CTO of Adeptiva Linux, Stephan February, admitted that consumers find it difficult to use Linux because of the lack of support compared to Windows. “There is no compelling need to shift to Linux today,” he said. Despite the availability of user-friendly graphical user interfaces similar to what Windows-based desktops have, Linux remains a very technical software product with few people outside the technical community are available to support consumer users. My Take: I personally agree with this fellow.
Linux not ready for mass market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They have reasons? Then they aren’t the people we’re talking about, we’re talking about Joe Sixpack and he generally it’s considered that Joe Sixpack barely knows what version of Windows he runs if that.
And I’ve met a lot of these people. I worked as a computer salesman for over a year (Yes, Microsoft only shop). So don’t tell me I don’t know these people.
Besides, I stated how I know people are this way; and it’s their lack of adoption of other technologies that are far superior (such as better kinds of light bulbs that are proven).
@Russian Guy
You’re ignorant. Michael Dell has tried in the past, and is now moving back towards, offering multiple OS’s for his computers. The first time he was threatened with losing his license to resell Windows. This is one of the things that put Microsoft in violation of anti-trust laws.
The beta player was ready for video, but people bought VHS. The fuel injection system was ready for standard use but waited 40 years to make it into American cars.
With proper care rotary engines get better mileage and lastibility (crappy torque though); only one company makes one model using them and that has not remained constant.
In the early 90’s the quickest and most usable computers were not selling, but cheaper Windows/DOS based machines sold.
I don’t hear anyone here “b*tching”. We’re simply discussing the true reason why people aren’t moving to obviously superior platforms; and then that backlashes when some redneck windows troll comes in and says “linux ain’t got no readiness for that there desktop.” (Sorry, but most the big Windows advocates I’ve met are rednecks :/).
People are obsessive about what is “ready for the desktop.” And the fact is that DOS was ready for it, because people used it as a desktop OS. There’s no way you can try and tell me it’s easier to work with DOS than it is to work with say Mandrake….if you say it is I know you’ve never used one of them. DOS: Command line only, editing configuration files with specific syntax, and no good help pages (pretty mediocre help, but oh well). Editing startup files to get more memory to run your app… Yea remember that? And Mandrake, “type your user and pass, click here and there.” Go into your gui config utility to change system settings. And I hate Mandrake!
By most the standards I read here, OS X isn’t ready for the desktop because it makes you do things that might possibly be unintuitive and make Grandma’s life harder.
The standards just aren’t this high people. And the fact is, people are very slow to adopt new things.
“When the inteface/ergonomics engineers at Apple and Microsoft enable users move an application windows around via the keyboard, perhaps I’ll begin giving them the respect they deserve.”
On windows press alt-space then choose “move” from the menu, and move the window around with your arrow keys.
I can’t tell how to do this on osx because i don’t own a mac, but i would guess it’s also possible.
“If you actually spent time reading and digesting my comment, you’d have followed that I acknowledge the Linux interface leaves much to be desired and that much of the problem stems from copying the broken concepts and practices in other systems especially Windows and Mac.”
I have no problem with that, except that you don’t mention any alternatives. What exactly do you think is a good GUI?
We’re simply discussing the true reason why people aren’t moving to obviously superior platforms
It is hard to find these reasons trying to filter all these “Praise the Linux” or “Linux is just GUI on top of command line” or “Windows can do” or “Linux can do twice as fast for $0.”
I see no reasons. Again and again someone comes and says that for him, for someone else, for everyone he knows it works (does not work)- and it goes circles.
I asked perfectly valid question, and all I get in response is a fixation on my joke about Dell selling his soul.
Don’t give me “Microsoft doesn’t allow me sell Linux” or “Dell does not listen to end user demands” or “Evil monopolist stops my brother from starting his Linux computer business.” Enough of that.
Enough with excuses, and enough with “it works for me.” There is a big question to ask and answer: how to make it work for all.
The easiest way to do that is to ask yourself: why do you think selling Linux preinstalled on PC over the Web today is not profitable? I mean, not profitable in your opinion- if it is profitable, tell us your success story of running business selling Linux PCs, and tell us what profits do you make.
Dell charges s&h, and they must sell hardware $40 pricier than you if you outfit it with, say, Debian. You sell one PC and hour: you make cool 80,000 year. Work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, no sweat.
One PC an hour for the USA, a country of hundreds of millions, does not seem too much of a challenge for me.
