This is the second Lindows/Wal-Mart review coming out in a short while, and this one, is truly a must read. The author is a journalist that have used Windows, but he is not a Unix user. Trying to test Lindows he got into similar trouble as David Coursey did two weeks ago, when he tried Red Hat Linux. While Mike Langberg of San Jose Mercury News used a supposedly “desktop-oriented” Linux distribution, Lindows, as opposed to the server-oriented and marketed Red Hat, he still found it very unfriendly for common tasks like changing the refresh rates of a monitor.Our Take: To be fair to the Lindows people, it is not exactly their fault that Linux and its related software are not ready for the desktop, not matter how much their marketing people are trying to make it look like it is.
The author found a lot of the included open source software to be slow and of mediocre quality, and I must agree with this. A lot, and I mean, a lot of beta/half-finished projects are floating around and since there are not other that do the specific job better, we, users, have to use them. But building an OS and your business around them, it may not be so good after all.
How is Linux, the kernel, not desktop ready?
And what does X configuration have anything to do with the Linux kernel?
Lindows’ “engineers” are just writing ugly-as-all-hell GUI software to make it user-friendly, if the software they’ve written doesn’t work, or doesn’t SEEM user-friendly to a reviewer, then it’s the fault of Lindows, not Linux.
The guy complains about Lindows support.
The guy complains about open source software quality (which has nothing to do with Linux.)
The guy complains about a bad X configuration, which Lindows configured.
I can’t see how any of the above are Linux related.
Lindows support: Who knows, who cares.
Open source software quality: Yeah, sure, if you go and download some obescure application it might be half finished. So what? Need image manipulation? You use GIMP, you don’t use “Yet Another GIMP Clone”. Need a web browser? Mozilla and Konquerer are very high quality products. Need an office suite? OpenOffice. Rinse, Repeat. Windows shareware/freeware isn’t any better than half-finished open source software.
X configuration: Meh. Been there, done that. Don’t remember the last time I’ve had trouble getting X going. Xconfigurator works just fine. SaX2 works great too. Maybe, just maybe, Lindows’ X configuration tool *sucks*.
Get a fucking clue.
You know Eugenia, your broad/general/vague/uninformed/bullshit attacks on anything to do with Linux are not that subtle.
I’d have to agree about Lindows/Red Hat/your-distro-here not being ready for Joe Sixpack. But I really don’t see that as a Linux issue. Idealy, the user shouldn’t have to see a command line any more than they do under Windows or OS X. The underlying kernel is merely a delivery vehicle for the desktop, and Linux is as adequate as any other OS. Hell, Microsoft even built a halfway decent desktop on DOS. So I think it would be more accurate to say KDE or Gnome (or any other X based desktop) isn’t ready for the desktop. KDE 3.0.2 seems to be getting close, but is still not quite friendly enough for an average Windows/Mac user. Perhaps the problem is inherent to X. I think it’s possible KDE could be ready with a few more iterations, but then, I’ve been of that opinion for the last several versions, and it has yet to justify my hopes. I can’t comment on Gnome 2, because I haven’t played with it yet, but if Eugenia’s review was anywhere near close to the truth, it isn’t going to be ready any time soon either. I think KDE might be greatly helped if some company adopted it in the same way Ximian adopted Gnome, and focused on building a solid, standard desktop for the more common distributions. That would certainly make life easier for the ISV that want to support it. Most of the elements seem to be there, but few distributions have concentrated on putting them together. The one that have (Lycoris, Mandrake, et al) have all gone there own ways, there’s no standard KDE environment to target. There might be an opportunity for some company to develop a standard KDE environment, and sell it to the various distros, and let them worry about the underlying OS and ancillary software.
Changing the refresh rates of a monitor is a COMMON task????????????
I’ve done it only when installing my OS, why should I every once in a while adjust the refresh rates of my monitor?
X configuration: Meh. Been there, done that. Don’t remember the last time I’ve had trouble getting X going. Xconfigurator works just fine. SaX2 works great too. Maybe, just maybe, Lindows’ X configuration tool *sucks*.
I myself, as a Mandrake user, prefer using Xconfigurator over that beta X config app (DrakX?) Mandrake ships because it never crashes before I could change the setthings :-). But however, I know that it isn’t made for Joe Sixpack because, well, it is not intuitive (compare it with those found in Windows, Mac OS, Be OS, Amiga OS etc.)
You know Eugenia, your broad/general/vague/uninformed/bullshit attacks on anything to do with Linux are not that subtle.
She is a Linux user, the last I checked she had Gentoo Linux, Mandrake Linux, Red Hat Linux and Lycoris Desktop/LX installed. However, she is trying to prove with these articles that Linux (okay, Linux distributions) are not ready for the desktop.
So I think it would be more accurate to say KDE or Gnome (or any other X based desktop) isn’t ready for the desktop. KDE 3.0.2 seems to be getting close, but is still not quite friendly enough for an average Windows/Mac user.
Now, don’t blame KDE and GNOME for something that isn’t their fault. KDE had gave a lot of space for distributors to enchance on ease of use. Why? It couldn’t be supporting a few million distributions/ OSes out there. There are so many options, so many differences and so on, it is only fair to blame the distributor for not doing it’s job right. For example, for configuration tools, KDE can’t be expected to write configuration tools for every distro because after all, there are so many, and they are so different. Another example is file browsing; Corel, Lycoris ext. proved that they could change the standard layout of the file hiearchy and place something more easier to use (though the distros I have mentioned copies Windows’ hard to use file hiearchy
).
I think KDE might be greatly helped if some company adopted it in the same way Ximian adopted Gnome, and focused on building a solid, standard desktop for the more common distributions.
I wished too there was such a company. But if I had the capital to do make a company, it is unlikely I would create a Ximian-like company. I might create a distro around KDE and X, making KDE more easier to use the same way Ximian makes GNOME more easier to use (well, do they do that anymore? The last I use their products was with Helix GNOME 1.2)… Right now, I could easily win the market because as of now, there isn’t any distro that is properly marketing Linux
Changing the refresh rates of a monitor is a COMMON task????????????
I’ve done it only when installing my OS, why should I every once in a while adjust the refresh rates of my monitor?
If you read the article, it was the first time (okay, the second time) he on the computer. The tech support guys ask him to do something quite risky for a normal user, and quite hard too, completely non-intuitive. Though I would blame Lindows.com and Microtel for such lousy configurations.
—
My take: The problem is that nobody is doing it right. Well, I could see Linux on the desktop once I have seen
– A proper IDE ala Visual Studio .NET. Notice most of the developers supporting .NET and Windows as a development platform are actually saying that they are more productive on VS.NET.
– A migration API to allow Windows apps to be ported to Linux. The problem is Wine has a target of running Windows apps out of the box as oppose to making the apps port it to Linux. By making it easy for Windows developers to port apps to Linux, more apps would find their way to Linux.
– A well designed user interface. Not one copied from Windows (or in one case, OpenStep :-). A lot of usablity test should be done to make Linux more easier to use. You must have a five year old reading through all the text on the UI to make sure no jargon escape and try to confuse users.
– Have all the features Windows has to offer, like encripted DVD playback, CD-R/RW burning via the file manager and so on. And please, no claim such unless you do have all Windows’ key features, unlike ELX.
🙂
I haven’t read the article yet but there is one thing that has to be said.
The Linux defenders above uses the same old excuse I see all the time.
Get this: When ordinary people say “Linux” and points at their freshly installed geek OS they don’t mean just the kernel. They mean the whole OS. Just replace “Linux” with “Linux system” or in this case “Lindows” and continue reading.
Attacking people for not using the right terms when you know perfectly well what they mean is just a cowardly way to avoid the point, often criticism about Linux (the system).
It is a common task becoz I run at a high resolution, and I’m comfortable looking at the screen and reading from it. But when I’ve to show it to someone with a little lesser tolerance to higher resolutions, I’ve to accomodate my screen resolution to their needs for those few/more minutes I demo/show the stuff to them. After the demo/showing is done I revert back to my higher resoluton screen.
And where I work I’ve to do it often. So there that is a good enough reason.
“The Linux defenders above uses the same old excuse I see all the time.”
Yup, it’s always the same lame reasoning:
1) They were using the wrong distro
2) The Almighty Linux is perfect, so there’s obviously something wrong with the user
3) RTFM
When are these people going to wake up? They keep screaming that it’s ‘ready’ when review after review (from people who are not obviously Linux-biased) that I’ve read say it’s not.
Well, my take on what has to happen before Linux can be considered ‘ready’ …
a) COMPLETE freedom from the command-line. Yeah, I know it’s much more powerful in some cases, but this should be an option, not mandatory.
b) Complete GUI configuration of every single hardware device on the system.
c) Something that actually works as well as setup.exe.
d) Being able to go out and buy something like the newest whiz-bang scanner, plug it in, turn on the PC, and have it work like it does in Windows.
e) PCs with Linux pre-installed, that comes loaded with MS Office and the Codeweavers Crossover plugin.
f) More software that matches the variety you find on the Windows platform. (ie – As far as I can tell, if I need an alternative to Streets & Trips on Linux that has more functionality than Mapquest, I’m pretty much shit out of luck.)
Common means just about everyone has to do it. And yes everyone needs to setup their computer to talk to their monitor (unless it is purely text mode or a server with no monitor) even if it is done automatically the job still has to be done.
Common does not mean you need to do it often. But it should still be simple.
The idea that Eugenia is always trying to undermine Linux is hilarious! Who are you peope with the nasty remarks and who cheat on polls? Junior high school students on summer vacation? <g>
I’ve had my Microtel/Lindows box for three days now and I have to say that the review is simply too short. He also had the low end box too. It is true about the documentation – both Microtel and Lindows sgould provide more, even if it’s just the small type of manual that Lycoris includes. I have tried to use my Lindows box from the point of view of John and Jane Doe. So far, there is nothing that has confronted me that would put the Doe family dead in the water, nothing at all. Running root is controversial, but the Doe family knows nothing about that, There should be more documentaion and there should be a little more software that comes installed. I got the Athalon 1.4 MHz model with 256 MB DRR RAM. Performance is very good. I also got the 17″ monitor paired up with it at the Walmart site. just as the Doe family would probably do. Click & Run has worked beautifully. It downloads the software and installs it and places it in the correct categoy in the Lindows menu. So, my experience so far has been very good and, as I said, have run into no problems that would stop the Doe family and leave them wondering what to do. Aside from the above mentioned things that need to be done, my experience, so far, has been surprisingly good.
> This is the second Lindows/Wal-Mart
> review coming out in a short
> while, and this one, is
> truly a must read.
Uuuh, please!! How is it a must read? Did it say anything new or insightful? It sounded pretty generic and utterly predictable
> this is a shame, because the
> idea behind LindowsOS has merit .
Clueless. Can anybody explain what the merit of Lindows could be? Windows machines are easy to come by, and quite affordable. Need to run excel? Get windows, simple. Geeks like to play around with things, and one can understand the sentiment behind WINE. But Lindows as an actual productivity tool? Its a waste of time. If they spent that coding time improving OpenOffice or KOffice, that would be more useful.
Ok, so Linux sucks on the desktop? What about OSX? Why isn’t it succedding? Don’t tell me they are expensive because, they macs are quite affordable to the people who buy a Dell or an Ibm brand.
Do you any of you guys READ what I write? I write “Linux and related software” and OF COURSE and I mean the whole environment and not just the kernel. Do you think I don’t know what Linux is? GET A FREAKING GRIP and stop wasting forum space for REDUNDANT posts.
It is the Linux desktop that of course is not ready for the Joe user, and if you deny this, you are indeed in denial. No matter what Lindows and Lycoris are trying to do, the whole X/KDE thing, is just not good enough. End of story.
As for the kernel, it is not ready for the desktop indeed. And how a kernel cannot be ready for the desktop? Well, last time I checked, in order to install a new driver, I had to type “obscure unix commands” (as the author says) and then manually edit /etc/modules.conf. And in fact, these driver binaries are incompatible with many recent linux kernels and they only work if you have a SPECIFIC kernel version.
As for ALSA, which all distros are using already, it is a piece of sh*t when trying to install manually. It just needs to do magick to have it working and configured. And now it is actually installed with the 2.5 kernel, but it still does not recognize my VIA AC97 sound card, EVEN if it is listed as supported.
So, don’t tell me that the WHOLE Linux environment (from the kernel up to X/KDE) is “ready” for the user. That’s just bullsh*t.
After reading the article there is one other thing that struck me curious.
The Author first says: “…fails to offer consumers what we so desperately need: more credible alternatives to escape the iron grip of Microsoft.”
And then he says that : “Consumers in the United States have only two real choices when buying a PC today: Windows, which represents something like 95 percent of the home market, or Apple Computer’s Macintosh”
If there are already two choices how come we are still escaping Windows?
We maybe desperate to escape Windows, but from what I gather from friends and online discussions, people are also hellbent to resist (and ignore) Apple. Which is already a highly refined and mature alternative.
