First of all, we should agree on what the definition of “ready for the desktop” stands for. For some of us it refers to a graphical user interface in which applications have icons and can be launched in an intuitive manner without the need of complex commands. Even a Commodore 64 running Geos could be “ready for the desktop” by this definition, but the fact is that when we read “ready for the desktop” we understand “ready to replace Microsoft Windows”.
Introduction
But this definition alone is not enough, most of the people and the mass media understands that replacing Windows is just not about booting something different than the Microsoft’s operating system, it refers to some conceptions such as commercial support, document compatibility, availability of office tools and other mainstream applications.
Above all, an operating system aspiring to replace the Microsoft’s product must able to provide at least the same commitment to the end user as Windows in political and software terms. This may sound like a contradiction in these days of security flaws but I’ll develop the idea further in this article. We all agree that we can teach our parents how to browse the Web or write a “Word” document with Linux or, better yet, we can use some Windows theme that may fool the eyes of more than one Microsoft veteran at the first glance. This is not the point though. By “ready for the desktop” we refer to a system that can be used by someone without the help of a geek-relative or a specialized magazine. More than that, we want to see Linux preinstalled by default by most of the top PC manufacturers. We want the latest games and hardware to be compatible with Linux. We want device drivers written by the same companies that produce hardware and not by computer science students in their free time.
We know what “ready for the desktop” means, but what is Linux?
A kernel. Repeat after me, a kernel. No, it’s not Suse and neither RedHat. Those are products that use the Linux kernel. But they are flavors of Linux, aren’t they?. No, they are products that use specific Linux kernels. This means that an application compiled with one kernel in mind may not work with another one. For example, at the moment some distributions use the 2.4.x while others the 2.6.x kernel. An application targeting Suse Linux is thus not necessarily compatible with RedHat Linux even though we read the word Linux in both products. Each distributor compiles and re-packs the mainstream applications for their implementations.
The truth is that we don’t have Oracle or Java for “Linux” but for some “certified” distributions, in essence, conceptually “different Windows contenders”. So, at the end of the day, a “Linux application” is source code that you expect to compile on most distributions, and the kernel alone is not granted to make it compile, the host will probably need a concrete shell and a precise set of shell utilities. It’s not uncommon to find out that a make script calls some shell utility that our distribution of choice doesn’t happen to have. When we refer to a “Windows” application, we refer to a program that we expect to run in any kind of “Windows” flavour (unless it is a specialized software that needs some special feature of the NT kernel series such certain server applications). If I have a CD-ROM Encyclopedia for Windows I expect to run it without problems on Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, 2000, etc. If I have the same product for Linux, it will be compatible with very specific distributions and if the software is in binary form it will probably brake after some years because we all know that binary longevity in Linux is not granted. I’m not talking about the ELF format, I speak in a generic way, meaning that binaries relay on too many dynamic libraries that are usually related to the target kernel release. Linux binaries usually don’t work out of the box, they often cry complaining about the lack of dynamic libraries or worse yet, glibc.
KDE & Gnome
The point here is not which one is better. There are countless articles on the matter, the problem is that we have two of them. Please, let’s not talk about personal taste and freedom of choice. Let’s talk instead of incongruity, incompatibility and development effort. Should car drivers choose whether the gas pedal must be at the left or the right?. No, they may want different colors or seats. We expect to apply the lessons we have learned when we have obtained a driver’s license in all cars. Could we say the same about Linux?. Are our private lessons on Lindows be of help to our parents when they receive their new computer running Suse or Mandrake?. If an old relative calls you from a long distance telling you that he runs Linux and that he can’t get into the Internet, can you give him instructions as clear as “Press Start, choose Run…, type cmd and then ipconfig”?. No, because a Linux desktop doesn’t have a precise way to open the command prompt. The most elemental tool, the shell, changes icon location according to the Window manager . Pressing some strange Alt+Ctrl combination to obtain the console mode is not a option, many LCD monitors don’t even support this text mode specially when it’s not the standard 80×25.
There are struggling efforts to integrate these two desktops, to make a Gnome application look like a KDE application and vice versa. It’s a good start, but if we intend to make both environments look the same, why should we have two different graphical APIs? There should be one “official” desktop for the end-user. The remaining toolkits don’t need to die, they can be used for academic or hobby purposes.
Running Gnome & KDE at the same time is only good for a transitional period of time. The X environment is already heavy, what about loading all the libraries for both KDE and Gnome just because the developer wants to choose the API she likes?. The soap opera doesn’t end here. What about when the developer chooses to use the latest API and asks the user to download a recompile the latest KDE/Gnome release?. Horrible. Bundling the latest toolkit library even statically compiled is not a necessarily a bad thing. The end-user shouldn’t even know what a toolkit is all about, she just wants to download, double click and go.
Poor low-level desktop integration
When Windows 95 arrived everybody complaining claiming it was just a “mask” and that underneath it was pure MS-DOS. I also was an sponsor of this concept at that time, but X is much more of a Mask for the command line based Linux distribution than Windows 95 for MS-DOS. I won’t get into the details of whether this is good or not for system stability, but the facts are clear for everybody: The Linux desktop is slow and poorly integrated. A getPixel()/putPixel() call is much more expensive in Linux than in Windows. Raise your hand if you thought “but you can project the desktop over the network”. 99% of the users don’t care about this, should we give them a two times times slower desktop just to leave the option open of sending a pixel write over the network?. The Linux desktop must get low-level graphic integration as soon as possible. There are some projects on the matter but half of the developers consider it not worth the price.
Besides graphics, the integration with the command-line environment is also poor. If you change a setting using the command line you are usually “on your own” and you are not expected to see these changes replicated in the graphical version of the tool. The graphical configuration tools are aimed for “those who don’t know how to edit config text files” which is in my own opinion an awful approach. Instead graphical tools should provide “an additional” way of modifying these files. How many times did you find a script that recalls another one with a comment that says “don’t touch this, generated automatically by Kjoe”?. The Linux desktop will never get far with this kind of hacks. It is true that part of the problem is that many utilities such as sendmail have configuration files so badly designed that it is very hard to reconstruct them by using a GUI parser, but hey, what about XML?. Every application should be able to be configured either by hand using a text editor or by a GUI application using ONE configuration file. Programmers should start to write “GUI friendly” configuration files.
Mainstream applications
I don’t understand why so many people complain about the lack of applications for Linux. This is probably its strongest side. It is true that some king applications such as Cubase (for audio production) or Photoshop are missing, but these applications will never get ported to Linux unless it first performs some house tidying (define a standard desktop and remove X or use in a way that “doesn’t hurt”). Although a personal example is always subjective I can say that while I use a Windows XP as my primary desktop, I don’t use a single application that isn’t available on Linux, in fact most of them were born on Linux and have been ported to Windows; Mozilla and OpenOffice, just to name a few. Most of these applications run much slower on Linux. Even OpenOffice opens in less than two seconds (On an AMD 2500+ PC). I have Unix tools installed so I can use most of the common UNIX shell commands. Windows only provides me a well-integrated hardware-friendly desktop. I could be running these applications on Mac OS X as well.
What we need
Let’s leave aside those who want Linux as a hacker tool or as a “matter of choice” product; for those Linux is already a stellar system, however, a system based 100% in open standards and open source software, free at least in its most basic form, and as easy and fast as Windows is the dream of most of us. We want to develop for the big public not just for other freaks like us. But everything comes at a price, which many of the hardcore developers aren’t willing to pay because many of them don’t understand that “Better” is many times the enemy of “Good”. In my humble opinion, a Linux based solution that aims to replace Windows should consider at least these ideas:
a) A Foundation Operating System
We have a kernel (Linux), not an operating system. An operating system contains a kernel and other applications like the shell that runs “shell utilities” such las ls, cd, mv, etc. It also has a boot loading system (LILO in many cases). The kernel also accepts modules that extends it and allows the operating system to recognize base and new hardware. As Linux is just the kernel, let’s call this the FOS (Foundation Operating System). The FOD should provide a standard kernel (with a granted number of drivers), one shell by default, a standard set of utilities and a configuration system for base services such as TCP/IP and hard drives. In practice, any distribution is already a FOD on its own, but what we need is a common foundation. The United Linux project seems to have this idea in mind, but not all distributions adhere to this initiative.
b) Binary longevity
Breaking binaries is a bad thing and it’s hard to find an excuse to justify it. The promise of light-speed processor-specific applications didn’t materialize. Nobody wants to spend 3 days compiling an operating system just to gain 20% of speed while a 20% faster processor maybe costs just 50 bucks more. The end-user should not need to have a development environment. It’s like saying that a car driver must have at home a shop to service his car. It is ok and also advisable to include as many interpreters as possible, including Perl, Python, Mono and Java. Applications for these interpreters should be distributed using some sort of FOS standard though. Newer kernels (and glibc libraries) should not break binaries compiled against older versions. Commercial software and games will never take off if binary longevity is not granted. Who wants to buy an expensive encyclopedia that will potentially brake with the next operating system upgrade?. Binary longevity doesn’t mean that all applications must be 386-compatible. Many Windows applications include portions of code that are activated if a given processor is installed. It’s also possible to bundle more than one binary as long as a default compatible one is supplied. The only incompatible binaries will be those that are compiled for radically different processors, for example PowerPC or Sparc. Binary longevity is end-user commitment.
c) Standard driver system
Drivers should be properly register in a given category (graphics, disc, etc). It should be straightforward to include and remove a driver either from the command line or the desktop. All drivers should be able to properly describe themselves. There must be an user-friendly driver tree in the file system for storing driver modules. Although Windows has a rather good system to install, uninstall and find drivers it is very hard to locate them using the command line. Most of them are mixed together and have short and non descriptive names such as NVD5443.SYS. It would be nice to be able to specify a driver at boot time when you need to include an unsupported device such as a SATA hard drive. It is very rude to ask for a “brand new kernel” just to be able to install the operating system.
d) A common well-integrated desktop
I don’t know whether it should be KDE, Gnome or something else, but it must be only one. The most important thing is that the desktop should be tightly integrated with the underneath command line environment. I don’t think that is is necessary to demand the presence of the graphical desktop. A bare-bones command-line foundation is according to me a good thing. (Most of the users will probably never choose not to install the GUI though). We all know how terrible is to repair Windows when it doesn’t boot in graphical mode. The point is that although is not necessary to allow 100% configuration through the GUI, the configuration files used should be the same as those used via the command line. For example, maybe you can’t change the MTU setting using the GUI interface but if you touch the file with a text editor, you still can change the IP address using the GUI without having two configuration files and without breaking something else. If the user breaks the text configuration file the GUI should suggest her to use the last working version. Standard folders such as “My Documents”must be provided . Applications should be packaged using a standard installer based on some sort of user-friendly script system. There should be a dedicated folder for applications, although the user may specify where to install them, a default “Program Files” folder is a must. Both on Windows and Mac OS X it is very clear where applications go once you install them, the same cannot be said about Linux. It is easy to locate the applications bundled by your distributor of choice, but if you download a new application and you forget when you installed it your are often lost.
