly computer illiterate at the time I first set them up with a Linux box. While both are intelligient people, neither has more than a high-school education. One of the two is a grandmother.
Both these people are now happily using Linux on a daily basis (currently SimplyMepis is my distro of choice for unsophisticated Linux users).
So, what is your point, exactly? Any OS becomes usable when you have a resident OS guru there to answer all of your problems. For example, whenever my close friends and family members have a problem with their Windows box (which seems to be often for some), they call me. If they were to switch the Linux, who the hell are they gonna call? Certainly not me, cuz I don’t know enough about desktop Linux to solve their problems. So then what are they gonna do, consult Google? LMAO!!! Of course, there is usually a group of Linux geeks (LUGs, or whatever) who could probably help, but most people don’t know that. My point here is that most people who have Windows issues knows at least someone they can call who ‘knows computers’ – the same can’t be said for Linux. This is a huge problem, especially since most hardware/software vendors, ISPs, etc don’t offer much support for Linux.
damn, that file system stuff is a mess, i know it’s already like that for 20 years, but it’s time for some change. i use linux for 5 years and i still don’t know if my file is in /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/sbin.. locate helps, but that does not solve the problem. i even symlinked /usr/local to /usr to make my live easier. maybe i should try gobolinux
funny realy that most of the problems talked about (atleast on page one) seems to be coverd by gobolinux (as someone have allready pointed out). and if they dont have a package (that is dead simple to install and now even have a gui management tool) you can install from source by grabbing a recipe from the main page and the source tarball, extract and just type compile. presto. and even this can the gui package manager deal with (alltho i have not tryed that part yet myself).
what is even more funny is that around the corner is a systemd called autopackage that allow the individual user to install apps inside their own home directory. this should work on just about any distro out there.
then there is zeroinstall, a system that looks quite similar to the mac way. but with the added twist of being able to grab the app of the net (or some other source) automaticaly.
i think desktop linux is surging ahead. lets just see how many distros embrace autopackage as a user space tool for installing. if they are realy dedicated to the desktop then they will use a package manager for dealing with stuff like servers, the base system and maybe desktop’s/wm’s. but leaving the user apps (gimp, k3b and so on) for autopackage to handle. and as autopackage inherits many of the ideas of the package manager it will be cleaner in use then the windows installer system (and you dont have registry rot to deal with either
)
oops. memo to self, read all the pages before commenting. looks like gobolinux was pointed out on page two.
nad i kinda like the disk image idea. even more so if you combo it with lufs (or whatever the name of that plugin enabled, user space fs system is called).
hmm, and mounting the home folder as a mysql database could be interesting. just needs a fs driver that can talk mysql and a new search tool that can pass database querys to it.
now merge this with say gobolinux and lets see what comes out of it
“I agree with everything the article said too.
Linux is a server operating system”
Do you know the difference between a ‘server’, a ‘workstation’, an ’embeded’, or a ‘desktop’ operating system?
Configuration. Nothing more.
That’s why Linux is on Linksys and Tivo boxes, cell phones, PDAs, watches, mainframes and clusters, as well as laptops and desktops.
A server is any device that provides a service to external systems. That’s it. P2P qualifies. Sharing your printer qualifies. The word ‘server’ means technically squat. Your PDA can run Apache, as well as your laptop. Your cheap home router runs services. Your desktop runs services.
The convention of calling something a ‘server’ is there just to seperate the ‘backroom utilities’ that the admins look after exclusively from the systems people who aren’t admins touch. Nothing else.
So, what is your point, exactly? Any OS becomes usable when you have a resident OS guru there to answer all of your problems.
Ah…how can I say this. If it works well enough not to require maintenance, what questions do you need to answer besides the normal ‘how do I print’ and ‘what is this Internet I keep hearing about’?
For example, whenever my close friends and family members have a problem with their Windows box (which seems to be often for some), they call me. If they were to switch the Linux, who the hell are they gonna call? Certainly not me, cuz I don’t know enough about desktop Linux to solve their problems.
Of course they wouldn’t call you. They wouldn’t have to.
If you use anything except for one OS, you can figure out the rest. If you only use a Mac or Windows…you are at a disadvantage in understanding the rest.
It seems, that linux users are just waiting to see if the next release of their favorite distro will solve the
problems that the last (ie..ajax linux #58) did’nt fix
in the last one. They are always running to the next
release,and most of the time it is just more of the same,
nothing new really…
This is truth. To anyone who argues these points needs to get their head out of the clouds.
Linux was a copy of Unix, someone should just make a distro that is a copy of Mac OSX. It would be a good starting point.
The problem with gobolinux is that it symlinks everything to its old unix path for compatibility reasons wich means that you have an even more messy filesystem. Of course Unix directories are hidden like in OsX, but this sounds like a bad trick to me.
“Ah…how can I say this. If it works well enough not to require maintenance, what questions do you need to answer besides the normal ‘how do I print’ and ‘what is this Internet I keep hearing about’? “
I encountered all of the following when installing Red Hat 8 on my mother’s computer a long time ago – my first and only adventure into installing Linux for a normal user:
“How do I watch this movie?” (embedded Quicktime/RealMedia/Windows video file)
“Why can’t I view this file?” (PDF)
“Why won’t this page work?” (Shockwave)
“Why is this thing giving me error messages?” (Java applet)
“Why didn’t the printer tell me it was out of ink?” (Printing support)
In the end I just installed a copy of Windows 98SE and the only thing I had to deal with was “why won’t this page load?” and the ilk.
I use whatever OS is best for the situation.
For my main system I use Windows. My laptop – both. Anyone elses [infected] Widnows computer – a Linux live CD with a USB flash drive.