Gee, if only OS X was available on x86…
> The author found a lot of
> the included open source software
> to be slow and of mediocre quality
> A lot, and I mean, a lot of
> beta/half-finished projects are
> floating around
That’s a very cheap shot, because you will find these beta/half-finished programs for ANY PLATFORM. If you only care to look a little, you find thousands of beta/half-finished binary programs for Windows. In fact, there are probably more beta/half-finished proprietary programs for Windows than for all the other platforms combined together. Just search on CNET.com for example. You will find many terrible and unfinished programs trying to do all sorts of things from making long distance phone calls to speech-activation. Hobbysts are always developing one thing or another. Some of it is open-sourced, some of it is proprietary, some of it is free, some of it is commercial (which is worse). And all these are good, since they are different expressions of freedom and resourcefullness. If you are going to make an argument, you don’t have to borrow the cheap shot from Redmond.
How long has the Linux “momentum” been growing -> the drive to get on the desktop – since 1998, and it STILL isn’t right! Frelling disaster.
This article is excellent, a NORMAL user trying to get work done, and it’s a mess.
Someone has to institute standards for Linux to reach the desktop, and maybe only Red Hat or IBM can do it. All config files in a common XML format, whatever the app. A simple binary install of programs, as easy as the Mac. A simple un-install. “Plug and Play” drivers.
Use OSX’s and .NET versioning ideas. Make sure ALL .NET window programs run on Linux – then no need to worry about Wine – if Mono succeeds, that will be HUGE. (i’m drooling for the Delphi IDE, written in .NET, running on linux. Borland is shooting for this too.)
Why should i use Linux when Mac OSX gives me all the Unix goodies plus a brilliant GUI? Plus HIGH QUALITY graphic apps!
The only hope for Open Source on the desktop is either:
1. Ditching X and *standardizing* all the above, or
2. Open BeOs or Cosmoe succeeding, and maintaining standards within their own distributions. If OBOS makes it, would Gobe re-release their Office Suite there? Or Open Source it? Would give OBOS a huge lift.
Open Source desktops are failing, as witnessed by the writer’s experience. And you can’t fall behind the “well, we’re all volunteers” cover – you make something, face the competition.
linux baby is completely right. Calling something as non-informative as that a “must-read” tells a lot about the editor… Again, we have a case where people are more thrilled by possible flamewars than actual information.
We also get the same comments as always. Do we know anything new? X isn’t very flexible, right. A big problem, probably 99% of us are already aware of, so what.
Inconsistent Open Source quality is a joke. It might be true for Click and Run, but usually it’s your choice if you install software that isn’t quite that ready. Sure, sometimes there might only be an unfinished software to do your task, but the alternative would be not to have anything for your task.
It’s also useless to repeat the fact of missing software for some uncommon tasks over and over. You just won’t get those software for a niche OS, get over it. Every small OS faces this problem, however good or bad it is. If maybe 500 Linuxusers need a software for a certain task, would you be interested to write the software for those mere 500 users? I wouldn’t. It all depends on what you need. Just because there is no Mapquest (whatever that is) doesn’t mean that many people actually miss this software.
Do you any of you guys READ what I write?
It’s rather hard to read what you write without getting bogged down in gross inaccuracies and poorly veiled attacks. Your editorial style needs a great deal of work – perhaps a good start would be a “Eugenia Rants” weelky column? You could then concentrate on reporting news without attempting to put some kind of “value added spin” on it, like practically all the other respectible tech news sites.
I expect this is where you tell me to go elsewhere rather than taking this criticism (which seems to be fairly widespread within these “forums”) on board.
the whole X/KDE thing
What whole X/KDE thing? Is this where you rant about X11 without actually understanding a single thing about it? I do hope so – that is always good for a giggle.
You also seem to be implying that nobody is aware of the problems which do exist and that nobody is working to fix these. That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Well, last time I checked, in order to install a new driver, I had to type “obscure unix commands” (as the author says) and then manually edit /etc/modules.conf.
The last driver I “installed” was packaged as an RPM and just required clicking on and pressing “install package” in KPackage.
And in fact, these driver binaries are incompatible with many recent linux kernels and they only work if you have a SPECIFIC kernel version.
Do you know why this is? Because the people writing binary drivers target them at people running the common distributions who – get this – are using SPECIFIC kernel versions.
Funny that.
As for ALSA, which all distros are using already, it is a piece of sh*t when trying to install manually.
No it isn’t.
cd /usr/src/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc2/
./configure
make
make install
modprobe emu10k1
Not something you’d expect John Doe to do, but it isn’t exactly a “piece of sh*t” either.
Actually, I’ve just worked out what your problem is.
You aren’t a complete nebwie, but you aren’t clueful enough to be classed as a competent Linux user either. This leads you into situations where you aren’t satisfied with the newbie, hand holding solutions but can’t quite manage the expert solutions because you lack the knowledge required (hence you using Gentoo).
This is exactly the same for any other operating system – you aren’t born with the knowledge required to try and get UDMA to work with the latest via 4in1’s in Windows or *shudder* get BeOS* to boot on a modern system, it has to be aquired.
* I expect that you’re also upset that that pathetic, poorly designed, poorly executed excuse for an OS died and Linux is booming.
“Gee, if only OS X was available on x86… ”
Yeah, if only … I’d love to give a test run, but am not willing to spend $1,500+ for the privilege. I’ve played around with it a little bit at Frys, and nothing jumps out at me and screams “Buy me!” The mouse pointer moves way too slow, the dock thing like HUGE for what it does, and so does iTunes take up entirely too much screen real-estate. Not only that, but the single mouse button and the single menu interface is an abomination for many who come from the PC world. Of course, there’s probably workarounds for all of this, but as I said, I’m not going to pay that much for the privilege …
“If you only care to look a little, you find thousands of beta/half-finished binary programs for Windows.”
Yeah, but the diffences are that:
a) They don’t ship as part of the OS
b) There are usually at least 4-5 good alternatives to one horrible one
c) People in the Windows world will actually tell you that they’re crap instead of living in a pipe dream
d) You don’t find Windows zealots recommending these beat/half-finished products as alternatives for better programs on another OS.
“cd /usr/src/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc2/
./configure
make
make install
modprobe emu10k1”
Of course, you type that like it actually works most of the time
Well, maybe it does, assuming you’ve got lib.gcc.gtk.lisp.awk.wasp.someshit.3.503493.xx.someothershit installed. Oh, and make sure you’ve got the right version, or the whole thing breaks.
And when it does, it’ll be the one error message that’s not listed in the FAQ and when trying to get help from the Linux Gods, they’re answer will simply be to RTFM.
Now, that’s intuitive, isn’t it?
As usual, the zealots can’t take perfectly valid critisizm of their precious Linux.
The problem is very simple. The problem is that Linux simply is not ready for the average user’s desktop, and Lindows didn’t do any better then Red Hat did at trying to make it ready for the average user’s desktop. Red Hat finally gave up on desktop Linux and decided to focus on areas where Linux actually has a viable market.
Someone pointed out the idea that there is nothing wrong with the Linux KERNEL as a desktop. So what? What the hell is the point? What the hell can the average user (or anyone else for that matter) do with a kernel and nothing supporting it? You could make a perfectly usable desktop OS based on the Linux kernel. Of course the kernel is not the problem! The problem is the complexity of Unix configuration. The problem is X Windows. The problem is desktop environments. Unfortunately, the Linux kernel is rather worthless to the typical end user without these things to support it.
> Open Source desktops are failing,
As compared to proprietary desktops? How many proprietary desktops do you know, and how many of them succeded?
> You know Eugenia, your
> broad/general/vague/uninformed/bullshit
> attacks on anything to do with
> Linux are not that subtle
Much as I would hate to “attack” Eugenia, I have to agree with the above assessment. Somehow, it seems there’s a little insinuation behind all her linux-related comments. On different occasions, I have frequently wondered if it was my imagination or what.
Anyways, the insinuations aren’t that subtle anymore. In fact, the choice of linux articles on OSNEWS will tell the entire story. A lot of positive reviews gets written about Linux elsewhere, but somehow, you never get to hear this other side on OSNEWS. That’s notable, because you do get to hear quite some forward-looking reviews on, say, BEOS or Windows. And you hardly hear about the server-side of linux too.
I like OSNEWS and I think the editors generally do a fine job, but me wonders about Eugenia and Linux too.
“A lot of positive reviews gets written about Linux elsewhere, but somehow, you never get to hear this other side on OSNEWS.”
The only positive reviews I’ve seen on Linux come from people who just install it and write a review on that, or people who already have a Linux background and are obviously biased to it. So in that sense, it is basically useless to the rest of us. If I’m a Windows user, why the hell do I care about what someone who’s been using Linux for years feels about the latest distro version? In their case, if they want to change something, they usually just run whatever util or command they need and go “Yeah, that works great” because it’s obvious to them, as they have obviously been doing it for awhile.
But what I (and many other Windows users) are most interested in are people who have virtually no Linux background at all who try to give it a test spin and actually USE it for day-to-day stuff.
And from that perspective, I haven’t seen a postive review yet. Yeah, I’ve seen a few where they’re like “Yeah, installation was a snap, and KOffice looks nice – The End”, but nothing more beyond that.
I believe Eugenia puts up what she is able to find. Reviews of Lindows, I’m sure, aren’t overwhelming the web <g>.
I also belive in actually testing, over a long period of time, whether or not Linux can be a desktop OS. As a result, I’ve commited myself (lol, that can be taken in different ways:-) to using Lindows on a machine and Lycoris on a machine for one year…follow and use their updates along the way, etc. I do not believe that conjecture about this issue is adequate. although it is certainly helpful. Anyway, I would welcome others who are willing to test these types of distros and use them over a lengthly period of time, not installing them and saying, “This is no good” and uninstalling them.
Can all you I-bash-Linux-because-Eugeina-does-and-I-don’t-understand-it morons please stop saying that X is the problem? Or, if you really think X is the problem, please provide some sort of technical analysis.
Typical Linux lover my arse. You people seriously need to get a fucking clue, especially Eugeina, the prepetuator of misinformation. She CLEARLY says ‘it’s not Lindows fault, it’s Linux’, now, I’d like to know how that could be referring to any Linux system. Let’s s/Lindows/Linux System/g. ‘it’s not Linux Systems fault, it’s Linux’. So what do all Linux systems have in common? The kernel. So don’t give me your typical OSNews misinformed bullshit.
There is a WORLD of difference between all the Linux distributions, and their provided utilities. For example, Mandrake comes with the *Drak* stuff, Redhat comes with redhat-config-* stuff, SuSE comes with YasT/SaX/etc. And they’re all different. You cannot make a sweeping generalisation about them unless you’re referring to either the kernel, or the KDE/GNOME environments. Last I heard, both those environments ran on about 20 different operating systems. So, what are you talking about again, Eugeina?
Now, it’s pretty clear that KDE is about a year ahead of GNOME, and since I don’t use GNOME, I won’t talk about it. But I’d like you, Eugeina, to point out, EXACTLY whats wrong with KDE3 (and how it’s Linux’s fault! haehae.) Then, maybe you should share you infinite wisdom with the kde wishlist people, or submit bug reports, or do something useful; other than whinging vaguely and spreading misinformation. Since I’m running out of characters here…
Installing drivers on Linux is a piece of cake. And when it’s not, you’re using binary-only drivers. Who else is to blame for THEM but your vendor? It is not the kernel’s fault. The drivers don’t work on different versions of the kernel? Well, no shit. I’d like you to take your Win95 VXD and install it on XP. I’d like to see it work without some serious hackery. How hard is it to run ‘kudzu’ anyway? Or YasT? Or whatever Mandrake gives you? Even then, the onus is upon the vendor to provide the community with either an open implementation that everyone can use to graphically manipulate ‘drivers’, or they do it themselves, and it either sucks or doesn’t. The blame lies solely with the vendor. If you’re running Gentoo, don’t expect a GUI module tool, unless theres a generic one everyone can use (why don’t you write one, Eugeina? Oh, I know why…) I’d like to know, how much time do you actually spend on your Linux system?
[There’s more, but, alas, I think I’ll sleep instead. Maybe tommorow morning.]
Uhh… I think all the sane people who used to post are gone… phil’s post (the BeOS thing was highly amusing!) has been the most logical and well thought out post I’ve read on the site in a long time. I’m sure many others feel the same way. They just can’t be bothered. Such is OSNews.
[Why am I posting? Because misinformation is fucking evil, that’s why.]
> if they want to change something,
> they usually just run whatever
> util or command they need and go
> “Yeah, that works great” because
> it’s obvious to them, as they
> have obviously been doing it for awhile.
Same thing with windows. The people who can change resolutions and go to device manager in a snap are the people who have been running it for a while. I don’t know about you, but I still remember that I learnt windows from a book. How to print a word document might be easy for you, but try the same with someone who is completely new to Windows.
> I also belive in actually testing, over a long period
> of time, whether or not Linux can be a desktop OS.
> I would welcome others who are willing to test these
> types of distros and use them over a lengthly period of > time, not installing them and saying, “This is no good” > and uninstalling them
Right on the money! That’s much more sensible than reading these overrated linux-versus-windows “reviews” written by a journalist who has used Windows for five years and Linux for four hours.
