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.
Where I work time is money.. more time spent means more money spent. And testing is very time consuming even if some of it can be automated.
Supporting different versions of Windows or Mac touches one of the points the author makes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Windows backwards compatible? I don’t know about Mac, but Linux (distributions, kernels, libraries) is NOT bakcwards compatible. It is NOT guaranteed.
Maybe you have more experience with this than me. I have mostly worked on software for a very strictly defined platform. Even that is a lot of work when you take into consideration the different versions of libraries which may or may not be backwards compatible.
From my experience I can tell you that knowing exactly what your target platform is, developing and testing on it is a LOT easier, faster and cheaper.
And for all of you who say standards are not needed and the author should not be speaking for YOU.. why do YOU think he means YOU when he says WE? If I say we went to movies last night does that mean YOU were there with us? No. Also, why do you wish to limit the freedom of others to create and follow standards if they so wish? Just because YOU don’t agree doesn’t give you any right to deny it from others, or does it? I’d really like YOU to explain your reasoning..
Standards are for people who wish to follow them. You are free to NOT follow them. Just write your own non-standard software and quit your whining.
I agree that Linux needs more unification before it will be more accepted, but through which means? Linux doesn’t need a standard desktop window manager and interface imposed by regulation. It needs someone to develop a solution so compelling that users and developers flock to it. Leave those other choices to those who do not want to migrate in that direction. The problem is the development community for Linux does not have a group of developers right now with sufficient vision and foresight to make this happen. At least, not that I have seen.
The author hasn’t really considered the openness of Linux and its apps, he just talks of cases where commercial software would run on Linux. Today this is hard, cause you can’t make packages for all distros on your own. Also its rare to find packages for other CPU’s like PowerPC.
As long as all programs/tools are open source this is _not_ a problem. Have been using urpmi alot myself, wich in many cases make apps easier to install then on any other OS.
Commercial software for Linux might work, but in most cases people make them OSS, also so they can fit with other Unix’es. This is a good idea, since everyone wouldn’t need to run the same OS, or have the same hardware, but could use the same apps. Apple has clearly got this idea. Have recently tried OSX myself and it is so cuuute, easy to use for non-geeks, and has got several Linux/Unix-apps. I would want this if I couldn’t handle Linux, but luckily I CAN ,} !
…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.
What?! Me too I run several MS-also apps in Linux, on a slower machine than yours, and I find this to be totally wrong. Have an Win XP-box at work wich I run Mozilla and Openoffice on, and this is like entering sirup-modus on approx same specs. In fact most people using Win lift their eyebrowses when I show them the speed of my Gnome-desktop vs Windows. I can’t really understand the talk about Linux’ GUI lacking, apart from probably being slow on older machines, cause on this machine I must say it must be about twice the speed of Windows. Of course it would be nice with a smaller version of X without network, but it is important to think beyond Windows, especially nowadays when the net is becoming more mainstream. It is good to have this possibility.
Linux is probably ready for the most inexperienced users, who’ll only start apps and use them as they are. Like in corporations or schools. Semi-experienced, like people wanting to get into computers, might find Linux a bit hard in the beginning. It’s also that you have to learn Linux, like everything else. Oh, my first week with Win98, how I struggled! Now I can set it up in an hour, cause I know it. Had been using the Amiga before that, and the transition from that to Windows(98) was much harder than the recent move from Win2k to Linux. Btw Win2k installation sucks compared to Mandrake’s, haven’t tried XP…
Linux is not ready for the desktop because the suitability of Linux for the desktop is under discussion.
If Linux was ready for the desktop, there would be no discussion.
Noone discusses if XP are ready for the desktop, while one can discuss for months (as we do around here) if Linux is or is not ready.
Hence, there are still things to settle.
For some people, of course, it doesn’t matter. The would be happy with Amiga Workbench or QNX on their desktop, and they sure are happy with Linux. But those people (all three of them) don’t matter. Corporate users FORCED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES to use Linux or their desktop also don’t matter. Heck, their employees would even force them to suck their **cks if that could save them some bucks.
> hell after recompliing kernel module for ati 3d driver i still got no 3d!!!
maybe you forgot to use fglrxconfig (/opt/ati/bin/fglrxconfig) to set up the driver.
hint: backup your XF86Config before
Actually if you pick a version of Linux (Like Red Hat for instance) Backwards compatibility will not be a problem anymore then with Windows. If backwards compatibility were such a big problem then companies like Red Hat would not be able to make any money.
I work for the US government in an office with 300 developers and testers who write the financial software for several Gov agencies using Windows 2000. Everyone (But me) uses Windows 2000 and yet something as simple as a patch can set them back for months.
I make the standard image to be rolled out to users and we still have not certified SP4 because it breaks a bunch of applications written in VB6 and .Net. And those Windows apps have been written on Windows 2000 for Windows 2000.
I think backwards compatibility is a real misnomer.
If, as the article states, “ready for the desktop” really means “ready to replace Windows,” and given the author’s contention that Linux cannot do that, then I wonder what I’ve been using, lo, these last six years. And for years before that with AmigaOS. I’ve NEVER run Windows on my home machine. All these “not ready” articles are simply Windows users tilting at windmills. They’ve seen the incredible adoption rate of Linux and BSD, and I guess that somehow makes them feel insecure. I don’t understand that; it’s not like they can’t co-exist. Yet they seem to feel the need to go out of their way to dissuade others from using anything but Windows. “Linux is not ready for the desktop,” they drone, yet many of us seem to be doing just fine, thank you. Entire cities are ramping up, or are already using Linux on untold numbers of desktops. They must be entirely clueless, huh?
No, it will take a lot more than this weak FUD to slow the juggernaut that is Linux.
“Noone discusses if XP are ready for the desktop, while one can discuss for months (as we do around here) if Linux is or is not ready.”
No one discusses if XP is ready for the desktop because most peoples time talking about Windows is spent talking about all the Worms, spyware, viruses, hacks and other nasty things that happen when using Windows.
When OSX first came out I didn’t hear people talking about if it was ready for the desktop yet it wasn’t. OSX was not backwards compatable with OS 9 but that blew over quick. OSX was missing a bunch of stuff it has now yet people ran out to get it.
Come on.
Windows XP isn’t ready for my desktop yet …
“Linux is not ready for the desktop because the suitability of Linux for the desktop is under discussion.
If Linux was ready for the desktop, there would be no discussion.
Noone discusses if XP are ready for the desktop, while one can discuss for months (as we do around here) if Linux is or is not ready.
Hence, there are still things to settle.”
Yes and where smoke is, is fire. If one would post 10 of such stories about Windows, then Windows is not ready just because discussions arise. Ofcourse it would sound ridiculous because 95% of the people use Windows as desktop which implies it is ready while the small percentages of Linux and MacOSX tell us otherwise. Meanwhile, many people [even GNOME/KDE people] argue 4DWM and CDE aren’t “desktop-ready” while they have and still do serve as a desktop to get work done instead if playing Quake6 or Doom9.
A more accurate take is the fact people are using an OS for their desktop implies it is ready for them. For what they want to use it for, it works just fine. Various factors still blur this for example dual-boots, zealotry, unavailable alternatives, not their own choice, followers etc or just to say “non-rational decisisions”.
If you want to see GNU Linux take a lot of business away from MS (and this is what people mean when they ask is it ready for the desktop)then there are certain things that need to be done. The article attempts to address these issues.
GNU Linux offers advantages in security, stability and cost. To compete fully it needs to improve in areas such as ease-of-use, look-and-feel and the quality of the software available. And to compete effectively against a company that controls 90% of the desktop OS market, it needs a strong and unified approach. The article attempts to make this point.
I think it is inevitable that one or two distros will come to the fore. Suse looks well-placed to do so. It will be interesting to see what happens to Mandrake, Fedora, Xandros and Sun’s Java Desktop. All other distros will be for hobbyists.
I agree that there is no place for both Gnome and KDE. Probably they will be merged into one.
Once GNU Linux is focussed and clear in its opposition to MS, its strengths will give it a chance of being “ready for the desktop”. If it remains fragmented, it will, no matter how good, stand no chance.
Well, is RH9 backwards compatible with RH6.2 for example? Is RH9 backwards compatible with Debian 2? Is it compatible at all or to which degree?
There is no clearly defined set of software (kernel, libraries etc) for which to develop. That IS a problem from a commercial software point of view as well as OSS.