Windows is painful to use when you just need it to do some simple thing that would be NO issue for a novice with Linux to write CLI. For instance, I needed Windows to do a simple, small thing and continue doing it despite the fact that it “fails”. On Windows, this invovles *installing* a third party application. On Linux, not even knowing what I was doing, I wrote a countdown that didn’t count down thus it looped forever. Not graceful, but I had no idea what I was doing. It worked though. Easy and quick.
As for Linux package managers? URPM is becoming quite nice, and any regular Linux user can sing you the praise of APT. What does suck is when you need a fringe application, or hate waiting for weeks, sometimes MONTHS for someone to compile the newest version of the application for your distro (apt, RPM, whatever). Don’t want to wait? Welcome to dependancies. Here comes the learning curve.
Some of Linux’s “faults” would become a nightmare if fixed (Lindows). Linux isn’t supposed to be a Grandmother-easy to set up and configure system. It never has and every attempt to make it so has come short. Linux continues to become easier, but without a standards base, it can not become what these people are asking for. Close, but not quite.
If LSB and other such things became default for most major distro’s… much of these things would change. But again… there will always be complaints. Linux’s greatness is not in its ease of use (though it is fairly easy now, depending on your hardware), it is in the fact that you get nearly complete control over the system and what it does. Want complete control over Windows with the same flexability and power of Linux? 163+ third party applications.
/rant
Darius wrote:
———————————————————-
So, what is your point, exactly? Any OS becomes usable when you have a resident OS guru there to answer all of your problems.
———————————————————
That’s my point exactly. Linux IS as usable as any other operating system available today, except for certain initial setup and configuration tasks. EXACTLY the same thing is true of Windows, OS X, FreeBSD, and every other general purpose PC operating system I know of.
The people I gave Linux boxes to are not power users and likely never will be. They will be no more successfull hunting for Windows drivers for their new printer than they are installing a printer under Linux.
I get far, far, far fewer calls supporting the two Linux boxes than I used to get supporting the Windows box I first gave to the grandmother in question. When she ran Windows something went wrong every week, from the virus du jour to registry corruption to BSOD’s. I very quickly decided to switch her to Linux, since she had no significant previous experience with Windows to make the change difficult. The switch has been a boon for both her and myself.
———————————————————
For example, whenever my close friends and family members have a problem with their Windows box (which seems to be often for some), they call me. If they were to switch the Linux, who the hell are they gonna call?
———————————————————
Firstly, they wouldn’t have anywhere near the same number of issues, since the majority of Windows issues relate to malware of some sort. Secondly, your argument is essentially the same as “nobody should buy a Ferrari, because it’s harder to find a mechanic for one than for a Chevy”. That’s fine, if you’re quite happy to drive low quality GM cars. But there are those who like better performance and will put up with the attendant disadvantages of owning a Ferrari for the overall better driving experience.
-Gnobuddy
Solwarz wrote:
———————————————————
I encountered all of the following when installing Red Hat 8 on my mother’s computer a long time ago – my first and only adventure into installing Linux for a normal user:
“How do I watch this movie?” (embedded Quicktime/RealMedia/Windows video file)
———————————————————-
Firstly, Linux has improved at a phenomenal rate since then (I wouldn’t give any friend Red Hat 8, either). Secondly, IMHO Red Hat is about the worst distro to use when it comes to multimedia, since Red Hat takes pains to not install *anything* remotely likely to cause them legal problems later, such as mp3 codecs or dvdlib. Install Mepis Linux for your mom, it comes very well endowed in the multimedia area. Use apt-get or Synaptic to install Kaffeine and any missing audio/video codecs (there are few missing). Embedded video files are no problem after that, and she’ll get a nice GUI that is easy to use.
———————————————————-
“Why can’t I view this file?” (PDF)
———————————————————-
You gotta be kidding. Set up the association for pdf documents and Kghostview for her. All she has to do is click on any PDF document to have it open.
———————————————————-
“Why won’t this page work?” (Shockwave)
———————————————————-
I don’t have a fix for this one, yet. There are few enough web pages that need Shockwave that this has never been a show-stopper.
———————————————————-
“Why is this thing giving me error messages?” (Java applet)
———————————————————-
Umm, install Java before you give her the computer. Mepis may come with java already installed, I do not remember.
———————————————————-
“Why didn’t the printer tell me it was out of ink?” (Printing support)
———————————————————-
It did. See the fading printouts and low ink level in the tank? They’re telling you you’re out of ink.
———————————————————
In the end I just installed a copy of Windows 98SE and the only thing I had to deal with was “why won’t this page load?” and the ilk.
———————————————————
You gotta be kidding. During a recent test by Honeynet, every Windows 98 computer connected to the Internet was infected within less than two weeks; IIRC the first one was infected within FIVE MINUTES.
Run Ad-Aware or a similar adware/malware scanner on your mom’s Windows 98SE PC, and see if you still feel so good about giving her a Windows PC.
Just to be clear, I am not in any way trying to attack or put you down. I agree with you that RH 8 was in no way a good substitute for Win 98 SE on the desktop. But all versions of Win 9x have just terrible security issues, and Win XP seems to have plenty of problems of its own. Today there are Linux distros quite good for the desktop (Mepis being my top choice).
Mepis Linux is a live CD that can also be installed to the hard drive. Why not test-drive it on your PC (pop it in the drive and reboot), and see what you think? It will only cost you a few minutes, and if RH 8 was your last Linux experience, you will be very pleasantly surprised.
-Gnobuddy
“I encountered all of the following when installing Red Hat 8 on my mother’s computer a long time ago – my first and only adventure into installing Linux for a normal user…”
Red Hat 8? For one thing Red Hat/Fedora have never been easy and complete desktop distros out of the box: you need to do a lot of extra work.
