“Windows Vista brings with it a new era of DRM and restrictive license agreements that aren’t going to sit well with even your basic power user and some are looking for an escape route. These changes are making some users question their commitment to Microsoft. The obvious step is to make the leap to Linux. But what’s holding people back from escaping Microsoft’s shackles and moving to a free, easy platform? My guess is that the platform isn’t everything. In fact, it’s only a small part of the equation.”
Windows Vista brings with it a new era of DRM and restrictive license agreements
Boy with that opening statement the title really should be “The world just isn’t ready for vista”
this article is a rehash of some of the basic (iirelevant?) points that have been being said about linux for years. it brings up all the same points (gaming, software, etc) and injects absolutly nothing new to the story. and does not talk about how far linux has come in the last several years. for a quick read, its o.k. dont expect yur I.Q. to go up becuz of it though.
Calling the article a “rehash” doesn’t alter its fundamental truth.
Or it’s fundamental load of crap either.
The same words are used against Mac OS X
Edited 2006-11-03 23:10
“a rehash of (what) have been said about linux for years” is … “how far linux has come in the last several years”.
Every year for the last 6 years I hear that “how far” statement, but it’s still not far enough _this year_, which is the article’s point.
The moment I saw Vista’s new pricing, I said to myself, the alternatives just haven’t brought enough to the table, for one reason or another.
Edited 2006-11-04 01:32
How far Linux has come in the past years is not the point of the article. The point of the article is that people are not switching to Linux because it is not user friendly enough.
Linux may be good enough for a power user, but there are still far too many quirks and obvious bugs that never should have made it to release, yet somehow did. Stuff like installing a radeon driver would not be half as difficult if distro makers were not so damn stubborn with their “ONLY OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!!!!!” bull@*#*.
To distro makers, the average user you are trying to attract does not give a rip about open source software, they want it to just work. At least set up the distro so the user doesnt have to jump through hoop after hoop just to get a radeon or nvidia driver working. For example, how many times have you tried to install something like radeon drivers, or ndiswrapper only to find out that the kernel source wasn’t installed and you had to spend several minutes trying to figure out where the hell the distro hid them (yes, im pointing at you redhat, mandrake, ubuntu, and virtually all other popular distros). Just put the damn kernel source in the src directory by default. The users who dont care will never know its there, the users who do care will be tremendously grateful.
Also, going with second rate trash software that doesn’t work half as well as several non open source but still free alternatives (yes, I am pointing my finger at kaffe and gcj)is quite counter productive to attracting new users. Either put in software that works completely the way that’s expected, or don’t put it in at all. For example, how many times have you tried to run a java app, only to find out that the distro installed some trash 10% working jvm. Then go to install suns jvm, only to find out that you have to hunt down and delete manually all of the binaries/scripts of gcj or kaffe that are the same as suns (ie, java, javac, etc..) because they interfere with the ability to add suns to PATH. This is a perfect example of make sure it works CORRECTLY in all cases or don’t put it in at all.
I could write a 10 page paper on the many obveous flaws linux distros leave in that should have never made it to relases. But you should have an idea at this point now
“Hardware just has to work. There’s a very good reason why Microsoft spends a lot of time on hardware compatibility – it’s what people want.”
Actually, it’s (mostly) the other way around: hardware vendors *have* to include Windows drivers that work, otherwise no average PC owner (+90% being Windows users) is going to buy whatever they are selling…
“hardware vendors *have* to include Windows drivers that work, otherwise no average PC owner (+90% being Windows users) is going to buy whatever they are selling…”
You’re right. If hardware vendor wouldn’t include (several versions of) “Windows” drivers (for the several editions), most PC users would not by the hardware.
On the other hand, drivers often are buggy. If the hardware does not work 100% properly, it “functions” – some crashes, but still functioning. Customers know this and accept it. Often “entry level” users wo bvuild their own machines combine parts which don’t fit together (in functionality, but they do mechanically). They expect such a composition to work. “Windows” ignores errors and crashes at a certain point, while Linux signals errors, waits (for correction) or refuses an operation (because it could be dangerous to data or devices). Don’t expect something to work if it’s not supposed to work.
Let me say something about the article.
Walk around any store selling software and see how much Linux-compatible software you can find.
The author expects software distributed only by shops. He does not mention the hundredtousands of programs out there for free which can be used with Linux.
Incorrect, the author claims:
Consumers want to see stuff that they can buy that will work for them. Granted, there’s a ton of stuff available for Linux as long as you know where to look, but for your average user that’s not enough.
How dumb is the “average user” he refers to? Is this user unable to use something like YaST or Google? Someone who is that dumb should not own a computer.
Then the author turns to hardware support:
Hardware just has to work. There’s a very good reason why Microsoft spends a lot of time on hardware compatibility – it’s what people want.
As stated before, MICROS~1 is not the one responsible for hardware support.
Of course, hardware has to work, but that’s the field of the hardware manufacturers and vendors.
At this time, Linux has the best hardware support among all OSes, as far as I know. It supports the most devices in relation to other OSes.
There are two ways of improving hardware support. (i) The vendors release complete specifications about how their devices work, so Linux kernel and system programmers surely will add support for this device. (ii) The vendors provide kernel or system modules to support their hardware. In the best case, they provide the source code; in the worst case, it’s just binary stuff compiled and packaged to fit most used Linux distributions.
Furthermore, the author complains about “too many flavours” of Linux. But this is great! You (the user) can decide what Linux you want to use. You can even test them (with Live CDs) without installing them. Great thing! Finally, you will use the Linux that fits your needs. And that’s freedom. Freedom is a good thing, or would someone complain he has “too much freedom?” Surely not.
Finally, I have to admit that I’m not using any Linux today. Just for the fact. 🙂
Quote:
How dumb is the “average user” he refers to? Is this user unable to use something like YaST or Google? Someone who is that dumb should not own a computer.
Me thinks that’s the author’s point about the attitude of linux users.
Regardless as to how “easy” something is to use, Joe Sixpack is used to walking into CompuSuperMcStore and buying Softwarepackage X 14.3. He is not used to firing up YaST or Synaptic or any package manager and asking it to go grab something. Further, he isn’t used to surfing though google and looking at message postings looking for how exactly to download and install that codec to be able to watch that video clip that his friend sent him on hotmail.
Calling him dumb or stupid for not wanting to spend his leisure time learning a new method to interact with a machine he bought and paid for is ignorant and short sighted and exactly what off puts people from trying.
Edited 2006-11-04 05:50
Further, he isn’t used to surfing though google and looking at message postings looking for how exactly to download and install that codec to be able to watch that video clip that his friend sent him on hotmail.
The “average user” doesn’t even need Google/Forums/IRC/whatever. On Ubuntu, they have a Add/Delete program utility, which allows them to install/uninstall the most popular linux applications with a single click. This utility will also allow them to install ugly codecs, Flash, Java etc.
So it is arguable easier to obtain and install software packages on linux than it is on Windows. (and we haven’t got to the infamous dll hell yet…)
As for:
Regardless as to how “easy” something is to use, Joe Sixpack is used to walking into CompuSuperMcStore and buying Softwarepackage X 14.3
Most Joe users just use whatever comes with their computer/installed by their friends/family. If they need anything else, they will likely consult these people first (at which point they will told how it only take one click for them to get whatever they want, for free).
“Most Joe users just use whatever comes with their computer/installed by their friends/family. If they need anything else, they will likely consult these people first (at which point they will told how it only take one click for them to get whatever they want, for free).”
I can confirm this (regarding Germany). The friends consulted often download stuff from the Internet, install it, and leave “Joe User” alone. Because we know that 90% of the computer problems begin between chair and screen, they’ll be in trouble soon.
I think a good thing about Linux is: The average “Joe User” cannot damage the base system. It he crapped up all his stuff, an “adduser” will return the system to be usable for him. 🙂
At least in Germany the “SuperBigSoftwareMarketStoreShop” isn’t of much interest to the average (home) users. Most people load their software from the Internet (to be correct: from the WWW) and don’t even care if this is legal or illegal. “I want to have the same pictures at home as I have them at work.” (“Pictures” refers to icons and, furthermore, to the complete GUI setting.) They don’t care if they need it or what they could do with it – they just want to have it.
So you’re right. And for the conclusion: If there would e a “standard Linux distribution” as mentioned before that comes pre-installed on PCs you can buy in a shop or order from your local dealer, that would be a way for Linux to get more acceptance and a higher market share.
“Furthermore, the author complains about “too many flavours” of Linux. But this is great! You (the user) can decide what Linux you want to use. You can even test them (with Live CDs) without installing them. Great thing! Finally, you will use the Linux that fits your needs. And that’s freedom. Freedom is a good thing, or would someone complain he has “too much freedom?” Surely not.”
The vast majority of human beings do not like a lot of choice. This is why political systems worldwide are dominated by two or three major parties. Most computer users find the range of Linux choices so overwhelming that they would prefer to stick with Windows or Mac OS. A more technically minded person might be able to appreciate the value of having a wide range of options to choose from, but the average person has enough decisions to make in their life, and doesn’t want to be encumbered by having to investigate the pros and cons of several hundred products and choose among them. The average person can choose between two or three classes of product, but more than that and they will lose interest or go with the most popular choice.
This is the number one reason Linux has not taken much market share from Windows – people simply don’t want too much choice, as it is they have a choice between Windows or Mac, Linux is perceived as too esoteric and technical to be an option by most computer users.