I recently had the oppurtunity to install Win2k on my friend’s box for him (because what do ya know, he couldnt do it himself). This was the first time i do the Win2k install, which i found went rather well, i didnt like the lack of options, but ah well, not my system. Installing all the drivers for the hardware was a snap, what it didnt recognize, i got going the good ol’ win95 way.
The next time i got there, i noticed he had made himself a seperate account for loging in, i was impressed. Then he brought up a few issues like “my other account doesnt have all the same apps as my admininstrator account”, seemingly simple problems. But i tell you, i had quite the trouble fixing his problems, much more so than similar problems in linux.
So whats my point? Its not just linux that can be difficult to use, it can be anything that you arent used to, does that make it bad? nope.
The imfamous setup.exe problem in linux. installing software in linux is difficult If someone could make a nice front end to apt, and have ppl just double click on the name of the program they wanted, i think it would be easier to use than setup.exe, heck you have no buttons to press afterwards.
Dependencies happen in windows too you know. I couldnt install a driver withoout downloading the whore i like to call DirectX8.
If you dont like linux, too freaking bad, but insulting it brings what exactly?
@rajan:
Now, don’t blame KDE and GNOME for something that isn’t their fault. KDE had gave a lot of space for distributors to enchance on ease of use. Why? It couldn’t be supporting a few million distributions/ OSes out there.
Sure, as I said, most of the elements are there, they just aren’t being put together in a coherent fashion. That’s why I see an opportunity for a Ximian-like company to take charge of it, and create a decent, standard distribution for the more commonly used distributions.
But if I had the capital to do make a company, it is unlikely I would create a Ximian-like company. I might create a distro around KDE and X, making KDE more easier to use the same way Ximian makes GNOME more easier to use
The only problem with your approach is this: you would wind up being one more distro out of dozens, and then you have to struggle with getting ISV’s to support for your particular distro. Good luck, even the most patient ISV’s are only willing to support a handful of distros. Whereas if you take a Ximianesque approach, then you can have a single configuration taylored to work across multiple distros. If I were an ISV targeting Gnome, the first thing I’d want to do is talk to Ximian about getting included in one of their red-carpet channels. Why? Because if Ximian takes care of having a standard format across Suse, Redhat, Debian, etc., then I only have to worry about supporting Ximian’s file/library layouts. They act as a middleman between the ISV’s and the vendors. I’m mostly prefer KDE to Gnome, but I was enticed into installing Ximian because a) I didn’t have to abandon my distribution of choice to install it, like I would have if they had created their own distro. Being (mostly) a KDE guy, I wouldn’t have installed their distro just to run their version of Gnome. b) Red-carpet is a much friendlier interface than Mandrake’s Software Manager. So Ximian adds value to my distribution.
@Eugenia:
As for the kernel, it is not ready for the desktop indeed. And how a kernel cannot be ready for the desktop? Well, last time I checked, in order to install a new driver, I had to type “obscure unix commands” (as the author says) and then manually edit /etc/modules.conf. And in fact, these driver binaries are incompatible with many recent linux kernels and they only work if you have a SPECIFIC kernel version.
True, but a decently done grapical tool could make that process transparent to the user. But really, even now that process isn’t much uglier than installing drivers for DOS was. Even at that, you’d usually get an installer program that would do the edits for autoexec.bat and config.sys. I don’t see why installers that edit /etc/modules.conf should be that much more traumatic.
But then again, you have a point about incompatable driver/kernel versions. Ultimately, the various distros are going to have to take responsiblity to ensure drivers are available for their particular distros. When I install a piece of hardware with any version of Windows, all I need to do is click Windows Update and I get the appropriate driver from Microsoft. Mandrake, Redhat, Suse, et al are going to have to provide the same convenience if they have any hope of competing on the desktop. In fairness, most of my hardware has worked out of the box for the last few years, so this isn’t as much of an issue as it used to be.
As for ALSA, which all distros are using already, it is a piece of sh*t when trying to install manually. It just needs to do magick to have it working and configured. And now it is actually installed with the 2.5 kernel, but it still does not recognize my VIA AC97 sound card, EVEN if it is listed as supported.
You’ve got that right! Which is why I just turn the damn thing off and let the KDE services manage my sound. Works fine, unless you have other needs the KDE services don’t handle.
What’s wrong with X:
It’s sooo slow. Although currently my X is running. I don’t know why. Gentoo must have used some kind of magic.
Maybe it’s because of some kernel patch or the -O3 PIII compiling or everything together I don’t know. But atm it’s really fast enough to be usefull.
Second: The configuration is awefull. People have already pointed this out. In the interview, the XFree developer said he would be working on it, let’s hope something comes around from it.
What’s wrong with Linux:
As Eugenia said, driver installation sucks. But it doesn’t have to. I like the Gentoo way. You just type emerge nvidia-kernel nvidia-glx and a few seconds later it’s ready. Maybe desktop distributions should think about this. Compiling from source may seem complicated but sometimes it’s just less complicated then binary installation. Write a nice GUI for emerge and you are set. Combine this with autodetection (remember Progeny? Progeny installed most of your PCI hardware without a problem. It even filled in proper values in the XFree config and detected my graphics card _and_ monitor!) and you could create something that is extremely easy, flexible and powerfull.
Look at Gentoo, the installation CD actually uses autodetection to load my network card. Funky.
The possibilities are all there, someone just has to create a decent bundle of it.
“The imfamous setup.exe problem in linux. installing software in linux is difficult If someone could make a nice front end to apt, and have ppl just double click on the name of the program they wanted, i think it would be easier to use than setup.exe, heck you have no buttons to press afterwards.”
Has someone done so? If not, why not? I mean come on. This is something that could be written in an afternoon using Python/Tkinter or something.
Of course, you type that like it actually works most of the time
In this specific instance it does – the ALSA drivers have no specific dependancies beyond the headers for whatever kernel you’ve got installed and the default set of compilers.
In general, you’re right – compiling software can be a pain. It does depend on the software and distribution – I can build a copy of KDE from CVS on practically any distribution by hand with very little effort, simply because the dependancies are small and the software is nicely seperated into large modules (eg. kdelibs, kdebase, kdeutils, arts). On the other hand, Building GNOME from CVS without a specialised script (eg. GARNOME) is extremely time consuming.
Simba:
Red Hat finally gave up on desktop Linux and decided to focus on areas where Linux actually has a viable market.
What is deeply amusing here is that RedHat have decided to have another crack at the desktop. There are some extremely nice tools in the pipeline (some previews in the new beta).
Yes the title of my post sounds rather untrue.
But to a large degree I think it is true. Everyone’s whining about MS’s dominance and the need for ‘viable alternatives’. Unfortunately I get the impression that this has been equated to ‘open-source windows clone’. Maybe even the open-source can be removed, but articles and the discussions that follow generally seem to talk about issues which would make a niche OS (such as Linux) a slightly different version of windows, which accomplishes the all important task of making sure MS doesn’t take over the world.
In my eyes one of the biggest reasons Linux (and for that matter other OS’s) aren’t getting the mass acceptance they need is that users of Windows don’t want to entirely re-learn how to use computers (which in many cases means re-learning their entire job). This is understandable.
What’s the point?
Linux isn’t Windows. Linux should not strive to be Windows. If you want to use Linux, do-it to-it. If you don’t want to learn it, stay with Windows.
It either case don’t bitch about the choice you made or didn’t make. Make your choice, and consider that your vote in the computer industry’s democracy.
There will be no company that releases a Linux distro that solves all these problems (real and/or perceived) and beats MS. People have to want the change, and that might mean ‘roughing it’ for awhile.
“There will be no company that releases a Linux distro that solves all these problems (real and/or perceived)”
Yes, I agree completely. People in this thread have been saying that the problem isn’t with the Linux KERNEL, but with the distros. Problem is, there’s not a single distro that does it right in all areas.
Mandrake has the whole GUI thing going on and probably the most familiar to Windows users, Redhat autodetects my hardware like a biznitch and runs smoother than Mandrake in most cases, Debian has the killer package manager, and Slackware .. well … Slackware is just kind of there
“In my eyes one of the biggest reasons Linux (and for that matter other OS’s) aren’t getting the mass acceptance they need is that users of Windows don’t want to entirely re-learn how to use computers (which in many cases means re-learning their entire job).”
Bingo!! This is exactly right. In order to create an alternative to Windows that Joe Illiterate windows user will actually want to use, you have got to make something that looks and acts like Windows. And that’s why the direction of Linux lately has been to try and clone everything that MS does. But of course when doing that, it makes Linux (and I’m talking about the entire package with KDE/Gnome) more bloated just like Windows, and .. IMHO, is pulling Linux entirely in the wrong direction. I can’t say that you can’t take a Unix OS and turn it into a desktop OS because obviously, Mac has done it with OSX, but it seems to me like trying to fight that Arizona wildfire with a garden hose … certainly there’s got to be a better way of going about it (ie – ditching the Linux underpinnings and start from scratch.)
And people say “Well, how hard is it to open the console window and type in these 4-5 commands to compile xxx” obviously don’t understand the mentality of your every day Windows/AOL user … shit just don’t work that way, and you’d be hard pressed to every convince them that it does. Even if you were to show them that your way is still faster than theirs, they’d most certainly still continue to resist it – that’s the way it works, and that is reality. I did ISP tech support for about 4 years and most of the time, it was a royal pain in the ass just to get people to the DOS prompt in order to ping or do something else.
And you may ask “What’s wrong with the command line … people learned how to do it that way for years” and the answer is that back then, there was no choice, and now there is – people don’t HAVE to do it, and so they don’t.
“Linux isn’t Windows. Linux should not strive to be Windows.”
Yes, I agree … Linux should run on servers
“Has someone done so? If not, why not? I mean come on.”
Yes, they are actively working on a Gtk client for APT. It’s based on the excellent StormPkg from Stormix. I don’t think it’s final yet though but already worked quite good when I tried it. I just never needed it because typing “apt-get install xy” is so freaking easy. So I don’t know how far it is in development.
I agree that Linux itself does not have try to be Windows or Mac, but I do believe that Mac/Windows have defined the common user experience – the desktop metaphor. So, I believe that there *can* and should be distros of Linux that use that common user experience, as that is what the new and everyday common user expects and is used to. That is one of the great things about Linux and open source – there can be different distros for different purposes.
There is no technology that will allow stupid people to operate common household items. These people should stay away from all electric devices and be happy with plastic spoons.
Sorry, computers are NOT made for everyone.
I agree that Linux should not strive to be windows and new user to the world of Linux should not expect linux to be like windows.
I am a Linux user both server enviroments and home desktop. as for the ways I use Linux it is more than ready for my desktop However I am familliar with the windows/Aol mentality and would say, those people are better off staying where they are.
I came from windows and migrated to linux a few years back. Not knowing shiot from shinola about *nix. I think really (this might not sound right but what the hell) the best way to approach linux for the desktop would be to simply not try to compair them. Depending on your personallity you will be come frustrtaed with one of either OSes.
Linux is not windows and I like it that way. You might view things diferent. In any case when I go home and turn on my desktop linux machine….. I will be happy.
If you are able to find this website and post to it then you aren’t stupid. But if you install another OS and you’re not able to click on an icon then the problem is with the OS not with you.
I disagree with both of your comments. ‘nough said.
“If you are able to find this website and post to it then you aren’t stupid. But if you install another OS and you’re not able to click on an icon then the problem is with the OS not with you.”
I agree 100%. A well designed system should allow the end user to concentrate on getting their work done, not on what they need to do in order to use the computer to get their work done.
This is called specialization. A medical doctor for example, has enough to learn without having to become an expert on computers just so they can use a computer to help them do their work. And besides, an MD’s time is better spent keeping up on the latest findings in medicine rather then learning all there is to know about computers.
For the average end user, the computer is supposed to be a tool that helps them work more efficiently and get their work done faster. If they have to spend hours just learning how to use the system before they can even start working, the purpose of the computer is defeated.
An alternative to Windows should have more polish more elegance more consistency more user friendliness than Windows…not less! Until we have one, don’t waste your time with the DoJ-we know what needs to be fixed but nobody cares.
Somethings have to established. Linux is ready and as been ready for a long time has a S.O., at this point I think everyone agrees, but Linux Desktop isn’t ready for the common user and when I say common user I mean that in a wide sense. Every linux user knows that this is a complex system and that it takes some time to learn how it works and what you can do with it. I think that Distribution’s strategy is wrong, the purpose isn’t to emulate windows but to create something unique even in the desktop section, we have examples like MacOS, BeOS,and QNX that a desktop (although with some similarities) can be something new. One thing that scares me a lot is the preference that is given to KDE just because it more windows like (sry ppl but it does). Other thing that new users or windows’ brainwashed users complain a lot is the lack of graphic applications allowing to do “simple” things like upgrading kernel or patching it so it can accept some sort of specific hardware. We must evolve and not just say to others that it is easy, we must eveolve and just maybe the way for evolution and expansion is in locking some things to the new user and provide a system fully capable and ready (we still have some lacks on video, for instance).
“There is no technology that will allow stupid people to operate common household items. These people should stay away from all electric devices and be happy with plastic spoons.”