And then you can’t compare Red Hat 8 with a modern linux distribution. Try something like Linspire 5.0, Xandros 3.0 (amazingly easy for a newbie), Mandriva 2005 or perhaps Mepis and you’ll notice a world of difference.
When he talks about application installation and the desktop he is spot on.
Whatever the actual OS filesystem is it should be hidden from the desktop user. If the OS drops all its system files into a randomly generated structure of unpronounceable subdirectories that’s just fine as long as the desktop user never has to see it.
Ultimately the desktop user should *never* be forced to muck around in system files for any reason. Windows, every Linux distribution I’ve ever tried, and OSX (I’ve been messing with a Mac Mini for a few weeks now) arn’t there yet.
Gimmie my applications, my documents, and let me connect easily to peripherals and network resources and I’m happy.
Here’s my thing: at the time, there was nothing “wrong” with using Windows 98SE, it never got any viruses during its three year stint on her computer, and I only had to reformat because of a failing hard-drive that simply couldn’t be replaced. Oh, bad sectors, you’ll be the death of me.
However, for my mother the internet ‘Just Worked’ – if she needed to visit a page with shockwave, she’d get a nice friendly automated wizard that hand-held her through it without me having to been there. If she was trying to view an embedded video, automated wizard. Yeah yeah, coulda been a virus, shoulda been a virus, spyware, malware, etc – but she never got any of that, so it was and still is (running under XP Home for her now) a non-issue.
You see, wheither or not something is ‘bad’ or rarely used does not matter; if my mother wants to visit that web-page, its got to happen, regardless of its design or the technology that it was architected with. Its got to happen *transparently* and with minimal user-interaction.
I can’t always be there to hand-hold her as she surfs the internet, and she doesn’t have the time to learn apt-get or stumble through synaptic trying to figure out the difference between ‘gstreamer’ and ‘gstreamer-dev.’ Synaptic. Synaptic. Synaptic the package manager. Now I have to explain the concept of packages, because she just wants to ‘install some stuff?’ No thanks.
Its an uphill battle: things in Windows XP work very nicely for her – too nicely. If I switched her to, say, Ubuntu (the friendliest distribution I know of at the moment), would her printer still alert her that the ink levels are low? It does on Windows XP. What kind of hoop-jumping would I have to go through if not? What happens when my mother plugs in a new printer? She actually installed the printer herself when she got her new computer. All she had to do was attach the USB cable (big friendly colored diagram helped there) and Windows XP detected and ran a driver apparently supplied by the printer itself.
Desktops like GNOME and KDE not for everybody yet, in my opinion. I will agree they have become more accessible than they used to be; Gnome’s advancements, in particular, totally blew me away. They still have a ways to go, and trying to push them when they’re not accessible enough for some particularily inept people will leave bad impressions on those people. The desktops will mature. Check out the stuff for Gnome 3001: A Desktop Oddessy. There’s no rush.
Rant over, out!
“If you use anything except for one OS, you can figure out the rest. If you only use a Mac or Windows…you are at a disadvantage in understanding the rest.”
I couldn’t agree more: until I used just one version of Windows I knew absolutely nothing about operating systems.
Once I started using linux and, in time, everything else, I realized that how blind I had been all the time. Besides, even if I hardly ever use Windows now, I understand it a lot better than 95% of Windows users.
I was nit-picking the issue of stability versus usability with my inital comment. I had an itch, man, and no friends with a back-scratcher. What’s a fellah to do? Thankfully it wasn’t fleas.
I prefer Ubuntu for my desktop PC over Linspire or Xandros. It just smells so fresh, dude. ‘specially the whacky default login screen.
waiting for weeks, sometimes MONTHS for someone to compile the newest version of the application for you
So, tell me. How easy is it on other systems to compile the application yourself?
All the years I have been using Windows I always had to wait until someone creates at least a .zip with the compiled program, I woulnd’t for my life have managed to build it myself.
Yeah, it is different, but once you’re used to it, its also much more logical, and if we’re talking about the average user here, they’ll never see anything other than their home directory anyway.
Quoted for truth. The only people who care at all about directory structure are the Windows “power users” who know the Windows structure, but are scared and confused by the UNIX one. Most Windows users I know don’t really even understand the concept of a directory structure. They know about “My Documents” the “D: drive” (which they always assume is the cd-rom). Their heads would explode if they ever looked in the windows directory, or in “Documents and Settings”.
Synaptic the package manager. Now I have to explain the concept of packages, because she just wants to ‘install some stuff?’
Is explaining the concept of packages really any different than explaining the concept of an installer?
The article provides 4 unsupported points about issue perceive with Linux which don’t seem to apply to major Linux distributions — except criticisms regarding interdistribution consistency (a valid point).
As a solution, the author gives a run-down of suggestions for addressing the “problems” by simply getting everyone to cooperate with him and modify the conventions wholesale. That would be fine if it were pracitcal and everyone embraced it with gusto — but frankly the suggestions open up a pretty big can of practical worms.
I don’t agree with the database filesystem approach as it buys very little and adds complexity and overhead to the system. If you want the functionality described, a pluggable indexing engine is a far more rational choice.
I don’t agree with eliminating the package management paradigm. Package management has gone much farther in eliminating “DLL hell” than the author’s solution (personally, I haven’t ssen the pheonomenon in years). It also provides alot of powerful features — repositories, automatic updating, searching for prerequisite packages, addin the ability to audit packages, etc. It’s a far more desirable solution — particulary if you provide a small application to leverage it.
“Is explaining the concept of packages really any different than explaining the concept of an installer?”
I’m not sure, because I’ve never really had to explain installers to her. The most I’ve had to tell her is, “click this link, and follow the prompt.” Click, click, icon on desktop.