And any enlightened person will realise that too much freedom or choice is a bad thing, as it results in chaos, confusion and anarchy. You have to strike a balance between freedom and restriction if you want to get anywhere. This is why societies have rules and laws – some choices have been deemed inappropriate or unacceptable for the good of the greater whole. You can’t choose to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else if you want safe roads, for example.
When the Linux community recognises this simple truth, and works out that choices need to be limited to a number that people are not overwhelmed by, then Linux has a chance of competing for market and mind share in the OS world.
And not only average users dislike too much choice, developers too do not like to have to spend the extra time and effort to code for multiple platforms – most will pick the one – two most popular platforms that represent their biggest market.
And the average user is not interested in idealism or politics when choosing an OS, so Linux distros that do not provide easy, command line free access to .mp3 codecs etc. are doomed to a tiny market share among computer users.
To become a maojor player in the desktop, home user OS scene, Linux needs to:
1)Cull down the number of Distros to no more than three generic distros (Distros designed for specialised applications don’t count).
2)Tone down the idealistic stuff. The GPL, while a very commendable licencing option for many purposes, is of no interest to end users who have no skill or desire to fiddle around with source code, or contribute in any way other than financially to a project.
3)The first thing people subconsciously think when they hear something is “free” is that it something must be wrong with it, because if it was any good, why would anyone give it away? Now, you know and I know that free software can be as good or even better than commercial software, but that is not the common perception. Linux Distros need to have a price tag for average people to think it is worth their time.
4) Linux distros need to make sure that end users will have an easy, GUI driven means of installing any codecs or proprietary stuff that is made obvious in the installation instructions. .OGG might be a great format for compressing audio files, but like BetaMax, it will never take on, since .mp3 has reached the point of being the universal standard, like VHS was.
Sometimes the technically superior product never sees the success it deserves because of poor marketing, bad timing or just plain bad luck.
OK, I’ve typed enough for one post!
“The vast majority of human beings do not like a lot of choice. […] And any enlightened person will realise that too much freedom or choice is a bad thing, as it results in chaos, confusion and anarchy.”
Okay, maybe you’re right in here. It fits for most people who do not care about morality. People who know that their rights stop where other ones rights begin won’t be a victim of getting into chaos, confusion or anarchy. But I’m walking off topic, so let me come back to your post.
“You can’t choose to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else if you want safe roads, for example.”
Ah, I like car analogies. 🙂 Let me elaborate on this. If people want to drive a car, they need a driving license. They get this license if they fullfill a few requirements, such as eyes good enough, a mind capable of recognising and reacting to traffic situations and, of course, a basic knowledge about the traffic rules. If all this is granted, they know what’s okay and what’s not. So they can have the full amount of choices where to drive to and how fast to drive, except the things that are forbidden by law.
To get the analogy back to software (resp. Linux): If people want to use a computer, they simply have to know a few things. This is so by principle. Every OS, not only the Linux ones, depend on this – and often get “upset” because this basic knowledge isn’t present.
(BTW: Users who lack these basic knowledge are a threat for themselves and others, just to mention spam, data espionage and saboutage. And the best: They just don’t care.)
“When the Linux community recognises this simple truth, and works out that choices need to be limited to a number that people are not overwhelmed by, then Linux has a chance of competing for market and mind share in the OS world.”
Yes, I fully agree here. At this time, many distributions seem to adapt to this concept, but they all do it a different way. Personally, I don’t care much about market share because the majority of Linux projects is non-commercial.
“And not only average users dislike too much choice, developers too do not like to have to spend the extra time and effort to code for multiple platforms – most will pick the one – two most popular platforms that represent their biggest market.”
Therefore platform-independant standards exist. But it’s the question if they fit according to the respective project a developer is working on.
An advantage of the Linux distributions is that they are POSIX compatible, as far as I know. So the developer just has to orientate on this standard and he’ll not need to change his code to have it compiled o another platform. But even cross-platform compiling is not a problem today.
Furthermore, I agree to your recommendments (less distros, less idealistic stuff, commercial solution, GUI based software maintenance system). Besides this, there should exist free distributions as well for the computer enthusiasts who want to educate theirselves and explore the world of computing using a free Linux OS. Inventions are in most cases done in non-commercial environments and after that transformed into a commercial project.
“Sometimes the technically superior product never sees the success it deserves because of poor marketing, bad timing or just plain bad luck.”
Sometimes? I’d say nearly always! That’s why we have so much crap in the PC world that I chose not to use a PC and get real computers. 🙂
Furthermore, the author complains about “too many flavours” of Linux. But this is great! You (the user) can decide what Linux you want to use.
I’m developer, but I don’t want to test zillions of distributives. This is just a stupid waste of time.
I just need “Linux Professional” distro, tested and widely supported. Not the Crapbuntu, XZUHRYbuntu and other clones.
And that’s freedom
No, it is a chaos.
I don’t want to search through the internet for the “best linux distro”.
Because there is no such thing. There are attack of clones with minimal differences.
I need “standard OS” what will run “standard OS applications” without any problems on wide range of hardware.
Actually i’m using fedora5 at home, sometimes…
PS: I hope what PS3 will feature YDL only!
PS: I hope what PS3 will feature YDL only!
which is based from Fedora Core under the shell =)
You replied to my post, claiming that the freedom of choice among the (admittedly many) Linux distributions:
“[…] is a chaos.”
I could tell the same while looking at the car traffic situation in Great Britain. 🙂
“I don’t want to search through the internet for the “best linux distro”. Because there is no such thing.”
You’re completely right here: There is no best distribution, because this attribute is determined by the things you want to use a distribution for. And don’t say “I want it to use for everything.”, I think that’s not possible at the moment. So the question is: “What is it best for?” This implies you are able to figure out what you want to do with it.
Because people like car analogies, you would not choose a car by colour if you want to use it to carry T irons to a construction site. You would choose your car to buy by the things you want to use the car for.
“There are attack of clones with minimal differences.”
Hmmm… I think I see what you mean. I’m not that firm in the Linux world, but I think you’re right. Allthough, I think these “clones” have their existance right because they’ve targeted special audiences.
“I need “standard OS” what will run “standard OS applications” without any problems on wide range of hardware.”
Therefore you (i) have to define the standard and (ii) have the hardware vendors supporting it. Then (iii) you had the software developers to accomplish to this standard. Just to mention, there are standards out there for nearly everything, but some hardware vendors as well as software companies just don’t care; they do their own thing.
But actually I hope that there will be a consense. I’d like to see common standards, but it’s mostly not up to the Linux developers, as I mentioned before in (ii).
So you talk about hardware pieces which don’t fit each other functionally, while they do mechanically.
Could you please give some example for that? Because I’ve never seen a networkcard which didn’t fit a soundcard or something alike, basically because they _have_ to fit each other.
There is some cheap, crappy hardware out there, but it doesn’t fit _any_ other hardware, basically. And most times, the “crappy” part which kills interoperability is in the (proprietary) drivers of that device…
“So you talk about hardware pieces which don’t fit each other functionally, while they do mechanically.
Could you please give some example for that? Because I’ve never seen a networkcard which didn’t fit a soundcard or something alike, basically because they _have_ to fit each other.”
From my experience it’s not true. A certain mainboard may support many kinds of GPUs, for example, but it’s not garanteed if the manual does not say it in a generic or special way (“supports xyz chipsets” / “supports models xy1200 up to xy1600 of vendor abcd”).
The claim “it has to fit” is a matter of standards and of course accomplishing the standards.
So you sometimes may have a computer compositum whis is mechanically with no error – everything fits fine. But The SCSI controller just inserted is not recognized. So you change card positions – does not work. Change it back – does work. In Germany we call this “gar nichts machen” – “doing exactly nothing”, means nothing of relevance, the way the example illustrated.
Another example which you could know if you deal with PC components some years. In the age of PCI, sometimes shifting the expansion card positions helps when the BIOS or the OS does not detect the hardware properly (or even anyway). I remember the times of ISA when PC builders (rather than users) did this.
Then, if hardware fits, next stage is the OS support. I have seen several hardware working fine for its own, but not together, e. g. a video capture card which does not work if an USB camera is not attached before. Strange…
The time I was working on Sun and SGI machines I’ve never seen such things happening.
“There is some cheap, crappy hardware out there, but it doesn’t fit _any_ other hardware, basically.”
It may fit, but there’s no garantee.
Furthermore, in Europe mostly this cheap and crappy hardware is available. This is the trash nobody in America or Asia wants to buy, so they put it in the stores here. And the people want it cheap, so they get it cheap. Then everything is stuffed together in a cheap box – and problems over problems occur since the box leaves the shop. (Just try to purchase an ATA DVD-RAM drive with cartridges at the local dealer – impossible.) And even if you’re willing to pay much money to get quality, you just get expensive crap. Maybe you’re lucky in the region where you live and the situation is better there.
“And most times, the “crappy” part which kills interoperability is in the (proprietary) drivers of that device…”
You’re right. Interoperability mostly relies on the drivers, eigher provided by the hardware vendors or other (free) developers.
I hope I could explain my former post a bit.
Well, I’ve had also my own experiences, like with rearranging PCI slots and trying out every possible permutation of cards, because the cheap BIOS always assigned IRQ 10 to five devices at once, which were just too many of them.
In that case, it was also one piece of hardware which did not work perfectly (with the other ones) – the TV adapter. Nearly all frames were dropped due to high IRQ latency.
But I thought this was a problem of the BIOS, not of that piece itself.