With OSS backwards compatibility is not necessarily a problem since you can always compile the software for the new libraries etc. that you happen to have installed on you box. But not everyone knows how to do it.
The problem is that if I write software on RH9 there are no guarantees that it will run on other distros or even other versions of RH. Really, there aren’t. Recompiling and patching are NOT an option for commercial software or for “average user”.
I never meant that there should be any kind of regulation or imposition. I neither said that if one dekstop becomes the standard, the others must go away. Standards are defined usually by most of the professionals that work in in the industry of a given subject in some sort of democratic way through forum or consortiums. Standards also evolve, change and die. The ANSI C Language is for example a standard, you are free to link or even use in-line assembly code, but if you “choose” to comply with standard ANSI C you are expected to have a portable program that works with any ANSI C-compliant compiler. The point of my article is that it is convient for most of us (not everyone) to have such standard at a “distro” level. This doesn’t prevent the use of the Linux kernel or the GNU software in general for other propourses without regard of the standard. There are C compilers that are not ANSI-C compliant for a number of reasons, and they are just fine, but lack of standards as a policy is also a form of dictatorship. Standards don’t necessarily prevent competition, a good example is J2EE. I’m sorry if someone felt that I was trying to degrade her/his distribution of choice or the way in which he/she uses Linux. My distribution of choice (Slackware) is in fact far away than the “ideal” system: Mandrake or Suse are obviously closer. The definition of “ready for the desktop” I gave is the popular definition, and not the “right” or “wrong” definition, that’s a fact, not a matter of opinion. What’s the first thing that a magazine does when it wants to test whether Linux is ready for the desktop? A MS-Office vs Open Office debate. In this sense I guess that the current Linux desktops are in a very good position. Even if I have used Windows for many comparisons I never said that Linux must be like Windows in order to be ready for the desktop. We should also learn from the Windows mistakes, this is why I pointed that driver management is not quite good in Windows, and Linux has the change to implement it in a much clever way. A nice person pointed in this forum pointed me to “Project Utopia” that takes this concept in mind.
Enough is enough. This site was by far a hell of a lot more palatable without the troll sessions that now infect it like Slashdot. Why the focus on the same ol same ol opinionated writings day after day? Stick to what this site’s title stipulates, news. Nothing more and nothing less. You are going to start loosing some of us OSNews old timers who are sick of the mud slinging.
What kind of desktop environment would we have on the different operating systems out there today if they were all made by coders?
>
>
Environments that would actually be *USEFUL* for once?
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!
>
>
You sir are an total idiot. OSS has been around for over 30 years. It’ll be around long after you are dead and chucked into your grave along with the sofware you are using.
The success or failure of OSS is *NOT* directly tied to being able to solve this or any other problem morons like you can come up with.
The success or failure of OSS depends upon the premise that people are willing to work together to achive their various goals, and as long as that premise holds true OSS has a very
bright future.
“It should be pretty clear by now that pretty much *NOBODY* is actually paying any attention to these articles.”
If no one is paying attention then why are there 130+ comments here on this article.
I suggest that the majority of Linux users don’t want Linux to be “ready for desktop”. That would mean that a majority of people using PC’s might actually use Linux and then these “OS learners” wouldn’t feel so special and elite.
I use Gentoo. I don’t have any dependency problems here.. I just type: emerge whatever and after compiling is there. True it is longer approach that “just” downloading & installing but hey, I have fast, stable and modern system, without problems with missing libraries, broken modules, etc… everything just works perfect.
Oh there was a new version of KDE released yesterday? Great, “emerge kde” – few hours later I have the latest KDE (or whatever app) installed and running. How long do you have to wait till your favourite distro release it?
Gee, I wonder how I can grab a binary package/installer of Mozilla, OpenOffice.org or even Quake3 and have them running perfectly on any Linux distro? Maybe you could learn something from them? 😉
//It should be pretty clear by now that pretty much *NOBODY* is actually paying any attention to these articles//
Yes, yes, I see your point — especially with the evidence of *136 POSTS* (so far) about this article.
You’re right. Nobody cares.
Tongue firmly in cheek. (Hey, I know it’s full of holes but so wasthe original article…)
We know what “ready for the desktop” means, but what is Windows?
A trademark. Repeat after me, a trademark. No, it’s not ME an neither XP. Those are just variations of the day that use the specific “Windows” trademark. But they are flavors of Windows, aren’t they?. No, they are products that use specific kernels brought in from the outside (QDOS, VMS,…). This means that an application compiled with one kernel in mind may not work with another one unless oodles of old crap is also installed on the ‘new’ “Windows”-branded OS. For example, at the moment some “Windows” OSes use the XP moniker while others the 2003 one. An application targeting XP is thus not necessarily compatible with 2003 even though we read the word “Windows” in both products. However, Microsoft is so nice as to compile and re-pack all old APIs and technology proven to be unsafe to use (hide extensions, execute from a mail client,…) for each and every implementations.
The truth is that we don’t have Oracle or Java for “Windows” but for some “certified” “Windows” distributions like NT, 2000, 2003, in essence, “different Windows contenders”. So, at the end of the day, a “Windows application” is never source code that you expect to compile on your “Windows” OS, and the “Windows” moniker alone is not granted to make it compile even if you HAVE the source code. Then, the host will probably need VERY expensive “Windows” utilities. It’s not uncommon to find out that the Visual C compiler used to program the ‘source code’ calls functionality that your version of Visual C doesn’t happen to have. (Of course, asolution isonly a couple of hundred bucks away) When we refer to a “Windows” application, we refer to a program that we expect to run in any kind of “Windows” flavour using a ‘lowest common denominator” version of “Windows” OS. If I have a CD-ROM Encyclopedia for Windows I expect to run it without problems on Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, 2000, etc. Anything more complex and I’m up shit creek without a paddle.
Windows 3.1, Windows 9x, Active Desktop, whatever
The point here is not which one is better. There are countless articles on the matter, the problem is that we have so many of them. Please, let’s not talk about personal taste and bug-ridden virus vectors. 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 (say, an Z4 beemer I learned to drive with in Kent and a Renault Espace in centre of Paris: exactly the same experience!!). Could we say the same about Windows?. Are our private lessons on Windows 95 to be of help to our parents when they receive their new computer running XP or Longhorn (if they live that long…)?. If an old relative calls you from a long distance telling you that he runs Windows 98 and that he can’t get into the Internet, can you give him instructions as clear as “Go buy a new PC, you old fuck!” No, because a Linux desktop is often a leftover from work that is unusable with the latest version of “Window” OSes.
There are struggling efforts to integrate these diverse desktops. It’s a good start, but if we intend to make the whole world’s computing environment work the same way, why should we have umpteen 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
well it allredy hs ben discussed that xp isnt ready for the desktop. so tat would mean that it isnt.
great logic
“Well, is RH9 backwards compatible with RH6.2 for example? Is RH9 backwards compatible with Debian 2? Is it compatible at all or to which degree?”
LOL! Is Windows XP backwards compatible with Windows 3.11 I mean come on. How far do you want to go back. That is part of the problem with Windows now because to be backward compatible they keep in code from the Win 95 days. That is why you see a lot of viruses and worms affect a range of Windows versions.
RH9 being backwards compat with Debian is like asking if OSX is backwards compat with FreeBSD. Yes there is some free BSD in OSX but they are 2 different OS’s. Remember with Linux that it’s only the kernel that is similar across distros. How they add applications, toolsets etc on top of that is the choice of each company.
You say: “With OSS backwards compatibility is not necessarily a problem since you can always compile the software for the new libraries etc. that you happen to have installed on you box. But not everyone knows how to do it.” But who would have to know how to do it? The application developer should know how to do it! The regular user would not need to know that! So who is the backwards compat issue affecting. Also a lot of times you can roll back libraries and things of that nature. You can have an installer like APT or in linspire their click and run does that.
“Yes, yes, I see your point — especially with the evidence of *136 POSTS* (so far) about this article. You’re right. Nobody cares.”
Nobody wants to let his provocation uncommented, but at the same times doesnt care for his actual arguments, because they are so ivory-tower.
Really? Are they statically linked or how do they work?
Don’t they also happen to use their own widgets / GUI toolkit?
Wouldn’t it be kind of stupid to have all the software use their own toolkits and libraries?
So, breaking binary compatibility isn’t a problem on Windows? Please tell me, then, why are there _many_ games (an application type that Windows is famous for) written to use DirectX 6 that simply will not function with DX7 or higher? If DX<6 is installed, the game(s) complains that a “newer” DX is needed. If DX>6 is installed, the game(s) complains that a “newer” DX is needed. Why, why WHY?