Conclusion
As you can see most of the ingredients to integrate Linux into a winning operating system exist and are available now. We need standards and sage political decisions to prepare a good product ready for widespread distribution. If Linux continues to be driven by students who believe in freedom of choice and anarchy rather than in standards, with companies fighting to become the de facto standard alongside proposing their own proprietary systems we will never get there. I want to see the day when I can walk into a store and be able to purchase a so called “Linux application” that I will be able to install with the ease of any Windows and Mac OS X application. This is not possible at the moment, because “Linux” is just not ready for the desktop yet.
About the author:
I started computer programming in 1990. I have programmed in BASIC, C, Perl in the past and I’m currently specialized in Java technologies. I have used many operating systems including AmigsOS, Digital Unix, Slackware Linux and MS-Windows.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Linux urgently needs the following:
– More distro standards
– More compatibility between versions of kernels and libs
– Low-level graphics in the kernel, like GDI
– Unified control panel for system settings
– Unified registry for hardcore hackers, instead of text config files
– Drive letters — D: is much easier than /mnt/cdrom, or /dev/cdrom, or /dev/hdc, or whatever your distro has
– Unified desktop — take the best parts from KDE and GNOME and combine into one
a) It’s a serverOS
b) Because every 2 days we keep seeing articles not code about the issue
Linux in general should do none of these. The Distro’s themselves should do it. That way everyone is happy. Joe user buys his linux distro with full support while geeks and techies get thier Linux distro. Everyone is happy and development continues.
sorry, but the article is crap. the greatest thing about gnu/linux is the fact that there is a bunch of apps so that i/the user can choose the application that is the best for my/his needs. gnu/linux is not windows and it will never be AND THATS GREAT. if you want to have an os that is just like windows, has the apps that windows has and has drive letters like windows has (btw mountpoints are one of the best things out there in the unix world): USE WINDOWS! i mean why do you want gnue/linux to be an os like windows if you have windows installed on every fucking pc you buy? im sure you have a copy of winxp, so nobody forces you to use gnu/linux, bsd or any os.
to Anatte: most of the things (mountpoints, config files) you itemized are great features of unix and if you dont like them http://www.microsoft.de.
I use it as desktop.
My all family (that don’t know what is linux or operating system) use it.
Nicely put. Each distro should limit the amount of software that the low-end user can select at setup. In a way that is already happening with the rise of GUI-driven installers.
On the subject of inter-compatibilty, there really should be some sort of standard for some of the filetypes and device drivers.
Here’s a question: is Windows 95 ready for the desktop? How does Win95 compare to one of the desktop Linux distros nowadays in terms of the categories given for desktop computers?
well actually it’s just a matter of your taste, as Basti said above
oh and btw, if you don’t like it, either you:
– don’t use it.
– contribute, start coding, made a change, made patches, don’t just shout out loud!
Drive letters are good now? I think you never encountered a situation when adding a new drive into the system caused drive letters shift, temporarily breaking all the software that cared about absolute paths to stuff on the affected logical drives. This is not going to happen with /mnt/something approach. Drive letters is the antiquated DOS times hack that needs to die.
It’s nice to see that someone still knows the spirit of Linux. In the end it all boils down to choice, but as in my previous post, limit the amount of choice that new users have. For some obscure reason they seem to cope better when choice is limited.
Trolling article, something that shouldn’t have published at all. I guess it’s trolling back- time. First of all Windows is not ready for desktop. It is unstable, vurnelable, not safe, and does not have integration. Whaat? You heard right. No integration. Windows apps are very mostly from different vendors and have no integration together whatsover. Just compare to KDE and talk then about integration.
and Yes, there should be only one desktop! Goddamned, you gotta go tell immediatly to Blackbox for Windows developers to stop development!! There Can Be Only One! There’s countless number of shell replacements/desktops for Windows (more than for Linux/BSD/OpenSource os’es [unix-alikes]). You should go kill those developers. Now! There cannot exist more than one desktop for Windows!
KDE has superior integration between apps over XP, way way way better. So much better I cannot even find correct words to describe it.
And Windows is not ready for desktop as long as it has 100000000 security holes, worser code than I write, unstable and so on. Ironically though, Google is suffering now because of _WINDOWS_ machines, because those have more holes than in emmental cheese.
There’s something for you to think about. Windows is not ready, never been. Unix-systems are.
When all summed up, His _only_ concern seems to be how to overthrow MS Windows from the top position.
Rather funny that the most important advice by most of these “what linux needs” apologists seems to be to cut 90% of the choice Free Softweare offers off.
Free Software systems arent a single company, single lookalike and single design integrated product. You just cant meld “choice” and “no choice tight integration” together, Free Software is just to free for such corporate like design orders.
> Standard folders such as “My Documents”must be provided
LOL.
And, additionally, I hate it when he uses “we” to describe his own preferences all the time. A “we” could be maybe fit in a “developers developers developers” speech of a CEO, but its misplaced in a free software world, in a especially free _evolving_ free software world. You just cant yoke free developers to do “the one right thing” unless you pay them to do so.
There are enough Linux based companies, Distribution developers, whou could do right so. Pay someone to “integrate”, “uify” and whatever to just have a perfect sollution. But the author seems not to be ok with this, his proposal is to _forbid_ any other developer or distributor to do _anything else_, and such a attitude is just sick in my view.
His problems could be mostly solved if he concentrates on for example SuSE or Fedora, and just leave the other distributions alone. But he has a fundamental problem with diversity (anything more than he as a “Linux CEO” would permit), so his article is practically worthless for me.
Linux may not be ideal as a desktop for my grandparents, but i highly doubt they were the target audience of the devs. For me it has been a perfect desktop since i started to use it exclusively a few years ago.
A well written article that points out many problems. me has argued his point convincingly. I’m totally in favor of Linux / OSS, but if you want a general desktop ready linux os, you want to have consistency.
I agree with most of what you said Anatte except the two below:
– Unified registry for hardcore hackers, instead of text config files
– Drive letters — D: is much easier than /mnt/cdrom, or /dev/cdrom, or /dev/hdc, or whatever your distro has
Registry is a pain in the a$$ to manage. It is much better to have configuration text files, but i wish Linux becomes more organized to store configuration files in a more organized way. For example, for each app, store config in etc/<app name>/<version> etc. This way, it will be damn easy to manage your config.
Drive letters – EVIL EVIL go away. You can have only 26. Programming using drive letters is a pain. I hate that in windows there is no root from where i can enumerate everything. Its good the linux doesn’t have drive letter and i pray to god, they never do.
The slowness of X has little if nothing to do with it’s network transparency. Locally X will use Unix Domain Sockets. These sockets are local to the system only and are very fast, they are purposely put in place as a means of process communication and thus are used as one by the X Server so that it’s clients may access it.
Theoretically (although I do realize sometimes things change and do affect the ability for binary compatibility) you should have no issues with binary compatibility until major version numbers change. At least this is supposed to be the model which is in place. I’ve tried a number of binary applications in the past, for example, realplayer 8, which work just the same across many kernel versions. Let’s also note that this isn’t a problem in windows because you only get what kernel microsoft gives you — and they make it a point to keep in parts to make things backwards compatible, this accounts for much of the bloat. Although, even microsoft has broken this in many stages. I can recall a number of applications that are not “suited” for Windows XP, and will not run on Windows XP but will run fine on Windows 9x.
One of the first things I tend to do with a Windows desktop system (if I happen to have to deal with one) is change it’s desktop 100%. I either try to find a decent replacement shell or hack it until it’s not recognizable. The reasoning for this is simple… the desktop itself does not dictate ease of use. Apple and Windows have slightly similar but still differing “desktops” yet I’ve had no problems using Macs if need be — and there are a number of other PC users who don’t have such issues either. If by desktop you mean the varying amount of applications which are included in these so called “desktops” — these are applications which are often times non-existent with Windows to begin with. For example, Gnome’s GAIM vs. KDE’s Kopete, you can argue that MSN messenger comes with windows, but that is not an all out solution for IM needs unless you use only MSN. The problem isn’t that we need a unified desktop, the problem is getting distros to cut the number of options available (which other commenters have already said). Gnome has shown on many levels (I can’t speak for KDE as I don’t use it) that application integration can be done at a desktop level and that a centralized configuration DB (so to speak) can exist and be useful. The trick is simply for users to settle on one environment and for that environment to be perfected.
With all that said. When Gnome and/or KDE are fully capable (which I would argue they both already are), when X is given better support from graphics hardware venders for complete drivers with full 2D and 3D acceleration, and when people who write articles like this are willing to see the true problems and help fix them, THEN Linux will be ready for the desktop.
Given these things it mostly lies in the hands of the rest of the computer industry, not Linux developers hands. X.org needs support from venders — the software is already on it’s way to having more advanced extensions that people won’t be seeing in Windows until Longhorn. Thus only Hardware remains. And as I’ve already said, it’s easily arguable that Gnome/KDE are ready. As far as the theories of binary distribution, it’s simply a matter of software companies being able to keep up with OSS development. The fact is, the only time you’re losing binary compatibility is if an API at some level kernel or library is changed, which once again, usually isn’t until major version changes, otherwise it may be done prior, but only with good reason; it should be the responsibility of binary software vendors to keep their products up to date with the recent changes in whatever APIs their using.
Linux’s greatest strength is its greatest weakness. It is, anybody can contribute to it and make decisions and take it where they want it to.