Aside some ISA jumper setting nightmares and described problems with dumb BIOSes, I never had the occasion or feeling that some hardware was disturbing another one in operation. But I have to say, I mostly used expensive hardware (like 3COM NIC instead of the Realtek-based shit) and I used Linux as operating system, not Windows. Friends of mine, which naturally mostly used Windows, often had “horror stories” to tell about their hardware and it’s misbehaviour in certain circumstances (and what you described, gar nichts machen)…
“But I have to say, I mostly used expensive hardware (like 3COM NIC instead of the Realtek-based shit) […]”
Me too, 2 x 3Com 3c905B-TX Fast Etherlink XL at this x86 workstation. The RTLs are the ones I usually give to others who own “a high end PC”, so they’ve got lots more interrupt ressources free. 🙂
I made the experience that Linux OSes are more handy in diagnostic and troubleshooting matters than the replacements of MICOR~1 are. So Linux would be a good choice for PC hardware composita.
How dumb is the “average user” he refers to? Is this user unable to use something like YaST or Google? Someone who is that dumb should not own a computer.”
This may come as a shock to you, but the average user is just that….the AVERAGE user. I’m sure you have family members that fall into that category. Hell, my family can’t program the VCR without cursing, let alone f*ck with the package manager du-jour to download gDesklets. The “average user” possesses average computer knowledge, using typical programs that he/she uses at work, just wanting to email pics of the kids and check the online news. That’s it. Also, they do not want, or care, to try and hunt down a jpg that they mistakenly saved somewhere in that obscure folder naming system, or compile the newest version of xfce.
As someone said before, most distros of linux will work fine for some people, but you’re trying to convince someone (the average user, who really doesn’t care all that much) to totally change to something new.
But, you’re right. Microsoft has had nothing to do with the hardware manufacturers. It’s just been recently that MS started to care about device driver specs and testing. I’ve used a lot of different devices in the past and I’ll say that I’ve probably never come across a “bad driver”, not saying they ever existed…but I was always wary of the explanation (see: Crutch) that the BSOD problem was solely caused by a device driver.
I also don’t mind the 32 flavors of linux, but the communities need to get together and standardize some things to make Linux more appealing to the masses. Usually, the response to someone who asks the question, “I think I’d like to try Linux.” is “Which one?” And that is what makes them apprehensive from the get-go.
I can’t program the VCR. I’ll get my bachelors in computer science in May
. So what does that have to do with anything? VCR’s are horrible for anyone to program. They’ve probably destroyed a generation on using technology with their nightmarishly complex interfaces that don’t allow for mistakes.
Besides, you have to read the manual, and we all know how lazy most of us are when it comes to that!
But if you give the thing a nice interface, anyone can figure it out (TiVo).
I’ve seen people turn up quite a bit of ridiculous software off the web on their Windows machines, so why they can’t look through a graphical listing in YaST and click “install” is beyond me… Is it too easy? Does driving somehow make you smarter so that you can find the program in a store?
I do think that the number of distributions does slow people down coming in. And to be frank, it’s the fault of the person welcoming them in. When someone says “I wanna give Linux a try” you should say “ok, great” and hand them a disc. Don’t say “what do you want to use it for?” You know them well enough to know that, pretend that Ubuntu/Suse/RedHat/Debian is the only distribution of Linux.
Then a week later, when they’re comfortable, tell them that others exist if they ever get curious. I’ve made the mistake before, and it’s an easy honest mistake to make.
But the number of distributions is a good thing in the end. You just hide it from the newcomer. You wouldn’t tell your grandma who’s using a computer for the first time that there are a dozen good mail clients (windows/mac/linux doesn’t matter, there’s just a lot of mail clients). You’d just tell her what the mail client that _you choose for her_ does.
“Hardware just has to work. There’s a very good reason why Microsoft spends a lot of time
on hardware compatibility – it’s what people want.”
Actually, it’s (mostly) the other way around: hardware vendors *have* to include Windows drivers that work,
otherwise no average PC owner (+90% being Windows users) is going to buy whatever they are selling..
TRUE AND IT’S A VICIOUS CYCLE ACTUALLY LINUX PROBABLY RECOGNIZES MORE HARDWARE NATIVELY AT LEAST THAN WIN9x DID,AND LATELY I’VE SEEN MORE STUFF BEING MADE TO RUN UNDER LINUX FROM THE FACTORY BUT WHEN’S THE LAST TIME YOU SEEN A PIECE OF HARDWARE WITH A LINUX EXECUTABLE DRIVER INCLUDED ON THE INSTALLATION CD? WHICH BRINGS US TO THE POINT THAT JOE USER HAS NO CLUE HOW TO PATCH THIS STUFF MANUALLY,AND WHAT LINUX DEVELOPERS AND HARDWARE VENDORS SHOULD BE DOING IS MAKING NEW DRIVERS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS EXECUTABLE FILES WHERE A USER JUST NEEDS TO CLICK ON IT AND A WIZARD OR WHATEVER WILL TALK EM THRU IT JUST LIKE IN WINDOZE,INSTEAD THE END USERS HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE NEXT VERSION OF THE OS COMES OUT WITH THE UPDATED HARDWARE SUPPORT,AT LEAST THAT’S THE WAY I WOULDA PUT IT!
That is impossible unfortunately as long as the kernel hackers change driver api by the minute just for fun.
Jeez, no need to shout!
Hardware developers generally require a number of features in an OS before they develop drivers for it:
*A stable, well documented API that doesn’t change very often.
*The marketshare of the OS is sufficiently large to be worthwhile spending the extra time and money developing drivers for.
Now, a lot of people will now say, well it is the hardware makers fault for not opening the specifications of their products, but in many cases, this is not possible, due to licencing restricions, patents, trade secrets, associated costs.
For example, a graphics card might include a few chips that the graphics card manufacturer has licenced form another party, and they are contractually obliged not to divulge the inner workings of that chip.
For linux to attract hardware manufacturers, they need to make it possible for people to install hardware drivers from CD, regardless of distro, in a simple point and click way (ie, the way it usually works on Windows). A stable API would be a start.
However, it is very close. All that needs to be done is someone to mix Ubuntu’s usability and SuSE/Linspire’s mulitmedia support, then everyone will be happy. There is the driver support problem, but that is improving every day.
Note, though, that if you are an advanced Linux user, things are pretty much fine the way it is, except support for NTFS and the GTK-Qt rivalry.
Edited 2006-11-03 21:12
Pardon ?
you lost me there.
SuSE’s multimedia support ?
Where ? since when ?
What you are looking for is PCLinuxOS
Everything works out of the box.
Oops, I meant the evaluation version.
I agree with you on the QT/Gtk thing, but NTFS read/write is very easy to get working on Linux nowadays.
Software problem with GNU/Linux , please …
The real problem is Full 100% compatible hardware availaible and complete turn-key system integrated and fully working with the distribution.
People Buy computers , they go to best buy ( example , can substitue walmart , Dell , HP … ) and look at what is availaible : There is NO GNU/Linux offer or its hidden in the corner out of sight.
There is no Linux computer at BestBuy because no one would buy them. A computer without Windows? How is it possible? How can it work without Windows? What is this “Linux” thing BTW? No, people are not ready for Linux and Linux is not ready for the average joe user. The reasons are those explained in the above article. I agree 100% with him, it’s obvious, how would you explain then? This doesn’t mean Linux isn’t ready for power users. It has been for several years now.
“There is no Linux computer at BestBuy because no one would buy them. A computer without Windows? How is it possible? How can it work without Windows? “
Please don’t ask silly questions even a novice user won’t ask. 🙂
“What is this “Linux” thing BTW? “
Let an expert answer your question:
My Friend: “What’s your operating system?”
Me: “Linux.”
My Friend: “You better uninstall it!”
Me: “Why?”
My Friend: “The government uses Linux to look through your computer and see your every move. They use it as a security camera into your world.”
Me: “Sure….”
🙂 Cited from “Computer Stupidities” – Operating Systems – http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
“No, people are not ready for Linux and Linux is not ready for the average joe user. The reasons are those explained in the above article.”
The “reasons” could be proofed as being false in some comment postings. Please refer to them. Claiming the opposite does not change the facts.
“This doesn’t mean Linux isn’t ready for power users. It has been for several years now.”
Could you explain the borderline where “average joe user” ends and “power user” starts? What point is the right point of using Linux?
From my experience, I’ve seen several computer newbies (“real” ones, who never had seen a computer before) that have come to use Linux very fast. Remeber, now many Linux distributions offer clickityclick installers and all GUI solutions. Average users don’t need to use the CLI. And the amount of pre-installed applications is very good. With Linux (and – just to mention it – with Solaris oder IRIX as well) you do not only have an OS installed – no, it’s a complete and integrated system for working, playing, entertainment, multimedia, development, backup, Internet servicing and so on. Compare this to what you get when you have “Windows” installed! (And look at your free disk space.)
Edited 2006-11-03 22:54
there a major problems with linux.
too many distros, imagine software developers would try to make their software run on the most distros. Too much work for developer and user.
then the question if you use KDE or gnome …
If you “bought” an KDE programm and you are using Gnome it’s not so great.
But the kernel, linux itself is definitly ready!
Why does a KDE user need gnome apps anyway, the user just want to do things. They really dont give a crap as long as it works. How many Windows apps have a inconsistent UI?, lets start with IE7 and Windows media player 11.
Are you for real?, they build from source why wouldn’t it work on all distros?
“too many distros, imagine software developers would try to make their software run on the most distros. Too much work for developer and user.”
Therefore standards exist. These acknowledgements ensure programs to run in various distributions. One thing I would agree are the different package managing subsystems of the various Linux distributions. But building from source works almost everywhere – and it can be wrapped by nice litte colourful pictures and squaking buttons hopping aroud the screen if needed. 🙂
Like I mentioned before, claiming somethink like “too many distros” means “too much freedom”. I can’t agree here.