At least I haven’t had that problem with OpenGL games on Linux. If a 3d compatible card is installed and the X drivers are configured (which isn’t hard, so long as you READ THE READMEs), the game runs. Sure it’s a different matter if we’re talking about SDL or any of the other APIs, but again they’re not hard to install at all.
And talking about being hard to install or not, have you noticed that many of the newer “Newbie Friendly” distros around (even the commercial ones) are based on a Debian system? Considering Debian is reputed to be a hard-to-use system, wouldn’t that make it corporate madness to base a product on it? The reason is that once it is setup (which the Install will do for the user automagically), Debian systems are an absolute doddle to keep maintained and install/remove new software. Perfect for a “desktop” system.
And one last thing: I do object to the insination that Linux isn’t suitable for someone’s grandparents or non-tech-savvy relatives, and that they would need assistance in doing anything under Linux. Even bloody Windows isn’t suitable for the non-initiated. How can anyone say that Windows is intuitive? Using a computer is not intuitive it is a learned activity. Only very primal thing like fear are intuitive, everything else is learned. Be clear on the meaning of the word before using it.
//Nobody wants to let his provocation uncommented, but at the same times doesnt care for his actual arguments, because they are so ivory-tower.//
Right. Hence, they *do* care. Hence, the OP is full of it.
C’mon, I know they teach logic in Deutschland …
“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”
I really doubt that there is a os that can be installed by a total computer newbie without any education first – not even Windows versions falls into this cateqory… thats why preinstalled pc-s are sold in the first place.
I don’t know why some Linux users get upset when even another Linux user points out current issues with Linux that need improvement? The author makes some valid points. If it wasn’t an issue then when most of us install our particular Linux distribution we would not need to spend a day learning how to properly configure our system to have things such as codec support and 3D drivers. To be ready for the desktop a user should be able to install the OS with little effort and be ready to use at log-in.
STANDARDS:
Novell released YaST to offer a standard for other distributions. Problem is not all distributions are RPM based. Having two lines (Debian based and RPM based) is some what slowing Linux migration on the desktop. Solution though is fairly simple and that is developers such as those that are creating software like auto-package are working towards being able to convert any compiled package to your distribution allowing you to easily install software. This type of unified installer is what all Linux distributions need to be more attractive and user friendly.
Even though some people are complaining I’m happy that Novell is seriously working with SuSE Linux AG to make a unified desktop model for their next release. Having to many choices can be over whelming to some users and can even be considered bloat when packaging the OS for distribution. We seriously don’t need to have more than one multi-chat messenger come with a Linux distribution. Maybe if developers focused on one then we would all have VOIP and Webcam support by now for MSN Hotmail and Yahoo users instead of hearing excuses of “it’s coming soon” for the past year.
Video codec support is something that concerns a lot of Linux users. This has been the main complaint on most Linux forums. Having a Linux distributor such as Novell basically say they won’t offer popular codecs because they don’t know whether or not it’s legal to do so is B.S. If commercial Linux distributors such as Linspire can offer this with out being sued then so can others. Hopefully when Novell and Red Hat include Real Player 10 with it’s universal codec support in future distributions they won’t cripple it for end users. Having a consumer purchase an OS only to find out he/she cannot play basically any video is nonesense and down right misleading. Hopefully Linux developers are listening.
Compatibility with Windows applications is another issue. Several distributions do include the free version of Wine. This is nice but seriously it’s not easy to use. Either improve the free Wine to have a user friendly GUI or commercial distributors should consider including CrossOver Office and Cedega (WineX) in their Linux distributions. Linux distributions would then be more attractive to both businesses and home consumers.
RIGHT!!
I have said on here a million times that I have put at least 20 people on Linspire and only a couple have come back to ask me for help. Most of the help questions were not with Linspire but problems with using and older version of Crossover Office I installed so they could use Office. But once I showed them Star Office those questions ended.
No Linux distro is perfect but there are lots of useable distros. And if (Like Dell and IBM and Gateway do with Windows) You have it configured to do the basics for the user the user out the box the user will be able to use it. And they will learn more complex things over time.
If I recall correctly, when RH6.2 shipped the current version of Windows was 95 or was it 98? So as I see it, it is not the same as XP <–> 3.11. I don’t personally care much about backwards compatibility, but from a business point of view it IS important. You think Microsoft does it for fun?
RH and Debian use the same kernel, the same libraries etc. But they use different versions, they have different directory structures, they have stuff the other one doesn’t have etc. Again, as I see it, it is not the same as OSX <–> FreeBSD. OSX <–> Darwin comparison would be closer.
True, the software developer should be able to take care of the library etc. compatibility and that is exactly the point! It is NOT possible! The library versions on the user’s system could be anything, s/he might not have certain libraries installed etc. There is NO standard which defines what WILL BE on the user’s system and the developer CAN NOT know it. Supporting ALL possibilities IS practically NOT possible. From a business point of view it makes absolutely NO sense since it would be VERY expensive.
That is why there has to be a standard for these things if we want Linux to have a chance against Microsoft or if we want commercial software to be ported to Linux.
Great points and very correct in your statements. As much as everyone wants to scream freedom of choice and crap; if you want new users who aren’t geeks things need to be simplified. I know all the zealots will scream that I’m a “suite” and that I’m just trying to push Microsft’s cause, blah blah blah. I’m not. I use Linux one box is running SuSE the other is running Onebase and I thuroughly enjoy it, and yes I do have a Windows box. I’d love to see Linux on the desktop, but in reality it still has some growing up to do and alittle more standardization. Period.
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?
>
>
Let me tell you a story about Plug ‘n’ Play monitors. I bought one to replace a old monitor that died. Still am using it for that matter. But I had to configure the settings for it by hand for both Windows and Linux because niether could figure out how to configure it using Plug ‘n’ Play for the higher res. modes it offered.
Why? Because the monitor didn’t have a Plug ‘n’ Play
vendor name. Both Windows and Linux couldn’t figure out
what company made the freaking monitor.
Here’s the Plug ‘n’ Play information for the monitor:
Monitor Information ————————————————–
Monitor Name Unknown (5539/777)
Monitor Type 17″
Viewable Image 15.7″/40 cm
Serial Number 493
Date of Manufacture 43. week of year 2002
Max. Horizontal Size 32 cm
Max. Vertical Size 24 cm
Display Type RGB Color
Voltage Level 0.700V/0.300V (1.000V p-p)
Input Signal Type Analog
Gamma Factor 1.27
DPMS Support Standby, Suspend, Active OFF
*********************************************************
So don’t run around claiming that Plug ‘n’ Play is all that people like you claim it is because it’s not.
It’s *VERY* hardware dependant.
–QUOTE–
I suggest that the majority of Linux users don’t want Linux to be “ready for desktop”. That would mean that a majority of people using PC’s might actually use Linux and then these “OS learners” wouldn’t feel so special and elite.
–END QUOTE–
What? Are you quite insane? Linux IS ready for the desktop already. Why do people always say that it isn’t when it blatently is!
–SHOUT–
LINUX IS NOT A DROP IN REPLACEMENT FOR ANY VERSION OF WINDOWS AND IT NEVER SHOULD OR WILL BE! THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT READY FOR DESKTOP USAGE! IT MEANS THAT IS ISN’T WINDOWS! GET USED TO IT!
–END SHOUT–
I’ve been using linux on my system along with windows for a very long time. I think that the guy made very valid points. The problem with the config files and overbloated graphical desktops is a serious issue. I understand the matter of choise but that should be given during installation. I don’t really see the need for 3 different text editors 5 different image viewers. Secondly, Gnome and kde are getting faster but as much as the linux kernel is superior to windows the graphical system lags like working on an old 266 p2, and i have P3 600 with scsi hd and an FX vcard.
So you want Linux to become Windows… How interesting…
The only idea of integrating the GDI in the kernel makes me laugh and shows clearly you have no single clue about system programming.
This was a major mistake from MS stabiliy and security-wise, and the speed bonus they gained from it was marginal. X11 IS fast, and KDE is NOT X11, get your facts straight. When X11 dies for some reason (be it a bug or a DoS), that’s it, just launch it again. When your kernel GDI dies, the system dies with it. This kind of integration is utterly stupid. MS wanted IE to be fast so they integrated bits of it in their kernel. Result : Huge security problems, and a browser that’s not even able to compete with Firefox as far as speed (an anything else btw) is concerned…
Giving letters to drives is stupid too. How is D: more informative than /mnt/cdrom or /media/cdrom ? You’ve got to be a special mind…
In the same fashion, nobody in the OSS community gives a fuck about binary compatibility, and the reason why it is so is because the source is availble and source compatibility is nearly always granted (at the cost of minor tweaks at worst). Why should the whole system carry the burden of binary compatibility when it is useless ?