Well, I’m afraid that is a very short-sighted argument. In my days of working at an ISP, many of the people I talked to were doctors, lawyers, and some people with PhDs who were dragged into the ‘digital age’ kicking and screaming, and have much better things to do than sit around and dick with a computer all day. So, basically .. they just want something that works when they turn it on. Are they stupid for this? Hell, if you’ve got some guy who works 10 hours a day and then comes home and has to help take care of maybe 3 kids, do you think this guy wants to sit down and pour through docs and HowTos and things of that sort? Hell no, and he shouldn’t have to either.
I’m not saying that Windows is perfect at this, but certainly further along than “./configure, make, make install, etc.”
“An alternative to Windows should have more polish more elegance more consistency more user friendliness than Windows…”
Which are all things that Linux unfortunately lacks, especially the consistency and polish parts. Linux is most certainly more powerful, more secure, more stable (in some cases), more flexible, and probably all around a better OS when it comes right down to it, but in the grand scheme of things, that kind of stuff just don’t mean shit to the “You’ve Got Mail” generation.
” we must eveolve and just maybe the way for evolution and expansion is in locking some things to the new user and provide a system fully capable and ready (we still have some lacks on video, for instance).”
I agree, but in doing so, you’re trying to push *nix in ways that it wasn’t designed to be pushed. It’s kind of like trying to teach a cat how to play fetch – sure, it can probably be done with a lot of patience (and cussing), by why bother? If all of the programmers who are trying so damn hard to make Linux something that it isn’t would put their collective heads together and start anew, they could probably come up with something that appeals to the masses, instead of trying to write wrappers around all of the Linux complexity.
I say if you like the power of Linux and enjoy all of the utils and the benefits of the command-line, then by all means .. Linux is definitely your thing.
But if you want to create an OS that appeals to the masses, you can’t do that by trying to convince them that “The Linux Way” of doing things is the best way.
I love GNU/Linux/OSS but with pain in my heart I agreed with comments that Linux not ready for Joe desktop. In my view there are many contributor to to that;
i. Most OSS application was developed by those who just want to fullfilled their own need. Many of it is good but maybe not user friendly to joe user BUT it is friendly enough for the developer and those who came from unix world. The developer themself cannot be blame since they have no obligation to anyone since ‘didn’t get paid’ for that.
ii. Most of Linux distributors just wan’t fast money without investing much. Many of them just prepackaged application in (i) and put it on CD without further polished it for user friendliness targeting joe user. And maybe most of these packager having unix strong CLI background and forgot that most of joe user came from the 95% portion (i.e. Window$ user).
iii. The available just try to have the Window$ look but not the functionality concept. For mayself, I’ve been in Linux environment most of my time but sometime still figuring out “what are these GUI developer are trying to do” (I didn’t blame them since I didn’t pay them). I strongly believed Xwindows is not the problem but the DE is, i.e. the Linux DE just lack of “human technology”, which I think Window$ and OSX was nearing that nature of how human think and works. Maybe many will bash me up but please wake up, we are not the 95% portion of human being on earth (because I think most of OSNews reader are technical people).
However I strongly believe the time will come for GNU/Linux to reach the state of joe user desktop function
Thats all
“Well, I’m afraid that is a very short-sighted argument. In my days of working at an ISP, many of the people I talked to were doctors, lawyers, and some people with PhDs who were dragged into the ‘digital age’ kicking and screaming, and have much better things to do than sit around and dick with a computer all day.”
I also worked in tech support for quite a while, and I fully agree with you. My guess is that most of the people who claim end users are stupid, etc. probably have little to no real world experience supporting end users. I had calls from doctors, research workders, scientists, etc. All of them are very intelligent people within their field. They just don’t understand very much about computers.
For an IT person to say they are stupid is no different then them saying an IT person is stupid because they can’t write a journal article on high energy particle physics for example.
Most people don’t use a computer for the sake of tinkering around with a computer. Most people use a computer to help them work. They don’t need to know, don’t want to know, and are more productive by not having to know how the computer actually works.
It’s amazing. Amazing how Linux fanatics just don’t get it. Nobody but you cares that Linux is “technically” superior or that the Linux “kernel” rocks. I don’t use kernels, I use operating systems. And really, when it comes down to it, what I really use is “applications”. Of course, I care that Linux is superior in ways. It’s just that the negatives far outweigh the positives for most users.
The “open source” nature of Linux is the very thing that is holding it back from truly succeeding. There are too many distros, too many window managers and no standards. There are simply too many cooks in the kitchen.
My parents got a Mac, I had no experience on Macs beforehand, yet I am the one who has shown them how to use it from day one. Why? Because it’s easy to use. I have used BeOS as well. Another very easy to use OS. The same can’t be said for Linux. I can now sit at any Mac and I know what’s what. Linux? Well, it depends on what dsitro and WM the person is running, and if something needs fixing I have to dig around and figure out where the creators of this distro have decided to hide such and such a file. It’s truly dumb.
Do you think Windows would be popular if there were dozens of different “distros” each with it’s own quirks? Not a chance in hell. It makes no sense. If the goal is to confuse and repel users than Linux has succeeded. Our computing lives are complicated enough with making hardware choices. We don’t need several dozen half baked distros to add to the mess. Now, if these guys would create a set of standards or better yet work together to create one truly exceptional distro, things might be different. That haven’t and frankly they won’t. And Linux will NEVER become what it could become unless someone like an Apple comes along and decides to do it right. Unfortunately for Linux, Apple has already done it right, but with Mach. Having said that, I don’t think Apple has the balls to release OS X for Intel. So, there is a market for a truly slick and finished Unix or Unix like OS for the PC. Now, if only there was a company out there that realized the market was there and Linux as we know it now couldn’t service that market.
Satori.
I highly doubt that most endusers use the computer only as a tool. That’s not what I would call the usual “desktop user”. I rather think that most users use the PC as an entertainment device like a TV that is also able to be an enhanced version of a typewriter among many other things. They use the computer to communicate, watch videos, listen to music, burn music CD’s, surf the web (very important), read and write email (part of communication), sometimes write letters or print something out. You can even use your computer to FAX something to order a pizza. Extended use is using the computer as a creative device, to create images, websites or applications. Oh, and of course to play games.
As you can see, the computer can be basically everything you want and as such, doesn’t it deserve some more attention than putting it on and hoping that it reads you mind?
I fully agree that a personal computer operating system should be as straight forward and flexible as possible, not forcing you to concentrate on stuff that you don’t want to concentrate on when it isn’t possible. But I completely disagree that a personal computer should be a no-brainer. If you want something like that, you should get an appliance. But people don’t, because those appliances all flop. Nobody wants a castrated computer.
Of course you can never generalize.
That’s why my subject. But if you need your computer only for one task or as a typewriter, than a general purpose OS isn’t the right thing for the job anyway. If you only want to play games, get a Playstation. And if you only want to browse the web, then get an IA. Desktop OS are for those who want to get the most out of this expensive piece of hardware.
Err… how does Linux being open source have anything to do with the amount of window managers that are available? Oh, it doesn’t lock you down in a specific environment? Well… no shit. It doesn’t need to, either.
We’re talking about distrobutions and average users here. They can install any distrobution, it provides its own specific desktop environment, usually KDE or GNOME (everyone except RedHat defaults to KDE, RedHat gives you a choice between the two.) Now, average users will not be switching their environments, so ‘too many window managers’ is not a problem. Nor is ‘too many different standards’ since they’re using KDE and nothing else. So what was your point again?
All that’s needed is polish (KDE3 is *almost* there) and some ‘average user’-friendly configuration tools and you have an excellent desktop environment.
The problem is that people like the reviewer/you/whoever are stuck in a Windows mindset. Completely unwilling to learn the idiosyncracies of the new system. A 4 hour review of a “operating system” (Lindows in this case…) is hardly informative nor productive. All this reviewer said was: Lindows support sucks, I couldn’t change my refresh rate using a control panel, and I don’t want to pay for half-finished software. All valid points on their own, but they’re mostly specific to Lindows (yes, the refresh rate issue is an X issue… so it’s general.) The reviewer said nothing about the system itself. He browsed a few sites, used KMail. And? That’s hardly giving a new operating system a chance to leave an impression. Certainly not after you’ve lived with Windows for years.
And it’s not like Windows doesn’t have its problems either! But people just accept those problems, because they’re used to them (and there is apparently no alternative!…) And when the problems are bad enough, they get their techie friends to come over and reformat/reinstall.
Anyway, Linux is already used on the desktop; you just don’t know about it. We have 100 employees using Linux-only desktops running RedHat/KDE3. They all learn to love it… and you know why? Because they’re forced to use it. And we have almost no technical support issues arise from these systems. None. I can’t say the same thing about the Win95/98/98SE machines.
Maybe the key to Linux success on the desktop is a preconfigured KDE3 that looks all nice and pretty, with a more ‘average user’-friendly default configuration. It’s certainly not a case of lack of software. Mozilla/KMail/Evolution/OpenOffice cover everything that’s needed. And they’ll continue to improve.
Hey, maybe I’ll create this mythical Linux desktop nirvana, and get Eugeina to review it. Start a company, and you know, on the website, I’ll have ‘Even Eugeina thinks its good!’ in the PR/Marketing blurbs.
Instant cash.
“But I completely disagree that a personal computer should be a no-brainer.”
Well, unfortunately, you (or I) don’t speak for the ‘moral majority’ who want to do all of the things that you mentioned, and still have it be a no-brainer.
They (the illiterates out there) want to browse the web, send emails, scan pictures of their kids, play games, listen to MP3s, burn CDs, and all that good stuff, and have the computer so easy to use that they can figure out just by looking at it. Is this the right kind of mentality to have? Well, right or wrong, that’s just the way things are.
That’s why Windows is getting so ‘dumbed-down’ with all of its wizards and other bells & whistles that only serve to get in the way of the power user. Of course, Windows isn’t there yet, but it’s getting there, and certainly a whole lot closer than Linux.
Anyone who disagrees with my perception of the average desktop user clearly does not have a very good understanding of the mentality of these people, IMHO. If you say that Linux is ready for them, then you truly underestimate them.
If you want Linux on the majority of desktops, you HAVE TO idiot-proof it to the point where ‘make install’ is no longer an option, and the GUI basically resembles the ‘Welcome’ screen on AOL. And once you do that, Linux (or basically any OS) is truly going to suck for those of us that know what we’re doing. At best, we can hope that they’ll give us an option to turn off the ‘newbie’ features, or else we can just all use Slackware
Satori, you got this completely wrong. That free software would lead to mutations is just FUD spread by Microsoft again (remember the mutated penguins campaign?). Please don’t fall for this. The reason why there are so many GNU/Linux distributions is because there was never an official Linux OS. So other people did that and many people thought this would be an easy way to make money, by distributing an OS that is not their own but with their own changed and “improvements” to make it special. The best example is SuSE, they even have a non-free configuration tool as part of their system and as reasoning they say, they don’t want something with better marketing capatabilities to “rip off” their work. That’s a big joke, isn’t it? Seeing that _they_ actually “rip off” all the work of Linus and RMS. The problem is that Linus encouraged them. This really helped “Linux” to grow, because of the support by many companies but it came at a price and this price is fragmentation.
Just look at FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD to see that this doesn’t have to happen if you distribute your own OS.
Free software does _not_ tend to fork, the opposite is true. Free software only forks in extreme rare occasions. And usually people work on one project. See Apache. See Mozilla. See thousands of other projects. There are many window managers because people like to try things but window managers can be replaced like text editors, it won’t change a thing. There are only two major desktops and that is because one once was non-free. And two isn’t such an overwhelming number anyway.
In the proprietory software world instead, whenever you aren’t satisfied with something, you have to start from scratch. You can’t just take somethign and improve it.
You say Open Source is the reason why Linux isn’t more widespread…? How can that be? Do you think it would be as popular as it is, if every Linux software would be proprietory? Which company would have been able to pay all the development? The software is all there. What’s missing is a little spark. The one free OS that get’s it all right. Redhat, SuSE, Lindows, etc are two focused on making quick money, that just doesn’t work. Although I’m interested to see how Redhat wants to make a desktop Linux. They would have to change a lot…
For the average end user, the computer is supposed to be a tool that helps them work more efficiently and get their work done faster. If they have to spend hours just learning how to use the system before they can even start working, the purpose of the computer is defeated.
Gee. What a concept. A computer is a tool to better accomplish work? BLASPHEMY! He has offended the Great Penguin! Hang that man up by the heels and pour Ex-Lax through him. Then sentence him to 5 years using emacs and force him to sleep with a stuffed penguin!
Simba has perfectly summed up the reason computers exist in the first place, though I would take it one step further and say that this is true for EVERY end user; there is no average, really.
In my 8 or so years as a tech, I saw many different professions that used many different operating systems…most of which nobody here has even heard of unless you are a dentist, attorney, etc. Why was this? Because these professionals needed them to run the apps that enabled them to be more productive.
Joe Sixpack covers a lot of ground:
Joe Academic the teacher.
Joseph M. Doctor, MD.
Joseph E. Lawyer, Esq.