“then the question if you use KDE or gnome …”
No, that’s not the question. You can use KDE based programs inside the Gnome desktop environment and vice versa as long as the corresponding libraries are installed. Just to say it, you can use KDE and Gnome programs with Fluxbox (which is not a desktop environment, but a window manager).
“If you “bought” an KDE programm and you are using Gnome it’s not so great.”
Oh yes, it is. It relies on the libs, not more.
BTW: Both desktop environments offer an “integrated” bundle of programs for most tasks. In most cases you won’t buy a KDE program because you have an equivalent program in your Gnome desktop software package.
“But the kernel, linux itself is definitly ready!”
That’s right.
Edited 2006-11-03 22:00
BTW: Both desktop environments offer an “integrated” bundle of programs for most tasks. In most cases you won’t buy a KDE program because you have an equivalent program in your Gnome desktop software package.
I suppose it depends on what you’re doing with the system, but looking at the most popular Linux productivity software, I imagine many users have to mix and match KDE, GNOME and other apps. For example, if you need a Photoshop alternative then GIMP is probably the best option, for DTP Scribus might be the only choice, while OpenOffice offers the best MS Office replacement.
Of course you can run them all together on the same DE, but you lose the consistency of a set of apps designed for one in particular. Whether you’re happy with that depends on your tolerance for UI inconsistency. I’m certainly not saying that it makes Linux unusable, but I find Windows application inconsistency annoying enough, and I’m not going to switch to something that’s even worse.
Apart from jumbled MDI/SDI stupidity (which mainly exists in MS apps) and cosmetic issues like weird skins, Windows inconsistency really isn’t as bad as the situation in Linux. At least in Windows cut/copy/paste of non-plain text is consistently handled, and all applications use the same file dialogs. Along with the Windows apps I need to run, and hardware support issues, that’s one of the main things that keeps me using Windows.
Linux has lots of rough spots here and there, things like gaming issues and drivers are nothing new. I hope they’ll get better eventually. As a development platform Linux is great and scalable, and it is constantly evolving. But this constant evolution also makes it harder to maintain compatibility. I personally don’t think Linux is really yet just there to replace Windows on the most novice computer users’ desktop. Like just today, my daughter’s grandma tried to watch some video clips from the net, but failed. Totem doesn’t apparently support mmsh protocol yet, so there was nothing I could do. And even less could she. She just got disappointed with Linux.
I myself am disappointed in AIGLX as Vista Aero’s competitioner: AIGLX sure works nice and is fast, but any OpenGL app is really slow compared to what they were without AIGLX. I mean like a 1/3 or 1/4 of the speed it was before. And I see lots of glitches, too. In Vista though, I doubt the framerate drop is that huge in games or such.
It has been pointed out in an earlier article that when an average Windows user says “I already know computers,” that is actually a misstatement. What the user means is, “I can use the Windows(c) GUI.”
I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Joe Sixpack user wants a free clone of everything in the Windows or Mac world. He does NOT want Linux. Maybe users should band together and start a FreeWindows.org project or something, and stop trying to mold the Linux and OSS world into something that it isn’t.
I’m not saying that everything the user wants in an operating system cannot be obtained. But who is going to provide it?
These endless “Linux needs,” and “ready for the desktop” articles all point the blame to the shiftless, lazy, uncooperative open source software contributors. But what are the users going to contribute? Developers are people, too, with families, responsibilities, and busy schedules.
Maybe users should band together and start a FreeWindows.org project or something
On the off chance that you’re serious… this was done, years ago, and called Freedows. Later the project was renamed ReactOS and is (slowly) doing exactly that: Buildinga GPL licensed WinNT clone. It runs native Windows apps and even uses native Windows drivers.
As for the meat of your comment, I agree. The people writing threse articles are stuck in the wrong mindset. In the open source world you can’t simply write an article saying “This is where things need to go” and hope the company listens and agrees. There is no company, or no single company. If you think you know how to fix it you are encouraged to just… try. *Especially* if it means you stop writing useless articles. But, of course, that leads to more distributions, which the article complains about….
You are the CEO. You decide what direction we will move in. But! Only if you can prove it’s a better direction, and only if you can lead. If all you can do is make vague assertions about some nice goals, then you can shut the hell up and let the rest of us get on with meeting our own.
I believe the FreeWindows.org project is called ReactOS.
I also think this is a big problem within the linux communities. You seem to have two camps within the individual developer groups. One wants a “drop-in windows replacement”, and the other camp wants to totally split from anything that resembles the “Microsoft Way.”
Personally, I don’t think any distro should be out to compete with Microsoft directly…..regardless of how they want to go about it. Instead, I think they should be trying to develop the best product possible.
Could it be the other way around.. I for one am pretty tired of seeing linux peps claiming their OS is the best in the world… Some of us do know it’s there and still choose to use something else then linux. But somehow it’s all the people not using linux thats wrong… Well welcome in the real world. Linux isnt a big secret sure nto all people knows about it. I for wont go around telling people to use a system i my self wont use.
Hmm… Windows users claim that their OS is the best, OSX users claim that OSX is the best, BSD users claim that BSD is best, Amiga users claim that Amiga … you get the picture, I guess.
Actually, the majority of the Linux users I know do know about the shortcomings of GNU/Linux like quirky hardware support for very, very new devices, or lack of good OCR that matches e.g. Omnipage. But still, the advantages outweight the disadvantages for them. Can you blame someone for praising the good things in their OS? Can you blame them for pointing out exactly those strengths that make their OS superior in JUST THAT AREA?
Windows users say, Linux sucks because of gaming. They are right, Windows is the better gaming platform. And I still have to see a Linux user who will claim that Linux is way superior for gaming.
A Linux system used/administrated well is a hell of an OS. A Windows system, if used and administrated well can be a hell of an OS in spite of its obvious shortcomings (integration of IE, most users running as admin, license agreement, lack of out-of-the-box hardware support…).
If Win works well for some people, so be it. If Linux works well for others, so be it. Let people propagate what they think is best. It doesn’t harm anyone. And this is no different propagating cars, political views, the best meal, the coolest beer, the sexiest women, the most entertaining games. The one you like most is ALWAYS the best…. for you.
That said: Debian rules!
“Hmm… Windows users claim that their OS is the best, OSX users claim that OSX is the best, BSD users claim that BSD is best, Amiga users claim that Amiga … you get the picture, I guess.
”
Yes i do get the picture… and as you can see in my first post i’m not one of those that runs around a tell every one that my system is far better then anything else. Actually i did’nt even mention what i use and for what. ALl i said was that i did’nt use gnu/linux.
“Actually, the majority of the Linux users I know do know about the shortcomings of GNU/Linux like quirky hardware support for very, very new devices, or lack of good OCR that matches e.g. Omnipage. But still, the advantages outweight the disadvantages for them. Can you blame someone for praising the good things in their OS? Can you blame them for pointing out exactly those strengths that make their OS superior in JUST THAT AREA? ”
I’m not trying to put blame on anyone… I’m a none native english speaker so i might have a few problems with writing what it is i wanna say. But hell let people talk all they want about their OS of choise. I don’t give a rats ass. What i don’t like is all the hype people build up around their system of choise by doing just what you saying… This system is the best for all because it has this feature or that feature. If only people were better to say we are strong in this area but weak in this area. Ofcause it wont make a lot of hype but it wont let a lot of people down either when they see that the system cant live up to all the hype. But then again.. it all comes down to the linux users you know and talk with.
“Windows users say, Linux sucks because of gaming. They are right, Windows is the better gaming platform. And I still have to see a Linux user who will claim that Linux is way superior for gaming. ”
Claiming linux sucks because it isnt the best when it comes to gaming is in my eyes pretty lame.
“A Linux system used/administrated well is a hell of an OS. A Windows system, if used and administrated well can be a hell of an OS in spite of its obvious shortcomings (integration of IE, most users running as admin, license agreement, lack of out-of-the-box hardware support…). ”
It doesnt really matter what system you find out there if it’s administrated in the right way it will be pretty good for certain tasks. Some of the shortscomings you point out on windows can be used on linux aswell…
“If Win works well for some people, so be it. If Linux works well for others, so be it. Let people propagate what they think is best. It doesn’t harm anyone. And this is no different propagating cars, political views, the best meal, the coolest beer, the sexiest women, the most entertaining games. The one you like most is ALWAYS the best…. for you.
”
Agree.. and notice i’m not talking crap about any OS. I’m just pointing out that some people have problems with all people not using their system of choise and they therefor cant be sain or they cant know that it’s even out there. But no it’s doesnt hurt anyone that some people hype a system to a high level even if the system cant deliver to that level.
”
That said: Debian rules!
”
I cant say i agree or disagree… i havent tested all the disto’s out there but perhaps Debian should be the next.
What i miss is graphics apps. There is just nothing on Linux that fits my needs,
I missed the graphics apps initially with linux also. Then I started learning Gimp 2 and I realized it could do most of the things I used Photoshop for. Then I learned inkscape and realized how easy it was to create great looking SVG icons and images. For 3D I started using Blender and I have also found it creates nice 3D images and is not too dificult to learn.
Hi Alleister. I used to feel exactly the same. I do a lot of graphics and I know it’s not popular, but I hate the gimp too. It’s just what your used to and the gimp isn’t it. I like to operate with a maximized window, and with several apps open at once so when I use the gimp I end up losing my toolbox when I switch between pictures or apps (keep on top or not). It’s really too annoying to work around and the occassional projects to fix the interface all seem to run aground through lack of support by the main team developing the Gimp.