The only solution MS found to this was to write a DOS/win9x emulator for WinXP that works half the time. It’s not something anybody wants to write for Linux, but if you really do, feel free implement it.
I thought the article was pretty good bringing up the various issues with Linux on the desktop. I hate when the Linux people tell me that I must switch to Linux when it doesn’t offer me any different functionality than Windows. The sotware I do run on Linux I can use on Windows so there isn’t much incentive to switch. I use Gaim, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Xchat. All available for both platforms.
However my main gripe with Linux on the desktop is that of sound/multimedia. I can’t play more than one sound at a time. Just the other day I was in Linux playing some Enigma while having Gaim open, soon as I closed Enigma I hear about 12 ding sounds from Gaim all playing in a row. Yes I’m aware of Esound but I think its pretty shoddy.
Also I don’t want to install 5 different sets of libraries just to get programs working. I install Gnome and its libs, because the programs I run are based on it. I don’t want to install KDE libs just for one program, or ClanLIB, or some of the others.
Id say most of this already exist, however not well implemented. the biggest practical issues such as gtk/qt and x/xorg should get solved through y-windows and that should unificate much more than only that.
and using source/based distribution methods based upon autmake/autoconf also make it possible to maintain binaries.
for companies who wants to keep their secrects: encrypt the source and add scripts to do the building on your own.
and indeed, a unified place to put links to all newly instaled programs would be good.
The only idea of integrating the GDI in the kernel makes me laugh and shows clearly you have no single clue about system programming.
He never said that. You’re too much in a hurry to brush the author off as clueless. He’s made some very pertinent points.
As much as everyone wants to scream freedom of choice and crap; if you want new users who aren’t geeks things need to be simplified.
The problem with the article is, the author just assumes _everybody_ just wants to service “Joe Schmock” for free. But, I bet that this is not the case, at least not for the majority of current Linux users/developers.
It may be for some companies like SuSE, but all they do is, roughly, package prewritten software as best they can. But as the software isnt and wont probbably be written for joe schmock in the first place in the near future, they of course cant compete with Windows/Apple who invest billions to make their systems usable for everyone (and of course, they charge for that.)
As long as the actual developers dont care for Joe Sixpack, the distro packagers cant do much better as they do now. And I highly doubt that free software devs will ever spend countless additional hours without payment just to make sure computer illiterate users will be able to use their software with ease.
All these are additional services you would have to pay for, and theres no point in building a additional “computer for computer illiterates” when there are are already Windows and Macs. They are not only easy enough for Joe Sixpack, but easier than Linux ever could be without strict design and framework decisions, what should be impossible with entirely free software.
//It should be pretty clear by now that pretty much *NOBODY* is actually paying any attention to these articles//
Yes, yes, I see your point — especially with the evidence of *136 POSTS* (so far) about this article.
You’re right. Nobody cares.
>
>
Actually read the comments. 99% of them has nothing to with the article itself, but rather it’s the basic ignorant attitude of the author of the “article” itself that’s setting people off.
”
However my main gripe with Linux on the desktop is that of sound/multimedia. I can’t play more than one sound at a time.”
Thats really wierd. I hear that alot but I just tried playing a Shoutcast audio stream in XMMS and a trailer in totem and they work fine.
This is an intergted VIA AC’97 / SUSE 9.1 Pro
Why “Why Linux is/isn’t ready for ‘The Desktop'” articles are pointless. Leave poor old Unix to die, please, he didn’t know it would come to this! He didn’t want to live past the ’80s! “Now that I lost my house, Number 12 PDP Street, DEC town, what should I do???”
And poor Mr. Sixpack! Deep down, he feels so troubled that he doesn’t understand these machines. But it hardly helps that the User Illusion stabs him in the back at any opportunity. Old Joe doesn’t really want to ‘get his work done’, he’d rather play Pong. Or drink beer. I’ll join him.
But don’t forget or battered friend ‘The Desktop’, or Brian as he is known by his companions Sheila ‘The Mainframe’ and Alfred ‘The Minicomputer’. How hard the likes of Microsoft and GNU geeks have fought for his attention. Brian loves fishing, Chinese puzzles and Indiana Jones films, he’s sick and tired of Windows and Icons and Menus and Pointers.
I’ll get my coat.
When my wife got introdused to a PC, she used GNOME. She got familiar with this desktop. We have a 16 year old in the house who insist to use Windows. My wife have tried Windows on this machine a couple of times, and she hates it. She thinks it confusing, a complete mess!! So my conlusion is it depends on what you are most familiar with. And what’s this bullshit about X is not integrated?? That’s an advantage!! I run two virtual X-servers on our PC. One for my wife, and one for myself. We never have to log out, just beacuse the other one must use the computer. I just press alt+ctr+Fx, and we switch the servers. I’m not familiar with WinXP, but I doubt this is possible with that OS. And Gnome/KDE isn’t enaugh mature yet?? That must be a joke.
“We seriously don’t need to have more than one multi-chat messenger come with a Linux distribution. Maybe if developers focused on one then we would all have VOIP and Webcam support by now for MSN Hotmail and Yahoo users instead of hearing excuses of “it’s coming soon” for the past year.”
—————–
The problem is nobody would be able to agree on anything with regard to how the program should be designed or what features should be included. That is the bane of open source. Lack of direction.
“When my wife got introdused to a PC, she used GNOME. She got familiar with this desktop. We have a 16 year old in the house who insist to use Windows. My wife have tried Windows on this machine a couple of times, and she hates it. She thinks it confusing, a complete mess!!
Have her try and download and install an application some day and see how it goes on her Gnome desktop vs a Windows desktop vs a Mac OSX desktop. Any OS can be made easy to use if you have an expert set it up well enough. You can throw a menu system on DOS and make it easy enough for a 3 year old to use. But that’s not really the point. The problem is the actual setup process, the difficulty of maintainance and installing new applications, etc.
You must be an American. We Americans assume that when someone doesn’t comprehend what we have said it is because they are deaf. So we shout the message.
Have you considered the possibility that most folks are polite and tend to ignore the rants. So, the solution is to shout louder. I do not think so.
The responder who said that we tend to use things that we have invested time and money in and do not really want to change got it right. Yes, it is based on ignorance but it is normal behavior.
So, whatever OS/computer we have learned the best tends to be the one we like best. I like English as a language over the other languages I have used (German, French, and Spanish). English has more of my time and energy invested in it. However, it would be arrogance and ignorance to proclaim it as the best language.
If Linux for the desktop is a reality then it should be showing up in the numbers (market share and installed base). If that pace is too slow then maybe a good positive message has not yet reached the masses.
In the meantime let’s all lighten up, please.
We, Linux users and free software supporters, really dont give a fuck about what the author calls “Binary longevity”.
With a free software, free as free speech not as free beer 🙂 , you’ll always be able to compile it for a new version of your distro, or even for your new OS that is POSIX compliant. So why to keep a binary compatibility if we already have a source compatibility ?
On the other hand, saying that X is slower that GDI is a myth, I have Xorg on my fedora system with NVidia drivers on it, and it just rocks so fine on my Athlon 1800+, Furthermore, with the latest gnome installed, I use a half of the amount of memory that Windows needs in the sames conditions.
Keep your Windows, keep your viruses and trojans, but, please verify your information before posting them. It’s quit disturbing to read that X uses the tcp/ip stack to draw a pixel on the local display system, it’s completely wrong.
I don’t really see the need for 3 different text editors 5 different image viewers.
Why does my computer have 5 different image veiwers?
1.) Gimp — in case I feel like playing around.
2.) GQView — in case I feel like viewing collections of images, such as camera photos.
3.) ImageMagick — in case I want to quickly view a single photo or do a really quick conversion or correction (say changing interlacing on a jpeg image) to single photos. Can be used from simple scripts.
4.) FireFox/web browser — hard to view online images without them.
5.) xfig — modify simple figures that I use in reports and papers.
6.) xPdf/gPdf — view PDF files, sometimes I like the good looks of gPdf.
7.) gv — view PS files.