“It seems, that linux users are just waiting to see if the next release of their favorite distro will solve the
problems that the last (ie..ajax linux #58) did’nt fix
in the last one. They are always running to the next
release,and most of the time it is just more of the same,
nothing new really…”
Utter nonsense. Only 3 years ago linux was still for geeks only, there was a lot you couldn’t do… Now you have basic apps like Acrobat reader, Java, RealPlayer which are identical to the ones for Windows. You have browser, mail, office applications which are better than their Windows counterparts. You can choose between distros like Linspire, Xandros, SUSE, Mandriva, Mepis which are extremely easy to use.
Time is extremely important when it comes to linux: insert a CD with SUSE 9.3 and a window will pop-up asking if you want to open the appropriate application. Install or plug in new hardware and you’ll be asked immediately if you want to configure it: better than Windows, because it won’t ask you for the driver CD.
An other example: until a few days ago my sound card wasn’t working properly. Since kernel 2.6.12 it works beautifully.
And how about explaining the concept of packag to her like this:
Select the application you want to install and then press install?
On that line of thought here’s what I’d like to see installing from the web look like:
(pick your favorite)
*Autopackage.
* A package:// format that would invoke the a package manager (or one with a very simple UI that invoked the apt-get backend) that does not suck. ‘You’re about to install <APPLICATION-NAME>. Proceed?’ Click yes. Apt-get does its magick in the background. If its an application, ‘Do you want a desktop icon?’ Click. Done. Two steps. Everyone’s happy.
You’re making the concept of an installer, one application, with the concept of a package manager, many applications / system libraries / development tools.
The installer has but one purpose: deliever X application. Hence, it is derisively simple: follow the guided prompts, because the installer has been tailored to the application.
The package manager has many purposes: updating old packages, installing new packages, uninstalling already present packages, resolving dependecies.
Hence, this is it:
Start package manager: if they can’t figure out the name, you’ll have to tell them, because the names are incredibly vague and I haven’t seen them tagged with any relevant subtitle like ‘Software Installer.’
Search for package: Anywhere from one to several tries, as the wording may be different or they may simply pass over it on first glance: how are they supposed to know Solatire is in libgnome-games?
(random library name, don’t crucify me.)
Install package: Synaptic thankfully spams you with a console screen of sweet sweet loving, because that’s the sort of stuff you *NEED* to be staring at. Its actually quite irrelevant, since my mother considers that sort of thing ‘stupid computer stuff’ and wouldn’t bother looking paying attention to it.
There’s no desktop icon and Synaptic does not tell you where a shortcut, if any, has been installed: look for file in any number of ‘Application’ menu entries just in case.
Obviously, if people are having a difficult time installing programs without a repository, then there IS A PROBLEM!
Accept that please, and then help implement a universal installer that will most likely be the greatest advantage for the Linux. It will even bring in more commercial software into Linux.
Doing this does not mean it will replace apt/yum/etc, but will be beneficial for what is not in a repository, as well as enhancing Linux overall.
If you don’t want it, that’s fine. Deal with all the different packages created for every Linux distro. Now that’s what I call redundany.
Just because it works now does not mean it cannot work better.
No, it isn’t. It’s different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn’t complicated.
Yes it is. No ISV can ever contemplate supporting umpteen package installers, and supporting them, and it is simply far easier to install and configure software on Windows with a built-in installer.
The repository installation model works extremely well in most cases on servers, but it falls apart when you are installed more widely and especially on desktops. It works great for installing and maintaining a base system, but any widely used software on top (especially for ISVs to consider) is just way too complicated and restrictive.
The fact is I can install and configure software like MySQL far faster and easier on Windows with an installer than I can on any incarnation of Linux. That cheeses me off. Of course, it doesn’t run anywhere near as well though…
Yes, Joe User and my mom don’t use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please…
And don’t tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn’t.
The article isn’t talking about Mum and Joe User but people out there in businesses looking to use it and ISVs to support it. The article is hinting at the wider issues. There needs to be specific and exact standards about where things are and look at the issues of files scattered in many different places.
The biggest issue for the desktop is the fact that all of your configuration files are lumped into /home, but there is no standard equivalent of ‘My Documents’ to keep things separate, in the same way Windows has Application Data underneath My Documents.
The article falls down a bit there though, as it even states that OS X doesn’t show /usr etc. even though users don’t see all those directories at all on any desktop on Linux, at least without some effort. /home is the centre of the universe. Arguably, Linux is much, much better here.
While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn’t more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.
The article is talking about the fact that there is more than one desktop, but most of all, that there isn’t enough integration with system components outside of the desktop itself.
As is the case with any OS out there.
I can agree with that. Once you go beyond a certain point, even on Windows, you need someone with a certain amount of expertise. There is a general myth that does the rounds as to how easy Windows is to configure for the lay-person in particular. It isn’t.
Did it ever occur to people like batsy that being a hughe success on the desktop in this kind of cirumstances might take some time, no matter what the directory structure of Linux might be?
Well yes, but even if that weren’t the case there are still some large issues for Linux distributions to overcome and many of them are showstoppers on widely used and distributed desktop.
“If I switched her to, say, Ubuntu (the friendliest distribution I know of at the moment), would her printer still alert her that the ink levels are low? It does on Windows XP. What kind of hoop-jumping would I have to go through if not?”
Use Turboprint?
“What happens when my mother plugs in a new printer? She actually installed the printer herself when she got her new computer. All she had to do was attach the USB cable (big friendly colored diagram helped there) and Windows XP detected and ran a driver apparently supplied by the printer itself.”
With SUSE it is even easier: a pop-up window will show asking if you want to configure your new printer and you don’t even need a driver CD.
Now you are the one confusing something.
Don’t get me wrong, I would never argue that synaptic shouldn’t be more userfriendly, but that’s beside the point here.