Thankfully, Krita has arrived, it may not be as sophisticated as the gimp in some respects, but it does the job. If you feel like spending money there’s also pixel, which actually looks like it might be good. I do hope they make a sucess of it, even if it’s not gpl.
On top of that Kivio, is useful for charting and such. Scribus has alot of promise. Some people seem to find it awkward, but I’ve not used it for anything big and so I’m really impressed.
Inkscape is a god, however. Works exactly like Corel, only saves to svg. Best of all you can find a memory stick version ( it’s a bit bloated cos it includes x) so you can carry it around with you and use it in Windows, even if you don’t have admin rights.
Anyway, you really should give it another go. I’m on my third distro, Ubuntu. All my previous linux issues are gone. I would recommend it to anyone. A couple of years ago, I used to have problems with installing stuff, dependencies, etc, but synaptic has fixed them. Yum gets a bad press, but that’s OK too. I used to find kde messy (sorry) but gnome and cairo makes linux the slickest thing. I used to feel I couldn’t get the right apps, but as I said that’s not so much the case any more. Even the media files are not such a problem, but that’s partly because I have an Archos now and it uses divx, which Mplayer plays out of the box. Even the constant strain on my broadband as the wretched thing kept trying to update itself is a thing of the past.
On top of all this I can use my pc again without the constant caching and grinding of disks and the fan blaring out all the time. It sounds bad, but it’s not two years old and has 256M, only the load from all the required updates, wierd and unnecessary services that are installed by default in xp means it has gone from working well and being relatively enjoyable to not really being able to work without an upgrade. Really I feel Microsoft owe me compensation for screwing up my pc for me. I know this is a bit off topic, but I’m just saying Linux is a whole new ball game these days and if the story is the platform isn’t ready, I am here to tell you it really is.
Well, i guess i’m in a somewhat seldom situation that i don’t think it is going to be addressed too soon.
I’m primarily interested in programming games (mostly 2d).
That is ok with Linux (i don’t like DirectX anyway) and i do the most programming there.
Unfortunately i don’t have painting skills, so for creating humanoids i’m bound to curious labs poser.
I tryed Blender3D and you have to be an professional level artist to create even barely acceptable humanoids in Blender, so it is not an option for me.
(yes, i know MakeHuman but it leaves me with the impression that it will have some good years of developing ahead before it will do the trick.)
I do use Gimp because of lack of options, since i tryed pixel and found it to be a very weak app and did not manage to get my photoshop 6 to work in wine. Probably a cracked version would do the trick but i’m not willing to use an illegal version.
Gimp seems ok even if it is extremely akward to use and even though everything appears to take thrice the time of doing it in PS. But hey, it’s free, i did have to spend a fortune for my Photoshop license.
Inkscape is an vectorgraphics app and i don’t have any use for that, even if it looks commercial quality to me.
So i think one of the “big migration wave” stoppers is the lack for specialised apps. I wouldn’t doubt that Linux would wipe the floor with Windows at any time if it comes to an Office desktop.
For me the lack of those apps won’t prevent me from using Linux, but they will definately prevent me from dropping Windows right now.
I do toy with the thought of using an MacMini for the graphics stuff, but then i would have to buy all of my apps again, which isn’t very likely to happen.
“What i miss is graphics apps.”
I’m not sure what kind of graphics you’re into but will probably be interested in the work that is happening around Xara X being ported to Linux.
http://www.xaraxtreme.org
Gaming
Let’s face it, for your average home PC user, gaming is pretty important aspect of PC ownership. In my experience, even people who really aren’t all that into games still indulge the occasional new game. Linux is pretty much a wasteland when it comes to games.
False, there are plenty games available for Linux distributions. You mean they do not have mostly mainstream games like Final Fantasy XI. Releasing a mainstream game on Linux platform is not the problem, it is publisher decisions and position that is the problem.
1. Games.
Yes. DirectX. I’m using PCLOS now, but my mainbox is still Win2k. My most recent gaming venture, though, needed some FOSS, oddly enough (I stumbled on my CD of Doom II, and Doomsday is sweet).
2. Software Support.
It’s great. Oh, you mean you go to the store. Next to my OS, my Windows PC runs only two applications (due to the above, games are excempt) that are not freeware or FOSS. That is because aside from these, the free and Free stuff is better in my view. I haven’t used a retail store in years. Even games I don’t, now, just because it’s rarely as cheap as Amazon, even w/ shipping. Oh, or Newegg if I have another order.
Know where to look? Google, man! Google! That’s just as much a problem in Windows.
Software availability is no worse/better on Windows than Linux, and the problem is users’ preconceptions, not platform.
3. Er, I don’t. The guy explains quite well, too, what the problem is, and it’s as bad in Windows. They’ve just had years to get it with Windows.
4. Hardware support.
You’ve never tried to install Windows, have you? I’ve so far had two, yes, two, pieces of hardware that Linux didn’t work quite right with. One works great now, my sound card. My mouse is another story, but given the long threads on Ubuntu about them (Logitech MX/G mice resolution and buttons settings), there’s work going on. Future advice: Razer.
Windows doesn’t see anything quite right until about an hour after I get a NIC driver in. For Linux, it just depends on the distro, because each will have different amounts of time they take to get a fully working desktop up–but figure 15 minutes max from the beginning of the install.
5. Too many flavors.
OK, but most of what is learned works in all of them. It’s a much worse problem to talk about than it is in practice.
6. Holy War.
Yeah, what’s up w/ that? I agree w/ the author on this one completely.
I have a better postulation, I think: the world doesn’t want Linux. Kinda like they don’t want OS X, even though they’ve demoed it at the Apple stores. Linux distros in general are not appealing to folks who don’t buy a PC w/o an OS in the first place. Linux will grow,, more distros will come and go, it will get better, and it will creep in to more common use. It’s not going to take over one day unless a legal catastrophe happens to MS or Apple that affects the OS users. But, but, but…that’s fine. Really.
Yeah, I most definitely agree with the “You’ve never tried to install Windows” argument. I put in a live CD Linux distro on my girlfriend’s hand-me-down computer and all hardware worked instantly with zero problems, but she wanted Win2k and I demurred.
For the Win2k install, it took me over a week to get the OS, all security patches, and NIC/Soundcard/Graphics/misc drivers to work correctly, not to mention downloading and installing all the packages like Firefox / Thunderbird / OpenOffice / Abiword / Gaim / RealPlayer / Anti-virus / Firewall that would have come stock on a Linux OS.
And I’m tired of hearing how there are too many versions of Linux out there. That is specifically what makes Linux so great. If you’re a noob, get Freespire / Mandriva / Suse if you want product support.
Seriously.. If it takes you a week to install windows 2000, your retarded. Windows is many things to many people, but its not difficult to install. Installing any driver in windows at this point is as simple as double clicking on an EXE file. There is no reason it should take more than an hour at very worst case. Try installing just a graphics driver in Linux. If installing graphics drivers doesnt drive you to a mental assylum, installing wifi drivers will.
whatever
Well im ready for it, been ready for years. I use Fedora, OpenSuSe and free bsd almost exclusively.
I dont do any real gaming though, Im not photoshop nerd and I dont use iTunes.
Yawn. Yet another meaningless article by a well-meaning individual who rehashes all of the same old (sometimes very old–hardware support? wtf?) arguments about why Linux isn’t good enough this week. At least he didn’t mention the desktop war thing again… Ubuntu has helped show why that’s a red herring.
The only thing remotely insightful here is the observation that game support matters more than you’d think. A lot of people will buy with the /idea/ of gaming even when they do not game or do not game often.
Otherwise the article is worthless. Linux Is Not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) and may never win in a side by side comparison.
Ever heard of the term, “So bad you couldn’t give it away?” This is a reoccuring theme in the Linux world:
1) Users request a feature
2) Linux community tells the user that their request is wrong.
3) User buys a copy of Windows since Windows has the features they want.
4) Linux community wonders why people don’t use Linux.
Even to this message I’m sure I’ll get a bunch of “No, Linux is better because of x, y, and z” but the fact of the matter is, Linux is worse and will continue to be worse unless they start listening to what users want.
Can you show us some concrete examples of this? I need some examples to understand because I see the opposite.
Users wanted easier installers – compare ANY of todays installer to the installers of only last year or two ago and you will see users got exactly what they wanted.
Users wanted better compatability with MSoffice formats. guess what they got.
I could go on and on and on but why bother. Load up debian woody now load up debian etch and compare and you will see the users got a lot of changes…a LOT!
No I won’t show you concrete examples of this.
1) There are countless examples already in this thread.
2) It seems that no matter how many times people tell you what is wrong you think Linux’s shit doesn’t stink.
Easier installers? If an installer 1-2 years ago was 25% as easy as a windows install is and today it’s twice as good as it was, it’s still only 50% as easy as windows. It’s *not good enough*. If you think it is good enough, you’re wrong.
The bottom line is, when the majority of people pay for a competing product of something you give away for free your product is necessarily terrible.
I’ll give you a few:
1. Most of us want a single, standard DE that works across all distros. There’s no reason why we need KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. If all of these DEs are necessary at the moment, that means that each one of them are lacking in some area that makes the others necessary. When it comes to apps, choice is good. When it comes to desktop enviroments, it’s not a good idea to sacrifice consistency for the sake of choice.
2. Same as above, but only with the graphical toolkits
3. A package management standard so that I can download a single package and have it work across all distros that follow that standard. And notice I didn’t say a standard package manager, I said a package management stanard. No more of this ‘distro repository’ bullshit .. it’s a waste of resources and creates more problems than it solves.