Joe Genius the microbiologist.
A lot of these people are much better off (as are we) if they put their time into improving their skills and not telling them they need to learn how to compile linux apps and replace applications they know well with an OSS replacement that will have a different interface and command structure, if one is even available. Try telling a Web designer that Linux will do the job. Where are the replacements for Flash or DreamWeaver? Graphic artists? Where is a CorelDraw replacement? No, GIMP doesn’t do everything in spite of all the claims that it can replace PhotoShop (these people really need a reality check). The same goes for a specialty OS (that boots off a floppy) and app combo I saw several years ago for dentists. Nothing in Linux, Windows, or Mac can replace it.
I just dumped my Linux/Ximian and put Win2k back on my main PC. I wanted to like it, but it made most of my work just too darn complicated (though I already miss Galeon), and no, a different desktop wouldn’t change that. YMMV, and that’s fine. Use what works for you. If you want to just tinker, go for it. If Linux (I mean X here, really, and/or the command line) has the apps you need, great! But face it – Linux (the WHOLE system (distro-based, I know), not just a kernel that can’t stand alone) is NOT ready, and maybe not even appropriate, for general desktop use. As we say here in the South, you can’t make silk from a sow’s ear.
In government, I saw first-hand what happens to productivity (and employee’s attitudes) when some high-ranking airhead finds some new system he likes, and forces everyone under him to change the way they work to fit the new system. I know nobody here is advocating this, so hold your flames, but it demonstrated that the tools must fit the work and what happens when they don’t.
So, could we all just please use what fills our needs and stop the holy wars?
I don’t disagree with you, in fact I strongly agree. A system like that wouldn’t have to be bad either, you don’t have to go the way of thousand wizards but just provide some easy guides that don’t have to be used but can.
You say, it should get to a point where make install is no optin. Agreed. But here is already a problem… You create a new Linux distribution that for example only uses RPM or APT to install software. Now they read on “Linux” and you will see them trying to compile software from scratch! They fail and spit on you.
This is what makes me angry, whatever you try, you will be classified as “just another Linux” and so called “Linux freaks” will tell them all kind of stupid stuff that they actually should NOT do (because you didn’t design the distribution to make this neccessary) like compilation from sourcecode. Or they search documentation for “Linux” and find a HOWTO for compiling a device driver or configuring XFree with xf86config (while you include “XSuperConfig” which is ten times easier to use).
How to you get rid of this problem? Before there is an answer to this question, I wouldn’t even try to create a “different” Linux distribution. The self-proclaimed Linux experts will spit on you for dumbing Linux down and not sticking to standards, and the users will confuse your system with other Linux OS.
And even if you call your System “Debian GNU/Linux”, people will still just call it a “Linux” and search for Linux instructions when in fact they should be looking for instructions for this specific OS (because Linux is _not_ one single OS). It’s really driving me crazy. And then they say “why do you think just calling everything Linux is confusing? It’s not, calling it after an acronym that isn’t spelled like I would expect is much more confusing”. Aaaaargh. =)
/me needs to relax.
Hey guy!!! In this world you are not the only person that clever and know about computer very much. I’m from engineering background and at work I use Linux, QNX and Windows and sometime playing with SCOUnix while at home most of the time I use Linux.
At work I’m not the company’s IT administrator because there are other person that came from the real IT/computer background. There’ve been two IT administrator here and both of them don’t know how to use Linux. The earlier administrator might know a bit more compared to current one, but his first experience required me to stand by him to guide.
See, our IT admin. are involving with computers and just know very little about other OS instead of Window$. Maybe because they have been exposed to Window$ since their early days. For me although the faith lead me to other engineering field, I still remember the “Syntax error” output during my first few seconds of using Apple although later being ‘force’ to use DOS at university and at works before Window$ came. Well, at least I did use IBM unix mainframe to learn how to program Fortran at the university which I think help me when I swith to Linux long ago.
Open source has everything to do with the problem. I don’t care what distribution you are using, there are a million Linux tech sites out there with howto’s and faq’s. And each one has different information because with Linux the variables are endless. Why? Because every damn distro is different and everyone has different “obscure” libraries and such installed (or not). What works on one distro may not on another. The same config file can be located in two different places on two different distros. A software package that installs without a hitch on one guys machine may not install as easily on another.
It’s nice that you have 100 employees working on Linux. Let me guess. You or someone else installed and configured Linux for them. You or someone else installed and configured all of the software they use on a daily basis. These machines are used for a few specific tasks and the users are not required to install/configure anything themselves because the machines were up and running with the required software from day one. And you think that translates to the home users desktop? Please.
Software is definitely an issue. For me, it’s the lack of quality graphics software, the horrible font rendering and the lack of a proper Wacom tabler driver in X. Sure, Linux has Gimp, Blender and a few others. It even has Maya and Houdini. But where is Photoshop for X? And Dreamweaver for X? Fireworks? Painter? Deep Paint? Should I go on?
The problem with Linux is thinking like yours. You seem to think that to be better than Windows an OS has to be like Linux is now. You think that pretty and easy to use means technically inferior. Have you ever tried BeOS? It was easier to install than Windows. It had better multitasking than and was faster than Linux. It was stable and had a great GUI. Have you seen OS X? OS X makes Linux look like a bad dream. If BeOS and OS X can be easy to use AND technically superior, why can’t Linux?
Windows may break down more often, I agree. But when that happens, I don’t have the worry which “distro” of Windows XP I have and I don’t have to edit obscure config files. I don’t ever get an error message saying I am missing some obscure library. I don’t ever have to compile my apps. I don’t have to deal with ridiculous RPM’s. I don’t have to deal with Mandrakes buggy (it never worked for me on 8.1 or 8.2) update application. I don’t have to wonder what I should or should not install when the huge list of obscure packages shows up on the screen during initial install.
You can say whatever you want. You can try and convince people like me that I am all wrong about Linux. You won’t succeed. I know better.
Satori.
Hello DrP,
you are right that computers are there to get a work done but it’s a little bit more complicated because there is not _the_ job a computer should get done. Well, in the past they probably where nothing more than expensive calculators but this time is past. Today personal computers do almost everything, from beeing a simple gaming console to create artificial wonders. A general purpose OS should support all that and it just can’t be a no-brainer. It just shouldn’t get into your way much and let you do whatever you want to do. It should be simple to do the simple stuff like surfing and listening to some music. But not more.
I’m not saying that Linux is there, I’m just saying the goal shouldn’t be to completely dumb it down.
I still think that, because Linux is open source, it has the potential to be many things to many people. If you look at how long it took Windows to go from 1.0 to Windows 95, I think Linux has come a long way in a short period of time as far as usability for Joe Average. It is not there yet, but I really don’t think it’s far off. The fact that it’s open source, that there are many distos, is both good and bad, depending on what you’re viewpoint is. It’s good because of all the numerous reasons any of us could list. Bad because it makes it difficult to get to a point with competing with Windows for the desktop. But, perhaps the difficulty is not a bad thing after all. There is great impatience. There reviewers so often have no patience, much less any idea what they’re talking about. I believe difficulty is the gauntlet that must be endured. And I think – probably with KDE – there will come a day, not really too far in the future, when a Joe Average Linux will be available and great to use. And, at the same time, people like us OS News readers can tinker and use all the different distros we want to, because of the very nature of Linux. In other words, what I’m saying is that there can be a dumb downed, very useful standardized Linux and there can be the most complex Linux, side by side. To me, the idea of that is great. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Unlike Microsoft and even Apple, Linux has the potential to be able to do this – no other OS has that potential now. Patience, patience <g>.
“I wouldn’t even try to create a “different” Linux distribution. The self-proclaimed Linux experts will spit on you for dumbing Linux down and not sticking to standards, and the users will confuse your system with other Linux OS.”
Yes, I understand that. And that’s the reason why I said if you’re going to try and create a desktop OS that competes with Windows, you should probably abandon Linux entirely and start from scratch.
(See my other posts for more explanation on this)
Of course, many companies who are *attempting* to build these ‘easy-as-pie’ Linux distros are only trying to make money off someone else’s hard work and should probably be flogged. Let those silly c**ksuckers create their own OS and market it instead
” I believe difficulty is the gauntlet that must be endured.”
Dude, what are you smoking ?
It’s this kind of attitude that makes me believe that Linux lovers truly don’t understand the way Windows illiterates think.
See, you can’t force desktop users to change the way they think. We live in a ‘gimmie’, instant gratification society, and you have to cater Linux to match that attitude, not the other way around.
If you’re trying to market Widget A and people really want Widget B, you would say that’s a problem, but in the end, you’re the one with the problem
> This leads you into situations where you aren’t satisfied with the newbie, hand holding solutions but can’t quite manage the expert solutions because you lack the knowledge required (hence you using Gentoo).
Oh, so that means that Gentoo is an “easy” distro and this is why I chose it? Hahaha…
You know shit about me or what I do. And yet you critisize me. Sorry, but I will have to pay back.
FYI, I also have Red Hat and Mandrake Cooker installed. Does that make me a newbie too?
“There is great impatience. There reviewers so often have no patience, much less any idea what they’re talking about.”
Why should anyone have to have patience with Linux? The OS is there to serve “me” not the other way around. I am a long time Windows user who has absolutely no problem using a Mac or a PC with BeOS. But Linux has always beem ,uch more of a chore. I have read many reviews of OS X, BeOS, Windows and various Linux distros. Ease of use (and various other problems like missing libraries, broken applications, shitty font rendering and so on) is never an issue with the first three choices but often comes up in reviews of Linux. Why do you suppose that is? Is it a conspiracy? Or is it that, unlike what Linux fanatics choose to believe, these OS’s are actually more intuitive/easier to use?
Satori.
Thank you all for participating in this discusion.
It is truly clear to me now that the Linux zealots will never see the light that will lead them above that obscure 0.6% of the desktop market.
Joe Users (and not just Joe Users) have multiple problems using Linux or Unices in general as their desktop, yet have no real UI and other problems when they switch to Mac or BeOS.
So, now they tell us that the user will have to abandon the ease of use, but learn a whole new world or Unix and Linux.
Save your pennies, Linux zealots. That ain’t gonna happen. YOU will have to play with Joe User’s rules, or he will never play with yours.
The bad part is that you do not realize this!
Kids. You are.
As an advocate of Linux I’m willing to say Linux is not ready for the desktop yet.
People say but it is just Lindows distro
Well point out to me the distro that is Desktop Ready
You could say Windows Me is an excellent operating system, but unless you see this in the real world it is all just talk. Yes hypothetically Linux is perfect but so is Windows Me.
Linux doesn’t need to be able to do everything you want. It just needs to be easy enough to convice windows users that there is an another way. Then they shall reap the benefits of open source and open source shall the reap the benefits of them.
There is a huge Linux market here at stake. Lindows seems to have failed so far. Who will win and get the multi million dollar prize?
What is linux? Technically it’s just the kernel. However to most people linux is a complete package made up of the kernel, X Window, choice of several filesystems (traditionally ext), choice of GUI toolkits, installation tools, etc. It’s not like one big team working on the complete system from top to bottom. They can implement all the cool technology they want but as long as the linux system is based on many parts worked on by different groups, it will never be polished and easy to use.
Lycoris does a good job so far.
But unless they really “make up” KDE in a pretty fundamental way, include ways to install third party drivers visually, finish up their control panels and most importantly, finish up *something like* the click-n-run application (but for free of course) that is able to easily install software with no dependancies with a click of a button, they are going nowhere either.
If they do the above, they might have a good shot though. We will see.
Satori mentioned BeOS and MacOS X as examples of great OS’s. True but MacOS X only runs on Macs and BeOS is left stranded with the end of Be Inc. And is Windows easy to use? Not when you have to check Windows update every week (every day is better) for security patches, keep an anti-virus system running and updated at all times as well as Zonealarm.
So what is the solution? I think an open source OS that is designed from top to bottom to be a complete consistent system.
Yes Lycoris looks good. When I used it I had those dreaded dependecy problems. As a Slackware user I was not used to that and just pushed it away.
There are many hurdles in this area to be jumped.
a) the applications (we have most of them)
b) the applications all need to be bundled together with the rest of the Linux framework
c) A friendly GUI to make it all easy to use
d) An easy way to add new software (wether the distro creates a new packaging system or they can install current formats
e) A friendly and easy to read manual
f) An easy way to add new hardware
g) Remove all jargon and add a good online help system
h) Test it on people and see where they go “WHAT NOW arrgh”
i) some way of distributing it
Of course these companies are trying to make money off this. But they don’t have it right yet. I think it should be done by community effort. Yet Another Linux Project; Desktop Linux. This would allow people to contribute their effort to it.
I believe that a community would produce a better product than a company.
> I believe that a community would produce a better product than a company.
I strongly disagree about this one. The Linux community has done nothing yet to enter the desktop. They only have falf-finished solutions lying around in 1000 pieces.
It is only these companies (from Stormix to Xandros and all in between) that try and fall down and still try and so on.
What open source has done so far for the desktop, was to immitate closed source desktop applications. I see no real innovation going on!