We will know when Linux is ready for desktop- when it will be on desktops around you and me.
Is Windows ready for the garbage, that’s the real question. I think it’s long overdue.
I have no problem with that, except that you don’t mention any alternatives. What exactly do you think is a good GUI?
I don’t like to think in terms of GUIs. I like to think in terms of interfaces. One of the things I absolutely despise about todays environment is that everyone thinks their apps has to be a GUI.
There are times when a GUI makes sense, and there are times when it doesn’t. Apple and Microsoft tell you and I GUIs always makes sense. I disagree. In fact, in my opinion GUIs should be used only sparingly and in combinations with CLIs.
Apple and Microsoft do not care about the most efficient or effective way of accomplishing a task. They only care about slapping a GUI on top of anything and then inundating the user with needless functionalities for a fee.
Linux has the opportunity to concentrate of efficient and ergonomic interfaces(this has nothing to do with GUIs) that uses quantitative, statistical and pyschological analysis to determine fast paths to completing every given function.
You ask what the alternative is. There is no alternative yet. And that’s because we are content on copying whatever Apple and Microsoft has been spewing out for the past twenty years. We are not solving today’s problem, we are rehashing yesterday’s solution.
This may help answer your question:
http://logicaldesktop.sourceforge.net/
http://onefinger.sourceforge.net/
http://www.research.ibm.com/remail/ (Yes I know that Remail is not on Linux, yet)
The point is that the purpose of the OS is to enable us to run applications that in turn enable us to do work. Using an OS is not always a hobby.
It depends how you configure your OS.
It’s actually the biggest problem IMHO. People use an OS as a means to an end, the end being to be able to run the software that actually enables them to do something productive. An OS by itself isn’t very useful. It’s not about making political statements. Most people don’t care if something is proprietary or not.
Hence the lack of education for the people. Should you not explain how the OS works, what to do or not, it is clear they won’t care. Let the user tries the software, explain what the common task is the equivalent on let say Windows and you will be surprised people learn fast and get used to it.
Therefore, if the design applications (for example) on the *nix platform aren’t as good as those available for the Wintel or Mac platform, people won’t use *nix for the purpose of designing stuff.
See above.
Hence the lack of education for the people. Should you not explain how the OS works, what to do or not, it is clear they won’t care. Let the user tries the software, explain what the common task is the equivalent on let say Windows and you will be surprised people learn fast and get used to it.
I actually agree with you partly – on the education part. I’ve recently installed Ubuntu on my girlfriend’s laptop and she figured out how to use gnome , evolution and the media players right away.
However, you’re over simplyfing the issue. You also need to consider whether the applications can do the job once you switch. It only works if the equivalent software enables people to be as productive as they were before changing platforms. If all you do is some word processing, email and other common office tasks, you can accomplish that on *nix. If you do coding for a living, there are some awesome tools, editors and IDEs on *nix. My personal favourite is Eclipse.
However, I still maintain that you can’t be as productive if you do design and multimedia. Show me equivalents of Macromedia Dreamweaver and Macromedia Fireworks. Nvu for Dreamweaver? Not up to par. Fireworks? I still haven’t been able to find anything similar. And no, the gimp is not like Fireworks. How about Flash? Yeah, it’s proprietary, BUT there is nothing on *nix that could replace it.
However, I still maintain that you can’t be as productive if you do design and multimedia. Show me equivalents of Macromedia Dreamweaver and Macromedia Fireworks. Nvu for Dreamweaver? Not up to par. Fireworks? I still haven’t been able to find anything similar. And no, the gimp is not like Fireworks. How about Flash? Yeah, it’s proprietary, BUT there is nothing on *nix that could replace it.
http://www.dmxzone.com/ShowDetail.asp?NewsId=5796 and http://www.codeweavers.com/ . About production, read this http://ftp.codeweavers.com/pub/crossover/case_studies/DisneyCaseStu…
Though it seems to be a work around, this put your doubt about productivity in rest. When proprietary company like Macromedia will note the demand for Linux version, they will release these software. The fact they allow the swf format to be available for linux is a start.
“And no, the gimp is not like Fireworks.”
No, Fireworks is a limited single domain graphics program with a UI that makes The GIMP feel like paradise . . .
I agree, the really hand-holding programs like DW have not made it to Linux yet. Anyone already proficient with HTML/CSS would likely want to use a specialized source editor like SCREEM or Quanta. GUI Web page builders are only for prototyping the templates for advanced Web applications anyway. But given Linspire’s chosen market segment and that NVU is only a few months old, I expect DW like functionality quite soon.