So, that’s at least 7 and they each fulfill specific and pretty well-defined roles. I use each daily (except maybe xfig). You know what, I feel completely naked on a system that doesn’t have at least half of these applications (or equivalents).
Ie. I don’t think Linux should try to emulate Windows in areas like drive naming (C: vs. /dev/hda) or directory structure. IMO, /home/user is just as simple and understandable as a ‘My Documents’ folder. Windows’ latest attempts to integrate users and permissions are not at all enviable. Linux is currently much better at protecting the core system from clueless users. The ‘Program Files’ issue is more debatable, but I still say let those clueless users understand they will need a ‘root password’ in order to install programs system-wide.
Also, I don’t see what’s wrong with having X run on top of a very solid command-line system. Graphical config utilities (preferably by developers connected with the major desktops) should be used to insulate users from the command-line. The ‘user-friendly’ distros can simply channel the user more quickly and automatically toward these graphical utils than other distros.
The author states, “…but the fact is that when we read “ready for the desktop” we understand “ready to replace Microsoft Windows”.”
I have to ask — why should Linux have to replace Microsoft Windows to be considered ready for the “desktop”?
Linux is Linux, Windows is Windows, so make your choice and be happy you have a choice. If you don’t like that choice, get a Mac — the other choice.
Ready for the desktop is not about one “replacing” the other, it’s about having the choice to do it one way or do it the other or even using both or one if it does and not the other if it doesn’t.
Why not just use the best of both worlds and stop worrying about which is or which isn’t ’cause they both are and they both aren’t, depending on which criteria you choose to pit one against the other with. I’m surprised more people are not concentrating their efforts on virtual PC programs that allow one to use both at the same time.
The state of mankind is that we have traditionally used what ever is in our environment to survive and make our lives easier, so if you have them both, use them both. That’s not so difficult to do — is it?
I’m not going to use a hacksaw to cut down a tree or a chainsaw to cut down a steel fence post. But if the tree has grown up right next to the steel fence post, I’m going to use the hacksaw to get rid of the fence post and then switch to the chainsaw to get rid of the tree. I’m going to use the appropriate tool. Figure out what you need to do and then get the right tool for the job. We all have a choice.
Personally I hope Linux will never look & feel like Microsoft Windows. Just looking at Windows XP interface for retards is terrible ? There is not much logic in the Microsoft GUI, and it is just a joke comaperd with Mac OS X.
Linux is ready for the desktop. I am using it and I love it, and I am drop & drag Mac Zealot scared stiff by any command line tool. Linux is fine and good enough for the average non tech person. Even DTP on Linux is now an option with Scribus. Web browsing, email and office tasks on Linux is just a joy.
Is Microsoft Windows readt for the desktop ? No it is not, as it cannot be used as it is designed to be used, -> as an online Desktop OS. Microsoft Windows is far too dangerous to be used as an online OS – out of the box. It needs Win-doctors and Win-nurses every day, 365.
But that’s not really the point. The problem is the actual setup process, the difficulty of maintainance and installing new applications, etc.
Stop spreading shite… setup of linux is WAY more simple than windows…. maintainance is a gift, and there is no problems when installing new applications
People here always say windows has far more software available for it… also untrue. I think they must all be looking in pc world, or even download.com..
And a message to everyone here ;
STFU.. Linux is more than ready for MY desktop, I really do not give 2 fiddlers fucks what you all use on YOUR desktop, just leave me with my choice and I will leave you with yours.
It certainly isn’t ready for the Internet, because the Internet is full of thieves, cheaters, liars, frauds, and confidence artists who hire people to help them spread their filth, and the people who wrote Windows had “no idea” such things could happen.
So if Linux isn’t ready for the desktop, Windows is a whole lot less ready.
That Windows has more applications that are suitable for the desktop–of this there can be no doubt. However, I’m loth to suggest anyone use them if the user’s credit cards, passwords, and personal information are constantly being stolen, manipulated, and otherwise abused. I certainly will not.
It’s as if you people are arguing over whether a convicted felon’s environment, which is constantly being used to trample the rights of people everywhere, is better than an environment created by people who are trying to (1) get ecactly what they want out of their computers, and (2) are trying to make sure those computers are at least somewhat safe from the criminals who have taken over the Internet.
I think you people ought to re-focus your attention on issues which are more important than whether one or another platform is “ready for the desktop.”
God, I wish you and all people stupidly blaring the same tune about “X taking too much memory” would find out facts before you open your mouth.
If check top my x reports using almost 64MB. That’s with 32MB mem on the grapics card included!
So here I sit and have the entire KDE loaded + amarok, konqureror and some other apps loaded and my system *uses* 108MB. As a contrast I have a laptop on wich Windows XP uses 100MB before I even have started any applications beoyond the mandantory firewall..
To words: Get lost.
Linux is good enough for my desktop. If other people want to be locked by a single vendor, fall victim to viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, whateva, and prefer that to adapt to a new environment, fine, that is their choice. Just don’t pester me saying “Linux isn’t ready for desktop”; to me, it is more than ready, it is just perfect.
and there is no problems when installing new applications
I think people who make this claim are sticking entirely to what their distro provides and doing it strictly ‘by the numbers’ .. I should pick out a list of 20-30 apps at random and have zealots try to install the latest stable (non-beta) versions in their respective distros, and see who does it with the least amount of headaches.
That Windows has more applications that are suitable for the desktop–of this there can be no doubt. However, I’m loth to suggest anyone use them if the user’s credit cards, passwords, and personal information are constantly being stolen, manipulated, and otherwise abused. I certainly will not.
Of course, you do realize that applications are everything don’t you? This kind of argument reminds me of someone who might say “Hey, you have a car, but you drive it in an insecure neighborhood where your car might get jacked. Why don’t you come to my neighborhood where this sort of thing doesn’t happen? Oh, by the way .. there are no roads here, so you can’t drive …”
For me, installing new applications is as easy as launching Synaptic and clicking on the name of the application I’d like to have installed on my system.
The other way is to type : apt-get install foobillard on the powerful console, to have foobillard installed.
>> Shame on OSNEWS for posting this filth. <<
It’s of little consequence – the elements that make up “desktop Linux” will keep on improving incrementally regardless of the title tatle from the sidelines…. we’re aware of the “shortcomings”, so are the developers – to the contrary – the rate of improvement and payoff seems to be increasing – thanks to the developers, the work’s appreciated
Stop spreading shite… setup of linux is WAY more simple than windows…. maintainance is a gift, and there is no problems when installing new applications
People here always say windows has far more software available for it… also untrue. I think they must all be looking in pc world, or even download.com..
And a message to everyone here ;
STFU.. Linux is more than ready for MY desktop, I really do not give 2 fiddlers fucks what you all use on YOUR desktop, just leave me with my choice and I will leave you with yours.
If you really cared as little as you claimed, then you wouldn’t have bothered to come up with such a defensive post, or even read the article for that matter.
And you are being blind-sighted with regards to the ease of application installs. If it were really that easy, then there wouldn’t be so much effort by Linux developers to make improvements. Step back and throw a common person in front of a Linux desktop. Have them pick a random Linux application on the Internet and have them install it. Then tell them to download a Mac OSX or Windows app and install them on their respective computers. While we’re at it, have them uninstall the application. The users defending each of their platforms is not capable of claiming the ease of use of the operating system because their point of reference is totally wrong.
And for everyone who thinks I am defending Windows or OSX, think again. I think every OS out there has a large amount of shortcomings. I am just making comparisons.
For me, installing new applications is as easy as launching Synaptic and clicking on the name of the application I’d like to have installed on my system.
The other way is to type : apt-get install foobillard on the powerful console, to have foobillard installed.
So what do you do when the app you’re looking for is not listed or is several versions out of date?
Just my feelings for some of the comments of Annate
Linux urgently needs the following:
> – More distro standards
I personally don’t know what you mean by this. You can build a distro, I can build a distro. Now if you are talking about Linux, then you got the LSB.
> – More compatibility between versions of kernels and libs
are they badly incompatible then? could you cite examples please.
> – Low-level graphics in the kernel, like GDI
What is wrong with cross-platform libraries?
> – Unified control panel for system settings
KDE & Gnome has that: Control Center.
> – Unified registry for hardcore hackers, instead of text config files
NO WAY. Registry is what kills Windows.
> – Drive letters — D: is much easier than /mnt/cdrom, or /dev/cdrom, or /dev/hdc, or whatever your distro has
Build your distro and map it. GoboLinux does that.