Why Microsoft had to come up with .NET and Sun with JavaONE and not the Linux guys? As for the Mono and dotGNU projects are also immitations.
There is nothing wrong fundamentally with immitation, but based on the fact that this community is best on immitating and not even polishing out their efforts, I would like to see a company, take these pieces and really polish and sell a Linux or other Unix-based desktop operating system that is suitable for the Joe User and that overcomes the problems we have mentioned above.
When that day comes, Linux will have a shot on the desktop. I just do not believe that KDE or lkml or X11 or Gnu alone can do anything. I do not see any real collaboration between all these guys (“because they do not work for the same company”), and this is exactly what hurts the polishing.
You know what they say about immitation – it’s the greatest form of flattery
I was thinking of an effort that doesn’t really produce a new piece of software but rather one that
a) sets design rules
b) intergrates the seperate pieces into one
Kinda like a distro but more like a standard. Of course there are many failures (HURD). Time to market is important in this case. I still believe that a group could accomplish this.
Not only is a standard good for the end user but it aslo allows some depth of competition. There must be a set of standards to lay down. Distros could be certified on this
1) One way one application
2) If you have to edit a text file to do it then you have failed
3) Help must contain no jargon
4) Apps must not be beta quality
5) Everything must have help attached
6) New apps or hardware can be easily added
7) A consistent user interface
8) Autoconfigure hardware or make a wizard for the user to do it
9) If configuration is complex then supply a wizard
Most distros could pass such a test if they knew where to fix problems. Even if they release a special Desktop distro
Maybe they could have a ranking system
Mandrake Desktop Linux *** star version 2004
Develop a standard
Test Distros against it
Give feedback to the Distro maker on where and how they failed.
Yes, yes, now we’re getting somewhere. Eugenia is right, it is Joe User’s rules by which the desktop game must be played. Myself, I am not a linux zealot. But I do like it and I believe it has the potential to compete – please understand – the *potential*. I like things about all OS’s. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Linux is the only one now who has the potential to compete with Microsoft and Apple. Look at it this way. When you see all the work that has been done on Linux, all the raw material is there. Nobody can tell me that there cannot be a company that can put this raw material together and make a desktop OS out of it, with applications galore. It’s all there, much of it unfinished, but most of the work has been done as far as the engine is concerned. I mentioned KDE up above. I don’t know if it will be a polished KDE or not. But KDE has something going for it regarding Joe User, even on top of its consistent look and feel. It has the “K” attribute. Jow User likes something like the “K” attribute. In fact Joe User would love it because it’s something he or she can latch on to psychologically – they think of “K” and it all makes more sense to them. Sort of like Apple’s iApps, but it goes even further. If they’re using a “K” app or see one, they immediately link it to the other “K” apps they know of and use, they know that if it’s “K”, it must be okay (hey, nice marketing slogan!! <g>). Something as simple as that can make all the difference in the world to Joe User. And it’s already here. This is why I’m making my one year project of using Lindows and Lycoris. I want to go along with them and see what happens. I don’t want to put words in Eugenia’s mouth, but she said something that made me think, “Maybe Lindows and Lycoris should merge and shed their weaknesses and combine their strengths”. Something like that would be another step. When I say “patience”, I don’t mean ten years from now. That raw material is all there, just waiting for a group of people to do something with it.
“Nobody can tell me that there cannot be a company that can put this raw material together and make a desktop OS out of it”
I’m here to tell you that God Himself could not make a desktop OS out of it
But seriously, a company? No. A corporation? Maybe. But in that case, if a corporation is at the healm, it’ll be no better than Windows. Spyware? Product Activation? Pick your poison.
One thing’s for sure – the open source community will never do it. Why? Because they don’t seem to agree on anything and the whole “my dick is bigger than yours” mentality will ensure that Linux will always be in the splintered mess it is now, until a corporation takes it under its wing and makes it just as ‘commercial’ as Windows is.
I mean, heck .. just look at Lindows. $99 a year for click ‘n run? That’s almost the same thing as the MS subscription thing. Anyone who has the resources to undertake a project like that will do so for the money, and then you can kiss your beloved ‘open’ and ‘free’ Linux goodbye.
Anyone remember Progeny? They got it almost right with their 1.0 (!) release. They had:
– Easy and foolproof installation, also very very fast. Only downside was, that it didn’t work for everyone…
– No dependency hell. Say hello to APT. Of course they had a graphical frontend to APT.
– Graphical configuration of everything, including X and including hardware detection (it detected my GPU and my monitor so I didn’t had to enter anything manually).
– Hardware detection. I thought this was very smart. It detected your hardware at bootup and just loaded the module. No user intervention needed at all. This way you could for example simply replace the hardware and it would work immidiatly, no annoying “hardware installation” or anything like that.
I think that’s how a distribution should be. Polished, based on something that already works like Debian or Gentoo. At the moment I don’t really see anyone making money from it (see, Stormix, Libranet, Progeny… All basically stopped, not sure about Libranet), so I see the biggest possibility in something created by… the community. And I really don’t care about what Eugenia thinks about this. If you don’t try, you won’t change anything.
I didnt like it. But can someone tell me, WHY does it allways sound like ANYONE can just buy a computer, turn it on, and start running Win. or Mac without learning HOW? Any os takes time to learn right, and that includes Win., Mac, and Linux. I enjoy it after learning the style and layout of the commands. I boot 4 os, DOS/Win.311, Win 98,FreeDOS/Free Gem, and Linux. I like them all, and all have programs that will not run rite on the next level upgrade, mainly the win. one’s. The only problem’s that I see, for what I use my computer for, is Linux Fonts are pertty lame, and there isn’t any major Multi-Track Music Recording programs so I can use it in my studio. Maybe someday………..Then i can say Win. would be a memory…………..Thanks for letting me vent.
Oh, so that means that Gentoo is an “easy” distro and this is why I chose it? Hahaha…
Um, no. You use Gentoo because you want to go beyond the “hand holding” distros. I’d have thought that would be blatantly obvious.
You know shit about me or what I do. And yet you critisize me.
I criticize you based on what I’ve seen at this website.
Sorry, but I will have to pay back.
Go on then.
FYI, I also have Red Hat and Mandrake Cooker installed. Does that make me a newbie too?
See above. Work on that reading comprehension, eh?
It is truly clear to me now that the Linux zealots will never see the light that will lead them above that obscure 0.6% of the desktop market.
I doubt anything anyone has said here has changed your views. It’s clear that you come into these discussion with a set of preconceptions that you simply will not drop.
So, now they tell us that the user will have to abandon the ease of use, but learn a whole new world or Unix and Linux.
No, some advocates will say that. Others will tell you the exact opposite. The problem here is that you’re treating the Linux community like some kind of hive mind. This couldn’t be further from the truth – the viewpoints held by Linux developers are incredibly diverse and span the entire spectrum. You’re actually concentrating on what is probably a minority and using it as a generalisation for the entire group. Pretty infantile behaviour really.
The bad part is that you do not realize this!
But we do. If we didn’t, projects like KDE, GNome and distributions like Lycoris and SuSE simply wouldn’t exist. The evidence against your argument is, once again, compelling and readily apparent.
It doesn’t matter that OS X only runs on Macs (it actually does run on x86 apparently but Apple will never release it)or that Be is dead. The point was, both are far more user friendly than Linux. And how can you say Windows is hard to maintin/administer? Windows Update hard? Please. You go to the site, install all of the “critical” patches and you’re set. The whole thing is point and click. And frankly, you don’t even have to do that. I turned off automatic update on my machine but most systems coming from the factory probably have it enabled by default. And installing Norton Antivirus or similar is easy. And updating an antivirus program is as easy as clicking and update button and letting the program do the rest. There is no typing involved, no workarounds needed. It’s foolproof. And ZoneAlarm. So what? You need to set up a firewall on your Linux machine as well. And don’t tell me Linux and IPCHAINS is easier than ZoneAlarm. And, unfortunately, most people don’t use a software firewall (very dumb) but may have a Cable/DSL router which protects their machine. Personally, I use both. I like being able to keep track of the traffic going both ways.
I am not saying Windows is the easiest OS in the world. It’s close though. And what you fail to see is that the whole world basically uses Windows. If you have a problem you can ask your neighbour, your son, your brother, your friend and so on to help. You can go on the net and find the answer quite easily most of the time. And when doing so, you don’t have to say “I have Windows XP but it’s such and such distro and I am running this WM and when I installed it I don’t know if I installed the Qt libraries or GCC” and so on. And at least with Windows, the install/uninstall routines tend to work and Windows Update works like a charm. I have had nothing but problems with package managers and update managers under Linux.
People who are used to using Windows don’t want to change for Linux. They want Linux to change for them. And it should if it’s goal is to occupy a significant portion of the desktop market. You can’t sell Linux as it is to complete newbies because who is going to support them? Not the experienced user. He is too busy using Windows to care about Linux.
I think Linux could be the basis for a great desktop OS. I would switch in a second if that ever happens and the software I need is available. I am not married to Windows. I am married to ease of use and great applications on reasonably priced hardware.
Satori.
The main reason was that it used GNOME as its main desktop. GNOME back then (and still is now) is far behind KDE in terms of ease of use and features. The creators used GNOME because they were supporters of it in the midst of KDE being under the QPL. However, they haven’t really stop judging KDE for its past license and judge it for its merits.
“I believe that a community would produce a better product than a company.”
I disagree. The main reason is that there is little incentive for the OSS programming community to produce a better product since they are doing all of this work for free. They OSS programming community is going to concentrate on the particular features that they need or want. If that’s not what the end user wants, that’s just too bad. The OSS programming community is not going to go out of their way to implement features that end users request.
With a commercial company however, their existance depends on keeping the end users happy. The livelyhood of the programmers working for that company also depends on keeping the end users happy. So unless OSS programmers are willing to do a better job of listening to what the end user wants (and actually doing something about it instead of ignoring it like they are very good about doing), open source free software will never compete with commercial software on the average desktop.
>>
Joe Users (and not just Joe Users) have multiple problems using Linux or Unices in general as their desktop, yet have no real UI and other problems when they switch to Mac or BeOS.
>>
They have no problems when they switch, so what was the problem then? Why didn’t your famous Joe user embrace Mac, or BeOS, or OS2? Can any of you anti-linux zealots explain it? If you cannot, go back and think and stop giving simplistic answers to everything.
“Why didn’t your famous Joe user embrace Mac, or BeOS, or OS2?”
Simple.
Mac: They priced themselves out of typical desktop market. by charging around twice as much for systems that performed on roughly the same level as an Intel system of half the price. Apple screwed themselves by not licensing the technology to clone makers. When they finally tried to do that, it was too little too late and they ended up buying out all the clone vendors.
BeOS: No applications. Horrible UI. Cannot go to Walmart or even CompUSA and find a single BeOS application (this was before they went bust). Limited hardware support.
OS/2: IBM couldn’t market water to a man stranded in the Sahara. One day IBM was trying to market OS/2 to home users. The next day their position was that they didn’t care about home users and only wanted to focus on the corporate arena. IBM’s commitment to OS/2 changed more rapidly then the weather in the Bermuda Triangle and changed about as often.
It’s pretty easy to explain really.
And I’m not an anti-linux zealot. I’m just a realist. There are things that Linux is good for and things that it isn’t good for. Linux is good for low to mid-range servers. Linux is good for building distributing computing clusters for dirt cheap. Linux is good as a workstation in certain niche areas such as science and engineering. But Linux is not currently good for the desktop of the average user.
Linux is also good for the desktop of experienced users.
And I think that’s a good start, isn’t it.
Not that anyone will ever read this, but I had to comment on Simba’s comment and on this mentality in general.
As usual, the zealots can’t take perfectly valid critisizm of their precious Linux.
This is a very popular tactic among the self-important, politicking, self-proclaimed intelligensia of the world today; bolstering your weak position and lack of facts with schoolyard mocking and name calling.
Anyway, the critisism that Simba is referring to as “perfectly valid” is indeed not. The two biggest flaws with the “Linux is not ready for the desktop” argument is that there are a large number of people who are currently using it as just that, and the people making the “not ready” arguments are people who don’t know how to make Linux work for them.
What Simba and other Linux opposers should be saying instead, which would be more accurate, is, “I’m not ready for Linux”.
I think the biggest whiners are not the Linux crowd, but those who continuously, and with bright anticipation, look to every new distribution as a deliverer from the bondage of Windows. They desire an exact Windows replica which won’t require that they learn anything new. When they find that each new distro is just an update to what they already can’t run, they then write ignorant reviews or form little angry mobs on sites such as this; using these negative reviews to provide mock stability to their arguments.
Simba may call me a zealot, but Linux has been ready for my desktop for a few years. It continues to get better just like anything else that it actively being developed, however, I doubt that it will ever become the Windows clone that lazy user’s what it to be. I don’t think any current users want it to become that either.
Linux offers stability, power and abilities that you just don’t get under Windows (like being able to access a running network process – Windows locks them as you would a database record or a file). Those ablilities require that you learn how to use this extended functionality. It is absolutely ibicile to expect to run an OS that provides far more functionality without having to learn anything. I find reviews such as this one pointless for this reason alone.