And while a Flash editor (that is to say native, the Flash tool is known to work great in WINE) would be nice I really want to see more advancement on the SVG/DOM and XUL development tools. With the acceptance of Mozilla based browsers by the general Windows users, these (standards based) technologies stand a good chance of overthrowing entrenched proprietary solutions for advanced Web functionality . . . .
http://www.dmxzone.com/ShowDetail.asp?NewsId=5796 and http://www.codeweavers.com/ . About production, read this http://ftp.codeweavers.com/pub/crossover/case_studies/DisneyCaseStu…..
Though it seems to be a work around, this put your doubt about productivity in rest. When proprietary company like Macromedia will note the demand for Linux version, they will release these software. The fact they allow the swf format to be available for linux is a start.
We’re talking about the mass market here, not special cases.
Try telling someone who’s using (for example) the latest Dreamweaver on a mac that they should switch to Linux AND run an older version of Dreamweaver (under wine or crossover office) – all for the sake of using Linux. Doesn’t make sense does it? You’d be laughed out of the room.
Like I said, people use *applications*. The OS is often incidental.
No, Fireworks is a limited single domain graphics program with a UI that makes The GIMP feel like paradise . . .
No, Fireworks is a specialised app that purposefully makes certain tasks easier. It does not aim to be a photoshop. They are meant to do different things. Using gimp or photoshop do do some things would take twice as long as it would take to do in Fireworks. Comparing Photoshop with Fireworks is like comparing C with bash scripts – they have different purposes. I haven’t found anything like Fireworks in the *nix world yet, unfortunately.
I agree, the really hand-holding programs like DW have not made it to Linux yet. Anyone already proficient with HTML/CSS would likely want to use a specialized source editor like SCREEM or Quanta. GUI Web page builders are only for prototyping the templates for advanced Web applications anyway. But given Linspire’s chosen market segment and that NVU is only a few months old, I expect DW like functionality quite soon.
Wrong. Most of my peers use Dreamweaver. They ARE very good at html/css etc. Sure, they could code in notepad if forced to, but it’s all about productivity. We’re talking about professionals who do web sites for a living here, not hobbyists. Using dreamweaver does not imply that you do not hand code html/css. You generally do a quick layout with the WYSIWYG environment, then go over the code. This helps enormously when you have tight deadlines. It’s not about elitism. It’s about productivity.
And while a Flash editor (that is to say native, the Flash tool is known to work great in WINE) would be nice I really want to see more advancement on the SVG/DOM and XUL development tools.
Macromedia Flash MX and Dreamweaver MX only have bronze medal level of compatibility with wine/crossover office. Would you use them with wine/crossover only for the sake of running *nix? What if you bought licenses for the latest MX 2004 versions?
With the acceptance of Mozilla based browsers by the general Windows users, these (standards based) technologies stand a good chance of overthrowing entrenched proprietary solutions for advanced Web functionality . . . .
Meanwhile, the industry demands flash applications. Some people have to make a living and that implies using technology that is in demand.
Linux is ready for those who will use it just as windows. Those who chose to remain non educated have just as many issues with windows as they do anything else they don’t want to learn. Windows is easy. Linux is not that difficult. Supporting Linux would be a wise move. This article reminds me of RedHat’s statements not to long ago. You have another distribution I won’t use now. Keep up the good work.
We’re talking about the mass market here, not special cases.
Try telling someone who’s using (for example) the latest Dreamweaver on a mac that they should switch to Linux AND run an older version of Dreamweaver (under wine or crossover office) – all for the sake of using Linux. Doesn’t make sense does it? You’d be laughed out of the room.
Like I said, people use *applications*. The OS is often incidental.
If you read crossover website, you notice some of them haven’t tested yet. That does not mean it does not work. Here we talk about specific application that is not included on OS package. The problem here is the definition of “mass market”.
Since you insist about mass market and give an example what *nix doesn’t have, how about giving an example of *nix application not available on Windows? According to your logic, Windows is not ready for the mass market because it does not have *nix applications.
If you read crossover website, you notice some of them haven’t tested yet. That does not mean it does not work. Here we talk about specific application that is not included on OS package. The problem here is the definition of “mass market”.