Now, you may think that I’m wrong about any/all of the above 3 points, but honestly, I don’t really care what you think. Though you are most certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but if you want me (and others like me) to actually use the OS, you’re going to have to make some changes first.
1. Most of us want a single, standard DE that works across all distros. There’s no reason why we need KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. If all of these DEs are necessary at the moment, that means that each one of them are lacking in some area that makes the others necessary. When it comes to apps, choice is good. When it comes to desktop enviroments, it’s not a good idea to sacrifice consistency for the sake of choice.
Not quite true. It does not really matter what desktop environment users wanted due to mostly their preferences. Windows XP interface is different from either Windows 2000 and Windows 9x yet users adapted to these change. Once these users learn how the interface works, they will adapt. The real issue is the lack of exposure rather than a single standard DE. You only speak as a power user IMHO.
“Once these users learn how the interface works, they will adapt. The real issue is the lack of exposure rather than a single standard DE. You only speak as a power user IMHO”
—————————-
Speaking for the non-power users, people who are not interested in the nuts and bolts of an operating system or DE, but rather just want to get work done, consistency is of vital importance. People generally don’t want to have to learn how to do something all over again, and once again, too much choice is a serious issue preventing the uptake of Linux and its myriad desktop environments.
While a power user may find choice to be a wonderful, desirable thing, to an ordinary user, choice is a horrifying nightmare that requires them to think about all kinds of issues they simply don’t have the time or expertise to deal with. They want to get work done, not ponder the virtues of Gnome vs KDE or try to work out if XFCE or Fluxbox has the right set of features for them. Such user expect an operating system to come as a consistent whole, not a grab bag of a thousand options.
Something I have noticed is that a huge number of Windows users set XP to the classic look, just so it is more consistent with their previous experience.
Consumers want to see stuff that they can buy that will work for them.
I think they are happy to notice a lot comes for free and is equivalent to commercial applications.If we are talking about Joe Average here.
“I think they are happy to notice a lot comes for free and is equivalent to commercial applications.If we are talking about Joe Average here.”
———————————————–
If we are talking “Joe Average” here, then basic human psychology dictates that free products will always be viewed with suspicion. People expect things of quality to have a price tag attached, and the higher the perceived quality, the higher the price that can and will be charged. Now, it may be the case that a free (in both senses of the word) software product may be every bit as good as it’s closed commercial equivalents, but the absence of a price tag carries with it the implication of “free” = “worthless”. Windows users are so accustomed to downloading some freeware or shareware program, only to find out after much frustrating experimentation that the expensive commercial software really is worth every cent (in their mind).
Case in point: OpenOffice.org is a very capable, useful office suite, however, compared to MS Office, it just doesn’t cut the mustard.
To compete with Windows, it is not enough for Linux to be as good as Windows, or offer the same features, it has to be substantially better in a wide range of areas, offer a simple, intuitive way to work with Windows file formats, and be good enough that if someone charges a large slab of money for it, people will think it is worth buying.
In my experience, Ubuntu is a very polished, well made Linux distro, and by and lare quite enjoyable to work with, but it is still a pain to get certain things working without resorting to arcane command line adventures (I can’t even get a basic internet connection without editing some text files because Ubuntu 6.10 doesn’t like my ADSL modem not supporting IPV 6, for example, while Windows XP sees it straight away. Since quite a few ADSL Modem/routers on the market don’t support IPV 6, this is an unforgivable error for an operating system claiming to be user friendly). Emphasising the “freeness” of a product, while letting major flaws like this slip through only adds to the general perception that “free”=”crap”.
Now no-one here is ever going to agree which is “best” – it’s down to personal choice afterall but Linux is most definately ready.
What does the average user want? Internet, e-mail and maybe a word processor. Linux can do this “out the box” installing far faster and easier than any attempt to instal Windows that I’ve ever done and it comes with all the software you need (for a typical user) ready to run. In many ways Linux would be far easier for your average user than Windows.
There has been a lot of comments here on Linux hardware and having to learn new systems, etc. How lond does a Windows instal take? An hour? Then how many restarts for all the hardware it detects? How many discs do you have to swap for all your drivers? It’s a pain in rear and we ALL know it. Now Linux, the last time I installed it took less that half an hour from a live cd (and I got to play tetris while installing rather than looking at a boring instal screen =) and once it was in that was it! Done. Now someone made a comment about having to learn how to use a new system, you can use all the saved instal time to do that and still have plenty time to spare.
Now I’ll conceed that on the gaming front Linux is behind the times but it only took me minutes to instal the nVidi 3d drivers for my distro and Wine and I had World of Warcraft up and running in no time so I’m happy 😉 The point is tho that the majority “average” users aren’t gamers. The console market is where you want to go if your serious about gaming. I’d say the world is far less ready for Vista than Linux
Edited 2006-11-04 10:27
Now someone made a comment about having to learn how to use a new system, you can use all the saved instal time to do that and still have plenty time to spare.
Even if your Linux installation is completely smooth and problem free and saves you half an hour or so, do you really think that’s enough time to get used to a new OS?
Maybe if you just use it for internet access and basic word processing, without installing any extra software or changing the default configuration. But I’m not convinced that the average user would just do that, as most of the users I know play games, tweak their holiday photos, run multimedia software, and even edit video. Switching from one application to another and learning how to configure a system is something that can take a significant amount of time.
I’ve installed a couple of modern Linux distributions recently and I wouldn’t say that there was a big difference in the time it took to install and configure Windows and Linux. Even taking into account the time it took to download and install the latest drivers in Windows, there was enough tweaking required in Linux to remove any Linux advantage.
If I was a new user, unfamiliar with either OS, then I think the Windows installation would have been a lot quicker. Installing drivers in Windows is time consuming, but it’s also very easy, you can just pop in the CDs that came with your hardware and use a simple control panel to configure it. It often isn’t that simple when configuring hardware in Linux.
Now I’ll conceed that on the gaming front Linux is behind the times but it only took me minutes to instal the nVidi 3d drivers for my distro
Both of the modern distributions I’ve tried recently still required me to edit xorg.conf and restart X to configure my display. In Windows I’d simply open the control panel and make the changes with a few mouse clicks, no restarting of the GUI necessary.
Even advanced configuration, such as setting card specific features, or tweaking multi-head display settings, can be done with an intuitive point and click interface in Windows. Having to restart Windows to install drivers can be very annoying, but Linux isn’t totally free of that kind of annoyance.
If I was a novice I think that just learning how to configure my display in Linux would have taken more time than the installation of Windows. It would have taken me a while just to work out that I actually needed to edit a config file rather than use an intuitive graphical tool. Then it would have taken me some time to track down and read the xorf.conf documentation to work out what I needed to change to get it working how I wanted. I think a lot of average users would be put off by that kind of thing.
I’d agree with you if this had been a year ago, I had the same problems. The disto’s coming out now I’ve experienced no hardware issues on my pc or any pc I’ve tried the live disk in.
Ok Linux does have a steep learning curve if you have to get into the guts of it but so does Windows. Is rooting around in the registry or individual ini files any easier that the Linux equivalent? Barring a hardware detection problem, which I’ve personally not had for some time, the only thing you need to learn is how to use the gui and where to find software. You can usually figure that out yourself in half an hour.
As for multimedia, on most systems you need to instal a couple of things to play propriety formats but it’ll play everything else. Windows has it the other way round. It’ll play it’s formats fine but if you get an AVI you may end up codec hunting. In Linux, it’s all well documented in the distro faq’s – 5 minute job at most. On Windows it can end up a wild Goolge chase with a system restart before you can play the file.
The average user isn’t going to need to look at any conf files and based on my experience of the distos available now Linux would give the average user a more robust system with more quality software on a faster installation with less messing around than a Windows intall.
I’d agree with you if this had been a year ago, I had the same problems. The disto’s coming out now I’ve experienced no hardware issues on my pc or any pc I’ve tried the live disk in.
Show me a live CD where I can configure my dual headed display from the GUI. Even in the latest distributions you still need to edit config files for less commonly used features.
Ok Linux does have a steep learning curve if you have to get into the guts of it but so does Windows. Is rooting around in the registry or individual ini files any easier that the Linux equivalent?
In my experience having to get into the guts of Windows is much less common than the Linux equivalent. I’ve never had to root around in the registry or edit an ini file to change a setting, even advanced options are typically available through a control panel after the hardware’s software is installed. On the other hand every recent Linux distribution I’ve tried has required some config file editing. Some can’t even change the display refresh rate from the GUI, at least if they don’t recognise the monitor that’s being used.
Barring a hardware detection problem, which I’ve personally not had for some time, the only thing you need to learn is how to use the gui and where to find software. You can usually figure that out yourself in half an hour.
Even if the user is lucky enough to have everything work without any problems, do you really think that’s all the user needs to learn when switching to a different OS, that runs a different set of applications? Just becoming comfortable using GIMP after spending years using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro would probably take a lot longer than that.
I think you heavily underestimate the investment of time required by most people when changing between operating systems. I know people who’ve spent weeks struggling with Mac OS X after switching. Despite mainly running the same apps they used on their Windows PC, the differences in the GUI and OS utilities are enough to leave them confused and uncomfortable for quite a while. I think most people would need a good reason to go to the effort of switching to a different OS, it wouldn’t be a trivial change.
The average user isn’t going to need to look at any conf files and based on my experience of the distos available now Linux would give the average user a more robust system with more quality software on a faster installation with less messing around than a Windows intall.