It’s a strength because it empowers the user. That’s what free software is all about.
It’s a weakness because products need strong guidance. Certain parts of a Linux system do (e.g. the kernel). But other parts don’t. You will never unify GNOME and KDE, because there are too many people who disagree with it, and nobody to put their foot down and say “It will be so”. The same with kernel-level graphics – too many people like X Windows. The same with binary compatibility…
For an example of a product with strong guidance and cohesiveness, look at Mac OS X.
I agree with some of the stuff the author wrote, but not all.
I (and many with me, apparently) hate the concept of drive letters, and I hope they burn in hell when MS finally abandon them!
The “My Documents” folder is dreadful, and I hate that one just as much as the drive letters! Don’t tell me where to put my documents, I want my home directory, and this is where I put all the stuff I want.
If you think my parents/grandparents/other relatives/neighbors/other friends would manage to keep their computers running without having me (or someone as nerdy as me) around to call when things go wrong… be it Windows or KDE, they won’t manage! =o)
Some of the other statements point out some nice stuff though. But maybe, just maybe, Linux is supposed to be the toy and joy of all the hobby hackers out there?
But I too would like to give my anarchy spirit a boost by seeing more than a few million people switch to Linux!
This is a bit off topic but I’m so tired of seeing the “Hey, you can’t COMPLAIN if you can’t submit PATCHES to FIX the problem!” (“We’re just seeing articles about the problems – not code!”)
What kind of desktop environment would we have on the different operating systems out there today if they were all made by coders?
Ah yes, they’d be very, very ugly and horrifying and unusable to just about everyone who’s not a coder since it seems that people who get ninja-coding-skills almost always get crap-ass-design/color/interface-skills.
(“What do you mean? Red text on green background works very, very well! It does!”).
Please let people criticize the various software out there, software isn’t written by coders for coders, it’s written by coders for users, including other coders.
Nice article. I’m sure most of these things will happen as a result of more Linux employments in businesses. It looks like the number of distributions that companies take seriously into consideration is already down on 3 or 4.
Depending on ones personal point of view, think Novell, RedHat, and maybe Debian or Sun. Since America is still the biggest software market in the western world, an agreement on a certain set of standarts will rule the rest.
And unlike a private hacker who can abandon his project one day to the other, they will stay commited to their users.
So you want to turn GNU/Linux into Windows. You’re welcome to make your own distribution, alltho I think it won’t be very popular.
[rant]
BTW, all that talk about what Linux is (the kernel) and you don’t mention GNU? You talk about libraries, applications, configuration files and *still* call all those things *Linux* ? You made it pretty clear that Linux is only the kernel, so why whine about *Linux* not being ready for “desktop”? XFree86 and GNOME/KDE/whateverDE and whateverAPP is not *Linux*. Most of them run/are included in *BSD/commercialUnix[XYZ] too. Why not whine about those systems instead/as well?
[/rant]
Thank you for making the only point that was worth my time to read, and you are correct. Linux is its own worst enemy for that reason.
For as often as people seem to cover this topic, rarely do they seem to ever be able to put a finger on the real issues.
Because there is no central control, the biggest challenges that face Linux today will still be around 8 and 10 years from now.
Every month or so we hear about the desktop readiness of Linux. But what is the desktop? Some people only surf the internet, write e-mail and some letters, others use it as an environment for graphics or programming. This is a wide range. Every user requires another desktop. My brother plays games, so he´s stuck with windows, my parents use Linux, because everything they want to do is there. And they don´t mind if an apllication starts a little bit faster or slower. 1 or 2 seconds faster on startup means nothing to them, they wouldn´t even notice. But a programmer or a 3D-artist would mind. So Linux would be ready for some people when others won´t even think about it.
Sure, there is a lot to do, but even in 10 years there will be much to do. I bet you will never catch a single day in Linux history where developers and users say it is “finished”.
A very coherent article. Some good points in there. Maybe some of the linux fanboys could stop for a momment and actually read the article carefully and see beyond the title that seems to rile them so much. There are some good points to ponder. Don’t throw out the whole article out of hand.
The “Foundation Operating System” looks like what the BSD’s do, and they have benefited from it by gaining consistency. The “Program Files” folder idea can easily be standardized once you have the FOS (then you would know what is part of the base operating system, and what is external to it. A useful distinction). FreeBSD installs programs in different directories depending on whether the programs are GUI or command line. Makes sense if you consider that there are two major ways of using the system: as a server or as a desktop. If the community standardizes on the above, one would be able to use any distro in the same way from the command line. However, I doubt that this will ever happen. Politics will probably be a major stumbling block.
Binary longevity is a very good argument.
I’m not a big fan of having only one DE, but I can see the author’s point.
Overall a thought-provoking article.
Yes, even MS will drop drive letters with future windows version (AFAIK with longhorn)
– because there is no default strategy.
– because video drivers arent that willing to cooperate.
– because you need staples, elastic band and ducktape and glue to put all things together so it will look complete from a far distance.
– because there are so many frameworks; xul, qt, gtk, motif. a programmer shouldnt have to worry about that too much, but now he must make sure it works under all kinds of x and wm implementations. so openoffice or mozilla use theirs own and it takes precious memory for only that application.
– because posix is outdated. modern system components have much more functions and capabilities than posix can handle.
– because you need to recompilethe kernel again and again for adding hardware support/drivers.
– because linux is highly experimental, as is mswindows; but postponing/delaying release dates for software may look as if it is without errors.
The real problem with linux distros right now are applications and integration! All of the programatic things are there…often better than MS windows, but they don’t play TOGETHER!
I’ve been a spoiled Knoppix fan for about a year and a half now, so I decided to revisit Suse so I could pimp it for work…bad move! The basics just take too much work out of the box. sure it’s all there, but what “just works” in a hobby distro like Knoppix is like pulling teeth in Suse. more than that, there’s little option for “just downloading” something off the net without spending an hour trackign dependancies & compiling. That’s the joy-killer of the whole thing. Right now it your way or the Highway…you either go it your own with Debian or Gentoo, or you “take it and like it” with the boxed installs. Debian can be just what you want latest and greatest, but you almost always have to do minor programming to get it working…Suse will be fairly stable and trouble free out of the box but don’t expect to download new stuff without loosing all your support.
Reality lies in the middle. Most important linux “apps” are CLI anyway [apache, samba, drivers, etc] so desktop isn’t really an issue, that leaves the handful of “core” apps like openoffice.org, mozilla, konquer, and gimp that are tied too much to one gadget set and don’t play nice between apps to deal with. Choice is a key part of linux, I’d never advocate taking that away, but we need to simplify the combinations to prevent needing three gadget sets, Desktop environments, etc. There needs to be more effort in stabilizing popular linux…United Linux was a nice try, but nobody non-comercial accepted it, just like few commercial distros support apt-get properly.
The success of OSS is directly tied to being able to solve this problem. Creating a world of software components that are forward/backward compatible, as well as interchangable & interoperable with other OSS & comercial packages. It’s not an easy problem, but it’s several orders of maginatude tougher problem than any commercial software company has to solve!
Actually, I’d say Linux is already spectacularly successful on the desktop.
To compare Linux to Windows is to compare it to the exceptional case, not the typical case. How does the install base of Linux compare with, say, OS X, or Solaris, or VMS, or BeOS or Commodore 64? You’re talking about an installed base in the millions (and growing rapidly), plus it has an extremely rich repertoire of applications. No other Unix-like OS has enjoyed anything close to the success Linux has had.
Perhaps Linux will eventually have an presence comparable to Windows. Perhaps not. It doesn’t really matter as long as it has a dynamic community of users and a vital ecosystem supporting it. It doesn’t have to be the most popular OS in the world to be useful and successful.
Mandrake is what you are looking for. Easiest distribution to install with the largest software repository besides Debian.
Download Mandrake 10 and install it.
Then after installation, do a search for easy urpmi on google and add the plf and contrib repositories. You will have so much software in your hands, you will not know what to do with it and everything works out of the box.
The only thing you will need to do is:
urpmi libdvdcss
urpmi mplayer-gui
Put an empty CD-R in the drive and K3b starts. Put a DVD and Totem begins playing.
To update the system do:
urpmi.update -a
And then:
urpmi –upate auto-select
The only thing that isn’t upgraded automatically is the kernel, which is good. To update your kernel:
urpmi –update kernel
Mandrake 10 *Official* is fast, very customizable and incredibly stable and it installs in less than 20 minutes. I guarantee that you will love it.
Ps: By the way, get yourself the Noia icons for KDE from the plf repository above. You will like those.
Why are so many people unhappy with the way Linux is delivered? There are so many choices, there is so much freedom. We already have to very capable operating systems for the desktop: Windows XP and MacOS X. Many application vendors struggle to get their applications compatible with both operating systems and most do not even think about Mac versions. If you want compatability with nearly everything, buy Windows, if you want a relatively secure, UNIX-based desktop, buy Mac. And do not think, a “unified” Linux distribution will be free (as in beer).
Why change Linux into a Windows clone? The suggestions from all “Linux should be ready for the desktop” articles are in the end nothing more than stripped down Linux distributions without choice. That is not a new option for the desktop. The way we have Linux NOW is the new option.
Why push down Linux on users, who are “happy” with the systems, because they do what the users want? I think, these articles point to something: the authors want to win a war. The Linux underdog should win the fight against the Windows bully. But this is not a teenage drama, but a technology quest. And the way we have it now is the new and better way.
If the community standardizes on the above, one would be able to use any distro in the same way from the command line.
A Community can only standardize on something _everybody_ agrees with. You cant force anyone to standardize on something if the only goal is to act complete and integrated towards businesses. There will always be some distro that does things differently, and you cant stop or you cant want to stop that.
However, I doubt that this will ever happen. Politics will probably be a major stumbling block.
Forcing standards on free evolving software, that would be politics, not developing freely, and as you like. Many people would like to see linux as a single “product” they could compete with other systems. But it just isnt. A single distribution might be, but you cant stop the rest from doing something else.