If you read the crossover office web site you’ll notice that people are offering to donate money to get the latest version of Dreamweaver to work with crossover office. I for one will be happy to pay to get the latest Dreamweaver and Fireworks to work on my Linux installations. However, most people won’t even bother until these run natively on *nix.
Since you insist about mass market and give an example what *nix doesn’t have, how about giving an example of *nix application not available on Windows? According to your logic, Windows is not ready for the mass market because it does not have *nix applications.
My comment about the mass market was with regards to your mention of the Disney case study. My point is that I’m not trying to cram linux down anybody’s throat. I am lucid enough to see that linux isn’t the best solution to everything, unlike many of the posters around here.
One question:
Compare Linux with Winamp. Both can be downloaded for free. No OEM was forced to install them on their boxes. OEMs were forced to install MS’s alternative (Windows / Media Player) in both cases.
Yet Winamp is very popular among “uneducated” users, and Linux is not.
Why?
One question:
Compare Linux with Winamp. Both can be downloaded for free. No OEM was forced to install them on their boxes. OEMs were forced to install MS’s alternative (Windows / Media Player) in both cases.
Yet Winamp is very popular among “uneducated” users, and Linux is not.
Why?
Apples to cocnuts. Winamp is an app, and a windows one at that. Take a stroll on the net for even a few minutes and chances are you will see a Winamp download offer or advertisement on windows software download site. Winamp pretty much blissfully freely fulfills the audio/video needs of virtually every windows using music lover out there. It does what a good app should do, accomplish a task well.
Linux is an OS (okay, a kernel). Many users are still very happy with windows and frankly don’t need linux, much less want to learn a new OS. Despite the number of people who have seen the light, many can actually use windows very effectively with very little problem. I am one of them, but I also choose to use linux because I personally like the fact that I don’t have to defrag very often, don’t really have to worry about viruses, it’s flexible, and linux is cool, etc. The tradeoff… it required a shift in OS thought, a little more difficult to administer, I want it to be able to play ALL of my games (not exactly linux’ fault), hotplugging functionality is hit or miss in many distros, etc. So, IMHO, linux is ready for some, but more work needs to be done to be declared ready for all.
that’s just my uneducated take.
Wrong. Most of my peers use Dreamweaver. They ARE very good at html/css etc. Sure, they could code in notepad if forced to, but it’s all about productivity. We’re talking about professionals who do web sites for a living here, not hobbyists. Using dreamweaver does not imply that you do not hand code html/css. You generally do a quick layout with the WYSIWYG environment, then go over the code. This helps enormously when you have tight deadlines. It’s not about elitism. It’s about productivity.
And I have used Composer effectively for prototyping templates for Web applications. Yes DreamWeaver does have more bells and whistles, and it does have project management tools that (have been) sorely missing in Composer. But now that Linspire seems to be showing that it has something to contribute to the community by NVU (which is based on Mozilla Composer) the gap with DW is closing. After that gap is closed the only justification for DreamWeaver and Windows will be elitism.
And I have used Composer effectively for prototyping templates for Web applications. Yes DreamWeaver does have more bells and whistles, and it does have project management tools that (have been) sorely missing in Composer. But now that Linspire seems to be showing that it has something to contribute to the community by NVU (which is based on Mozilla Composer) the gap with DW is closing. After that gap is closed the only justification for DreamWeaver and Windows will be elitism.
I would gladly use nvu the day it matches Dreamweaver in functionality. It’s a long way off, and it’s a moving target, but I wish the nvu project all the best. More choices can only be good for us. Eventually the quantity and quality of the design applications for *nix will increase. It’s only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, the industry demands flash applications. Some people have to make a living and that implies using technology that is in demand.
But Open Standards have already shown the power to change demands. The proliferation of RSS for example did not come out of Redmond. The newfound base of XUL installations combined with the surprisingly wide deployment of many OSS web applications (most inexpensive hosting accounts come with photo gallery, blogging, even shopping functionality – why would these services pay for something that is free OSS?) means a lot of potential for using OSS on the server to drive OSS on the client end. Once the OSS has full control of client and server ends the grass-roots momentum that propelled tech like MP3, P2P, RSS, etc. will be unstoppable. To elaborate: with FireFox in wide distribution the projects that write basic OSS web applications will start adding enhanced XUL based front ends as (optional) interfaces to the program. Users will then see links to the “Super Cool Super Charged version (Requires Mozilla FireFox – Download Now!)” links in their inexpensive hosting accounts then more people download FireFox. Many of the people who take notice at this point will be commercial and vertical market developers who will have seen the power of true Web applications. With the current penetration of OSS on both server and Browser this trend should be almost unavoidable and happen more quickly then some may think.