You argued that on Windows your mother only had to click on the installer a few times and everything was ready, whereas synaptic was confusing, as there are so many packages listed.
However, you leave the part of your mother finding the package she wants to install on windows out of this comparison, which totally invalidates it.
So how does she find the software?
Does she search google, browse tucows or simply browses from the selection of her local computer store?
“Use Turboprint?”
Man, if I wanted to pay for something I’d buy Windows.
“With SUSE it is even easier: a pop-up window will show
asking if you want to configure your new printer and you don’t even need a driver CD.”
Dude, that’s total hotness!
The best solution yet to emerge for application installation is the NeXT/OS X AppFolder concept. Put simply, the entire application is packaged into an folder with a special extension.
The Appfolder concept is totally misguided. When you have a platform like OS X that only really has a few software packages that you can install, and then you leave it, it works OK. On a more widely used and developed system however, it drops to pieces.
However, once you have a system where people are doing a lot of software development and you start sharing and using components within organisations this becomes totally impractical. It simply doesn’t work.
It [repository installation modell] works great for installing and maintaining a base system, but any widely used software on top (especially for ISVs to consider) is just way too complicated and restrictive
Why so?
Hasn’t this worked for decades in large installation?
Central software deployment?
Creating an apt-get enabled repository is quite easy and you only have to do it one time.
Once could even automate the task of inserting a new version of product into the repository.
Using the current website+download method is a lot more work on the ISVs side.
They have to maintain the site, links and put the new version package on the ftp/http servers.
>>”Use Turboprint?”
Man, if I wanted to pay for something I’d buy Windows.
<<
Use the free version, maybe?
I disagree, my man. My main problem is there is no ‘direct link’ — you can’t just hit a URL and have Synaptic handle everything from there. You have to manually go to Synaptic, manually search, manually select, manually download. Not that downloading software with pre-meditation is bad, but the exercise required is troublesome and very confusing.
She gets software the ‘social’ way: her friends e-mail her and tell her to go to this site, go to that site; check out this cool photo-album manager, she saw this new gardening thing in an article on that HGTV website. To be honest I don’t keep that close tabs on her; I just generally walk in on her playing with software I didn’t install from her.
Synaptic lacks that concept. I could ‘train’ her to use Synaptic in about half an hour, but I would rather inntutive software do the talking when I’m not around for that kind of thing. Its another thing she has to remember /absolutely/ or she has the potential to break many, many things via Synaptic.
The one biggie Synaptic has over Windows is the way it handles uninstall. ‘Hey, I dragged this application to the trashcan but, …’ is something that requires my attention a lot, due to Window XP’s informative ‘you’re not really deleting the application, dummy!’ prompt. Its one of those things, that, while being technically correct, is completely and utterly worthless. It is not an act of God to query the registry to see if an application with the same name of the shortcut has an uninstaller associated with it.
I like the AppFolders concept presented in the article. I think more operating systems should embrace that concept.
She likes to print out her photos on that high-gloss stuff, and having each one smackered with a logo would get me crucified in a quick-minute.
“Gimmie my applications, my documents, and let me connect easily to peripherals and network resources and I’m happy.”
And gimmie my daily/weekly virus/malware applications updating and running, file and registry cleaning, defragmentation, scandisk…
Or give me my monthly reinstall, because if I don’t do (some of) the above my system will be fubar in no time.
You are more productive in Windows? Save for the time you need for maintanance.
“You have to manually go to Synaptic, manually search, manually select, manually download. Not that downloading software with pre-meditation is bad, but the exercise required is troublesome and very confusing.”
Yes, ain’t that terrible, you have to start the program to use it, then you have to search within one application for the package you want to install, select the package and then press install. Very troublesome and very confusing, indeed.
Compare that to windows, where you either have to roam the web and find what you are looking for through searching the web, not just one centralized app, or rely on your girlfriends to recomend you a program (note, it’s also possible to recomend programs that are installable via synaptic), then, after you found the program you’ll have to navigate the site to find the actual download, download the program, installer, or zip archive, then open explorer to navigate to the location to where you downloaded it, then install it by either running the installer, unziping it, then navigate the directory to find something called install.exe or setup.exe, now answer a few easy to answer questions, in the process taking car of not giving away to much of your privacy and of course makeing sure that the random program you got of the net doesn’t include spy or malware and that’s it.
Yep, I can really see your point, my man.
I’ll just write what someone once said somewhere:
If Linux is safer, faster, robuster, easier, better and it’s even free why isn’t everybody using it?
Think about it
“Despite the constant predictions of “This year will be the year of the Linux desktop”, such predictions have yet to become reality”
I disagree. Every year is “the year of the Linux desktop” better than the previous.
Early in 2003 I was about to give up, because my laptop was highly incompatible with most linux distros. SUSE 8.2 and Libranet kept me going. Then SUSE 9.0 came out, which at the time was computing Nirvana for me. I have never looked back. In 2005 linux isn’t missing anything important, IMO, not even ease of use/usability if you choose the right distro.
It can only get better. I am looking forward to OpenOffce 2 final, KDE 4, Reiser4 becoming widely used…
As to ease of use I installed linux for a 8 years old, and he finds it just as easy as Windows.
Why so?
Hasn’t this worked for decades in large installation?
Central software deployment?
Yes – in a controlled environment. Everyone in the world who uses a desktop, and ISVs who develop software, cannot be brought into that controlled environment.
Creating an apt-get enabled repository is quite easy and you only have to do it one time.
Create an apt-get repository for what system? A lot of systems don’t use apt-get, and even those that do use the same package management system have different configurations and pre-installed software. What happens if you’ve got dependencies that conflict with another repository that a user uses for other software? It simply doesn’t work like that for ISVs. They need a solid and stable target to install on top of, not be a part of. That’s a crucial difference.