Linux as a unique “product” would have this problem of chaotic diversity, but as linux (free software) _isnt_ a single integrated product, but a diverse developng community, you cant count this as a problem. They dont have a problem, but a choice. Everybody who cant make a choice for himself, should pay companies to make this choice for him, and deliver a product.
i particularly liked the binary-longevity argument. [/SUSE9.1 n00b]
My daughter has a friend over visiting. She wondered why all that text scrolled by when the system booted. I pointed out that if something went wrong, you could capture that and see what was happening.
I subscribe to a few lists; I suspect most of us do. A lot of advice involves looking at this start-up text. Perhaps some poor soul writes that KDE or Gnome won’t run. One won’t start, but the other one will. For me, IceWM is my fall back if something happens and I need to get work done.
Some comments on Anatte:
Based on my comments above, I vote against low level graphics in the kernel. After using Linux for a while, I like being able to use alternate desktop environments. I also like a powerful console.
I’m not sure what “distro standards” are. Perhaps it would be nice if a Suse RPM would run on a Mandrake system, but I don’t give RPM based systems much attention, as I run a Debian based one. That centralized repository is a marvel. And if you want to install “outside” software, so far software like Open Office, Mozilla, Textmaker, Turboprint, and Vuescan have installed effortlessly.
I haven’t heard of any negative interactions between the kernel and key libraries. Libraries do change, and make old software incompatible. Perhaps the best example I can think of is Word Perfect, which cannot run on a modern Linux system. My distro, Libranet, lets you install the old libraries along side the new if you need them. I should add that a repository based system tends to minimize these problems.
Most Linux users don’t like the Registry as Microsoft has enabled it. Complaints about the registry range from excessive fragility, to being too complex. Having done my share of chasing viruses and spyware, to “uninstalling” software that refused to do so, I can say I am heartily sick of the registry. It’s too easy for programs to hide in there. When I think of the Registry, I think of Cool Web Search.
As for drive letters, they work. The Linux way makes sense too. Anatte doesn’t seem to know the difference between “/dev/cdrom” and “/mnt/cdrom,” but I’m sure he or she will learn eventually.
As for the “unified desktop,” sure, I agree, as long as it looks and acts like KDE.
Comments on the article:
I think it would be nice if Linux had a multimedia encyclopedia, but it doesn’t. Newer encyclopedias for Windows tend not to run under Windows 95 any more. Encyclopedias that ran under 95 and 98, sometimes bork under 2000. Games are even more of a problem, with incompatibilities between versions of Windows, and Direct X. Backward compatibility is nice, but never perfect, regardless of operating system.
When it comes to desktop performance, I live in a somewhat different reality from the author of the article. Windows 98 is fast on modern hardware; 2000 somewhat nimble, and XP slower, but acceptable on faster equipment. When I first ran KDE under Suse 7.3, it was slow. KDE speeded up considerably with version 3.1, and got faster still with 3.2. People report early versions of 3.3 are faster still. I like the trend. As I said before, combining KDE and Gnome is fine, as long as the result is KDE.
Finally, I would encourage the author to take a look at Debian’s package management. The Debian system is by far the easiest to maintain, easier than Windows, and far easier than RPM based systems. While it may be clear on a Mac, file locations on Windows are anything but. With Debian (and if memory serves, on an RPM system) the package manager tells you where the files are. I love the clarity and openness of such a system.
I think that the main problem is one of semantics: what’s the meaning of “Desktop”?
For many Linux users,a desktop is something like Gnome/KDE, extremely configurable, sitting on top of a totally configurable underlying environment made up of small bits interoperating; when they say Desktop they say “Unix interpretation of a Desktop concept”.
But the vast majority believes a desktop to be Windows, thus, a system that hides technical aspects and tries (apparently, I agree) to make *everything* simple for the user.
Joe user can see that “I plug in the camera, it works”.
I want to install software, I double click, and a new section shows up in the Programs taskbar; I want to burn a Cd, I simply do it, no need to know “permissions”…
Windows hides almost everything; the result is that things *work*; when they don’t, then you’d better get ready for serious trouble though.
In Linux, things aren’t hidden, thus, still today, to accomplish even easy tasks you need thorough knowledge of the underlying system; if something breaks, at least one knows or can figure out what it is.
This is what all the apologists try to defend: predictability, configurability, sheer power in the hands of “geeks”.
Well, I, and billions people are no geeks; we want our work to be done easily; Linux is a terrific instrument, and it *can* get easy as Windows *with* the underlying power of Linux.
Why loads of technical heads do complain and cry about “Leave it as it is”, or “It’s a server os”?
Then, I think that the “dream” OS you are describing is MacOS
Using a Unix-kernel (Darwin, based on BSD), having completely rewritten the windowing server, and having written GUIs for every command line tools (ping, lookup, etc).
————
“Every time you provide an option, you’re asking the user to make a decision.
Asking the user to make a decision isn’t in itself a bad thing. Freedom of choice can be wonderful. People love to order espresso-based beverages at Starbucks because they get to make so many choices. Grande-half-caf-skim-mocha-Valencia-with-whip. Extra hot!
The problem comes when you ask them to make a choice that they don’t care about.”
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000059.html
I haven’t read the other comments on this article, so I don’t know if anyone else has picked this up, but the logic of this argument is laughable. Here it is.
Define term: Ready for the Desktop == Identical to Windows.
Linux is not identical Windows.
Therefore, Linux is not ready for the Desktop.
A logically sound argument. However, the premise is so questionable it is laughable. There is absolutely no analysis of the premise. If I can prove that there is an operating system that is not identical to Windows, but most people would consider it ready for the desktop, do I win the argument? Cos if that’s the case I’ve got 3 letters for you: OSX.
This is the worst article that I have read on osnews (sorry Eugenia, but this is just appauling). The only redeeming feature of this article is its comic value.
Matt
This one made my day.I can work now:
[…]but X is much more of a Mask for the command line based Linux distribution than Windows 95 for MS-DOS
Well point in fact I disagree with almost all of them, but it is an opinion peice and every on is entitled thier opinion. I do agree that Linux is not ready as a generic desktop, though in a controlled corporate environ it is closer than for a random user. But why does Linux need to match Windows features to be a usable desktop? Bad argument there.
1. First getPixel() call is not more expensive. This is a tired variation of the X is slow because it’s a network protocol. I would expect an experienced programmer to know better thatn that BS. What sits on top of X may or may not be efficient, but the raw display protocol is no inefficient.
2. What kind of LCD do you have that won’t run a 80×25 text console? I have never even heard of that problem, much less experienced it. Also let me get this straight. You are saying that it is harder to get to the command line in Linux than Windows? Can you name a single Linux Desktop that does not have a term program in it’s menu?
3. Sun’s Java will install on almost any Linux distro without complaint. I would say any, but there might be one or two out there that will have problems.
4, While I agree that it is annoying Oracle/DB2 and some other apps only deploy on certain Distros, why would you put an Oracle server on a desktop?
5. Foundation Operating system: Choose a distro and don’t go to things that are not compiled for it. This is no different from using Windows and using only software compiled for it. For the binary longevity point go with RHEL or Tao Linux then, which has a long lifecyle. Linux gives you a lot of choices and many of them are not compatible, but you are not forced to use the variety of apps. Choose you set of apps and be done with it.
I could go on but I go to leave. Like I said well written article I just don’t agree with your “solutions” or for that matter where the problem lies.
Is Slackware Linux an operating system?I am just curious,don’t kick me,seriously.For MacOS,and MSWin, I understand,but I thought Slack,MDK,SUSE are just distibutions.
Why loads of technical heads do complain and cry about “Leave it as it is”, or “It’s a server os”?
Because not a few of the “linux mass desktop” apologists would change funcamental concepts and behaviour of the current Free systems, just to win Joe User over from windows. Or because many of them dont want to pay for windows, although they like windows better then the current free systems.
It is a similar reflex when someone is about to force you to use windows or a linux based windows clone, as you would observe when somebody would force windows on a hardcore unix geek.
Not another one!
Editors, please put a stop on all these selfproclaimed experts, all spewing out the same old, same old. We’re technically capable people, this kind of repetition and rehashing of the same points over and over again is more likely to bore us than to make us see whatever point these articles are trying to make.
On a side note, I think I’ll drop yet another “news” site off my daily reading list. There used to be a time when OSNews was reporting on news from the OS community. Interresting artcicles are few and far between nowadays, the editors seem to have been lost in application software, and (sponsored?) product announcements. Do I care about the Beta if SQL Server 2005 being out? Maybe, but I have other sources to learn about it! Stick to the topic, people!
This is the worst article that I have read on osnews (sorry Eugenia, but this is just appauling). The only redeeming feature of this article is its comic value.
reading the article once more,I begin to think that was intended to be comic.
Sorry, but I think that the “Ready for the Desktop == Identical to Windows.” *is* true.
If you’re playing logic, How many MacOSX users do exist?
Then go a bit further: How many Windows users do exist? (it doesn’t matter wether they chose it, it was imposed by the company they work for, or they simply believe there’s no alternative: they are simply into a paradigm).
Then, for the *huge* majority, Windows==Desktop is true, almost a tautology.
This is the *reality*, laughable or not, it’s not laughing it’s gonna get changed.
And, as a consequence, Linux is not ready for the Desktop *still* is true, because Linux is not ready for the Desktop people are expecting.
People is important, not the OS.
And, regarding OSX, well, don’t even mention it before me, or you’ll make me cry… didn’t have enough buck to buy a Mac laptop (and I was drooling for a PBook so much…) 🙂
It is a similar reflex when someone is about to force you to use windows or a linux based windows clone, as you would observe when somebody would force windows on a hardcore unix geek.
I meant, it is the same as you would observe when you would force unix on a average windows user.
Remember it is an opinion and opinions differ. Facts don’t.
First of all, i’d like to comment that debunking generalizions to make the term less general is a good thing. You do this with the popular definition of “Linux” and the popular definition of “Linux is not ready for the desktop”.
First of all, we should agree on what the definition of “ready for the desktop” stands for. For some of us it refers to a graphical user interface in which applications have icons and can be launched in an intuitive manner without the need of complex commands. Even a Commodore 64 running Geos could be “ready for the desktop” by this definition, but the fact is that when we read “ready for the desktop” we understand “ready to replace Microsoft Windows”.
That’s your fact, not everyones. IOW: it doesn’t count for everyone. More important, it depends on who is administrating the system(s), what are the aims, what should the users be able to do, compatibility, how much time is available, etc. Such factors are important for people to decide wether they find a certain Linux distribution ready for the desktop, or not. As Digital UNIX user, you might know how the various Unices were Good Enough in commercial environments even though they had DEs like CDE or WMs like 4DWM. It is because they did and do the job.
Your whole opinion _seems_ to be armed majorly at home users. However, Oracle not running on the home user desktop called Lindows is not a big deal, is it? You see, if you want to state an opinion like this, you need to make a decision which you asserted partly earlier: “not ready for _who_ and for _what_purpose_?”
[..] Unified DE’s [..]
I (partly) agree, and there are projects existing which are trying to create compatibility between all the DE’s. So far, lots of DE’s and WM’s are adopting these standards including the 2 major DE players KDE and GNOME. The project is called Freedesktop.org and you could have named it as counter-argument as it is important.
I don’t agree on your car anology, because when you have a drivers license the way a car works differs still. No car is exactly the very same, and you’ll need to adopt to the car.
Also, in a corporate environment (where most commercial Linux distributions aim at) you’ll just get one DE and the user will never meet the other one. Unless you decide to chose for another one. In such case, again, uniformity could be important between apps and toolkits. For example toolkits should -imo- have themes which make them look like the other toolkit, or like the theme which is used so that they’re less distinguishable from a non-standard DE app. There are currently 2 standard DE’s in the prof. Linux distribution world: KDE and GNOME. Because of this there won’t be one TK and one DE and this is no great problem when the user is shown only one option. (Wether that option is the best option is, as you put it, a whole different OT discussion.)
Bundling the latest toolkit library even statically compiled is not a necessarily a bad thing.
The _applications_, yes. This happens with commercial QT software already frequently. I agree a static build, besides one or various dynamic ones and/or source is not necessarily a Bad Thing, but when the more beautiful approach is a suitable one that one should be recommended.
The Linux desktop must get low-level graphic integration as soon as possible. There are some projects on the matter but half of the developers consider it not worth the price.
Which projects? Why not name them?
“Mainstream applications” or “Applications should not be ported to MS Windows”
There is some software available which only runs on Linux or Linux/x86 and is proprietary. However, software which is open source, can easily be ran on different architectures. Some developers don’t like this, see http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/ (fefe.de also hosts some Linux-only software). There is nothing much we can do about this, except using proprietary software and/or using a restrictive license which limits other people’s freedom.
The price vs quality && freedom points which are pro Linux (leave them up to your imagination) still stand though. IMO, more proprietary applications from the various proprietary worlds are the key.
Everyone, we need to just sit back, and relax. The “power-user” can have his Slackware. The thing that make Linux great, is that it is always changing. In 5 years, there will be a clear winner in the desktop linux market, and this will not be an issue anymore. But Linux is never going to be Windows, because it is not Windows. Just like Mac OS is never going to be Windows. Each have there own strength and weaknesses. It is like VI vs Emacs or Threaded Replies vs No Threads. No clear winner. No reason to argure. Chill.
I say this as someone who knows Linux and Windows thougrougly from the inside out. First of all Windows isn’t ready by the standards of trolling in the article. I will now debunk his trolling piece by piece, and you will KNOW that euginia only posted this did it for the ad revenue and that she didn’t have any real news to post.
First of all Winodws binary compatiblity is bad. I have tried to run someo of my old Windows 98 software on XP and it either crashes, get a “operating system not supported” message, despite fiddling around with “compatibility” modes, its much easier to support.
ELF is very standardized, and you can even run Linux applications on BSD. Just plonk the old libararies in, they are version numbered. I have ran Linux applications from around 1995 on my 2004 Debian workstation.
He claims that most hardware support is written by people in their free time. Big give away that he is trolling here. This is not 1991 anymore, big corporations such as IBM, Nvidia, Intel and more are contributing drivers to Linux. You only need to look at the kernel changelogs to see that.
KDE and GNOME are both good desktop environments and are good both stand alone. Freedesktop.org standards have bent over backwards to standardize them, to the point where I can drag and drop a file from Konqueror into nautilus!
As for configuration files, they have been standardized by KDE and GNOME. Even as a programmer, you don’t even touch them, you use the intuitive APIs. Older legacy UNIX file formats have been frozen and are well editable by long standardized by tools. Tools like YaST, Mandrake Control Center and others make sure you NEVER have to play with config files.
XFree86 is NOT slow, this has been done to death and the ghost even got killed. I’m not even going to touch that troll.
Again, KDE and GNOME are standardized. Since Crossover office was released you CAN run stuff like Cubase and Photosop under Linux, even Disney uses it. If it is good enough for them, its good enough for you.
If this guy had chosen Linspire (Formally known as Lindows), Xandros, Mandrake or even Debian installed via Knoppix he would of never written this troll. EUGEINA PLEASE STOP POSTING OBVIOUS FLAMEBAIT! PLEASE POST SOMETHING ORIGINAL.
If this was posted back in 1999, it would have a point, but this IS A TOTAL TROLL BASED ON IGNORANCE AND MISCONCEPTIONS.
http://www.xandros.com/products/home/desktopoc/dsk_oc_intro.html
Get the free copy of Xandros Open Circulation edition, you will soon see why this guy is trolling.
We want to develop for the big public not just for other freaks like us.
No, that’s not what everyone wants or aims at, as i asserted earlier.
a) A Foundation Operating System
People who prefer this might prefer One Distribution or a BSD better. But ehm, what you are ehm wishing for is impossible with things like ehm.. Vi, Vim, Joe, Emacs, Nano and Bash, Ksh, Tcsh and more of those things people don’t really have one best preference of. It is the nature of choice and providing choice when different philosophies and architectures are provided. I don’t see that going away any time soon, but my observation is most new users prefer Bash and Nano — at least when they begin.
Breaking binaries is a bad thing and it’s hard to find an excuse to justify it.
It isn’t a bad thing by definition. Quality improvement is a Good Thing, and some of your proposals are most definitely going to break compatibility. If it is your opinion that it is good for the cause, then it is in the end when everything is weighted a good thing (but not perfect).
This is mostly up to distributors but when not all agree we got that catch 22 with the Oracle problem you stated earlier: that software for distribution X doesn’t work for doesn’t work for distribution Y.
We see this very same problem in society itself: when fundements in an hierarchy overcome a huge (but according to the rulers, a needed one) then the status quo changes as well. While at first time, negative implications are clearly shown the decision-makers believe it is ultimately a Good Thing for the Greater Cause. Examples: Company fires a huge percentage of people in an attempt to become profitable again. USA invades Iraq to turn a dictatorship in a democracy, but many people live in danger or in a dangerous environment and many people die. War in general is an example of this. The industrial revolution is one. The migration from MS Windows to MacOSX or a Linux distribution is one. And there are so many, many more examples.
Ofcourse methods exist to make the change less painful but they differ per problem. Maybe the changes which happen could have made better use of the tranquilizers. But i don’t know any in depth example or logic on this applied on the subject we discuss.
Drivers should be properly register in a given category (graphics, disc, etc). […]
I agree! Project Utopia (UDEV/HAL/DBUS) tries to achieve this. Check out Robert Love’s project! It’ll probably be part of GNOME 2.8 and also 2.7 DRs. You could have included this as counter-example. Regarding NVidia and ABI’s, see my previos paragraph.
I don’t know whether it should be KDE, Gnome or something else, but it must be only one. […]
See above. Regarding the survival of struggest: that has become better since there are only 2 major players currently: GNOME and KDE. This was worse in the years before these existed.
As for copnfiguration: consistency is in /etc. But except similar syntax here and there that’s where it ends. A GUI/CLI application could convert such syntax to XML or whatever, and then convert that to CLI, Ncurses or GUI with some TK. The application adopts itself according to the config file. Such examples are basically raising user-friendliness as much as a dialog: “What shell do you want (if you can’t decide, we recommend Bash.”
Applications should be packaged using a standard installer based on some sort of user-friendly script system.
I agree such is a good _alternative_ for less tech savant people. Autopackage tries to solve this problem, among other projects like Zero-install. You could have pointed these out as counter-example.
Finally i disagree partly with your end-conclusion but that’s irrelevant. Regarding my subject, i said ill-informed because you did not appeared to know my counter-examples while they are (IMO) relatively known, relevant to the subject and interesting. They’re even discussed on this website! Leaving that aside, i think you put up quite a nice ball. I hope you’ll polish it more here and there especially on some facts i stated and i hope it’ll be more read after that has been done. Some URLs to various projects or interesting related documents would also make this opinion better IMO.
You just proved my point. You think OSX is ready for the desktop, as does anyone who sees it. Therefore, the premise is flawed, and the argument fails.
The article does not resort to popularity as the measure of readiness, as he probably sees the flaw in that analysis. The argument that he ran is that readiness is a function of features (albeit an identical feature set to Windows), not a function of popularity. What is the point of analysing readiness based on popularity? It takes you nowhere. Windows is popular, therefore it’s ready. Linux is not popular, therefore it’s not ready. Have we learnt anything? No.
“- Drive letters — D: is much easier than /mnt/cdrom, or /dev/cdrom, or /dev/hdc, or whatever your distro has”
I disagree — D: says nothing about the device itself while. Under the UNIX approach the device and mountpoint OTOH are descriptive themselves. When i use some GUI application like Statbar or My Computer to show how full what devices are it might say: C: is a harddisk (by symbol) and it is 10 GB big with 5 GB being used while D: is a harddisk (by symbol) which is 20 GB big and 5 GB being used. The symbol tells the user something here, while on UNIX it is the mountpoint, the device, and the symbol in the DE/WM. What if that symbol wasn’t there? I as clueless person wouldn’t know E: is the CDROM of 650 MB. I actually thought that was my harddrive and no symbol told me otherwise. The UNIX way also allows more configurability and more versatility. From a uniformity point of view the Windows approach is not the holy grail either except that A:, B:, C: and D: (A drive, B drive, Harddisk and CDROM) are mostly uniform. But this is not by definition and is a lil’ bit configurable.
1996 : Linux is just suitable for students.
1998 : Linux is just suitable for students & providers
2000 : Linux is just suitable for students, providers and corporatate servers.
2003 : Linux is just suitable for students, providers, corporate servers & custom workstations.
It will happen, that you like it or not !
“- because you need to recompilethe kernel again and again for adding hardware support/drivers.”
You could just upgrade to a newer, precompiled and modular kernel. In 2.6, you can just recompile and load a module, or load a module. Stuff like Hotplug does the latter automagically, but Project Utopia will make it more flawless. as for ATI/NVidia and similar proprietary modules: catch-22, eh?
NALIRFTDA
Not Another Linux Isn’t Ready For The Desktop Article
This article, and the countless others exactly like it, all cheer me up no end.
See, the thing is, that all these articles are written by people who love Windows and look towards Linux as a replacement. They can never get things to work the way the are used to and never look for the remidies……..
BUT
At least they are looking to Linux. So deep down, they are not totally happy with Windows for some reason or other.
The point is that they are looking and giving it a try.. It will not be long before we get them to the darkside.
BTW doggedblues – I agree totally with you on Mandrake 10, I tried that and finally have plucked up the balls to remove XP from my dual boot set up. Nice one Mandrakesoft.
Mandrake is desktop ready. It’s easier to install than windows, fast and comes with packages that are tailored to the use you’re going to give it. Mandrake is not alone in this. I don’t believe that it’s necessary to cull window managers down to one “winner”. Similarly, I do not believe it is necessary to rid the community of its wealth of applications.
I believe there is one thing holding back an explosion in linux usage, and the author was absolutely right in identifying it: X. X is a slow, buggy piece of crap. If (when?) x gets replaced, I feel confident that these kinds of articles will gradually disappear in favor of pro-linux rants
I started computer programming in 1990. I have programmed in BASIC, C, Perl in the past and I’m currently specialized in Java technologies. I have used many operating systems including AmigsOS, Digital Unix, Slackware Linux and MS-Windows.
Oooh, no wonder he makes the points he trying to make. Slackware user. ’nuff said.</flamebait>
Not to burst your clueless bubble my friend, but most linux developers are capable engineers with jobs. Not anarchist students with too much free time on their hands.
>If Linux continues to be driven by students who believe in freedom of
>choice and anarchy rather than in standards, with companies fighting to
>become the de facto standard alongside proposing their own
>proprietary systems we will never get there.
Where? You do not understand Linux. It is this freedom where you talk about that makes it possible to do as you please with Linux.
The is no path or goal to conquer the desktop, the only path or goal is being able to compute with freedom and as you wish.
Please stop these nonsense articles with people who think what needs to be done without even knowing what Linux stands for.
Linux is like a river, a stream, the more you try and control it the more it will loose it nature.
At least they are looking to Linux. So deep down, they are not totally happy with Windows for some reason or other.
I would say the reason Nr. 1 is because they dont want to pay for Windows and for windows software. With Linux Distributions, if at all, they only pay the packagers, and get a OS and Gigabytes of quality software for free.
If they were happy with Linux as a alternative, they wouldn be so embittered by unsuccwessfully trying to reorient the way and the direction Free Software is being developed. They still want to use something windows like, and be treated as paying customers, and at the same time, dont want to pay a dime for all the the software they get.
I know a number of users and businesses using Linux on the desktop, including a retiree nurse who got sick of viruses under MSWindows and a kiosk business. These are an existence proof that the article is simply wrong. I’ve been using Linux on the desktop for years, though admittedly I’m a power user.
Most of the points in the article are dubious and out of date. Just use a recent Linux distribution such as SuSE 9.1, Mandrake 10 or Redhat Fedora. Use the default install and use generic PCI, USB or SCSI hardware. You’ll find it all works as well as MSWindows. Often much cheaper and more flexible depending on the application. A full function office suite, full GUI configuration, camera, scanner, web browser, rich text email, multimedia and basic games software all included and generally as easy to use as their MSWindows counterparts.
Linux is not ready for the desktop but Windows isn’t either!
The same problems plague the 2 OSes: drivers do not always work or play nice with each other: I have trouble setting up accelerated 3d in both systems, on the same machine. WHen I get it right, an upgrade or service pack usually wrecks it and I have to start over.
Windows is a bit better than Linux though. Try to make Java3d work with an NVidia card and you’ll see. It will work, but you’ll get your hands dirty. I used to enjoy putting my hands into the grease. I had the time. Now with a family and an income that depends on my productivity, these days are over, sadly.
I have a Mac too. I do not experience such a waste of time with it.
I know, it’s because Apple controls the software *and* hardware.
It arguably costs more. But the time not wasted makes up for it.
Well, I have also done a little test to check what operating systems are ready for the desktop, and I wanted to write an article about it. Yet I can reveal a little already: SuSE 9.1 Personal is slightly more ready for the desktop than Windows 2000 or XP. On a scale of 1 to 10, Windows gets a score of 6.8 while SuSE gets a 7.0. And that does not even consider price!
So, it just depends on how you count.
Well, one thing he is right about is the config files. They are horrible, and an XML based standard should be developped. Hackers will still be able to hack away in vim, but X-apps will be better at representing and editing them graphically using standard API’s.
The text is brilliant. While it may be inaccurate in some points, it shows the right direction for the open-source community. And to all those who do not agree with the thesis presented: article writers are supposed to write what they think, and not what you want to hear. Please remember that while you have right to comment every editorial, writers must have the right to publish their text, too.
In fact, this article just clearly presents my ideas for the future Linux-based operating system (these are just some of them):
– application binary compatibility between different versions of Linux kernel and accompanying system libraries, so that I could distribute a binary-only application for just “Linux”, and not every single Linux-distribution out there,
– driver binary compatibility, so that hardware companies could publish closed-source drivers working with Linux kernel 2.6, 2.8, 3.0 and so on (sometimes this compatiblity may break, but not on every minor or major kernel revision),
– kernel-integrated device-independent graphics device interface which would limit composing on-screen or on-paper graphics to calling a software interrupt, with no overhead of process context switching or passing data through a local Unix socket,
– one low-level (C-based?) toolkit API for every GUI toolkit, so that I could run GTK+ application on a KDE system using Qt libraries and vice versa; it would end these desktop environment wars,
– system-wide binary configuration data interface (a’la GConf or Windows Registry) which would replace system/user configuration files and would be accessible for every driver, kernel module, application and desktop environment.
you mentioned KDE and GNOME but forgot GNUstep!
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/gnustep/
I’m just one more voting for “Low-level graphics in the kernel”, “Unified registry for hardcore hackers, instead of text config files”, and “Drive letters” being bad things.
There may be some debate about kernel graphics because it’s a performance vs reliability issue, but a registry and drive letters are just bad without question.
Anon @ speed.planet.nl – “XML based standard should be developped. Hackers will still be able to hack away in vim, but X-apps will be better at representing and editing them graphically using standard API’s.”
Standards are a great idea for config files and API’s to use them are another great idea, but making them XML is unnecessary. People seem to force XML into everything it kind-of-almost-maybe is good for. I think in this situation, it offers no advantage.
1). Who says Linux needs to replace Windows?
2). Who says Linux needs to be perfect to replace Windows?
3). Why must Linux replicate Windows?
4). What make you think unifying Linux will replace Windows?
5). Why is it your goal for Linux to replace Windows?
6). Why do think people need to know your “opinion.”
7). Why do think I should agree with your definition of “desktop readiness?”
8). Do you really think free and open source developers, as well as sincere contributors, have nightmares about Windows, or even give a rat arse about it?
9). Is Windows really a threat to Linux, or is the other way round?
10).Do you think your opinion article changes anything?
Well, for one, Microsoft Windows can’t replace my Linux installs either.
I think what the author meant was that he prefered to have gnome or kde ontop of something like dri (low level is what he said) instead of xfree, and if you think about it he’s right. It’s been years and xfree still doesn’t cut it for desktop use: weird latencies, uses too much much ram, redraws, slow like hell when apps make use of transparencies (like flash on your web browser), half the times i install linux i get a “no screens found” and have to fix it myself, i mean, think about it, how the f*ck are noobs going to fix that? on windows it just works, even if it’s 800×600@60hz. How can an os be ready for desktop if it can’t even make use of a plug n’ play monitor?
tuxracer v gatesracer….
the diffence is honesty… gatesracer has hidden most things like mixing 16bit apps with 32bit apps or
The old install procedure for nt and exchange… hmmm
install win nt install sp3 then install video drivers then install newer sp … install exchange 5.5 then exchange sp then reinstall nt sp then update windows via windows update if you get problems reinstall nt sp… erm…
ms have same problems as linux….
go compute…
Linux is ready for the desktop. Linux is ready for business.
Windows XP is not ready for business. What can a business accomplish with Wordpad or MovieMaker?!
Business is about TCO, about the bottom line. The sands will shift.
Remeber when NT4 usurped IRIX and SunOS to some extent cos it was cheaper?
Well well …
Those who ignore the pasta are doomed to reheat it.
Desktop use is about “Personal Computing” when taken out of context from business use.
The main reasons are:
Adobe – I’m thinking of Illustrator, Indesign, and to some extent Photoshop (gimp doesn’t have Pantone colors due to patent issues) and their video editing software.
Macromedia – Dreamweaver,
Autodesk – There are lots and lots of AutoCAD drawings and appliations out there.
Cross platform calendaring software. The shift to Linux is going to be a gradual one in most companies. This means that it is not enough to have good tools for Linux, they must be cross platform, so that people that still runs windows can join in.
Notably Microsoft is missing from this list. The GUI is allready much better than what Microsoft can offer and the distance to MacOS-X is shortening rapidly.
The article is also right that the GUI and the CLI tools are badly integrated. But that would be even more true for MacOS-X and nobody seam to have a problem with that, so this is evidently not a major obstacle.
The auther thinks that there need to be only one GUI environment. I disagree. What is needed is shared config files. If I say that buttons should be green in KDE they should be green in Gnome applications as well without any further configuration. Programmers use lots of GUI toolkits in the windows world, and applications still look well integrated there is no reason this could not be done in Linux. Let the programmer decide on how he want to program, and the user decide how he want it too look.
Last there is a way to get a command prompt that works the same at least on all Linux distros I have come across so far. Press ctrl-alt-F1 to get a console, then go back with ctrl-alt-F7
Well,
It is on my desktop, has been there for years, and my only
problem is that there is, to day, more choice and software, than I can cope with.
So I have decided to slowdown and think hard about what I realy need.
I fell in lowe with InfoSelect in 91 or 92.
Anybody “out there” who understans me and could help.
InfoSelect is my only reason to boot MS once in a while.
Ugh…that’s the problem with Linux. Too many people have too many opinions about how too many things should work. Forget about opinions. Forget about theories. Lets start tackling problems and stop talking.
Heck we can’t call all the opinions on the comment section here to agree with your opinion article, talk little of a whole Linux community of millions of people from different cultures, professions, races, etc to agree on a single standard.
This is reality. Only a few days ago GNOME was forked because some people didn’t agree with the “standards” it set. Do you think we live in Lala land where everyone agrees on the one true/righteous way? And if there is no competition, how can there be innovation?
I see many comments, here and elsewhere, which compare Linux to Windows on the basis of the applications that are included as standard with each OS. Why?
When Microsoft try to include applications by default they are slated because they are percieved as forcing users down one road or creating a monopoly.
When Linux does it it is seen as normal. Yes you get a lot more choice by default with most distributions, but that can be a bad thing too. It seems far too many comparisons are being drawn regarding Linux+Apps versus Microsoft minus Apps.
About 15 years ago, there were computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST which were by far more user friendly than the PC was then. They were even cheaper. Home users loved them. Anyway, they lost. Was it because the PC was more flexible? Did people like a standardized system built by competing producers?
Whatever the reason was, I think it can happen to Windows, too. Photoshop and Dreamweaver is not the reason why so many people use Windows. Until maybe 7-10 years ago, most creative work was done on Macs, but it was not like the Mac dominating the computer industry.
I use winxp. And SuSE.
winxp – cause is faster, smarter, easyer and I HAVE ALLSOFTWARE I NEED FOR MY WORK, PLEASURE and FUN!
SuSE – cause LINUXES have future, and everyone needs to know them, but this will be reasonable after 3 years. Then MAYBE linux will be a good decision.
I do not see the issue of creating a standard as a political one. I see it from an internal corporate point of view. Linux gives me the flexibility and the freedom that I will never have with proprietary OSs.
In a situation where having too much choice is a problem, make sure to have someone, capable of deciding and applying the choices. Let them decide which distribution (and when to upgrade), which kernel and what applications is best fitted to their users. When you are not capable to drive or you are afraid of the consequences, just grab a cab (and stick to M$ Windows). Concerning the poor-level desktop integration, you contraddict yourself. Didn’t you say one paragraph above that the user just wants to point and click something? I agree X is painfully slow, but on today’s PCs that is less noticeable and less relevant for the end user. As for the window managers, I dislike both KDE and gnome… …better stop here…
This article makes some good points, but a lot of it kind of bafled me, but then I read “About the author” and it all made sense. Slackware Linux!
I’m not going to go bashing on Slackware, I’m sure it’s a mighty fine distro for some, but I think we can all agree that if you’re going to write an article about linux being or not being ready for the desktop, you should use some other distro than Slackware.
“Dreamweaver is not the reason why so many people use Windows. Until maybe 7-10 years ago, most creative work was done on Macs, but it was not like the Mac dominating the computer industry.”
Uhm, no. You forgot the Unices (IRIX is a nice mention), AmigaOS and RiscOS. SGI and later Apple were dominating the design industry. Now that is x86 with Windows / Linux and Mac and on niche services SGI. The other players are so small that they are not to be noticed. And 7-10 years ago was the age SGI’s workstation and big iron was still very prosperous. That wasn’t stopped until ~4 years ago.
You’ll have to analyze why Windows/x86 won the desktop war in the middle & end 90’s, why the niche players got nearly killed, and how Windows/x86 can lose the next war to make a (IMO!) relevant contribution. I can do all but the most hard one, the latter…. difference between SGI, Apple, commodore versus Microsoft is that Microsoft has tons of cash, LOTS of marketshare, LOTS of profit, and NOT one or only a few markets. Apple and SGI reinvented themselves. Apple via NEXT, SGI via HPC / x86-64. Microsoft could just create another cash cow without reinventing themselves, using terror tactics to protect itself, or kick one entire market away and still be profitable, or reinvent itself without being in danger. Now that’s POWER.
This article pretty much summed up what I think of the issue. Except the complaining about X.
Everyone who complains about X being slow etc. and that it should be replaced by something else don’t really know anything about it. The design is just fine, the implementation is a different thing. And that is rapidly changing (x.org, cairo etc.).
How many of you bashing this article and the author’s views actually do linux programming for living? My guess would be not a single one. I would also guess that you are not too old either or then you just have absolutely NO understanding of business.
Let’s take an imaginary example: Photoshop. Adobe decides it wants to port Photoshop to linux. How would they do it? Which distribution would they target and which GUI toolkit/DE? As you bashers most likely do NOT understand, software development is NOT cheap so it would NOT be possible to target many distributions or DEs, only ONE. But which one? No one has the answer to that and the end result is that Photoshop will NOT be ported. Just imagine how much it would cost in time and money to test the product for many different DEs..
IF there was a standard base system and DE to target it would be possible and feasible to do the porting, it would be possible to run the software on all or at least most computers running linux.
I have used and programmed on/for linux professionally for years. When I first tried linux I found it really cool and interesting to poke around and try things. But after some time it gets really boring and annoying that you HAVE to do that. I really DON’T want to play around, I want to get my WORK DONE.
KDE and Gnome have come a long way but are still just too painful for me to use. I still use WindowMaker and mostly xterm. And as before, I’m placing my bet on GNUStep
The amount of senseless comments here really answers the “is linux ready for the desktop?” question
But, in the end, it all comes down to your own preference. I’m using BeOS as my main desktop OS, but I won’t force it down other people’s throat. I think that’s the thing that bothers me most: there is a group of Linux fanatics that almost force me to use Linux instead of Windows. I really don’t get this; the Linux/OSS community say it’s all about choice, yet they force others to use Linux. If you don’t use Linux, then you’re stupid. Where’s the choice in that?
Where are we going, if someone gets flamed, yelled at, ridicueled, only becasue he doesn’t share your affection for a platform, in this case Linux?
Firstly, forking projects has shown to accellerate Linux development. Xorg-X11 is the perfect example.
If it wasn’t for Xfree forking into 2 different projects, Linux wouldn’t get translucencies or any new effects until 10 years after longhorn. You cannot have competition with only 1 library.
Its normally the small guys who force the bigger guys to work hard
Thats one reason why I am thankful of the Enlightenment project.. Thanks to E17, that will force GTK and QT to improve more rapidly, while if there was only 1 type of library, linux would barely evolve (we’d still be at 3.11 level).
Also, about ‘It is very rude to ask for a “brand new kernel” just to be able to install the operating system.’ The reason that upgrading the kernel is a good thing, is because people want new features. One thing that needs to be done though, is a standardised packaging system that lets you pretty much put drivers on a disk and load them during install if the kernel has no driver. My project, Driver on Demand was designed to encourage a move towards that direction..
‘Breaking binaries is a bad thing and it’s hard to find an excuse to justify it.’ Your right, but once again, the linux development cycle is a lot faster. Windows has their own binary compatibility problems, just since their development cycle is different, and they control all the products people use, they can wrap all the updates into the Service packs, and make all their products work in later ones, so they can put in extra effort to making sure MS office works in every copy.
Thats also a bad thing though.. One thing you’ll notice these days is that Windows is becoming bloated because of all in the sake of ancient compatibility.. I also haven’t seen any binary compatibilities before either, except in VMware, and Wine, and problems with those are to be expected anyway..
Auzy
http://driverondemand.sf.net
http://one.logicnoc.com/~auzy/index.php (The first search engine designed solely for finding linux drivers.. Still under development)
IMO, that’s the biggest problem with Linux not being ready for the desktop – no proper package management system. The only other problem mentioned I’ve ran into is the lack of unification between GNOME and KDE. Honestly, until we get a proper GUI that works, Linux won’t be ready for the desktop. Opening a shell and running RPM/apt-get isn’t what the ordinary user wants. The ordinary user wants a GUI. Fix that and standardise GNOME/KDE, and Linux will almost be certainly ready for the desktop.
When all summed up, His _only_ concern seems to be how to overthrow MS Windows from the top position.
This is actually important. Not because Microsoft is evil, but because its large market share creates a situation where people equate Windows with an operation system. Everything that doesn’t look like the windows of today will be considered bad. Nobody will even try it. This means that good ideas may not get the foothold they deserve. Actually this is a problem even to Microsoft. If the y make major changes in their upcoming Longhorn, people will not like it.
Rather funny that the most important advice by most of these “what Linux needs” apologists seems to be to cut 90% of the choice Free Software offers off.
As long as it is free software there is always a choice.
But the choice between KDE, Gnome and other desktops is a choice that actually limits your further choices. Once you have made it applications from some of the other desktops will look foreign and feel inconsistent. That’s why we need one standard. That standard doesn’t need to say how things should look on your desktop, but rather what should be configurable and how. That way we could apply a Gnome skin on Wednesday and KDE skin on Monday and yet something else for the rest of the week. We could chose applications from both Gnome and KDE and still have a consistent looking desktop. This would create a potential for a much richer work environment.
[/i]
Standard folders such as “My Documents”must be provided
This is an extremely good idea. It would be much better to have a “My Documents” icon on your desktop than the currently so common “Home”. The problem with the home directory as base for your documents is that it contains lots of configuration files that the user doesn’t need to see, other than through a configuration GUI. Some applications have a tendency to put things in the home directory without making the user aware of it. This means that the user might be surprised finding them there if he opens his home folder. And as he has no recollection of creating them he may even delete them if they doesn’t seam to be of interest to him.
Having a folder called “My Documents” that only contains stuff that the user himself actually put there would greatly improve usability. It also is closer to the desktop metaphor. How many have your real home on your physical desktop, not many I hope. Having a folder with your documents on your physical desktop would be much more common.
Some of this could be achieved by having a more strict organization of users home directory e.g. by introducing a /home/username/etc/ structure but there are probably too many legacy applications that would break this. Even if this could be solved having “Home” as a desktop icon still have problems as it breaks the logical structure. E.g. when you see your home directory icon on your desktop, you double/click it open and go one step up in the directory structure. If the user trusted the spatial arrangement of the icons the user would be led to believe that he was in /home/username/Desktop, but instead he is in /home/username.
and in that folder he finds his Desktop. Not very logical.
The “My Document” naming has another advantage. The its naming comes from something that relates to everyday life, while the “Home” folder relates to the world of computer operating systems.
that’s a great article!
I specialy love the idea of drive letters.
But may be it’s not enough to make it a good desktop OS. I guess that we may provide a registry base and also high support for vba. We may also remove this crap that is multi-user environment.
It would be great!
Please, hurt me! HURRRTTTT MEEEE !!!
LOL
May be some people may forget there windows experience before speaking or trying to bring that in the linux world.
Please, make linux make his own way before trying to bring it to the desktop at any price. We have seen what happened when it went out on light five years ago : windows people went to linux for the hype, and this is no help for it. I guess people should try by themselves without preasure (hype, or whatever else).
Please let linux live by itself and its comunity.
Because people have not given it a chance. Tired of people acting like MS Windows became “Good for the desktop” over night.
I can remember people saying the same things about the car companies Kia and Hyundai. They make junk, they will NEVER compete with the cars from Japan etc. And yes at first they did make junk, but now look, by offering lower prices and warrenties that cover the life of the car they built a loyal base and made enough money to now be able to build MUCH better cars. Now we see Hyundai starting to sell cars at Honda numbers and people who would have never thought to buy one now running out to get one.
Give it some TIME! Help it grow by not being cheap and BUYING a copy of Linux and or Linux services and stop whining.
No company will ever be like Microsoft in our life times. No Linux company will ever have 50 Billion in the bank to spend on development. Yet the fact that Billy Boy, the richest man on earth spends more time talking about Linux then his own products tells you something!
> Even OpenOffice opens in less than two seconds (On an AMD 2500+ PC). [under WinXP]
so what? The same here under Linux (IBM T41p, Pentium-M 1700):
first time: 6 sec.
second and following times: 2 sec.
X & KDE-3.2 does feel as snappy as WinXP btw. even on a PIII-500MHz
To all future “what Linux needs”-article authors:
– Stop speaking for all people, you don’t and you can’t.
– Stop making a fool of yourself by submitting yet another lame article.
– Stop using Linux. The only person who is clearly not ready for the Linux desktop yet, is the author of an article like this one.
I read these articles every week (either for or against Linux on the desktop), and it gets aggrivating. These are articles written by people who really don’t have a clue. OSNews, I subscribed to your site, not because of these articles. Just because it’s long doesn’t mean it should be accepted.
Frankly, the constant barrage of “Linux is ready/not ready” is getting senseless. I do not care that this person believes that Linux is not ready. He is nobody. I will look to my own personal experiences as to why Linux is ready or not.
I don’t mind articles on people who made the switch, and their real experiences with a certain Distro, or more hopefully more business related switching experiences, but frankly, these soap box “I know all” articles are getting annoying.
As a subscriber, I was told that my opinion would be weighed just a tad bit more. Please, take this into account. These types of articles server no one, and only make for flamewars.
“As you bashers most likely do NOT understand, software development is NOT cheap so it would NOT be possible to target many distributions or DEs, only ONE. But which one? No one has the answer to that and the end result is that Photoshop will NOT be ported. Just imagine how much it would cost in time and money to test the product for many different DEs..”
Not much money, in fact. It’s not difficult creating a cross-distro application on Linux, and Adobe wouldn’t have a problem doing it. If the company has the ability to write for multiple versions of Windows, and multiple version of Mac, it wouldn’t be difficult to develop something that can run on multiple distro’s.
hell after recompliing kernel module for ati 3d driver i still got no 3d!!!
nvidia is way better.
linux does suck just like windows.
mac os x doesnt suck. apple proprietary SUCKS!!!
all OSes SUCK!!!
“By “ready for the desktop” we refer to a system that can be used by someone without the help of a geek-relative or a specialized magazine.” heck windows dosent qualify for this.
i cant stop counting the times that i haveto help neigbhours with windows. or how many times we get paid at the computer shop to fix things.
One last thing. Instead of forcing Linux to be like Windows, how about the novel idea of teaching people Linux??? Wow, interesting.
The funny thing reading here is most of the things being said about Linux are the same in the Mac OS X. There are no silly drive letters that can confuse people!
Funny how people can just pick up a Mac and after a few days can get it to work for them even if they have NEVER used one. A well put together version of Linux like Linspire, Lycoris or Xandros can be figured out by a user if pre-installed. All you have to do is show some basics to them.
I have written on here several times that I use Xandros as my everyday business desktop, Evolution as my email client on exchange and Star Office as my office suite. And also that my Mother, Grandmother, Sister, brother, roommate and girlfriend are all using Linspire and are very pleased and BRAG to their friends when they hear that their friends got spyware, a virus a worm or their machine got flagged because the spyware was sending out spam without them even knowing.
Instead of always picking on the negitive or over blowing the positive, see if YOU can find a task that Linux does well. My brother LOVES KB3 for CD Burning because it works EVERY time. Unlike Roxio and even sometimes Nero that tend to slow down or lock up your machine if you are doing anything fancy when you try to use it, my mother loves Gaim and Mozilla as does my Girlfriend. I tried to get my girl to use Win4lin so she could use the Windows versions of Yahoo, AIM and MSN messengers. She laughed at me. Gaim works great and does everything I need she told me.
Most of the things mentioned on here are things power users notice not Joe Schmoe.
“By “ready for the desktop” we refer to a system that can be used by someone without the help of a geek-relative or a specialized magazine.” heck windows dosent qualify for this.
You are exactly right, my friend. The only thing that makes Windows any more ‘ready’ for the desktop than Linux is that there is an army of people out there who know it. If it wasn’t for me, many of my friends and family would have thrown their computers out the window by now. Windows is a horrible mess to anyone who doesn’t ‘know computers’ – probably more intuitive than Linux, but then again … that isn’t really saying much
Sorry. Didn’t even make it past the intro before having to stop and comment. Nor have I read any other comments, so I hope I’m not just restating what someone else has pointed out.
but the fact is that when we read “ready for the desktop” we understand “ready to replace Microsoft Windows”
Your just plain wrong here. This is NOT a fact; its still your opinion and you failed to recognize it as such. The fact is, not eveybody judges “ready for the desktop” by the same criteria. For instance when I think of “ready for the desktop”, I look no further than my own needs and make a judment solely on that basis. I’m not looking for my wife’s desktop, my mother’s, my best friend’s.
I suspect that’s how Linux evangelists evaluate “readiness”, but scarecly would I say “most people”. For me, and likely people like me, Windows was never ready for the desktop. From my point of view, its ships incomplete; not ready for use. Only through additional purchases will the MS OS be made ready for any use at all. This is unacceptable. So when I evaluate “readiness” on the desktop, replacing Windows isn’t even a factor.
Just my thought. Take it or leave it for what its worth.
KDE and GNOME are both good desktop environments and are good both stand alone. Freedesktop.org standards have bent over backwards to standardize them, to the point where I can drag and drop a file from Konqueror into nautilus!
This is really not too much to ask. If that is possible it means that the drag & drop mechanism works, and that it doesn’t matter what toolkit your application is written in. This increases the choice of the user.
Now if they only could unite on how to handle the Trash. If a user throws something in the Trash in one environment it should be in the Trash in the other enviromnent as well, and when the trach is emptied it should notify all applications that need to know about this regardless of toolkit.
I mean really… PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS CAN’T USE WINDOWS EITHER. How many times have you been called because: ‘my internet doesn’t work’ ‘I can’t print’ ‘my screen went blank’ and on and on and on.
Sorry, but just being consistent with your interface and being able to click things does not mean the user has any understanding of what they are doing, or can discover how to do something they have not done before. The average computer-illiterate person needs just as much help with windows as they would with linux.
Some distributons have desktops than are even easier than Windows. The point is that there is just one Windows Desktop. Even if Lindows may be easier than Windows if your geek-relative is a Gnome-geek he might not know how to help you. This is why I mentioned that if you trained someone with Lindows, this knowledge wouldn’t be of help if the student switches for example to Fedora running Gnome.
this kind of article is exactle the opposite of what RMS is propagating! RMS states that it is far less important to have some great software but of much more value to have a great community that help each other and create together.
the goal to diminish the difference between users and developers (as it has been for many years) is IMHO quite an important thing and for much both objectives together are hundred times more important than substituing linux for windows.
personally i don’t believe that a majority of OSS developers have any ambition to replace windows with linux and that this whole “ready for the desktop” discussion is led by such whining persons as the articles author.
of course he is more than right in most of his points, but GNU/Linux IS NOT ABOUT BINARY COMPATIBILITY and having backward compatibility (to a degree) in windows has brought us exactly the mess that is windows today! having the guts to change bad design decisions is what should make software great, not sticking to your past mistakes.
apart from that the Linux Standard Base LSB and other project are working on binary compatibility.
surely it would be nice to have everything run anywhere, but that is not the most important thing! it IS important to have a community and just replacing windows with commercial (and proprietary) linux solutions is not going to help anyone!
jethr0
Problem here is the comparison.
Windows minded people are comparing Windows to Linux and say he! Linux is not ready because it has no C: drive?? huh??
Is like saying Windows is not ready for the server because it is only usable in GUI mode….mmmmmm.
Play with Linux try and learn it and you might like it or not but the only underlines you are not ready for Linux.
You could also argue that Apples are not a fruit because they are not Orange.
“This is why I mentioned that if you trained someone with Lindows, this knowledge wouldn’t be of help if the student switches for example to Fedora running Gnome.”
Hummm people switch from home using Windows to school using Mac. And sometimes from Home using Windows XP to the Cyber Cafe using Windows 2000 to school using Mac OS 8.5 to their friends house using Mac OS X.
Guess what people still seem to manage. I think people should be given a LITTLE more credit for their ability to learn.
There are not too many people who have used Gnome and have never used KDE. Most people even though they have liked one or the other tried both before picking one. On top of that most people install both KDE and Gnome when using Fedora or other versions (Unless they don’t have the space or just don’t like KDE or Gnome)