Maybe most “average users” will not need to edit any config files, obviously I can’t speak for them, but you have to admit that it’s far more likely to be necessary than it is in Windows. Just looking at a Linux “newbie” tech support forum reveals plenty of requests for help with editing xorg.conf and other config files. Of course Windows users have problems too, but not generally with simple things like display settings that can easily be changed using a control panel in Windows.
I’ve installed various distributions on a number of desktop PCs over the years and I’ve yet to have an installation work without any issues. Over the same period of time I’ve installed Windows maybe 15 or 20 times without ever having a problem. I’m not claiming that this is necessarily a normal experience, but it doesn’t convince me that Linux installations are typically quicker and more problem free.
‘The World Just Isn’t Ready for Linux’
This article is IMO wrong.
Propably ” Linux Isn’t Ready for every World”
Linux really is more than ready for alot of people, institutions, buisnesses and governments and vise versa is true as well.
Linux would never be the all purpose OS, no matter what (like OSX or Windows or other OSs). But, It would be a specialized OS covering many aspects of the computing needs.
I wont go with all the advantages and disadvantages of linux or other OSs, but I look to the OSs as a fleet of an Airforce. If you are the General of that Airforce then you would not hate the slowness of a carrier aircraft or the tightness of F-16 ride or the noise of an Apatche helicopter or the unsteadiness of the Harrier; but rather you would love all of your weapons because they all work in harmony to achieve the goal you want; and each ones weakness would be avoided for the task you want.
I find it nice to run Windows/Linux network at home; as well as Mac/Windows at work. That way all my goals will be achievable without nagging about the weakness of each platform.
And always remember that OSs are not crafted by God to be defect free, no matter how close they are to perfection.
You might not care for games, but millions and millions of consumers do …games are IMHO the biggest obstacle for mainstream adoption of linux … the interactive entertainment industry is enormou$ and growing … once you have kids booting into linux for their entertainment then you can reach the critical mass/popularity required for the rest of the software industry to start porting apps across …
I am not sure why developers are shunning OpenGL2.0 for DirectX 9.0-10? … I only assume it is because DirectX has a “superior” development environment? It would be nice if the big players ( Nvidia, ATi etc) in the industry could pool resources to create an open framework to rival DirectX
Edited 2006-11-04 12:31
and a lot more million of consumers do not game…..
.. yeah they use Macromedia Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, MS Office… oh wait. There aren’t any great equivalents of these on Linux either
say that to gouverment who use oo
or some movie who used gimp and other tool…
coxy another american morron, your father is surley bush?
What makes you think I’m American? You seem to be the Idiot judging by your grammar. You must be the American.
Macromedia Flash: already available (version 7 and 9 beta),
Dreamweaver: Quanta Plus and Nvu are the equivalent.
Photoshop: Gimp suits well from ordinary users. For profession too tick to have a Photoshop interface like, Pixel32 fills the void with its crossplatform nature http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
MS Office: Open Office. In addition, the latter also provide tools to create mathematical equation (useful for teachers) and Draw which allows to quickly draw a presentation.
Edited 2006-11-04 19:17
He was talking about the Flashsuit to *create* Flashfiles, not the flashplugin. How does having the plugin is usefull for doing anything?
There is no way to create fullfeatured flashstuff on Linux but that is only going to keep Webdesigners away.
I don’t think Dreamweaver is anything special, even though there isn’t an real OSS alternative (have a look at a recent dreamweaver version before recomanding nvu – it is a whole different class of app). But you can do websites with other tools, so this isn’t a problem imho.
Gimp is an barely acceptable PS replacement but it should be ok for for non professionals. Pixel however seems to only get recommended by people who judge buy screenshots. The app is a total piece of junk imho and not suitable for either professional or nonprofessional work.
I agree on OpenOffice. It might not integrate as good as MS Office when it comes to corporate infrastructures but that isn’t interesting for the crowds. For the avarage users OOo should be even much better than MS Office.
Yes, I was talking about the Flash IDE, not the plugin.
He was talking about the Flashsuit to *create* Flashfiles, not the flashplugin. How does having the plugin is usefull for doing anything?
There is no way to create fullfeatured flashstuff on Linux but that is only going to keep Webdesigners away.
That will be up to Macromedia/Adobe to bring that Flash suite. However, it is possible to use a Flash suite through Wine or CrossWeaver if you are willing to pay the commercial version.
As web designer, I am personnaly against the use of Flash as a content because of the accessibility and the use of non W3C standard code <embed>.
“I am not sure why developers are shunning OpenGL2.0 for DirectX 9.0-10?”
As a developer for a substantial piece of game technology, I can give you three reasons:
1) Microsoft provides a huge set of great resources for working with Direct3D (extensive sample library, Visual Studio, XNA, D3DX incl. PRT simulator, mesh optimizers, etc)
2) The OpenGL ARB has basically been sitting on their hands for the last few years. A lot of people claim that it doesn’t matter because of the extension mechanism in OpenGL– that’s great for hobbyists, but when we’re trying to push a product out the door, we don’t want to have to write a separate code path for each video card. For example, the frame buffer object extension is still not available on a lot of cards that actually support the feature. With D3D9, SetRenderTarget just works. D3D10 is an absolute pleasure to work with, and only makes things worse for OpenGL.
3) ATI cards have working D3D drivers. The ATI OpenGL stack is hopelessly broken on all platforms and they don’t seem to have any interest in fixing it.
The only light at the end of the tunnel for OpenGL as a game API is the PS3. OpenGL ES eliminates a lot of the cruft that is maintained in OpenGL for backwards compatibility, and the single hardware target minimalizes the specialization problems.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave much for the Linux/Mac gaming crowd (however small it may be), and the situation isn’t going to get any better in the near future.
to come to the real conclusion: The consumer market isn’t ready for Linux.
Software in stores ==> distributors
Hardware support ==> hardware vendors
Games ==> software houses
The other points:
Expertism: This is a user education and preconception issue. Operating systems and computers are complex. Can’t wrap your head around it? Pay someone who can.
Too many flavours: It’s not that bad. Basically you have RedHat based and Debian based. The rest is marginal. The choice in those two main fields is large, but in general going with one of the top two in either field will do. Most differences between the choices are below the user visible surface anyway.
OS holy war? Oh please, get your head out of your ass. That “war” is primarily a media hype, and the author’s part of said media. So guess who gets to fix that one…
A point that is often brought up is that it’s hard to find and install software on linux.
This is partly obviously true: the average joe doesn’t checkout the latest version of an application from sf.net CVS and fires up a console to compile it.
On the other hand, when I use Windows (which I admit I do rarely), I’m often frustrated about how much I have to google around for crappy software, whereas on Ubuntu in many cases it’s a matter of apt-get (or, for those less console-minded, clicking ‘Applications->Add/Remove’).
It’s always the same crap one is reading about Linux. HELLO! THIS AIN’T MICROSOFT. AND YES, THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT:
– games:
ok, old story. The only thing in this article that is correct.
– software support:
Linux has _tons_ of software. Every distribution has it. This argument is a joke.
– Linux support:
all over the net. Mostly very friendly towards beginners. Again, this argument is a joke.
– Hardware support:
The distributions do what they can. Linux has the best hardware support one can find. It usually takes a couple of months, but that is not Linux’ fault. The vendors are responsible for drivers, not the distributors. Another joke.
– Too many flavors:
That’s strength, not weakness. Too much MS FUD in the writer’s brain. Another joke.
– The whole OS Holy War thing:
Skip it …
Edited 2006-11-04 15:14
I agree with all your points 100%
– Linux support:
all over the net. Mostly very friendly towards beginners. Again, this argument is a joke
That’s not necessarily true, depending on the distro and who you talk to, essentially. However, it’s usually better (I would argue more courteous)than tech support.
– Too many flavors:
That’s strength, not weakness. Too much MS FUD in the writer’s brain. Another joke.
That’s mostly a problem for ISVs, who has to QA on every distro to ensure their software works. However, there aren’t many technical hurdles here: At the worst, you could simply offer statically compiled DEBs and RPMs.
“- software support:
Linux has _tons_ of software. Every distribution has it. This argument is a joke.”
———————————
No one disputes the quantity of software available on the Linux platform, what people are more interested in is the quality and usefulness of these applications. For example, I use computers for music recording (among other things. Althought there are several music recording apps available for linux, they are all of alpha quality, have very poor usability, lack functionality, and none of them compare to Windows/OSX apps like Sonar or Cubase or Tracktion etc.
I have yet to find a spreadsheet program that is even halfway as good as MS Excel, or an image editing program that compares to Photoshop (or even PaintShop Pro) for image editing.
Furthermore, Linux apps tend to be given obscure, hard to pronounce acronyms and names that sound “geeky”, which further puts off users from even trying the software.
There is no point saying there are tens of thousands of programs available for *nix if only a handful of them are any good – people want to know what the good programs are, and that they are so much better than the Windows or Mac versions that it is worth their while to switch an entire operating system.
“- Linux support:
all over the net. Mostly very friendly towards beginners. Again, this argument is a joke.”
————————————————-
Internet based support is pretty useless if you can’t even connect to the net, which is what has happened to me with a lot of Linux distros – my DSL-502T ADSL Router is simply not supported out of the box by many distros, and Ihave to manually edit configuration files to get it to work. It took quite a bit of googling on my other computer to figure this out, and the first time I encountered it, it wasted a good couple of hours of my time.
Many (if not most) Linux forums are quite condescending , even hostile, to Linux newcomers, which only serves to increase the perception that Linux is an OS for “geeks”, not regular desktop users. Even when advice is obtained easily and without fuss, it often involves entering strange text commands into a console and editing text files with obscure names. Not something that will win over the hearts and minds of potential linux users.