Using the current website+download method is a lot more work on the ISVs side.
Nowhere near as much work as maintaining packages for many different distributions and packaging systems, and then monitoring the situation for any breakage when new packages are released for different distributions.
I lasted only to his four weakness, that he listed there.
Installing Applications is complicated — It’s easy. All aplication comes within distribution, they are mostly managed by nice frontends and powerful shell tools (whatever floats your boat). Also, you can upgrade whole system with one click. Try that with Windows.
Directory structures can be confusing to navigate — Sure. And Windows structures as so plain, that you can actualy read them as a bed stories. Why a normal, non-admin user should leave his ~ in a first place? There’s nothing for him there, anyway!
Interface is confusing and inconsistent — try distribution that comes with focus on one DE, ie. Kubuntu/Ubuntu. If you install something that don’t follow KDE/Gnome look on your GNOME/KDE desktop, then you’re to blame. If I install Windows program that uses his author’s toolkit, should I blame Windows, or user?
Steep learning curve required to understand system functions — you only think that’s true, because most of people are spoon-feeded with Windows durning school. Try someone without computer knowledge. I can bet learning curve will be the same for him, whatever he will pickup Windows, Linux or MacOSX.
Infact I think it was someone at Slashdot….
“Infact I think it was someone at Slashdot….”
Ah, so it was someone speaking with real authority…
Anyway, the issue you are raising has already been discussed, look at my first post here for example.
Yes – in a controlled environment
A control environment is an advantage, but ISVs use respositories for the mass market as well.
For example the last time I installed QuickTime Player on Windows, the installer only was a small download engine/package manager that connected to a repository and fetched the components it needed to install.
Or do you think it connects to some website, parses the HTML and downloads from there?
Another good example is the Java installer. It can detect what is already present and just download what it needs additionally.
But maybe it also connects to some secret website instead of a repository for components?
Create an apt-get repository for what system?
apt-get is just an example for a repository based system
It doesn’t have to be apt, but I guess is the most widely used one after apt4rpm became available.
The point is that creating a machine queryable software repository is less work than making a user queryable one.
Nowhere near as much work as maintaining packages for many different distributions
How is this related to the repository based installation modell?
If, say, you create a repository for Windows software, does it make the program packages automagically incompatible with the system?
(Obviously not as ISVs wouldn’t use it then, but they do)
Isn’t this a problem created by the package formats and package managers?
All interesting points, most of which keep showing up as problem areas. His idea about system app images is a bit weird since an average system has 400+ binaries at hand and no one would want the worst case scenario of 400 mounted images. The author also forgot about device-mapper writable snapshots, which allows one to make read-only media temporarily writable. A database FS is pretty pointless, the problem is just organization not finding hidden data. Most Linux systems today have more system data that needs retrieving instead of user data. All in all, Linux as we see it today is just the beginning, just the ground work for others to improve. We shall see where these discussions go, and hope something constructive results from them.
Nice article. Addresses some valid points.
Personally, I’d not go for such a radical change. But I see the possibility of a desktop environment and/or desktop distro incorporating some of these concepts.
I’d only point out that Linux is good _enough_ the way it is now. Mind you, in corporations you always have a guru nearby. This is called “Helpdesk” or “Service Desk”. You are often prohibited by company policies from tampering with your desktop — and _must_ resort to guru help even if you know better.
Regarding homes, whoa… how difficult is it to install Knoppix or derivates these days? And if people use Linux at work, they will use it at home soon enough.
Of all these posts, only two dudes are defending Windows, Darius and Solwarz. This is good in itself.
Darius fears his friends will call him to fix Linux, which they won’t do. Linux doesn’t have so many problems like Windows (ok, maybe once a year) — and over here, Linux support is offered in banners on the street. One just has to use the phone; it cannot get much easier than that…
Solwarz is talking about RedHat 8. This is ancient. We’re way past that, so much it’s not called Red Hat anymore, it’s Fedora — and version 4, no less.
Folks, sorry to bust your bubble and not dedicate the time you surely deserve: Linux is being used on the desktop in schools and in government-sponsored internet/openoffice centers, which provide computer access for poor people. Please notice that users of these centers go there for internet research, public services, personal document preparation etc. They use Openoffice for that.
Yes, you heard it right. People with low-income using Linux desktops.
May be Linux is ready for the poor fellow desktop?
This “not-ready-yet” thing is so 2001…
but ISVs use respositories for the mass market as well.
So before a piece of software can be installed on Windows the ISV has to submit it to Microsoft first so they can put it into their repository? That’s what you’ve got with a Linux distribution. You could add another repository, but you’ve still got the problems of different package management types and a moving base system target.
No, it just doesn’t work like that and it can’t either. Microsoft might probably like to do that, but it is simply impractical.
For example the last time I installed QuickTime Player on Windows, the installer only was a small download engine/package manager that connected to a repository and fetched the components it needed to install.
Regardless of whether a download engine is used, whatever comes down still has to be installed and the ISV still has to target a base system. And can you install a download manager like that on a Linux distribution and have it reliably install the software? No you can’t, because software installation is managed (officiall, and reliably) via a package manager, you have to know what that package manager is, and even then you still cannot be sure what base system your software be installed on – ergo, you cannot rely on anything that will be pre-installed. That’s an absolute no-go for ISVs.
I think you’ve misunderstood this quite a bit.
Or do you think it connects to some website, parses the HTML and downloads from there?
You’re well off the beaten track there.
Another good example is the Java installer. It can detect what is already present and just download what it needs additionally.
These are both applications that install themselves independently. Linux distributions have a central repository and package manager. An ISV can’t support anything like this independently of the main package system, simply because if the system gets updated via the official method bad things will inevitably happen. You’ve also got more than one distribution to support doing this as well.