Freedom, see?
> – Unified desktop — take the best parts from KDE and GNOME and combine into one
Why? Again nothing stopping you or anyone of building a new Window Manager with such “best parts”
Seems you’ve been very conditioned by MS-Windows:
Control Panel, Registry, Drive Letters and worse of all DirectX.
Linux which is based on sturdy Unix principles shouldn’t downgrade to fit the needs of Windowphiles. But it gives you the freedom to create a wrapper around it – to the point where you can’t tell the difference.
In short, leave Linux alone – it’s evolving very well; hope the whims of the masses doesn’t degrade a pretty powerful and flexible OS as it stands.
Perhaps the article should be why WindowManagers are not ready for the Desktop? Mind you, after discovering Linux + the various WM – I wouldn’t go back to Windows ever. Perfectly fine and ready for me as it is.
Distros need
– More distro standards (please)
– More compatibility between versions of kernels and libs
– More apps. to come with an “click this” executable to install
– Dependecy issues fixed
– 1 control panel across distroa(ok maybe not needed)
– A gui option to setup anything in the control panel
This might help the linux world to, if all you linux geeks would stop saying go back to windows when a person can’t figure something out.
nah – nver have done, never will. If I find an app I like the description of, then I download it and install it. I am using Mandrake 10, and if there is a manny version I will download the RPM for that, if not I will look for another RPM version, failing that then a TGZ. They all install without problems….
Well I lied…
I bought a Lexmark printer, went to the site for drivers, checked them… Redhat 9 only, which used a old lib file. The RPM files in the package installed ok in manny, but the install script itself would not run. I emailed Lexmark and they replied back that I should UPGRADE my operating system to Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Funny, but the printer was promptly sold on.
I never said that linux has NO installation faults.. I personally have had none.
And I never reply defensively here.. I take all posts with a pinch of salt, and I have a weird sense of humour that never gets insulted, but likes to take the piss out of others =:>
>> So what do you do when the app you’re looking for is not listed or is several versions out of date?
I try by myself to find an apt repository, if I fail, I ask a friend or there is thousands and thousands Linux Forums where people are just happy to help me, that’s the main advantage of the free software users community, you’are never alone.
Distros need
> – More distro standards (please)
What do you mean?? You mean Debian stuff running on Slack is that it? Compile from source code. It’s only 3 lines.
Still having trouble? Go to http://www.linuxquestions.org/
>- More compatibility between versions of kernels and libs
Games are usually 2.2+ compatible.
Apps 2.4+ compatible. Period.
> – More apps. to come with an “click this” executable to install
Get yourself Linspire then.
>- Dependecy issues fixed
It’s getting there. Also have patience.
When I can’t get some app to work (among the other 50’000 that does) – I just leave it. Try again next week, then next month. And one day voila – issue solved.
“Oh but see, Windows is not like that!” – you say.
I am dying to get Mono/MonoDevelop running. Can’t .. ah well. Tough.
I was dying to get Eclipse running – great got it working last week.
I couldn’t get PovRay modeller working and one day I could.
The system sometimes fetch that obscure dependancy and surprise something extra works.
But unlike Windows I see my system getting better, faster and fuller; and not the other way round.
Rather not have an app running because of some dependancy issue, than complete system corruption.
> – 1 control panel across distroa(ok maybe not needed)
you said it.
>- A gui option to setup anything in the control panel
It’s there you may have to download more modules that is all.
>This might help the linux world to,
this will help YOU not Linux
> if all you linux geeks would stop saying go back to windows when a person can’t figure something out.
(You got many willing people to help you out – Like LinuxQuestions.org – it is you got the wrong attitude)
The only way Linux can ever become a real player in the OS game is to start imitating some of the attributes of Windows and the Mac OS.
Easy setup of the OS and programs, standard graphical user interface, no more than 2 to 3 distributions available, no office suites included and it comes on only 1 CD.
My Grandma runs Linux and she is actually very happy. She actually got upset when she could not found any “blue chip” company selling computers with linux preloaded…she mentioned to me: “Ah my son, this is why windows is so popular…because people do not have options”
My grandma’s computer has dual-boot SuSE Linux 9.1 + Fedora Core 2…she still finds Gentoo and Debian a little complex for her 😉
I do not know…I do believe in my gandma’s wisdom 🙂
I think it is plain to see by now that the author of the article was very observant in this article. He also seems to have hit a raw nerve with some people.
thought the article was pretty good bringing up the various issues with Linux on the desktop. I hate when the Linux people tell me that I must switch to Linux when it doesn’t offer me any different functionality than Windows. The sotware I do run on Linux I can use on Windows so there isn’t much incentive to switch. I use Gaim, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Xchat. All available for both platforms.
If it weren’t for the (I need this application…) issue, I’d have my wife off Windows by now, and we’d be reasonably sure that she wasn’t winding up with:
spyware
viruses the AV people haven’t detected yet
malware
a nice SPAM relay
and all the other stuff that “Joe Public” shouldn’t have to spend an arm and a leg to protect against, because the underlying operating system he’s using is like a piece of swiss-cheese when it comes to security.
In the “Microsoft PC World”, it’s always been about pretty pictures and easy-going, at the expense of underlying reliability, stability, and security.
If I go out to buy a desk, I expect it to stand up to abuse. Maybe it’ll be pretty and presentable in the bargain, but it still has to stand up to abuse, and the drawers shouldn’t stick, and the handles shouldn’t fall off.
What Linux needs?
A leader. Not a kernel leader, a KDE leader, a Gnome leader, a whatever leader.
One leader, with a vision of where Linux should and shouldn’t go. Not the tens of thousands individual “leaders” Linux has now.
Bill Gates was/is a leader. Steve Jobs is a leader. You can’t “organize” something that has no leadership. For exmaple, in countries where there is a weak government, things go wrong.
I know I’ll get flamed. But hey, I’m used to it by now
I hope it will go away, this desktop. I hope the computer goes away as well. And I’ll go away as well, to the BEACH!!!
AGREED!
I recommend you to read the Eric Raymond’s book called “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”
available online here : http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar…
GNU/Linux doesn’t need dictatorshit à la Bill Gates. It’s another way of thinking, engeneering and producing.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t even bother to read the article. Just by reading the title I know exactly what kind of crap it’s about. Such authors attempt to make Linux seem inferior to Windows. Here’s something that seems to go unnoticed, LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS, and LINUX IS NOT MACOS X, Linux IS, well, simply Linux. It seems like one of these useless articles crops up weekly. Come on! I read OSNews because I want to know the latest in OS development. I though that’s what this was all about? I’m sick of all this Windows vs. Linux crap. Like many have said before and have been ignored, use what you like, and let me (and other Linux users) use what I (we) like. Has anyone considered the fact that it takes time to code apps? On top of that, many of the opensource developers have other day jobs. They code because they love to, not because they have to. But they do have families, and other things to do. Stop bitching and start coding.
Not sure if that’s a troll or just ill-informed? What knowledge or experience do you have with consensus, and what makes you think that a hierarchy on a scale like this is actually practical? Don’t you see there are actually leaders on several fields? Because of this, a hierarchy as you propose is just not feasable. The distributors are in the drivers seat and what you propose damages the authority of their drivers seat for one.
Anyway, frankly i’d rather see you use that BeOS of you and leave your stupid comments aside instead of using Linux and stating dumb opinions like this one (here’s your flame, enjoy it).
@ EG nice demo’s btw
i especially liked your sid. Kudo’s! Are you included in HVSC already?
– because there is no default strategy.
What does that mean? That is a vague and meaningless statement.
– because video drivers arent that willing to cooperate.
Nvidia drivers work fine for me. They’re easy to install also.
– because you need staples, elastic band and ducktape and glue to put all things together so it will look complete from a far distance.
Please explain this. All I have to do is install KDE and it looks much more complete and consistent than your average Windows desktop.
– 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.
What are you talking about? X is a protocol. Most programmers don’t have to worry about it at all. They program their interfaces with a toolkit that they choose. The WM just manages windows. Programmers do not need to think about them most of the time. Do I have to mention that MS Office and MS MediaPlayer use their own toolkits? It doesn’t seem to be a problem in Windows.
– because posix is outdated. modern system components have much more functions and capabilities than posix can handle.
This is another vague statement. It has no value at all. Explain how “modern system components have much more functions and capabilities than posix can handle”. After all POSIX has been updated time and again. I’m sure even if your statement had any truth to it at all, it could be updated to include these “modern system components”
– because you need to recompilethe kernel again and again for adding hardware support/drivers.