And I’m not an anti-linux zealot.
Of course you are. I believe the definition of a zealot is a fanatical partisan, which is evident in nealy every post you write. Not take offense, I’m not saying it’s bad to be opinionated, I am too, but let’s be honest about it okay?
I’m just a realist. There are things that Linux is good for and things that it isn’t good for. Linux is good for low to mid-range servers. Linux is good for building distributing computing clusters for dirt cheap. Linux is good as a workstation in certain niche areas such as science and engineering. But Linux is not currently good for the desktop of the average user.
Perhaps this is your reality. However, It is not a reality shared by everyone. As I said before, Linux is ready for my desktop, or rather, I am prepared and skilled enough to use Linux. You may not be able to make that claim, but it doesn’t make your point of view correct.
If I said that dolphins can’t talk, and then I meet one who can, it invalidates my position and I am forced to re-evaluate my beliefs and opinions concerning dolphins. It is the same with what you’re saying about Linux. If even one person is using Linux successfully as a desktop, then it means that Linux can be used as a desktop and you must either re-evaluate your opinion, or become intellectually dishonest.
It may be fair to say that you are unable to use Linux as a desktop and to state the reasons why you personally feel that way, but to say without discrimination or authority that it is not ready for the desktop when you have been offered so much evidence that in fact it is being used successfully as a desktop by a large number of people is entirely dishonest.
“This is a very popular tactic among the self-important, politicking, self-proclaimed intelligensia of the world today; bolstering your weak position and lack of facts with schoolyard mocking and name calling. ”
I presented tons of facts to support my position. The average computer user can’t change their own network password on Windows NT Workstation without calling tech support. I learned this quite well after working tech support that supported more than 50,000 users. And you expect them to be able to use Linux productively?
“The two biggest flaws with the “Linux is not ready for the desktop” argument is that there are a large number of people who are currently using it as just that”
I guess if you call 0.6% of the desktop market a large number of people… Although to me that falls under the heading “statistically insignificant”.
“and the people making the “not ready” arguments are people who don’t know how to make Linux work for them.”
“As I said before, Linux is ready for my desktop, or rather, I am prepared and skilled enough to use Linux. You may not be able to make that claim, but it doesn’t make your point of view correct.”
I can make that claim. But most users can’t. Notice I have never once said that Linux is not ready for ANY desktop. I have said that it is not ready for the average user’s desktop.
I do know how to make Linux work for me. I’ve worked in support environments where I have supported hundreds of Linux, AIX, and Solaris based servers. I currently work in a scientific field where I use Linux on one of my workstations. That doesn’t change the fact that Linux is not ready for the majority of computer users. Because the majority of people don’t know how to make Linux work for them, and the majority of people aren’t going to take the time to learn how. Deny it all you want. But as long as Linux people keep denying it insead of doing something about it, Linux will continue to hang around that 0.6% mark and not gain any new marketshare.
“I doubt that it will ever become the Windows clone that lazy user’s what it to be.”
Can you write an article for a scientific journal that explains the population dynamics and flucuations of migratory ungulates in the Serengeti ecosystem and the effects of weather on those flucuations? You can’t? Guess you must be lazy then since you never took the time to learn population ecology.
“It may be fair to say that you are unable to use Linux as a desktop and to state the reasons why you personally feel that way, but to say without discrimination or authority that it is not ready for the desktop when you have been offered so much evidence that in fact it is being used successfully as a desktop by a large number of people is entirely dishonest.”
I can use Linux as a desktop. Once again, I never stated that Linux can’t be used as a desktop. I simply stated that most people cannot currently use Linux as a desktop.
And where is ths evidence that it is being used as a desktop by large numbers of people? As I said, 0.6% falls under the heading of statistically insignificant.
BeOS: No applications. Horrible UI. Cannot go to Walmart or even CompUSA and find a single BeOS application (this was before they went bust). Limited hardware support.
Most BeOS users are painfully aware of the limited (not *no*) applications and hardware support. But “horrible UI”? I wouldn’t put up with BeOS’ limitations if the UI was difficult to use. If anything, I find BeOS to be a very easy interface to work with. Sure, it’s different from Windows and MacOS, but not radically so.
Perhaps you could give some examples of its horrible UI design, and/or your ideas about what constitutes “good” UI?
“If I said that dolphins can’t talk, and then I meet one who can, it invalidates my position and I am forced to re-evaluate my beliefs and opinions concerning dolphins. It is the same with what you’re saying about Linux. If even one person is using Linux successfully as a desktop, then it means that Linux can be used as a desktop and you must either re-evaluate your opinion, or become intellectually dishonest.”
By the way, this is a very bad analogy, and one that is not scientifically valid anyway.
In science we deal with something called statistical probability. If one user out of the hundreds of millions of computer users in the world was running Linux on their desktop, it means that statistically, Linux CANNOT be used as a desktop. You can’t make a scientifically valid claim based on a sample size of one.
Geez, do I feel sorry for Eugenia and all these zealots attacking her. She’s calling it exactly like she see it. I feel the same way she does about Linux, and Linux systems. Linux distro’s should GIVE UP on making it desktop friendly. In its current state, thats nearly impossible. The chaos doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
Amusing responses that this article brings forth.
All this Linux talk. I think I’m going to try and d-load an app and actually getting it running on my Mandrake 7.2. I haven’t been successful yet. Tried many times. I WANT to like Linux. It takes a lot of effort. I’d love to try installing KDE3. Ha…! Ya, right, as if I would ever get through the dependency hell. I’d be happy to actually be able to install a application, and actually get the icon to appear in the menu.
Linux (w/ x11) on the desktop is an abortion. Yea- some can get it to work. Keep the kernal, re-write the gui system from scratch. It needs it.
It would help those people really interested in improving something if you all wouldn’t just say how much it suck but simply list your main griefs.
Did I get this right so far?
– Dependency hell
– X Setup
– Driver installation
?
LinuxDude’s Assessment of the Linux Community:
<QUOTE>
In general there are five kinds of people that use Linux…
Coders – Linux is a playground and they own it. Want something different, changed, altered, enhanced, etc. etc., just open it, edit it, and recompile it. It’s free and you’re the king. A problem or a bug is simply more fun to these guys. Some write drivers and some improve others code. They’ve been using it before you booted directly into a window manager. Usually have a window manager with no widgets or massive backgrounds. Linux was made for these guys.
Brains – Usually scientists or students. The OS is free and they can create tools and programs to process the data they collect. They require the total control over everything that Linux provides and they’re smart enough to tackle anything that comes along.
Average Joe – Grabs a copy of Redhat from Software Etc or Best Buy. Maybe downloaded it if he’s lucky enough to have a broadband connection. Wants to try something new, wants to learn something new. A little tired of Windows but he’s capable in it enough that it doesn’t crash daily. He can’t code so he’s probably going to hit a lot of roadblocks in the free reign philosophy. Probably going to hit a lot of pages for projects that are no longer being developed because the student graduated or someone just lost interest and put up a “Don’t email me about it, I’m no longer working on it, don’t bitch because it was free in the first place!” He usually goes back to Windows after a while because he can’t get his winmodem working or there is just some Windows app or hardware device that doesn’t work in Linux that he can’t live without.
Angst-ridden MS Establishment Hater/Script Kiddie – Most hang out on Slashdot or irc. Bashes anyone using Windows or MacOS, then launches a DoS attack against them. Most don’t code because it takes too much time that could be better spent trolling. They contribute nothing to the OS as a whole, usually even submit bug reports full of profanities to the very guys they look up to! They call themselves hackers and propagate malicious scripts that they couldn’t comprehend if they tried. They have a copy of XP on another partition which they make sure to put in their .sig that it’s only for games, yet they stay booted in it primarily. Complains that the entire OS crashes every 30 seconds and Bill Gates is Satan.
The business users aren’t using Linux by choice, the coder/admin installed it to further his or her own philosophy. Not even considered a category in itself.
I’d say those make up 90% percent of the Linux community. I don’t see them taking the market anytime soon.
– LinuxDude
</QUOTE>
Um, no. You use Gentoo because you want to go beyond the “hand holding” distros. I’d have thought that would be blatantly obvious.
You obviously don’t know her. She is an expert at Linux. She is a geek, a pure one.
No, some advocates will say that. Others will tell you the exact opposite. The problem here is that you’re treating the Linux community like some kind of hive mind. This couldn’t be further from the truth – the viewpoints held by Linux developers are incredibly diverse and span the entire spectrum. You’re actually concentrating on what is probably a minority and using it as a generalisation for the entire group. Pretty infantile behaviour really.
Examples? I have read her take on the article, and it is pretty true. Linhux won’t be at the desktop unless a lot of things are done right. Until that, Linux would fit our needs as geeks, but it would not at all fulfill the needs of a normal user. If there is anyone with a weak argument of just attacking a person, that person is you.
But we do. If we didn’t, projects like KDE, GNome and distributions like Lycoris and SuSE simply wouldn’t exist. The evidence against your argument is, once again, compelling and readily apparent.
Her critism have been targeted at these people.
1) KDE and GNOME aren’t good enough desktops for a normal newbie.
2) Lycoris and SuSE aren’t good enough distros for a normal newbie.
Understand that now? There are so many problems with the guys that are trying to push Linux to the desktop. Maybe this is caused by lack of unity and standards, but nontheless, GNOME, KDE, Lycoris and SuSE as well as companies and projects you didn’t mention.
They have no problems when they switch, so what was the problem then? Why didn’t your famous Joe user embrace Mac, or BeOS, or OS2? Can any of you anti-linux zealots explain it? If you cannot, go back and think and stop giving simplistic answers to everything.
Firstly, they did embrace Mac OS (and those who did embrace BeOS fell out later when it died). David Coursey uses his new iMac as his main system, and only uses his Windows laptop when he is doing the radio show. There is an article on stuff Coursey can’t live without, and the iMac was on the list and the reasons was mostly Mac OS X.
Secondly, I’m not anti-Linux. I’m using Linux, though currently stuck at Windows XP, and I would prefer using Linux over Windows XP. Why? Because apparently, I’m not the target audience Windows was built for (I plan to get Gentoo when I get DSL).
BeOS: No applications. Horrible UI. Cannot go to Walmart or even CompUSA and find a single BeOS application (this was before they went bust). Limited hardware support.
All you said was correct, except about the UI. BeOS has a very well consistent user interface (unlike Windows XP where I notice a lot of inconsistency in the OS itself). The user interface was well thought of, and it wasn’t for looks they adopted it. The betters Mac OS and Windows releases of that days, though right now things have changed, you can’t really compare an old OS’s UI with a new OS. Though I have found something that might confuse a lot of users, a UNIX-like file hiearchy.
I’d say those make up 90% percent of the Linux community. I don’t see them taking the market anytime soon.
Looks like I’m in the minority
Just last night I had a good friend insist I put RedHat 7.3 on my system. We used Partitioin Magic to carve out a 10Gig drive on my system for it and proceeded to install. I liked the GUI installer but after doing the nobrainer install option I discovered the system install was taking up 1.5 Gigs. When seeing the packages installing I saw so much sh*t going onto my hard drive with not one program to serve my needs for browsing or chatting or email but at least 4 of each. Do I need an installation with Konkeror, Mozilla, Netscape 4.*, Gallion, and the whole lot of bloody text based web browsers that can be used on Linux?
Linux has a big problem and this is indicative of free societies, it is choice. There is too much to choose from and too many projects replecating everyones work. A base Linux install would be better off offering a GUI choice like KDE/Gnome and then installing the minimum apps needed for a great GUI user experience. For me the path would be Gnome with Mozilla installed. I don’t want pissy games, scientific programs and all the other stuff. This should come as an option to install once the system is up and running so the user through a great GUI interface can select the programs relevent to them once the main OS GUI shell is functioning. This should be where the choice comes in.
Linux distributions also need to standardise on file layout and the underpinnings so developers jobs are made easier and the end user could benefit. Oh BTW the other thing that was really fun was lack of proper Video card/Monitor detection by Xconfigurator (GeForce Ti 4400 and Hitachi CM771) and sound cards detection (Hoontech C-Port).
Things need to be cleaner, simpler and effective and the way the main distros are doing it, this is not the case. I will give RedHat some time but I am very tempted to piss it of and do a Gentoo install because I know it will not try to install everything under the sun on my system. Nothing more fun than hunting through RPM packages to uninstall all the crap I don’t want.
For future reference, distros need to make it clean, simple and powerful. Sort of why I liked BeOS so much. And do we know of any great sequencing programs being developed on the Linux platform? I would love something like Cubase SX or Logic Audio for Linux. Then I could really piss of Windows.
Please email me or IM me.
You are right, the Redhat way of installing almost everything is really not good for a desktop OS.
I also didn’t like the Mandrake way the last time I tried it (you could choose categories but then it installed you everything of this category
). And I still remember my first days with SuSE (6.1 or something) when I spent most of my time scrolling through those huge lists guessing which software I don’t need…
you are right that computers are there to get a work done but it’s a little bit more complicated because there is not _the_ job a computer should get done.
Yep.