If Windows goes pear-shaped, I can always ring Microsoft for support, or Apple if my Mac goes on the fritz. Unless you have a support contract with RHEL or SUSE, you have no-one to call if your Linux box has dropped you to the command line and you don’t know what to do.
“- Hardware support:
The distributions do what they can. Linux has the best hardware support one can find. It usually takes a couple of months, but that is not Linux’ fault. The vendors are responsible for drivers, not the distributors. Another joke.”
—————————————
Linux hardware support is extremely good for the most part, if a bit behind the cutting edge when it comes to newer hardware. But it is linux’s fault to a degree, because there are so many different versions of Linux, that hardware developers are simply not going to bother to support their hardware on a platform that is really several hundred platforms that only account for a tiny percentage of the market. It is too complex, with too many variables, and thus, too expensive to be worth their while.
“- Too many flavors:
That’s strength, not weakness. Too much MS FUD in the writer’s brain. Another joke.”
Hardly. It is a major weakness, because the vast number of Linux distros floating around:
1- Puts off developers, as they quite reasonably don’t want the nightmare of supporting their software on several hundred slightly different versions of the same OS. If you write a program, and it behaves slightly differently on each of several hundred operating systems, the amount of potential support requests could overwhelm a small software house. This is why most commercial apps that do support Linux, only support Red Hat or Suse – it is just too hard to cope with all the distros and their different packaging systems etc.
2 – Puts off potential users, who have to extensively research a ridiculous number of different Linux distros to find the best one for them.
One of the reasons Windows is so successful is that it doesn’t come pre installed with thousands of applications – it is mostly blank operating system, to which the user adds software. That is where the choice needs to be – at the application level, not the OS level. People don’t use operating systems, they use software running on operating systems, something a lot people fail to grasp.
“Furthermore, Linux apps tend to be given obscure, hard to pronounce acronyms and names that sound “geeky”, which further puts off users from even trying the software.”
You’ll find this tendency not only in Linux. Even some of the “favourite” Apps from MICROS~1 have stupid names. (That does not mean that programs named with acronym are stupid, in fact, the acronym often indicates exactly what program it is, e. g. “The Gimp” = “The GNU image manipulation program”, and “Gimp” is easy to pronounce.) I just won’t tell some of these because their stupid names are wellknown – and become more stupid if you’d translate them into german language. 🙂
“[…] my DSL-502T ADSL Router is simply not supported out of the box by many distros […]”
Therefore, standards for the hardware vendors have been mentioned.
“Many (if not most) Linux forums are quite condescending , even hostile, to Linux newcomers, which only serves to increase the perception that Linux is an OS for “geeks”, not regular desktop users. “
It’s sad you made this experience. (I cannot further comment on this, because I haven’t visited a Linux forum.)
“Even when advice is obtained easily and without fuss, it often involves entering strange text commands into a console and editing text files with obscure names.”
Strange text? Obscure file names? First thing a Linux newcomer learns are “man”, “apropos” and “whatis”. 🙂 I cannot speak much about Linux, but in most UNIXes, file names obviously indicate what the file is for. And for the content, a proper manpage is provided.
“If Windows goes pear-shaped, I can always ring Microsoft for support, or Apple if my Mac goes on the fritz.”
“Go on the fritz”… 🙂 Surely, you have to pay for this support?
“Unless you have a support contract with RHEL or SUSE, you have no-one to call if your Linux box has dropped you to the command line and you don’t know what to do.”
Often, there are friends available that can help. In most cases these are the friends that share their Linux experiences and installation media with the new users.
At least, SuSE or RHEL would have a chance to get more acceptance (and market share – so important!) among the average users. Let’s see.
“Linux hardware support is extremely good for the most part, if a bit behind the cutting edge when it comes to newer hardware. But it is linux’s fault to a degree, because there are so many different versions of Linux, that hardware developers are simply not going to bother to support their hardware on a platform that is really several hundred platforms that only account for a tiny percentage of the market. It is too complex, with too many variables, and thus, too expensive to be worth their while.”
Yes, I think that’s correct. But I’d like to mention that the hardware vendors have a possibility mentioned before: They could release complete specifications of how the hardware works and how it’s to be controlled. The Linux programmers would invent the software for it. That should not be the problem, because I think many Linux developers (for kernel and system modules) would be proud to make drivers that enable the new functionalities of new hardware so it can be used with Linux.
Then, you talk about the many different flavours of Linux and you compare:
“One of the reasons Windows is so successful is that it doesn’t come pre installed with thousands of applications – it is mostly blank operating system, to which the user adds software. That is where the choice needs to be – at the application level, not the OS level. People don’t use operating systems, they use software running on operating systems, something a lot people fail to grasp.”
I agree here. But there’s a problem: The user usually will not know what program he needs or wants. Then he says: “Oh, now I installed Linux, and it does not tell me what I can do with it!”, seems he expects many programs pre-installed so he can click on them and figure out what they are good for.
In the commercial UNIX world, there seems to be a better consense: The OS comes with basic applications (not example applications as in “Windows”), additional software can be installed. FreeBSD does it the same way, older Linux versions did as well.
Finally, let me make a statement out of your words that I fully can agree to: Average users don’t care about OSes, they want programs that solve their problems.
But that’s not a problem, because Linux offers a respective variety of programs. The “trick” would be to have a subset of these installed so the average user has everything he might need, but nothing he won’t need. That’s difficult, I admit.
Linux isn’t ready for Joe Sixpack’s desktop.
Debatable, but more or less true. Does it make a difference in the end? Desktop Linux is just an insignificant piece of the overall equation. The steps that most people in this line of thinking seem to advocate to make it more acceptable (one distro, one DE) would just alienate the users who have demonstrated that they’re willing to stick with and support open source for a possible (not definite) gain among Windows users who don’t want Vista.
If Joe Sixpack is too cool to make an educated decision (i.e. spend ten minutes looking over the choices on Distrowatch or somesuch) or read a manual once in a while, let him use OSX. He adds nothing wanted or needed on this side of the fence.
“Linux isn’t ready for Joe Sixpack’s desktop.”
I won’t argue with you about the correctness of this fact. On the other hand, it’s possible as well to say it the other way round:
Joe Sixpack isn’t ready for Linux.
Because people like car analogies, here’s one: Imagine you could take a car from the present and get it into the past, say, into the year 1700. Would the nost intelligent people in those days – as well as the average ones – be able to handle this car? I think they won’t. A minimal education focused on cars (in general) and on this car (in particular) is needed, as well as a little knowledge about car traffic.
Most Joe Sixpacks seem to live in the past. Why is a product concerned “modern” if it’s designed for dummies? 🙂 In Germany we have this term for it: “Ein idiotensicheres System wird nur von Idioten benutzt.” (An idiot safe system will be used by idiots only.) I fear a “general desktop Linux” could get such an idiot safe system. I hope it won’t!
“Desktop Linux is just an insignificant piece of the overall equation.”
I don’t think so. It’s an evolutionary process which includes much creativity and inventions. As a tendency, it seems to improve year by year. Let’s see it it will get ready to be used by Joe Sixpack in some years.
“If Joe Sixpack is too cool to make an educated decision (i.e. spend ten minutes looking over the choices on Distrowatch or somesuch) or read a manual once in a while, let him use OSX. He adds nothing wanted or needed on this side of the fence.”
What cool Joe Sixpack needs: A box that reads his mind in order to know what he wants. 🙂 People who are unable to make educated decisions should not own an PC. They should own a Mac, that’s less dangerous for themselves and for others. Don’t get me wrong, MacOS X is not the final truth, but it’s a far better desktop solution than Linux is at this time.
There’s a lot of coments on here so I don’t know if it’s already covered but one of the most common things I hear around the office is “Oh, you’ll need to instal a codec pack to get Windows Media Player to run that but it’s simpler if you download VLC”
So “Further, he isn’t used to surfing though google and looking at message postings looking for how exactly to download and install that codec to be able to watch that video clip that his friend sent him on hotmail.”? Couldn’t be further from the truth! When I hear that talk in the office I just grin smugly inside knowing that Linux does it all straight from my default instalation
It was about a year ago windows ate itself off my hard-drive. At the time it was my first computer in over a year i would consider myself a novice but not a newbie. I had a choice 200 dollars for a new copy of windows or try something new. so i picked up a box of xandros($35). I was only moderatly disappointed by xandros it was buggy, had little sofware beside the os, and it did not play most dvds and at the time i had no idea why.
Now these days i got a new laptop with a built in dvd player windows and linux. I currently like myahos for linux it has slackware stability, comes with media support, has some games, and supports some dvd’s still not even half(i now know why; dvd encryption is evil). i can edit scripts, partition hardrives, and troubleshoot software and hardware better than before. I learned all that giving up about a half weekend a month.
Windows vs. Linux really boils down to a battle of personality types.
Geeks tend to be very detail oriented and love customizing/hacking/creating things. They love the power that comes with controlling every single little minute aspect of thier system through text files and random bit settings. They love technology and having the latest and greatest software and hardware gadgets. Stuff like the above gives them goosbumps and can keep them up all night long.
However…
Your average person doesn’t WANT to know about their computer’s inner workings. They don’t WANT to edit thier system. They just want to be able to do stuff like watch movies or listen to music or browse the web, the shallow audio/visual stuff. Anything more complicated than using a mouse and typing in an email address is work to these people. Most Linux geeks just don’t understand this. Show me a system where you can do [u]everything[/u] via the mouse, and I’ll show you an OS that the general public will accept (oversimplification).