No you don’t. You can just recompile modules and install them. You do not need to recompile the kernel.
– because linux is highly experimental, as is mswindows; but postponing/delaying release dates for software may look as if it is without errors.
What? What does that mean? What is without errors?
linux will NEVER replace windows, because it is:
1. Too stable, no more crashes…you’ll all be missing that
2. Open Source, what if suddenly you understand why things are the way they are
3. Compatibility, linux does not support troyan-horses or any other kind of viruses and buggy programmes.
4. Too fast, what if you can’t get a coffe anymore while your PC is working
5. You don’t need restarts for every little installed prog…you’re gonna have too much spare time
6…tons of other things
see, windows will and can never be replaced!
Wow, it’s really amazing how defensive people get when you criticize their choice of operating system.
I read the article; I don’t think the author is trolling or attacking Linux. He’s putting forth suggestions on what the Linux community can do to get Linux ready for the desktop.
His suggestions are right on the money. Why? Because most of them have been done and it has resulted in a “Desktop Ready” OS. In a just a few years. Case in point: MacOS X
Nobody disputes that MacOS X is “Ready for the Desktop”. Compare his suggestions to what Apple has actually done:
* *NIX kernel: Darwin
* Dump X11 in favor of fast display engine: Quartz
* XML Config files: XML Preference files
* Binary longevity: Application Bundles
* Standard driver system: IOKit
* Standardized location for programs: /usr/bin for CLI /Applications for GUI
* Standard installers: Drag-n-Drop, Installer.app
* and many more examples
In short, Apple has managed to solve most of the issues associated with putting UNIX on the desktop, that are facing Linux today. So why aren’t developers paying attention and borrowing the good ideas? There’s even a project out there with the same goals: GNUStep. Why aren’t they getting any help?
The real answer to why Linux isn’t ready for the desktop is displayed in the comments about this article: We can’t along well enough to produce something cohesive.
Most of the comments here all seem to be one of these:
* “Linux isn’t Windows and never will be!”
True, but (as much as I personally hate it) Windows is an example of a successful user-friendly system. Emulate the good ideas. Ignore the bad.
* “Linux works for me! I don’t know what everyone else’s problem is”
Good for you. Now, how about helping out the people who aren’t as savvy as you?
* “If you don’t like it, fix it yourself!”
Fixing it requires first identifying what needs to be fixed, i.e. criticism. Apparently that’s not to be tolerated.
* “We!? Linux is not a company! You don’t speak for the rest of us!”
* “How dare you limit choice!”
Heaven forbid somebody suggest we band together and decide on standards and best practices. How come these people aren’t screaming that you don’t have a choice of protocols when surfing the web? Where’s the choice? You mean I can only use HTTP?
* “Windows itself isn’t ready for the desktop! It Sucks!”
Is this supposed to be an argument against making Linux better? Yes it sucks, but it’s apparently easy enough to use that everyone seems to tolerate it.
* “Linux doesn’t have a problem with [insert problem here]!”
That’s it. Just keep telling yourself that.
* “Who cares whether it’s ready for the desktop!”
The people who want Linux to be successful enough that companies take notice and start writing more applications for it.
Rather than stciking our fingers in our ears and yelling at the top of our lungs whenever an article like this comes around, why don’t we actually take the advice to heart and do something about it?
Oh that’s right. ego.
Not sure if that’s a troll or just ill-informed? What knowledge or experience do you have with consensus, and what makes you think that a hierarchy on a scale like this is actually practical? Don’t you see there are actually leaders on several fields? Because of this, a hierarchy as you propose is just not feasable. The distributors are in the drivers seat and what you propose damages the authority of their drivers seat for one.
Anyway, frankly i’d rather see you use that BeOS of you and leave your stupid comments aside instead of using Linux and stating dumb opinions like this one (here’s your flame, enjoy it).
Well, yeah, I’d indeed rather use my BeOS, that’s for sure
But anyway, dude, SkyOS for isntance, has achieved a lot in the past year, and why? It don’t have a massive amount of dev’s, close to no resources, and still it achieved stuff in one year that took desktop Linux years and uears.
Why?
Besides that Robert is a very good coder, he is also a leader. He makes choices, and stands by them. In the OSS world, on the contrary, all options are pursued. This results in more software, and more ways of doing stuff, but hey, also less overall quality.
There are a lot of examples of OSS that does work. The Linux kernel, OpenOffice.org, and various server-related projects. Why do they succeed? Because, in essence, they maintain a corporate structure.
But, bring oon the flames dude, stick your head in the sand! Ignore critisizm! Shut up the people who don’t agree with you! Buy eaplugs! That will really help Linux and OSS, I’m sure of it.
Amen to that, dude.
I have used various Linux distributions as a desktops for 8 or 9 years now . I personally don’t want a Windows-a-like OS, repleat with the security holes etc, but I do agree with most of the comments the author makes about the current short comings of Linux on the desktop.
As a normal user I find it increasingly hard to understand why in order for me to get an application to run properly/integrate with my existing desktop installation, I need to go to distribution provider to find one that they’ve packaged * – ask yourself: would the same thing be thought a good idea in the Windows world?
Meanwhile as someone who’s deeply involved in producing commercial software targetted at desktops on (currently) various flavours of Windows, Solaris and HP-UX, I can tell you that the cost to develop, support and test Linux software versus Size of market place, is not very favourable to linux, with predictable impact in terms of availability and quality.
On the desktop what we’ve got at the moment suits people at either end of the experience scale, i.e. experts, who know how to make it work and are prepared to tinker, or those at the other end of the scale who rely on an experts to do it all for them. Whilst this situation continues, Linux, and it’s various distributions, are unfortunately never going to be in the same desktop league as either Mac or Windows.
* Usually, if it’s available, it’s either old and out of date **, or bleeding edge and possibly broken
** not their fault, as given the amount of software a distro packages, it’s pretty much impossible for a conventional distro to stay current.
The Linux Desktop is not about “Replacing Windows.” The Linux Desktop is about getting folks an affordable option to Windows/MAC. Is Linux ready for the Desktop?
Were I an avid Gamer, I would say NO! Not even WineX lets you play all of the games an avid gamer would want to. So for Gamers, it is not ready.
Is it ready for the common Joe/Jane, that wants to surf, read/answer emails, play Videos at Yahoo, etc? Yes, it is. It has been ready for awhile.
Is it ready for the Corporate Desktop? Here the answer is Maybe. Many companies rely on software that is only available for Windows or a MAC. Where I work, Linux could replace Windows on over half the desks in the company (about 9500 of the 15000 desks). It would be a real money saver, however the MS FUD has deafened the Corporate ears to Linux. So Linux (as viewed by the powers to be) is not ready for our corporate desktops.
I also disagree that you would only need one DE/WM. Man, do some research! There are plenty of distros out there that focus solely on ONE DE! Look at Xandros and Mepis. You get KDE and wait, just KDE! Others, like Vector Linux (a fine distro in its own right), offer KDE as the primary DE and IceWM for lower power PC/back up purposes.
By just going to http://www.distrowatch.com/ the author could have seen that many, if not all of his gripes are already addressed in many distros.
The one point he made that I am at lost at is the interface between the command line and the GUI. Maybe it’s because I don’t play with my setting a lot. But if I change my X settings using a commandline, the GUI tools pick it up, as they do for printers, adding users (to Linux and Samba), configuring Samba settings, etc.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what interface he is talking about? I am sure the problem exists since he did mention it, but where?
I did just expect this. My listing: –
http://www.osnews.com/moderation.php?news_id=7813
– of new July 2004 Microsoft Windows viruses & worms was moderated down and away. I have had this feeling for a long time, i.e. it is no longer accepted to tell the truth about the Microsoft Windows operating system. The stakes are too high.