But, your point still stands. The current legacy Web technologies like Flash are weakly supported on the OSS computing platform.
As far as MS products remains easy to copy and share there’ll no need to switch to Linux for Home users.
But Open Standards have already shown the power to change demands. The proliferation of RSS for example did not come out of Redmond. The newfound base of XUL installations combined with the surprisingly wide deployment of many OSS web applications (most inexpensive hosting accounts come with photo gallery, blogging, even shopping functionality – why would these services pay for something that is free OSS?) means a lot of potential for using OSS on the server to drive OSS on the client end. Once the OSS has full control of client and server ends the grass-roots momentum that propelled tech like MP3, P2P, RSS, etc. will be unstoppable. To elaborate: with FireFox in wide distribution the projects that write basic OSS web applications will start adding enhanced XUL based front ends as (optional) interfaces to the program. Users will then see links to the “Super Cool Super Charged version (Requires Mozilla FireFox – Download Now!)” links in their inexpensive hosting accounts then more people download FireFox. Many of the people who take notice at this point will be commercial and vertical market developers who will have seen the power of true Web applications. With the current penetration of OSS on both server and Browser this trend should be almost unavoidable and happen more quickly then some may think.
I agree with you on the above. All things being equal, I would choose an open standard over a closed technology – all the time. However, I would hate to see mozilla go with one standard, and microsoft go with another one. That would be a nightmare to develop for. In the end, developers might just stick with macromedia flash to deliver rich clients to the users, because the flash plugin works the same on all browsers, and the plugin is independent of a particular browser. A standard, open or closed, is only useful if everybody use it.
I guess what I was driving at is pragmatism. Sure, some applications cost money. Sure, some technologies aren’t free/open. But we make do with what we have.
My comment about the mass market was with regards to your mention of the Disney case study. My point is that I’m not trying to cram linux down anybody’s throat. I am lucid enough to see that linux isn’t the best solution to everything, unlike many of the posters around here.
Don’t warry, that was only a test to check how you react. =p
In other word, you mean *nix based is not ready because of some specific application aren’t available yet on that os. Thefedore, does that mean the “mass market” theme depending the use of application?
“Dell charges s&h, and they must sell hardware $40 pricier than you if you outfit it with, say, Debian.’
Bwahahahaa. Of course not. Have you ever heard of the concept of a ‘volume discount’?
“Meanwhile, the industry demands flash applications. Some people have to make a living and that implies using technology that is in demand.”
Yes, the industry does, but PEOPLE WHO USE BLOODY WEBSITES DON’T. The next time one of your clients demands a pointless flash intro, would you do the world a favour and slap them silly with the nearest handy blunt instrument?
Yes, the industry does, but PEOPLE WHO USE BLOODY WEBSITES DON’T. The next time one of your clients demands a pointless flash intro, would you do the world a favour and slap them silly with the nearest handy blunt instrument?
I hate the intros too
However, flash is much more than that. It enables you to deliver rich clients to people’s browsers. It really is quite powerful. Unfortunately, flash has been abused a lot. It’s mostly a case of designers putting flash to work on what they are interested in – pretty gaphics and effects. Give flash to a developer and he/she would come up with different uses for it.
(Correct me if I’m wrong)
But Flash seems to be a rather limited approach to rich applications. First a flash program must live inside a defined area inside a browser window and AFIK cannot open any secondary windows. Also Flash does not reflect the look-and-feel of the client OS, a flash application looks alien everywhere. Lastly how on earth do you dynamically internationalize a Flash program?
An XUL program reflects the L&F of the OS its running on, can interact with the window management, open new windows. Being an XML document and using bounding box screen layout providing translation in XUL is near trivial.
Yes, integration with the l&f of the host OS seems to be the big difference between macromedia’s flex/MXML (through flash) and XUL and XAML. It’s probably due to the fact that flash started off being an animation package. However, the animation facilities also means that richer interaction is possible with flash e.g. video content on the client.
Regarding internationalization, I don’t see why it would be harder to do with MXML compared to XUL.
Macromedia flash also has the advantage of being able to deliver to any browser, unlike XUL or XAML. The flash plugin is pretty much ubiquous right now. In that sense macromedia has the advantage for now. That’s not to say that things won’t change though.