The only way you can reliably do what Quicktime and Java does above on a Linux distribution is to have a solid, stable base system to target (maintained in the usual repository way) and a simple install/uninstall system for software on top of that that could use the underlying package management services. Whatever though, you need a solid base system.
apt-get is just an example for a repository based system
It doesn’t have to be apt, but I guess is the most widely used one after apt4rpm became available.
An ISV will not target apt-get, apt4rpm, urpmi and the umpteen other package managers. Even then, different distributions handle these package managers in different ways, and even then, an ISV can never be sure what will actually be installed on the base system and whether specifying an upgrade of the packages it needs will cause problems for a user.
This does not work.
How is this related to the repository based installation modell?
Errr, that’s been more than adequately explained. Because when you’ve got umpteen repositories, package managers, distributions, and even versions for crying out loud, you need to target each one. Have a look at this:
http://www.nomachine.com/download_fil2.php?Prod_Id=16
compared to this:
http://www.nomachine.com/download_server_linux.php?server=personal
and tell me which one you think is going to be better to install. Notice that not only have you got packages for each different Linux distribution in their native packaging format, but worse, you’ve also got them for specific versions of each distribution as well. You could then get them into a distribution’s repository, but that takes time, effort, more testing and you still have all the same problems as above. Your also tied to a distribution’s release schedules and policies, and worse, you have to deal with more than one. You could create your own repository, but again, you’re still ultimately tied into the base repository of the distribution. There’s a reason why companies like Red Hat and Suse like their package managers, because it creates a form of lock-in.
Now tell me how just much effort and cost that all is for an ISV.
The point is that creating a machine queryable software repository is less work than making a user queryable one.
Not for the wide variety of software out there and not for the wide variety of software available should ISVs get more involved with desktop Linux. Why do you think the ISV above has downloadable RPMs, DEBs etc. for each distribution? Because the repository method simply isn’t practical or fast enough in terms of getting the software to market nor does it provide any way whatsoever of conveniently configuring your software on install.
If, say, you create a repository for Windows software, does it make the program packages automagically incompatible with the system?
No, because Windows as a base system is nowhere near as much a moving target as a Linux distributions, or a set of Linux distributions, are. For ISVs to develop and provide installable software they can’t have a moving target. That’s what Windows gives them. The problem is that on a Linux distribution any package an ISV creates ties directly into the the base system itself, there’s more than one distribution, and worse, the base system isn’t consistent.
I know a lot of people out there think love this repository installation idea as a silver bullet, but it simply isn’t going to work if desktop Linux is to get any more popular or to be practical.
Linux is for developpers. Period.
When I read comments such as the first one, it makes me creazy. If Linux is so easy my Dear, then why don’t all your friends and relatives use it?!! Linux is free, has a whole community pushing it for years to the market, and no one (other than programmers, teachers, and sysadmins) want it. Is the problem the end-user? If you reply “Yes”, then you’re really narrow-minded and you need to open your eyes wide-open.
Linux IS difficult to learn, and you DO have a steeper learning curve than Windows and OSX, this is an understantment. I have to use Linux at work, and I don’t like it. It’s been a pain to learn the man pages, it’s been a pain to learn all the distro’s specificities, and it’s ALWAYS A PAIN TO HAVE TO USE THE CONSOLE.
So, you think anybody can use Linux? How are they going to configure a Winmodem? They don’t even know what a Winmodem is. How are they going to print? How are they going to use MS Office (CrossOverOffice don’t count, OpenOffice.org neither). How can you use Photoshop? I see you with your “solutions”, “Read the manual”, “download this and that”, “open the terminal and type this and that”, “Search on Google, you’ll find the answer”. These are not solution for the end user, these are not even solutions to the power user. People want something that just work, not just a kernel + a piece of crappy software like the GIMP or OpenOffice.
People pay a high price for proprietary software, you don’t understant them, but they have their work done at least. They don’t understand how you can have your work done with Linux and Gnome. Two different worlds, no need to argue really, but please don’t criticize Windows users. I understand them, I use Windows at home thank God. I don’t like the inferior software dictatureship. No thank.
Comments like yours makes my sick.
It can only get better. I am looking forward to OpenOffce 2 final, KDE 4, Reiser4 becoming widely used…
I’d agree with that – “desktop Linux” as such, doesn’t have to do anything in a hurry – the elements that make it up, such as the Kernel, X, Desktop Environments/window managers, Toolkits, Gcc, Filesystems etc etc….. keep on improving incrementally[i] month in, month out, year in, year out….. and this will continue a pace – further, as the desktop Linux experience improves, more and more individuals will no doubt find it increasingly [i]sufficient for their computing needs, not to mention a FREE price tag
Firstly, Linux has improved at a phenomenal rate since then (I wouldn’t give any friend Red Hat 8, either). Secondly, IMHO Red Hat is about the worst distro to use when it comes to multimedia, since Red Hat takes pains to not install *anything* remotely likely to cause them legal problems later, such as mp3 codecs or dvdlib.
First, Red Hat is now an enterprise distro company. Second, Fedora replaces Red Hat Linux as the base distro for future Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHE4 is the first). Since Fedora Core is a open source OS, it uses ogg formats for multimedia. For users, it is easy to install proprietary from third party repositories. So stating “Red Hat is about the worst distro to use when it comes to multimedia” might be true for Red Hat 8, it is false for Fedora Core. That’s why a forum like fedoraforum.org exist to support new users. I have read a 75 years old users succesfully using Fedora Core without a problem.
“Why won’t this page work?” (Shockwave)
Ask Macromedia (now part of Adobe) to enable support for Linux.
When you said Linux, which distribution do you use?
While Linux works great as a server after much pain to configure (sysadmins know what I’m talking about), most users will be clueless on how to use it on the desktop.