Well, in the past they probably where nothing more than expensive calculators but this time is past. Today personal computers do almost everything, from beeing a simple gaming console to create artificial wonders.
Yep.
A general purpose OS should support all that…
I don’t see how it can. Or at least, I don’t see that it will.
…and it just can’t be a no-brainer.
Agreed. Any person who wants to use a general-purpose computer has to take some responsibility for learning how to make it work. I’ll never make the no-brainer argument, but there must be a reasonable expectation. I don’t need to be a mechanic to drive a car, but I do need to know how to use the pedals.
It just shouldn’t get into your way much and let you do whatever you want to do.
And this is where Linux falls down in its present state for most people. It does get in their way of doing what they are trying to accomplish. If you are a true geek with time to burn and the aptitude, however, it is just the opposite. It’s the old “trash and treasure” saying.
It should be simple to do the simple stuff like surfing and listening to some music. But not more.
Can’t agree completely. Office management, CBT, accounting, web site development, or any specialized tasks for particular industries or professions should not require great expertise in the OS. Speaking about business in particular, most computers are used by people whose business is NOT computers. They are simply tools to help businesses run better. Information is the resource they need to manage, not PCs. You want grief? Try getting a doctor to change to a new OS that requires that he learn more about the OS. Been there and got an earful. They want to know their apps and no more, and I have to agree with them. Time is too short for them to mess around with .conf files and dependecies.
I’m not saying that Linux is there, I’m just saying the goal shouldn’t be to completely dumb it down.
True, but we shouldn’t create a threshold of knowledge so high that people decide it isn’t worth their effort, especially when MS and Apple are more than willing to provide systems that don’t require what appears to people to be rocket science.
The dentist example I used earlier makes this point. The user never even saw the OS. To him it appeared that he booted straight into the app. This isn’t the story for home users, of course, but it does point out that one size doesn’t fit all, and that biz users need to run their businesses, not their computers. At home, kids do homework and spend hours on chat, parents do the checkbook and spend hours on chat, everyone sends email, burns CDs (and Linux doesn’t support many of those burners), may touch up a few photos, etc. Linux just isn’t there yet in an intuitive and simple-enough way. Personally, I think BeOS was as close as we have come yet, but Windows is getting the job done for most. Mac would also if they didn’t demand so much $$$.
Well yes. So we say basically the same thing. =)
It should be as easy as possible without beeing so easy that it’s restricting. It’s not quite there yet.
For dentists though, there is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to do this with Linux. I mean loading up and directly starting the application. Actually I think that Linux is quite strong in the embedded market, where the system is always preinstalled because of it’s flexibility.
Well yes. So we say basically the same thing. =)
We burned up all that bandwidth just to agree?? We’ll have to do it over.
It should be as easy as possible without beeing so easy that it’s restricting. It’s not quite there yet.
For dentists though, there is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to do this with Linux. I mean loading up and directly starting the application. Actually I think that Linux is quite strong in the embedded market, where the system is always preinstalled because of it’s flexibility.
There are possibilities there. In this particular case, the OS not only booted from, but fit on a floppy! It went through frequent updates, so upgrading the OS on the HDD was not an issue. I don’t know much about embedded systems, though I guess this could be done in a way that wouldn’t require a complicated process to update it.
For general public consumption, though, what will give Windows users a compelling reason to change? Is there anything on the horizon yet?
I presented tons of facts to support my position. The average computer user can’t change their own network password on Windows NT Workstation without calling tech support. I learned this quite well after working tech support that supported more than 50,000 users. And you expect them to be able to use Linux productively?
So let me get this straight, an average joe user can’t figure out how to change his password in WinNT, yet Windows is a good desktop. On the other hand, an average joe user can’t figure out how to change his password in Linux, and Linux is a bad desktop. Nevermind, I don’t think that logic can be made straight.
Anyway, you are testing the validity of Linux on the desktop by using the lowest skilled subject group as a measuring stick. Do you judge that Fender makes crappy guitars because there are many people who can’t play them? Does DeWalt make crappy power tools because you don’t know how to build a house with them? Was Einstein a moron because many people don’t understand his theories? Of course not. If you wouldn’t judge other items via a group of unskilled people, why do you insist on judging Linux as a desktop in this way? Desktop is not synonymous with ignorance.
Common sense demands that we judge the validity and usefulness of any tool through the skills of people who have mastered the area in which the particular tool falls.
I guess if you call 0.6% of the desktop market a large number of people… Although to me that falls under the heading “statistically insignificant”.
That is entirely a marketing issue, not a technical one. As you said earlier, most people don’t know how to any but the most basic things on their computer. You quite often compare apples to oranges when making your “Linux sucks as a desktop” posts. Like comparing launching word on Windows to recompiling your kernel in Linux. Most Windows users click on Start and launch whatever program they want. This works almost identically in many Linux distributions.
I can make that claim. But most users can’t.
It doesn’t matter. My mom can’t use my meat slicer, but it’s still an excellent tool.
Notice I have never once said that Linux is not ready for ANY desktop. I have said that it is not ready for the average user’s desktop.
Again, I have to disagree. My father uses his computer to check email, search the web, do speadsheets, and make simple CAD drawings. I sat him down in front of a Debian machine running WindowMaker and open source counterparts for his Windows programs. I only showed him how to right-click on the desktop to bring up the menu and told him the names of the programs he needed to look for. He was up and running in minutes.
Does this mean that he can configure his own system? No, but he can’t do that in Windows either. I still go to his house to fix his computer problems, just like I always did. The only difference is that it’s now in Linux instead of Windows.
My experience is that people who are exceptionally good a running Windows can easily become exceptionally good at running Linux. People who can barely squeek by running Windows have the same problem running Linux.
Deny it all you want. But as long as Linux people keep denying it insead of doing something about it, Linux will continue to hang around that 0.6% mark and not gain any new marketshare.
I don’t even remotely care. Linux is fine just the way it is for me.
Can you write an article for a scientific journal that explains the population dynamics and flucuations of migratory ungulates in the Serengeti ecosystem and the effects of weather on those flucuations? You can’t? Guess you must be lazy then since you never took the time to learn population ecology.
Actually, I think you are postering, but yes I can write quite a bit about hoofed quadrupeds and their migratory patterns if you like, but I thought that this was a discussion about Linux.
I can use Linux as a desktop. Once again, I never stated that Linux can’t be used as a desktop. I simply stated that most people cannot currently use Linux as a desktop.
Again, I disagree. Most users can’t configure Linux, this is true, but take that concept away since they can’t configure Windows either, and it’s only a matter of whether or not the tools are there for them to perform the tasks they are accustomed to (email, web, word processor, etc). Linux has them all.
And where is ths evidence that it is being used as a desktop by large numbers of people?
Well, you could look at all the Linux users groups around the world. Even if each users group only counted as a single individual, that is still a large number. You are representing a percentage, which is designed to look small. However, 0.6% of a couple billion people is in fact a large physical number (if I could only get a dollar from each of them…)
“Anyway, you are testing the validity of Linux on the desktop by using the lowest skilled subject group as a measuring stick.”
The average computer user is in the lowest skilled subject group from my experience. But the rest of that paragraph was a totally invalid comparision. I might not be able to use a deWalt drill to build a house. But I can use it to drill a hole in my wall for hanging a large picture or something.
“Does this mean that he can configure his own system? No, but he can’t do that in Windows either. I still go to his house to fix his computer problems, just like I always did. The only difference is that it’s now in Linux instead of Windows.”
The average Windows user can do basic configuration of their system such as installing their own applications and changing their own network settings. With Linux, they can’t do this. The average user can’t install an application on Linux. Partly because of dependancy hell. Partly because of other issues. Face it. Linux software installation tools suck. InstallShield created a Linux version of their product (I think it was actually written in Java, but still, it worked with Linux). It’s a shame Linux programmers haven’t adopted InstallShield or some other easy to use installer.
“Actually, I think you are postering, but yes I can write quite a bit about hoofed quadrupeds and their migratory patterns if you like, but I thought that this was a discussion about Linux.”
I’m not postering. I’m simply making a point that we live in a society of specialization. Just because someone can’t do something doesn’t make them lazy. People don’t have the time to learn how to do everything. That’s what it had to do with Linux.
And I welcome you to write such article and submit it to a prestigious science journal. Unless you happen to be a behavioral ecologist, I would be willing to bet you know a lot less then you think you do, and not nearly enough to write a publication quality article on the subject.
The point was simply that people don’t have the time to learn everything.
But since I brought it up. Here is a good example. My major is ecology. And I actually do focus on the Serengeti. Now suppose I want to write an article on some aspect of it and I want to do some statistical analysis. I’m gonna load up SAS or SPSS–neither of which is available for Linux. With Linux, there is a package called R. But R requires you to learn a programming language to do stats. Thanks but no thanks. That doesn’t mean I am lazy. It just means I would rather focus on my research then on learning a programming languages to do the statistical analysis for that research.
“Again, I disagree. Most users can’t configure Linux, this is true, but take that concept away since they can’t configure Windows either”
Once again, most people can at least install applications in Windows and do basic configuration. That’s not true with Linux.
“However, 0.6% of a couple billion people is in fact a large physical number (if I could only get a dollar from each of them…)”
Percentages are not designed to look small. Percentages are designed to put numbers into perspective.
It doesn’t matter if it is a large number. We don’t deal directly with physical numbers because it is irrelevant unless you know what the number is a proportion of. For example, the number 800 million seems like a large number at first. But if I told you I had 800 million atoms, that number would be insignificant compared to the total number of atoms in Universe.
Simba, when installing an application under Linux takes a four year degree, then perhaps I will accept your points as valid. However, since I can teach a trailer park dweller in a wife-beater tank top who is listening to Molly Hatchet out of the only working speaker in his primer colored Camero how to install a Linux application in under five minutes, I will not accept them.
I have helped many Windows users and many Linux users with their computer related problems. The truth is that the average joe has the same problems in Windows as they do in Linux. They can’t configure either one, but can use either one equally well if someone else does the configuration for them.
Your only criterion for saying Linux is not ready for the desktop is based around a users knowledge. So again I ask you, if someone else is configuring your system for you (as is the case with Windows and Lindows) and all you have to do is learn which thing to click on, how can you say that Windows is perfect and Linux is scum?
You keep throwing science around so why don’t you do what I did and put Linux’s usability to the test. Install Linux for your grandma and then show her how to write a document, read email and search the web? If my grandma can easily figure it all out, then anyone can. Linux sounds ready to me.
The reason I even respond to your partisan posts is that I don’t want someone who is considering Linux to run away from it because they read one of your opinions and mistook it for fact. Yes, Linux is different and requires some learning. Big deal. People had to learn Windows too. Last time I looked it wasn’t instinctual. All I ask is that you reprenest your opinions as such instead of the constant ridicule.
I am going to skip over all of your, “my urine is brighter than your’s”, ecology based attitudinizing. It’s like me arguing my points by saying you’re an idiot because you’re a monoglot. Utterly pointless.
“However, since I can teach a trailer park dweller in a wife-beater tank top who is listening to Molly Hatchet out of the only working speaker in his primer colored Camero how to install a Linux application in under five minutes, I will not accept them.”
Yeah.. I’m sure said person would be able to figure out that the reason their GIMP install isn’t working is because their version of GTK isn’t new enough. You might be able to teach such a person how to install StarOffice for Linux, which has a virtually idiot proof installer. But as far as installing most Linux applications. I doubt it.
By the way, do you think the average persopn has a clue that ld.so.conf even exists much less has an idea that they might be getting complaints about missing libraries because the dynamic linker doesn’t know where to find it?
“Your only criterion for saying Linux is not ready for the desktop is based around a users knowledge. So again I ask you, if someone else is configuring your system for you (as is the case with Windows and Lindows) and all you have to do is learn which thing to click on, how can you say that Windows is perfect and Linux is scum?”
I see you have to resort to putting words in my mouth and distorting my statements to support your viewpoint. I never once said Linux is scum. Linux is a great operating system for SOME users. It is NOT ready for the average user’s desktop.
“I am going to skip over all of your, “my urine is brighter than your’s”, ecology based attitudinizing. It’s like me arguing my points by saying you’re an idiot because you’re a monoglot. Utterly pointless.”
It’s not at all pointless. It is a perfectly valid comparision. You are the one that made the statement that Linux will never be what the lazy users want it to be. Like I said, just because someone doesn’t want to take the time to learn Linux doesn’t mean they are lazy. It could very well mean they just don’t have time because they have other things they need to concentrate on. The statistical analysis example was perfectly valid. You are skipping over it because you know you can’t defend against it.
It’s the same reason you backed down on your mathematically invalid claim that percentages are designed to look small. That was a serious reach on your part to make Linux’s dismally small desktop usage look bigger than it really is. My opinions may be my opinions. But the statistics support my opinions. You on the other hand, have been resorting to fuzzy math to attempt to support yours.
“Yes, Linux is different and requires some learning. Big deal. People had to learn Windows too.”
Of course Windows requires some learning. But anyone who has ever taught anyone to use a computer knows that the learning curve for Linux is MUCH steeper than the learning curve for Windows. So don’t give me this “everything requires learning” crap.