All I did was to list new Windows viruses & worms for July 2004. I know this list is a shocking reading but never the less, it is the truth. Since most news media is no longer bothering telling the public audience what platforms are not affected by viruses & worms I felt this “short” list might shed some light on the matter “why Windows is not ready for the desktop user”.
imho,what the author had in mind is a “bureaucratic” or “politic” sort of definition for “desktop” …
of course your linux is ready for the desktop (otherwise you’d not have installed it and wouldnt be using it to surf/write/etc… ), but since today IT is an infrastructure element, there’s not only the limited extent of one’s desk to be considered, the landscape is potentially MUCH vaster.
one reply gave a good argument: standards exist for those who are willing to follow them
following one standard would mean turning what is somewhere still perceived as a hobby/hacker software, into an entity with an industrial reputation, worth of the attention of the major SW houses: but i suspect it’s not even what linux users want… correct me if im wrong, but where’s the point in contaminating a free OS with a dirty, proprietary application?
on the other hand, people who are willing to pay (invest) 1000’s $/€ for a professional, closed, SW are (imho) most likely to be willing to pay for an already well tested and widespread, proprietary platform , too…it’d be the proof that MS position as OS provider (i’m not considering browsers and mail apps ) is well deserved
PS: after seeing enlightenment i wonder why it’s not proposed as the reference desktop …
Millions of people using it, but Linux is still not ready for the desktop. It’s because articles like this get posted that this is the laughingstock at Slashdot where a majority of the locals use Linux full time. So the question is, how many millions of people need to be using Linux before OSnews.com regulars decide it’s ready for the desktop?
I must admit, I love articles like this that bring the angry defenders out of the woodwork. Don’t misunderstand me, my joy has nothing to do with content or the responses such an article invokes, but rather the hoot and howls of laughter I get from picking out gems like the following:
engeneering
you’are
it is you got the wrong attitude
not the other way round
gandma’s wisdom
nah – nver have done
comaperd
there is no problems
beoyond
on wich
software isnt and wont probbably
intergted
My wife have tried Windows
introdused
emmental
vurnelable
becayse
apllication
developng
peice
funcamental
Interresting
This is just a quick and rather small sampling of what gives me pleasure when reading the posts to an article like this. Sick, I know! Someone should seriously contemplate writing an article that investigates whether the slaughter of grammar and spelling increases proportionately to the anger level such an article invokes in its readers! In the meantime, I’ll look forward to the next “Linux isn’t Ready…. blah blah blah” article for the sheer comedy it provides during a long day at work.
“I dont like Linux because of X, so I use BSD” – OK! Spartiepant
just one thing i’ve recollected a moment ago: on windows too, one could use a different “desktop”… essentially a different window manager /decorator / theme handler, in the case alternatives such as Stardock’s products are chosen..
or one can install Litestep or Retrostep … there’s only the need to change one line “GUI= xxxxxxxx” in a config file, to point to the executable of the actual shell (in win, the gui is called shell)
the ability to change the window manager is often overlooked by windows users, especially since XP added support for interface theming … but anyway it can be noticed , that changing the WM doesnt change the toolkit and library set for the whole OS, these remain MFC, Common Controls, GDI
looking at Enlightnment, it implements its own library for low level drawing (eCore-Evas) which is directly HW accelerated, ( potentially even more than the GDI itself, because of the use of openGL..support to X applications is given by local emulation only when needed),
but it seems the graphic part of QT and gtk toolkits could be ported on top of the enlightenment library as they already are to port linux applications on windows, or am i mistaken?
This is just a quick and rather small sampling of what gives me pleasure when reading the posts to an article like this. Sick, I know!
You have made my day. Thankyou.
You could make a drinking game out of it!
* Misspelling, 1 sip
* Grammatical error, 2 sips
* Complaint about X Windows, 4 sips
* Complaint about Windows viruses, 4 sips
…and so on. Now all we need is a live comment feed, and we’re all set!
X windows is a networked driver system.
Windows is NOT.
Windows drivers use kernel messaging (fast as hell).
Linux and all old unixes do NOT. (slow as hell)
I agree with this article 100%
Linux is a server os like the ‘old’ days of unix.
Look at the creator of ‘unix’ bell labs. They have dropped unix and are now going with PLAN 9.
Linux to me is always 2 steps behind the mainstream.
It’s ok but not leading edge.
You really do amaze me with your comments once and a while.
If you are so happy with BeOS and/or SkyOS stick do that and do
not go trolling around here. You do understand Linux.
Let me refresh: Linux is a kernel and its got a leader his name is
Linux Torvalds. This kernel is free and gets used by a lot of companies and organisations that use it to build either a complete distro that they sell or make a custom system that they use like google does. For this reason it is impossible to have one leader, there are dozen. You could always write the leader of Lindows, Xandros, Mandrake, RedHat, Suse etc. So is it clear now??
>You do understand Linux.
Should of course be: You do not understand
Look! Look! I can spot many grammatical/spelling mistakes – I am sooOOoo clever.
.. Get yourself a job in proof-writing, Oh pedantic h0.
Wich Linux?, Wich distro?, wich X window, wich desktop? wich DE?
Linux is a KERNEL!! not more or less. The rest is build around it by individuel companies and orgs. It is that simple…
I personally do not feel Linux is ready for my desktop, or the typical home user desktop. I have tried several flavors and versions of the Linux OS, beginning with RedHat 5.x. It’s been exciting watching the progression of the OS and I believe one day it will definitely start winning the desktop war. However there are a few things holding it back. It’s not the different desktops (Gnome and KDE should remain seperate), it’s not a lack of drive letters (A:, C:, D:), or distro standards, and it’s not fear of using a command line interface. From a GUI perspective, I think most Linux desktops are a work of art. And all the selection of opensource software is absolutely wonderful. But I think what continues to be a major stumbling block for many home users are hardware compatibility issues. One thing every computer user has grown to EXPECT from Windows is that hardware will automatically be detected and drivers installed with minimal hassle (i.e., PNP). Linux does this okay but does not do this exceptionally well either. I still experience and hear about painful Linux experiences because of video card issues…sound card issues….wireless network card issues…and the list goes on. In a corporate environment the user does not have to worry about these issues because the OS is already installed and configured. In that environment, Linux may very well be ready for the desktop. But for a majority of home users (obviously because Linux has roughly 2% of the desktop market) Linux is not ready for the desktop.
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?
Nope Win95 is not ready, not anymore. That was about 10 years ago.
If thats what Linux is aspiring for, a level at which win95 was then I’d say its a good 10 years behind.
do you use linux on the desktop? i do, its ready for me, and it has been for the last three years. you dont? its not ready for you then. maybe one day it will be, maybe one day it wont, or maybe you will become ready if it.
regardless, this never ending stream of articles can be boiled down to this, certain people out there, from the looks of it predominantly tech news site contributers, have problems running linux still. is this fact worthy of 200 comments? IMHO, not really…
I totally agree with the Author.
Also, what testing methodology does Linux use? Can you trust an OS that doesn’t under go intense quality control?
“But anyway, dude, SkyOS for isntance, has achieved a lot in the past year, and why? It don’t have a massive amount of dev’s, close to no resources, and still it achieved stuff in one year that took desktop Linux years and uears.”
Like, what? Does it run OpenLDAP? EDirectory? MySQL? Oracle? Apache? Decent firewall? No, it isn’t suitable as server, it is suitable as single user OS. And what is the “Linux desktop” if SkyOS developers port FLOSS programs to SkyOS? The ported software would fall under the central authority of this “Linux” leader you wish for (which on regards of the kernel itself, does exist). With what are comparing anyway? What Linux distributions? How the f*ck do you think one leader scales up to all these projects? SkyOS is next to insignifact in terms of size when compared to all the thousands of FLOSS programs sometimes lousely described by some as “the Linux comminity” (even though the software is ported to tons of other OSes). You’re talking about TOTAL different hierarchies in terms of size, structure, history of succeedings, commercial back-up, shared knowledge and many other aspects.
“There are a lot of examples of OSS that does work. […] Because, in essence, they maintain a corporate structure.”
You admit the hierarchies work! Yes you want one leader ABOVE these working hierarchies! Doh.
Regarding desktop, there _are_ people who are working on standards and compatibility, damnit. I have pointed these out: Project Utopia and Freedesktop.org. The latter is a *huge* effort and it *works* without one benovelant dictator.
You still haven’t proven why a benovelant dictator hierarchy style works better than a democratic chosen core group (not one leader) or consensus.
“But, bring oon the flames dude, stick your head in the sand! Ignore critisizm! Shut up the people who don’t agree with you! Buy eaplugs! That will really help Linux and OSS, I’m sure of it.”
You ignored my point regarding the scalability. I don’t think posts like yours actually contribute because they’re plain ignorant. I’ve already replied to the article itself and agreed there are problems. Some problems are beeing worked on. I have agreed with problems in the past and i will agree with the problems in the future although the problems are mostly for the home user desktop market. In contrast to “Linux”, BeOS or SkyOS have NO market in any business environment at all and they’ll never have any, or have any significant one. They’re research / academia projects.