Look what they need to do: Need to know the horizontal and vertical refresh rate, need to know the model of the video board, available video memory, need to configure X.org (It always fails at least 10 times until you find out what the problem is, configuration of X.org in text mode, set up samba (good luck), set up the printer (good luck too), set up the network (good luck too), configure the display settings, resolution, install software (good luck), installing software fails most of the time, especially if you compile the software.
Before managing to do all that, they first need to be computer-savvy. They also need to read books and online manuals on Linux, they need to read through the hardware compatibility list, they need to visit forums, etc…
All this is a huge amount of time, if you convert these days into money you can buy tens of Windows licenses, so do the math, and then we talk. No to forget that the mostly used software is not available on Windows, so you’ll need at least a dual boot, and go back and forth from Linux to Windows. What’s the point? How do you run Autocad, Flash MX 2004, Corel Draw, Swift, 3DS or Plasma on Linux?
I have been a linux user for over 5 years ( currently gentoo ), windows since 3.11 and a few experience with osx, and i have to say that i am 100% agree with this guy. linux is not yet a DESKTOP OS.
I really don’t understand why there are so much people that can’t evaluate this article in an objective way.
This is not an article that talks bad about linux, it’s just suggesting how linux can be better for home and simple users.
a lot people commenting this looks like childs crying because someone is telling you linux it’s not perfect…
While both Windows and Linux have difficult directory structures (Windows probably more so since it heavily relies not only on files, but also it’s registry), the difference between the two systems is large. Windows has professionally designed, logical, easy to use, grapical tools to manage everything. On the other hand, half of the functionality in Linux is hidden in the command line, and the rest have the functions are embedded in inconsistent tools that change from one release to another. Open MMC in Windows, and you can see that everything is so well organized so well. Linux has no equivalent. Windows GUI feels like a professionaly designed configuration utility. Linux GUI tools feel like Lego peaces stuck together haphazardly.
I love Linux for what it is. Linux has a great, consistent directory structure and great consistent shell tools to manage everything. I am easily able to configure everything in Linux through the shell. And Even though Microsoft has tried to add a lot of functionality to the command line, I find the Windows commands poorly organized and inconsistent. Ever try managing WINS, DNS, DHCP, Active Directory through the command line? It is extremely slow and you need to have a reference book in front of you. The tools Microsoft provides you to manage Windows through the command line are piss poor.
But while Linux blows Windows on the command line, most regular users don’t care about it and would rather point and click. Unfortunately, Linux does this extremely poorly. Just look at the popularity of MacOS X, a Unix that has a well designed interface, and you can easily see the limitations of the Linux GUI.
> When you said Linux, which distribution do you use?
We use Ubuntu. It IS supposed to be easy to use. It’s not. Install Ubuntu, the network isn’t configured automatically. You’ll have a hard time installing software you DO need to have your work done such as MS Office (OpenOffice isn’t compatible with some MS Word documents, they are all messed up), a PDF converter, and other software. Configuring WINE is really complicated and takes much time. There are always errors.
It is common to waste a whole day configuring something that would take 20 mins on Windows or OS X. I hate Linux. I’d rather pay 10x the price of a Windows license to stay away from Linux. And Ubuntu’s Gnome is ugly. Arghhh!!!!
I doubt Linux dramatically improves over time. I think it’ll keep on improving little by little, but with the advent of Longhorn next year, Linux will decline on the desktop. It makes sense, only the best survive. People want something they can use. When will you f%&king understand it, damn!
I’m am probably in the top 5% of skill when it comes to PCs. I do somehobby coding (c/++/#) on the side, and know my way around PHP, et al. Of course I build my own systems, and my apartment is wired 10 ways from sundown with PC tech. So, I’m not talking out of my ass.
I use Linux. I built my systems using the Linux from Scratch guide and Slacky as the build environment. I also run Windows, and I have a couple of Apple boxes too. In my experience, without a doubt, Linux is definitely the most unfriendly of them all on the desktop. It goes OS X, Windows, and Linux regarding useability. To anyone that has uses them all (and doesn’t have a zealous agenda), this is obvious. Linux is getting better (indeed, it’s a lot better recently).
Linux isn’t being done any favors by the marginal… “individuals” that try so vocally to ignore the platform’s shortcommings. Fortunately, their not-so-well-intentioned behavior won’t count for much in the long run, either, since the bulk of developement these days is done by responsible corporate interests. Linux WILL, in good time, go mainstream in spite of the freaks.
While Linux works great as a server after much pain to configure (sysadmins know what I’m talking about), most users will be clueless on how to use it on the desktop.
Please answer the question I posted: which Linux distro did you use? That applied for the below quote.
Look what they need to do: Need to know the horizontal and vertical refresh rate, need to know the model of the video board, available video memory, need to configure X.org (It always fails at least 10 times until you find out what the problem is, configuration of X.org in text mode, set up samba (good luck), set up the printer (good luck too), set up the network (good luck too), configure the display settings, resolution, install software (good luck), installing software fails most of the time, especially if you compile the software.
Before managing to do all that, they first need to be computer-savvy. They also need to read books and online manuals on Linux, they need to read through the hardware compatibility list, they need to visit forums, etc…
Already available for different Linux distros such as fedoraforum.org, ubuntuforum.org, mepis.com, etc.
All this is a huge amount of time, if you convert these days into money you can buy tens of Windows licenses, so do the math, and then we talk. No to forget that the mostly used software is not available on Windows, so you’ll need at least a dual boot, and go back and forth from Linux to Windows. What’s the point? How do you run Autocad, Flash MX 2004, Corel Draw, Swift, 3DS or Plasma on Linux
Since you can access Internet, did you bother to look for alternative? Here is the link: http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html
Since you can access Internet, did you bother to look for alternative? Here is the link: