For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system. Linux has made great progress as a server OS but continues to struggle to get a hold on the consumer desktop. Progress has been quick to match features with Redmond but this type of progress will only allow Linux to play catch-up, never to lead. In order to break away Linux has to do the things that Microsoft hasn’t done or perhaps will never do to differentiate and become a practical desktop alternative.
There are many missed opportunities that are difficult for Microsoft either because the practice is ‘anti-competitive’, it would cause internal conflict within Microsoft or it doesn’t make financial business sense. If Linux can do these things well they can create a seamless user experience and a more attractive platform for applications and developers.
The Basics
To get people to switch operating systems you need to remember two rules.
- People avoid change - People don’t want to switch operating systems. As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new.
- New Operating Systems break old applications - Every new operating system will change the user experience in some cases it will add new useful features but in many others it will break some level of application compatibility. The larger the changes the more likely things are to break and cause problems.
Now the trick is how to use these rules to your advantage. To get an average consumer to switch you need to first get them to not fear change and be willing to try. In order to try you need to reduce confusion and risk. This means users can’t be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images, they also can’t be expected to properly partition their hard drive. Users don’t want to manually import their favorites and browser settings and email configuration. To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE. If you don’t like it you need to be able to easily uninstall and your computer will be exactly the same as before you started. The first barrier to the desktop is to reduce the fear associated with change.
Applications
The core of any successful operating system is the applications that are written for it. Projects such as Wine have spent a large amount of time and effort to allow Windows applications to run unmodified. This is an attempt to circumvent rule number 2. After all if the applications can run unchanged then the user experience can stay the same. This is a good start but it’s not the full picture. Creating compatibility through Wine and similar efforts is a great way to bootstrap an operating system with existing application but it’s not a long term solution. Linux not only has to migrate applications they have to migrate application developers. A seemingly smaller effort has been made to create a superior development environment for the droves of Windows/Visual Basic developers.
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform.
Innovate Quickly
Microsoft will struggle to innovate because it’s competing with previous versions of Windows (not linux.) Microsoft wants to introduce new features to get people to upgrade their operating system but when they introduce grand new features they run into rule #2 and break many applications. It’s a vicious cycle that forces Microsoft to innovate slowly. Microsoft locks itself down for periods of 2-4 years and develops new versions and spends a long period of time testing to ensure that existing applications don’t break.
This is a big competitive advantage for Linux if it can innovate quickly and provide faster release cycles.
More Common Controls
Many people don’t know the dirty little secret that many of the controls and tools that Microsoft builds into Office are not standard controls. This means that many features that are developed in Microsoft are coded three times, once for Office, once for the OS and at least one more time for the developer tools like Visual Studio. Toolbars, menus, File dialogs, color pickers, date pickers, etc, etc, all written at least three times. All with slightly different characteristics and API’s. Additionally many higher level features and controls available in Office and are not made available to application developers at all. This means all the cool effects and controls you may have seen in the new preview version of Office are unlikely to make their way into Vista or Visual Studio. Because of this lack of controls 3rd party control writers create their own controls and in many cases add to the confusion.
Because of the open source nature of Linux it can put core application level features into a more common set of controls that can be used by all application developers across products. Currently KDE, Gnome and other toolkits provide some of this but it’s still at a very low level. Controls can go beyond a simple button to encompass larger concepts and more complex controls.
- Spreadsheet functionality should be built into every list or grid. I should be able to sort, filter, copy paste any list like data cells.
- Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
- Entire dialog metaphors should be reusable. (add/edit/remove)
- Concepts like a back forward button and navigation should be re-usable in applications other then a web browser.
Adding broad higher level controls improves every application that uses these controls. Linux should focus on areas that not only improve one application but have the potential to improve every application as well as the way users interact with applications. This is an area where Linux applications have the potential to overtake Microsoft by providing a richer development platform.
Entice users with well thought out end to end solutions
Microsoft has trouble getting different divisions to cooperate on end user solutions. For example, consider the music experience. Windows XP uses My Music to arrange music but Windows Media Player uses its own categories and Media Center Edition has its own variation to render these music collections. Windows has one way of searching for files but Office has a completely different way and MSN is pushing yet another way. Windows uses ACLS for security but Internet Explorer uses trusted zones. Outlook, Windows and Instant Messenger all have separate ways to deal with contacts and address information. These inconsistencies not only add complexity to the platform but they add confusion for end users.
The whole notion of open software creates the opportunity for better collaboration and better end to end solutions.
- Create a single music solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS to music applications to TV experience.
- Create a single photo solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS thumbnails to previewing full screen to editing in a photo applications.
- Create an office suite that can be used as a component in other applications. Anywhere I have rich text editing I should also have red-underline spell checking, thesaurus, and other tools that help me write.
- There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs.
Fragmentation
Right now there are dozens and perhaps even hundreds of different Linux distributions. Each one has its own quirks, bugs and issues. Linux is currently an idea it’s not a brand. There doesn’t seem to be a central floodgate to dictate the standard interface. Each distribution creates its own icons, interface elements, configurations and sometimes even their own shell. To gain momentum some level of standardization is necessary to be called “Linux.”
The brand “Linux” should stand for an entire operating system not just a kernel. There should be only one true Linux and perhaps many derivatives that should have their own brand and name.
Software Installation
Installation is a core area where Microsoft dropped the ball allowing anyone to write an installer. This is a security issue since there are no rules that control where files can and can’t be copied. Applications create directories and files wherever they want. They also write registry keys with little or no protection.
As a corollary to the first rule, users don’t like installing applications. Part of the fragmentation problem for Linux is that the fragmentation forces a problem for software installation. Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software. To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
Don’t just think different. Be Different.
An operating system can at best meet the needs of about 80% of the general population. Unfortunately you can’t make everyone happy. If you make the interface too simple you may lose some functionality that advanced users will like. Make the program to flexible you also may make it harder and more complex to use and develop future versions. Microsoft has taken the middle ground; Apple has taken the lower road and Linux appeals to the more technical users. To expand Linux to the masses the range of Linux must be expanded down to encompass more general users while still appealing to advanced users.
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love. At the same time they need to make the default experience simpler to attract more beginner and intermediate users. The core mantra should be: “Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.”
(Archived Comments)
----------------------
Welcome slashdot
----------------------
Welcome slashdot
On your comments
- When I say Apple takes the low road I'm only saying they try to appeal to beginners. Linux tries to appeal to more advanced users. I have nothing against Apple and I think their path is worthy of it's own article. Stay tuned.
- When I comment on the problems with installation, I'm aware that there are installer managers and utilities but they are not standard and not universal. "Sometimes" there is no simple install for more obscure software. "Sometimes" you have to jump through hoops to install.
- I understand "Linux" = kernel but the word is used to represent the entire OS. When I say there should be a unified Linux I'm not suggesting that all the distributions go away. I'm just saying that the word Linux should be used to represent a single OS.
- I understand that there may be utilities and tools to do many of the things I recommend but to my understanding it's not part of the default experience so how would I know about them?
- I find many of the other comments useful and insightful. Thanks for reading.
Archived Comments (Archived from 2005)
173 Comments:
Anonymous said...
- There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs.
Gaim ?
November 02, 2005
kelly said...
Yes .. yes... yes...
[points franticly] What he said!!!
I caught myself agreeing on 90% of everything in this post. I only have reservations of a womb to tomb single vendor solution. That breads lumbering broken software. Competition breads good products. If we can add a user supported competitive development to the list, I'm all for it.
Me
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Apple has not taken the "lower road." Apple is on another road entirely.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
> The brand “Linux” should stand for an
> entire operating system not just
> a kernel.
I agree with most of the article, except I think that with the current fact that Linux is a kernel, this sentence is impossible.
Instead, people should be pushing e.g. the "Red Hat" or "Ubuntu" brands.
-- Asheesh.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Are you mad? Who does that on Linux anymore?
Perhaps developers et al, but hardly the bulk of the 29 million Linux users out there. My 12 year old sister types a keyword for the package she wishes to install into KPackage, chooses it from a list based on a handy description and then clicks 'INSTALL'. She says it makes Windows and OSX look hard!
November 02, 2005
hammy said...
Interesting viewpoints, though nothing that hasn't been re-hashed over and again on slashdot and various other open source fanatic websites.
The bit that I must contend with though, is your ideal of a "standard" Linux. This cannot and will never happen. The "caveat" of being truly free is that you cannot muscle out the folks around you who wish to do it a different way. Linux is a trademark certainly, but not a privately-owned commodity which can be controlled by a single ruling party or parties.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is just twisted, Linux copies M$! Linux is a clone of Unix which M$ has been trying to copy. Who is behind who?
Function come before fancy, some of us remember using Unix in COLOR before DOS came round to depress the masses.
Old Amiga user.
November 02, 2005
Nicolas Fatoux said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
I haven't compiled anything in linux since maybe 2 years ago.
All major linux distribution have central packages repositories, and graphical interface that does the magic. All you have to do is to select which softwares you want to install and then everything is automatic.
see http://www.ubuntu.com/include/ubuntu-5.10-addapp.jpg
for an example.
November 02, 2005
gropo vectos said...
Huh? Apple takes the lower ground? Have you used OS X? Surely you must have. They're way ahead of both MS and Gnome/KDE in terms of API standardization. And a slew of other "suggestions" you've listed above. what gives?
November 02, 2005
SpeaksTruth said...
I read the first Paragraph and basically have figured for the microsoft fanatic that you must be. If you truely want to get in to a contest over who is "keeping up" with whom, look no further than NFS... Anyone ever heard of DFS? Seems that kind of functionality was available on Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, you name the distro), LONG before M$ got a handle on how to do it with their "Kernel". How about memory leaks? My desktop runs without requiring a reboot except for Kernel upgrades (few and far between), how long should someone expect to run a Windows desktop without a reboot? The truth is that the Linux desktop is truly built on the same kernel as the Linux server. It is a shame that the same can be said for the Windows desktop and server platforms... Shame on you and your narrowmindedness.
November 02, 2005
cmcanulty said...
I was very excited to install Ubuntu. Then after hours trying to figure out the install-problems with user name that forced me to install again, anoother 3 hours. Now it works but resists all my efforts to get it to connect to the internet. This has completely soured my Linux experience and I want to just go back to Windows which actually works.
November 02, 2005
dmsnell said...
Spreadsheets in all grids?
Spell check in all text-boxes?
wtf?
If a component doesn't need some functionality, it is a waste of size and speed to put it in.
Why should spreadsheet functionality be built into a static and read-only table?
Why should you be able to spellcheck a username prompt or a code-block?
Although integration and seamlessness is important, thinking that everything should involve everything leads to code bloat and projects like OpenOffice where, although very usable, isn't accessible to a quarter of the users because it is so big and slow.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I don't see much new here. We even have the traditional misspellings.
The speed of innovation in any software can be both a boon and a bomb.
It's easy to drop in the word "framework": with a well-designed framework, you can extend and reuse existing tech. This is why the underlying pipe mechanism in Unix derivatives is so powerful. It's also why it's hard for many to master.
There's also a point when the framework - which should be strong-yet-supple - can instead ossify, like so much old glue that's set up and cracks easily.
Ultimately it is real work to take the time to design something that meets both current *and* future needs. While many working in the kernel and the distributions realize this, there remain the folk who just want to sling code and do the sexy, fun stuff first and fast and loose.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software. To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
Who said forced? THEY downloaded the .tar.gzip, that's their problem. Don't want to compile, un-gzip, un-tar? Ever heard of .rpm? Idiot. PS: most programs have pre-compiled files READY. If I didn't get to compile SOME stuff I'd be screwed, I'm a java developer.
November 02, 2005
Michael Acosta said...
So basically, copy features you like from an existing OS, integrate them more tightly, without bugs, maintaining backwards compatibility, and do it more quickly than a company with a specific direction? Piece of cake, right?
And as for "Linux" being a branded entity - you'd be spitting on a lot of your developers. Who knows, they may defect to .NET. Stallman is probably already cursing your name, as are the folks (and their employers) who dedicate incredible amounts of time and money to various apps. Linux is a kernel. A distribution is the OS.
Also, you mention standardization - who's in charge? You? Linus? A group of non-technical marketing-folk? Herding cats, my friend...
November 02, 2005
FunnyLookinHat said...
I once saw an apple salesman in best buy literally force someone to try using a powerbook, just for 5 minutes, to see how this customer liked it. The customer, albeit against her will, went along for 5 minutes. After the 5 minutes, she loved the operating system. She enjoyed the fact that it was both easy to use, and bubbly (i.e. graphically appealing)...
Should linux advocates take a similiar road? I've heard of some of my friends literally taking their parents' computers and installing Gnome on them overnight with debian or a similiar (largely backed) distribution, and the parents ended up loving it...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Discussing Linux's GUI and components is a very issue, unlike Windows and OSX, Any Linux distro can be modified and configured in any way the user will like to.
It can be as easy and stable as OSX and as hard and crappy as Windows (Comparing to OSX, Windows is a hard).
The biggest problem is that even the easiest distro (Like Mandriva for example) needs quite a skillful hands for initial configuration.
IMHO, initial configurations ARE the most difficult and unattractive of Linux. Even expirienced Linux users often have problems with their distro.
Another big problem is the Linux community who is simply not ready to accept all kinds of people into it. Many things are made harder than they should be, unfortunately most people are either not too bright or simply lazy. Those who use Linux usually do like the little difficulties because too simple things are not for them.
The best situation for an ordinary user is using OSX and Linux for the advanced user.
Both has the power and stability of a UNIX OS and programs are easily ported from one to another.
You can't make everyone happy, that's true but you can make two OSes that will be compatible, one for the Regular Home User and one for the Power User. That way everyone will be happy, or almost everyone.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The latest KDE does quite a lot of that.. KParts > OLE/COM, so you can specify tables to actually be a KSpread embed. KDE Wallet plus KAddressBook tries to do what OS X does with keychain and Address Book.app, which is keep your contact info, IM info, etc. in a single source. KOffice is close, though its format filters aren't as comprehensive as OpenOffice.
Drawbacks are: too many music players, konqueror's not easy enough to configure ('ignore fonts' checkbox please!!), Naming convention is weird for the sake of weird, etc..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
About some of your points, I whole heartedly disagree.
For years, I have observed that Microsoft does not seem to operate with a cohesive strategy, and often seems to compete with itself.
Then, one day, I realised "What if that is on purpose?"?
Microsoft allows internal groups to "re-implement the wheel" and duplicate work for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is: You are more likely to hit a home run if you get more than one chance to swing.
Internally, Microsoft operates like a bunch of smaller companies that are competing with eachother, and raising the overall bar of quality.
Microsoft doesn't really care if Word or Frontpage becomes the dominant method of WYSIWYG web development because it gets paid either way.
November 02, 2005
Patrick McFarland said...
A microsoft employee posted on his blog about the future of Microsoft GUI designs. Basically, they are violating the GPL and stealing GNUstep's Gorm.
November 02, 2005
cros13 said...
You're right.....
Been saying the same thing for years.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
great essay, I hope we (the linux community)
follow some of these points, like making a VB
clone, making a unified contact architecture, etc.
Wrong about one minor point though- Apple.
It's is the best example of providing both
a simple consistent interface for beginners,
and power to the advanced users. It takes a while
to realize it, but the whole system is customizable
to a greater extent than even linux. GUI apps can
be scripted (applescript), their menus can be changed/rearranged (even the finder), etc.
November 02, 2005
OrlandoDad said...
For those looking for "a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux", I suggest looking to Borland's Kylix/Delphi/C++ solution.
One IDE, one source providing both Linux and Windows apps.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The only way to make an end-to-end solution with Linux is to custom tailor a bunch of "similar" applications with glue code into a single Linux distribution. No application or set of applications, save maybe OpenOffice, could possibly provide everything at once. Theyre all too different, too unique, and dont look to hook into anything that doesnt come with the tarball.
Not to mention there will NEVER be a universal installer, just like there isnt for Microsoft applications. You need a custom-tailored solution like Debian and Gentoo provide, with lots of man-hours of support to keep it up to date.
November 02, 2005
Jamil said...
The funny thing is, OS X already has almost everything he mentioned in that article.
Spellcheck everywhere? Got it.
Centralized buddy list? Got it.
Standardized API? Got it.
etc...
November 02, 2005
stevew said...
Some of the the ideas are correct - but something I think that is a fundamentally BAD idea is the suggestion of a single database that controls all the applications. Can you say "registry" boys and girls. This is one of the single biggest security flaws in MS OSes.
This is different from a database for installed applications. Heck - rpm does that, i.e. an "old" idea.
While it is true that "look and feel" issues are something that wonders all over the place whether you be Gnome/KDE/other even within those environments, there is a move to a more common look inside Gnome/KDE anyway. There are also professionals that are starting to examine/measure "Look and Feel" for both of those windowing environments - this will improve.
I agree with the author about people wanting their applications to just work, and that people don't like installing new software - they don't want headaches. BUT people still get over this if they want the application in question - so is this REALLY a major issue??????? If the installation system WORKS and is relatively painless and it WORKS...did I say and it just has to WORK yet, then I don't think that installation is really REALLY that large an impediment..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You are dead on target. A basic core linux branded for the different distros is the way to go. Zealots are offended when linux is critized for being difficult to install and when synaptic works it is fantastic but the fact is it often breaks one or more things on a system requiring research and editing to get back on track. An example would be the ongoing transition to xorg. A fundamental operating system on which the rest are based along with bringing in the windows developers as you described would entirely change the desktop world for the better.
November 02, 2005
Doke said...
What you are proposing for Linux is the "Microsoft Philosophy". Integrating everything, and having only one way to do things, are typical Microsoft goals. They may do things several ways internally, but they try to present a single uniform interface to the users.
A large part of Linux's success is due to the range of choices available to it's users. It allows different user interface ideas to compete, evolve, and learn from each other. Total uniformity would stifle this wonderful forum for innovation.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
A lot of your guideline have been followed in OSX, I don't know why you say that Apple is lower level? I've you try it since OS X it's out.
November 02, 2005
Georgi said...
- There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs.
Contacts, buddies and users can or can not be different objects. Putting them all together will confuse users more than you can imagine. Linking them somehow to show that a buddy or conntact is also a system users can be more appropriate solution.
November 02, 2005
Reed said...
You have some good ideas, but they're pretty out of touch with Linux, GNU, and free software development.
Basically, a centralized One And Only Linux Desktop System fundamentally *can not* happen. You should be focusing on one or more individual distributions (RedHat, Debian, etc.). These are your "brands", and these are the folks that try to bring all of the independently created software into one cohesive end-user experience (with lots of help from KDE or Gnome).
It's very important that Linux *is* just the kernel, and that *anyone* can develop a software package based on the GNU/Linux system.
November 02, 2005
Praetorian said...
Great article!
I have been using windows for the past 10 years and recently tried using fedora core 4. What a mess!
There's no doubt that windows leads
the pack when it comes to ease of use. The word 'Linux' usually is a synonym for 'fear'. Linux development should be lead by a group consisting of expert coders and thinkers...
All the comments posted so far indicate a reluctance among linux users to bring about changes needed in linux development to ensure more desktop users switch over to Linux. But, remember that not everyone is a developer...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
While the article is very interesting and provides good ideas on ways to improve Linux as a whole, one thing stands out if you look deep into the possible motives behind the article:
FUD
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I 'grew up' on Windows, but every so often I get fed up with Windows (OS activation anyone?) and decide it is time to make the switch to Linux.
Every time I've tried, however, I end up frustrated. Here are my top complaints:
1. Installing applications. Tar? gzip? Where is setup.exe? Where do I specify where in the filesystem I want this to go?
2. Lack of helpful error messages. I could maybe troubleshoot and learn something if only I knew what was going wrong. The last distribution I tried was Ubuntu. Trying to see Windows shares (see #3 below) the application would just...go away. No error, nothing.
3. It has to play nice with Windows. I can't give up Windows entirely until I'm more familiar with Linux. In that time it has to play well with a Windows network. In Ubuntu, I finally got to where I could see my shares, but accessing them was a royal pain. My windows account started with a capitol letter and had a space, so I couldn't use that as a Linux account. If I specified the Windows account to use to access the share, I had to re-type it and the password numerous times.
November 02, 2005
Matthew C. Tedder said...
- Yes. These are the core barriers to GNU/Linux adoption on the desktop--and very well said.
- The analysis of Microsoft weaknesses is also very useful.
- However, KDE does have significantly innovative features over Windows (e.g. kio slaves for protocol/format transpearant file open/save dialog component).
- The idea of a solid package management solution that is distro agnostic holds a lot of potential over the status quo.
- Sadly, the LSB seems to be near proposing specific toolkits as part of its new Linux Desktop Standard (GTK for now). This is a very bad thing. Desktop standards should be based on component models, cut & paste, software management, etc. Trying to standardize on one or more specific toolkits unnecessarilly limits innovation, diversity, and alienates developers for no reason that matters to developers or end users (except for those developers who favor the particular toolkit). It's just stupid.
Matthew C. Tedder
However, I disagree that
November 02, 2005
digitizelife.com said...
This is some incredible and invaluable insight not only into Linux, but to OSS as a whole. I beleive a pheasable way to achieve such a lofty goal would be to form a unified open standard for all aspects of Linux software development. Once developers meet the criteria for this standard, a 'seal' of approval is given to the product, and thus larger investors (such as IBM) would be more likey to validate and support the software. The key would be for these large enterprises to support and sponsor this 'union', or 'consortum' of standards. Many large software and hardware companies have already invested large amounts of capital into Linux and could only benefit from getting together to insure that their investment remain lucrative, and continue to grow.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The level of ignorance in this article is astounding.
As has been pointed out: RPM has been an established format for years. When I got my first taste of Linux in 2000 (Red Hat 6 I think), RPM was quite common.
I agree that content handling (music, contacts, et cetera) could be vastly improved in every operating system. MS discussed that years ago when they first started talking about Longhorn (now known as Windows Vista, due out next year)...I expect the next generation of operating systems, starting with Vista, will take care of this problem. But that's about the extent of what the author got right. Once again, Linux will be left following suit because Microsoft got to it first.
November 02, 2005
solomonrex said...
He's dead on. Really. I'm a programmer, and quite frankly po'd that I can't setup samba on my linux box easily, that Ubuntu has 100 different places to answer my question and none of them work. Windows networking is basic stuff.
apt get is great with a visual interface, but it doesn't solve everything.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I think you will be very interested in Symphony OS. Check out www.symphonyos.com. They use the same kind of approach you've mentioned here. There is still a lot to be done though, as with most things...
November 02, 2005
Shadowhawk said...
Software Installation
In properly configured Linux distribution not geared towards deveopers you have only to run the package manager of your distribution, or of your choice (yum, apt-get, PowerPM or appropriate GUI like KPackage, Synaptic, GYum), type the name of the package you want to install, and it would download it, check dependencies and download them, and install it. Even the Slackware users I think usually download ready packages and install them using addpkg and similar.
Rarely one does download && ./configure && make && make install (or rather checkinstall) path. I think.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I'll stick with Plan 9, thank you.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I agree with EVERYTHING said, except the there should be only one linux distro. I totally disagree, that is one of the strengths of linux. For example I use SUSE for my main desktop, knoppmyth for my media PC/TV needs. Agnula for my pro audio system and opie for my handheld. With only ONE linux these very specialized distros would simply not be around.
November 02, 2005
Andy said...
"There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs."
Since people talked about Mac OS X, this request above is also on the road. The Address book in OSX stores not only names but messenger buddies (shows up in Adium and iChat etc.) and is connected to a various of other software, for example the Calender which notes down your contacts birthday and stuff like that.
November 02, 2005
Mark said...
For those commenting on the 'Apple low road' comment:
One-button Mouse. Apple has enough control over their OS and hardware that they could really improve on numerous features to add better functionality while not alienating users with an extra button. Also, don't bring up the Mighty Mouse, the right-click is clever, but hardly par with any truely two-button mouse. Also, in turn they complicate the less obvious functions, like a screen capture, sure it auto-saves it, but do I really need three buttons from a company that touts simplicity? I have nothing against them and like thier products, but really...
For those commenting on Linux and the wonderful world of distros with package servers and managment systems:
As for compiling things, well, the moment you want to try something that isn't in a package list you're in a tough spot. Sure all the distros have package lists and installers, but they're not standard and sometimes they're out of date. I know for Mandrake it tends to lag several subrevisions behind on Firefox, and that's not even an obscure application. The trouble with this non-standard is that if you want a specialized distrobution you're forced to do the extra footwork and track down and compile the needed applications and correct dependancies. In this way the less technical user is forced into a limited range of linux products, sure they may never have gone out to a lesser-known one, but they may never bother trying others if they feel it'll be too much of a hassle, which defeats that 'freedom of choice' notion that keeps coming up.
For the article:
I think it makes many valid points, and actually I was reminded of a product while reading on the VB issue. I remember reading up on RealBasic which touts itself as being similar to VB, but being able to compile for Mac, Linux, and windows. The idea makes sense, and the product seems to make sense, especially in light of the fact that VB6 is on the outs for support and development. Of course I've never tried it, so I can't speak for or against, but I just wanted to bring up that such solutions indeed exist (albeit with a cost, for this one.)
November 02, 2005
Jeom said...
I say we let this guy rest in peace. He may not have installed any distribution since Red Hat 5.2; I reckon. He may not understand sharply what linux is about.
However he made two quite obvious yet smartish statements:
"1. People avoid change - People don’t want to switch operating systems. As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new."
"2. New Operating Systems break old applications - Every new operating system will change the user experience in some cases it will add new useful features but in many others it will break some level of application compatibility. The larger the changes the more likely things are to break and cause problems."
I had to endure insults as I suggested last week on a IT-Management student mailing-list that they [The students] had at least to get comfortable with linux to get a better understanding of their field of expertise [future expertise in this case]. Knowing that those people will one day have take strategic decisions in an IT environment gives me the shivers.
Well anyway it wasn't my point. My point is we shall not insult [or insult back] Win users/fans/freaks whatever you want to call them. Studies proove take anti M$ sentiments is one of the last reason people gave to explain why they switched to another OS.
So let's not mix the feelings with the facts.
Ubuntu rules by the way...
November 02, 2005
Steve said...
Seems to me you have a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of GNU/Linux and the desktop platform.
Linux is a kernel. GNU is the operating system that runs on the kernel. Gnome/KDE are desktop environments. All of these are completely independent of the layer below them.
Linux is not a brand. Its a kernel. It is not an OS, its a kernel. It is not a desktop, its a kernel.
GNU is not a kernel, its an OS. It is not a desktop, its an OS. It is also a way of life for many. You'll even find significant parts of it in products like Solaris and MacOSX.
Debian is a distribution that takes a kernel, an OS, a desktop and a collection of applications and makes them available under one banner. Ubuntu does the same. Redhat, Mandriva, Novell/SuSE, and others do it as well. Those are names are brands.
On top of that misunderstanding, you come across has if you haven't actually used any of the modern Linux-based platforms at all. No one has to install from source anymore. I've been using Linux nearly 12 years and for at least the last 3 I haven't had to install from source unless I chose to. APT and RPM are two of the most popular packages out there. AutoPackage is another one thats gaining popularity as well. If you're installing from Source, then you're doing what Microsoft did and comparingn Windows XP to Redhat Linux 6.2.
Get Ubuntu 5.10 or the latest Mandriva, or even the latest Fedora Core. None of them require you to install from source and all maintain extensive repositories of software.
As for your comment about 'integration' between the apps. I'm sorry, but I don't want my desktop being bloated by a word processor just so all my text boxes have spell and grammer checking. I don't need that, I don't want that. Why would I want a table to have full spreadsheet ability? If I want a spreadsheet, I do the work in a spreadsheet. Why bloat the desktop?
Interfaces such as QT, GTK+, wxWidgets and many others are now very extensive. I can't think of a generic app that cant use widgets already provided by those. Even many Windows developers are using wxWidgets now.
I think that before you open your mouth and spew forth junk like this, you should actually take time to use the products you're trying to start a flame war about.
Unfortunately I'm just as bad for feeding the troll.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
“Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.”
... Sounds like OS X to me.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
It's funny how biased some people are. They say that they only read the first paragraph and then choose to comment. And of course they read certain lines take them out of context, neglect your tone, voice, and anything implied and declare that you're an idiot.
It's ok. You're not an idiot because once in a while as a linux user you HAVE TO (which is why he does say forced) compile your own programs. Sometimes there is no RPM, sometimes you can't just go and click Install, and it is those times which he is referring to.
Anyways. Linux people are seriously really really biased.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is a very well thought out post. A few problems...
> Linux users don't want Linux to "be" like windows in any way. I have noticed that this often coincides with having easy configuration. Is is that hard to make an operating system scalable?
> The Linux community doesn't really want Linux to be mainstream.
I don't want Linux to be a windows clone. But I can see Linux being a scalable operating system that is easy to use if you want that, and difficult to use if you want that. Linux has the potential to be an operating system for anyone to use.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
OrlandoDad, forget Kylix (which is a dead product) and try Lazarus.
While it is still work in progress you'll be suprised to see how far it has gone.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Uhm, doesn't the last paragraph pretty much sum up OS X? It's got all the simplicity tied into the GUI for the "not so advanced", then a fully loaded (with a touch of 'proprietary') BSD underbelly. What did I miss?
And being able to compile (in some cases needing to) is by no means a weakness. It's like the open-source argument about "would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" I certainly wouldn't, even if it meant 100% up-time (which Windows doesn't even come close to having). Responsibility does come with that power, but it is very much worth the perceived risk.
I'm sure this isn't the place for it, but people need to quit with the "but it's what I know" attitude occasionally. After all, why is it "what [you] know"? Because you tried it in the first place, no?
November 02, 2005
Benoit said...
General users are not, and never will become, computer geeks. They need to control their computer through GUIs. This means that the GUI must present the following inescapable, unavoidable characteristics:
- Clarity (When people say they want simplicity, they usually mean clarity);
- Exhaustivity (Everything that must be done must be available through the GUI. No dropping into .config files for the end user);
- Consistency (To minimize learning curve or, in other words, reuse what the user has learned);
The role of clarity and consistency is to provide quick and painless learning.
By exhaustivity, I mean that users must have a (clear and consistent) way to do the following:
- install Linux;
- upgrade Linux;
- install and uninstall all applications;
- replace hardware parts and their associated drivers;
- personalize their own Linux;
- manage security;
- and everything else I may have missed.
We need an organisation structured like the IETF or the W3C whose purpose would be to evolve a complete specification of a clear and consistent user experience giving the user total control of his machine. Programmers and distributions would be free to branch out, but over time, the availability of a good user experience proposition (and high level libraries to easily implement its various facets) would win over developers as well as users, and a commun culture will develop.
Right now, the geeks are happy with Linux, but the genral user is totally, utterly confused.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hmm... Mac OS X has most of these controls available for all apps.. Check out the Cocoa API's sometime. ;-)
Toolbars, menus, File dialogs, color pickers, date pickers, etc, etc, all written at least three times.
- Spreadsheet functionality should be built into every list or grid. I should be able to sort, filter, copy paste any list like data cells.
- Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
- Entire dialog metaphors should be reusable. (add/edit/remove)
- Concepts like a back forward button and navigation should be re-usable in applications other then a web browser.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Some one brought up the Delphi/Kylix connection in this.
Pascal is not a hard language to jump to either for hard core C++ JAVA developers or for VB developers. It is a nice middle ground. As for third party controls there are millions of them for free (check out the Delphi Jedi library), and millions more that you can pay for. And because they also have CLX controls that work on both Linux and Windows you can create nice cross compiled applications.
Now being an avid Delphi user, I love their product, it does have short falls, especially when importing COM and .NET controls. But if these get solved perhaps they will also have a cross .NET - MONO development tool eventually?
As for Linux. I am trying desperately to use Linux. But here is my story. I install MYSQL on Windows and download and install the management desktop tool and everything is great.
On Red Hat MySQL is installed but everytime I try to install the desktop management tool it gives me some error about shared objects missing. No hint on where I can get them from or how to install them.
With windows the installer just works. On Linux it sucks donkeys. I don't want to hunt down some SO files, and figure out how to install them.
To top this off I am running in VMWare. I terminal servered into the host machine from home when I did the install. Now back at work I start up the Red Hat image and the "xserver" will not start because it is not configured, and asks if I would like it to autoconfigure, I select yes and nothing happens. So I gets the idea that if I terminal into the host machine and see what happens. Sure enough it works.
THIS NEVER HAPPENS WITH WINDOWS. Windows works. And when it doesn't work it at least doesn't work in an expected manner. Linux has to be more user friendly.
Get a proper standard installation processs, similar to the MS installer, so anyone can log onto the machine and install a peice of software.
I expect my Mom to be able to install MySQL, Office, practically anything on Windows. I don't expect her to necessarily be able to use them.
Why can't I have the same expectations for Linux? Until all the major distributions out there get together and come out with some standards that can make their OS easy for newbies to use it can not compete with Windows or that Macintosh crap.
As a side note BEOS had it right. You download a file in BEOS and it would pop up a message that said something like "I noticed that the zip file contains an installation package, would you like me to install it for you", select yes and it unzipped, installed, then gave you a message saying "product installed". That is it.
Linux is far from this. And until it gets there it can not compete on the average users desktop.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg your thoughts are right on. I marvel at all of the negative posts that cannot see the forest for the trees. These are suggestions for improving Linux's 'desktop' acceptance by the user community at large. For those of you that have referred to Linux are successful must be over looking the fact that it is not generally considered successful have the percentage of your userbase in the single digits.
On the server, where you have a staff of technical people, it has been sucessful, but on the desktop it has not because it requires a level of technical expertise that average joe does not have. So Linux'ers if you want to keep your toys to yourselves, so be it, but you will not gain general acceptance by being technically arrogant.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
In the competitive proprietary mind, I would see how someone arrives to that conclusion. But I, for one, don't see it that way. Linux doesn’t need to be “dominate”. This is not a competition where winner takes all.
From my narrow perspective, I would rather see Linux stay out of the main stream. It only brings commercialism and PHBs who want to take over and regulate. I like it as a geek system. If Joe Sixpack can’t use Linux, fine by me. That is what Mac OSX is for.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Well, for precompiled packaged, about 80%+ of OS X "installation" is drag-and-drop. Simply put it anywhere you choose on your HD Packages are self-contained, and reference shared libraries (or ".dlls" for those with an inhibited world view) as needed. The others are regular "installs" as the rest of the world knows it.
Again. . .why not OS X?
November 02, 2005
Brian Zimmerman said...
Linux is like a box of leggos. You can make what you want from it. There is no competition, there is no company.
For distros that are after the desktop market, then yes, heed this advice. A wave of apps and tools that make the end user experience easier are definately needed and on the way.
If you think the distinction between the kernel and a desktop distro is nitpicking, you are probably forgetting that Linux is in cell phones, PDAs, multi-function printers, gaspumps?!? What next, medical equipment and air traffic control systems?
And as an aside, my install of Ubuntu went flawlessly. All hardware worked, as well as all network resources (DHCP, shared drives, printers, internet, etc.)as easy or easier than XP. Some users may have problems with WinModems though.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I would argue that the core issue being discussed here is not how exactly Linux should develop or evolve, but instead about how we in the world of open source want to advance. If we eventually want to see open source solutions dominate the market over proprietary software, we will HAVE to find a way to make linux simply and easy to use for everyone. As a side note, his proposed suggestions do not imply that that must be the only direction linux goes in, merely the direction it must go in order to gain market share. I don't think anyone needs to worry about closing out "advanced" users, since there will always be people willing to produce specialized/customized OSes and applications. But I think you have to admit that for your average, every day user who doesn't do much, integration is a good thing and that the idea of a unified OS/application package (unavailable to Microsoft due to anti-competition laws) is a brilliant one. most people just want a computer to crunch out documents and browse the web. I agree that OSX does that well, but the truth is that transitioning from Windows to OSX is some what of a shock to the system, and since most people have Windows machines, that transition isn't going to happen. A linux based distribution is the best hope we have to move people from Microsoft into the wider world of open source.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Single interface for contacts - Kmail and Kopete?
API - GTK+ and QT?
Office suite - Koffice and OpenOffice.org?
Installation - Synaptic, apt-get, and Yast?
Just some examples of where your "experience" and/or research has failed you.
Question for the curious: Where is Windows' centralized software package repository and installtion program with automatic dependency resolution where all programs have been tested and known to work together?
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Attention Apple zealots: When he mentions "lower" he is talking about the lower road, which in his blog was on UI Expertise requirements. The "lower route" is the easiest-to-use route, while the upper route is console / text-config / too-many-options-in-one-tab UI (much like Gnome 1.x).
Next time don't be like "omfg?! APPLE LOWER?!". He was not saying it is a bad thing.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"Linux accounts for about one per cent of desktop operating systems in the whitebox space, according to figures from IDC."
- http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8251
Thats pretty FUBAR, even for Linsux!
I'm looking at XAML, Workflow Foundation, LINQ. good luck with your standard icons, losers.
November 02, 2005
Speak Geek said...
Well, i agreed with this article on most points, except, again, the branding of linux. And I partially agree with that. I think there should be standards set, such as the file system, desktop environment. etc. For example, KDE and GNOME. Software has to be developed often for each of them. Pick one and always use that. Jumping back and forth just makes lots of repetitive software and inconsistencies
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Jesus looks like someone opened a can of worms. Well if u set out to piss of alot of people well done :D
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This "greg" fellow, I think, is generalising.
To get an average consumer to switch you need to first get them to not fear change and be willing to try. In order to try you need to reduce confusion and risk. This means users can’t be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images, they also can’t be expected to properly partition their hard drive. Users don’t want to manually import their favorites and browser settings and email configuration. To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE.
There's no such thing as a 100% RISK FREE operating system, not even OS X. Anyways,
If a user doesn't want to untar/zip and burn an ISO, they can check out Ubuntu ShipIt or just (gasp!) buy a commercial Linux distro, like Redhat or Mandriva. If an average user is afraid of partitioning their hard drive, then they can ask a geek or do the default configuration. Beyond this, the author has a limited grip of what installing an operating system means. If a person is afraid of losing their precious Windows or OSX installation, then they can do a backup.
later in the article, the author complains about multiple control sets and labyrinthine media organisation methods. I've got a really simple response: If you don't like something in Linux, you can go and fix it yourself or even hire someone to fix it for you. Linux was never intended to be the next (I shudder to use this phrase) "Killer App" to eliminate Windows in terms of ease of use; Linux can be easy to use, but that doesn't mean it emulates Windows. He mentions the necessity of having a core "Linux" operating system. My response: try the Linux Kernel, which is the operating system. Everything else is just packaging extra software with it. He also talks about the difficulty of installing software. My response is: if you go trolling for software on Linux using the Web, of course you aren't gonna find the installation experience pleasant! Open up your package manager and do it from there. Simply because it's installation process doesn't copy Windows' doesn't make it hard.
In all, this guy doesn't understand that Linux was never about Konquering the World. It wasn't about attracting new market shares, it was about giving the user (Either technically able or willing to learn) the choice of an operating system that he didn't have to "Activate", didn't have to subscribe to, or forfeit his rights to if the EULA so demanded.
November 02, 2005
Linux Addict said...
Great Article. Being a linux enthusiast I would say these kind of Articles should be taken as positively as possible by the people.
Think about it mostly we face lack to feedback from users, when we get it, we bash the user for his innocous remarks which we think are very detrimental to the OS we love. We can stand behind Linux and other OSS and stop people from Criticizing it but ultimately we should try learning things.
There are a bunch of good things about Linux and their are a bunch of bad ones, somethings which developers might think very simple and obvious could not be making any appeal to the user and look non sense.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Redhat user 'anonymous': The reason that you get missing-library problems is because, unlike windows applications which bundle every single dll that it uses, Open Source projects only have what they are working on. The reason for this is 1: Having every dependancy will make all projects have huge downloads. 2: They CANNOT ship binaries for every distribution because they are all configured differently and are often incompatible with each other (much unlike the monolithic windows). 3: Instead of randomly whining how you can't get XXX product to work, how bout you check your repository to see if they have the package available, AND HAVE IT INSTALL ALL REQUIRED LIBRARIES. Gentoo: emerge, Debian/Ubuntu: apt-get, Slackware (if you've installed it): either slapt-get or swat, RedHat: yum. I do not know of the other distributions, but seriously. Check your dependancies when you download things that are NOT in your repository.
November 02, 2005
RobGTX said...
Very interesting article. As a Windows application developer for the last 10 years, primarily focused on Business Application I took note of a few interesting points:
Controls – He has got it right on the mark, how many times have I heard about some 3rd party custom control that “looks just like MS Office…”, build this into the OS in a standard way and you have a pot of gold.
I have played with many version of Windows, ranging from 2.0 through the current Vista betas, not much has changed with the exception of some more pleasant graphics. Similarly, not a whole lot has change in Linux over the past few years KDE and gnome do some things nicely while other things are very difficult.
Look to Apple and we see a major change between OS9 and OS X. Apple saw the need for change and changed things radically.
Now I have read a lot of responses stating that you can do a given task with X, Y or Z. That is exactly what is wrong. For a distribution targeted at the mainstream desktop user, you need exactly 1 way for most people to do something, while not constraining advanced.
From the outside looking in, again for the mainstream targeted desktop deployments, there seems to be far too much infighting and competing projects between the project teams. So the end users is left with multiple packages some that target very advanced tasks and have only the basics in others. Why do we need 2 major desktops anyhow (gnome vs. KDE), personally I prefer Ximian Desktop, because I could make it “look” more like Windows, but it no longer seems to be available, did Novell kill it?
Anyhow, many people have nailed it in their comments regarding “… sounds like OSX …”. The only real downside is the cost associated with Apple hardware and the lack of acceptance of Apple in corporate America.
Now, to pre-respond to the naysayers that will no doubt respond with commentary about the need to specific distributions targeted at specific industries or hobbyists. There is certainly a place for distributions like Gentoo, Slackware and Yellow Dog, however in terms of targeting the “mainstream” I do not feel that anyone has produced a linux distribution that is suitable for “grandma and grandpa” that simply want a computer to get email, browse the internet and perhaps play some music or movies… Umbuntu Linux comes close, but is not quite ready for prime-time.
November 02, 2005
Cpgeek said...
The problem isn't just a unified interface, but also a modular one... - what happens if said unified user interface for handing files metadata, contacts, etc. sucks? (arbitrarily, on a user to user basis, one user is going to love it, another will hate it, it's the way of the world). there should be multiple modular interfaces that are stored in libraries and can be switched out completely switched out, like themes for a GUI. the standardization comes in when calling these GUI "themes". applications need calls for elements that are variables. for example, if an application needs a file dialog box it should go out, ask the preference files what library ("theme") to go get that data from, make the call, and return with the user interface. all of these "themes" should also have a standard way of replying to programs that call them... - it's about protocol, not static user interface design.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Well, this might solve the KDE/GNOME issue. Maybe. . .
As for the seemingly anti-Apple comments; Apple Zealot here. Simply put, I "converted" from Windows to OS 9 with little trouble. Admittedly, the change was somewhat forced, but once in, it was immediately like home. Then, with the advent of OS X, I wondered why anyone would use Windows ever. I mean, obviously if gaming is all you do, then more power to you, but if you want a real, useful OS, then OS X is currently the way to go. Notice the use of "currently"; things could change once again. Just not in the foreseeable future. ;)
November 02, 2005
Jason Kichline said...
When Greg mentions Linux should be the operating system he is merely reflecting the set brand expectation. Most programmers or technical people have no idea what brand management is and you probably can't appreciate this. But in the heads of consumers and business people Linux == OS. The problem is that there is a brand descrepancy because as stated, Lunux is not, in reality, an OS but a kernel.
The core challenge that Linux development faces is that it is created in a way that focuses first on function, and then on form. Most of the programmers probably don't give a damn about how the UI looks, you think that's just eye candy. In some ways you are right. However, this eye candy is the visual embodiment of the Linux "brand".
However, the UI is not just to make it pretty, but also need to help users accomplish tasks. Microsoft was very adept at this in the Windows 95/98 style interface but has of late struggled to reinvent the way people interface computers. Why? I think its because they are inventing the technology and searching to solve a problem that does not exist. Why do my windows need to be transparent? Does that fulfill a need I had to get my stuff done quicker? Linux need to build "Results-Orients User Interfaces". Get the task done quicker.
I think Linux can overtake Microsoft if we listen to the consumers. We need open source market research and workflow analysis. We need to analyze what people want to do and then maximize the user experience. We need to get really picky and make performing certain tasks happen in two clicks instead of four. It doesn't matter how much better your code and performance is if it takes users 10 minutes to figure out how to send an e-mail.
What all the Linux developers need to learn is how to properly frame a solution WITHOUT jumping to design. We need to identify the workflows WITHOUT uttering the language we are going to write it in. Programmers have a real tendency to "just start coding", when what we need to do is think about how to solve the user's problem in the best manner possible. Technology must serve the user. At least 50% of your comments suggest that the users must serve the technology. For instance, insisting its OK that installing something takes 3 hours to figure out, or that users should deal with lots of clicks because the code is beautiful or modular or whatever. That's just backwards.
So Greg is right, we need to align the Linux brand with consumer expectations. That means normalizing the Linux distributions. It doesn't mean their can't be variations on the theme, but we need a consistant brand and user experience.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
From Anonymous : Are you mad? Who does that on Linux anymore?
Me I must do ? Why ? Because i use a 64bits linux, and most packages don't exists on it. Why I don't switch on a 32bits distro ? Because I must recompile/reconfigure the kernel to make him handle my AMD64 3400+, and I think an OS woudn't take us to do that kind of things. Linux is for advanced users as soon as you have an advanced computer, it's a fact.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I agree to a point on the standadization of linux, not the kernel, but the file system at least. want to know what i mean? take fedora, it stores files in a directory structure COMPLETLY DIFFERENT than my suse 10.0 laptop. and plaes...you .RPM etc. freaks... what are you going to do when you kernel upgrade? get the basic one that is an rpm? no thanks, not for me. I would rather COMPILE my own lean running kernel that is cutom tailored to my system it is running on. if I don't want NFS compile into the kernel, i can select to load it AS NEEDED as a simple module, no need for it to be taking kernel space when booting or as the kernel is running.
Also, one thing MS has over linux is a standerdization of libraries (.DLL's) you ever try to upgrade one component of linux and have to upgrade like say...GTK+ and once you have upgraded it the app that needed it works...but the apps that depended on the old version don't recognise the new version so fail? i have many a times found this to happen in linux. what needs to be done is make a standard for writing/rewriting these types of apps, especially for backwards compatibility. thats what i would like to see with linux, standardized filing structure, and application libraries. why update libgtk+.so for one call when the developer could just as easily write it in his/her code? just because they don't want to take the time? i also agree that there should be a standardzized package manager FORMAT. there really is no rease to have 15 or more pakage managers for 4-5 package types. settle on like 3 of the top chosen managers and develop from there. that way you can have more coders working to output code than if you have the same amount working on ten times as many DIFFERENT apps to OD THE SAME THING.
think on this, if the file structure was the same and the libraries the same, red hat ubunto mandrake and suse plus all the other distro's out there could have their devels work on ONE CVS repository, and just put their brand names on the DISTRO. the coding would be done much more rapidly than MS and then could far outstrip them, insted of playing catch up as they are doing now. there are probably a lot MORE coders working on linux than windows, so imagine what they could accomplish if they all worked together.... MS wouldn't stand a chance.
November 02, 2005
The Truth said...
This article makes alot of good points. You blind zealots just cannot see it objectively anymore.
The biggest point to me is the new software installation. If I want a new MP3 player for Windows what do I do? I get on the net and search for 'winxp mp3 player', right? Regardless what what piece of crap site I end up at I will be able to download install.exe or the like that I can simply double-click. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT!
Now that uncle Bob wants a new mp3 player for Linux he will most likely do the same thing, right? So he gets on the net and searches for something like 'linux mp3 player'At this point he will be lucky to end up at a site he can download a binary from. Even if he is lucky enough not to be staring blankly at something like this: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-fedora.html or this http://downloads.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/0.8.1/rpm/fedora/fc3/vlc/, I can almost gurantee that whatever packaage he downloads will have additional dependency requirements.
If he was zealous he spent awhile searching around for something like xorg-x11-XFree86-glue-Mesa-libGLU-4.4.0-2 ...
But now uncle bob is rebooting back into Windows ...
November 02, 2005
kelvie said...
The two conditions you posted initially may be easily satisfied by someting really simple: live distributions.
After explaining to a few of my friends (I must admit, I'm quite the linux zealot among my peers) about Knoppix, burning it for them (the DVD version), and telling them how it's completely risk-free, and a fun way to try it, they get hooked.
In about a month, I'll pose them the linux challenge -- do what you would normally do in linux for a week, and don't touch Windows.
Also, introducing them to the online forum/IRC community helps -- the open source community (at least Gentoo anyways) is surprisingly friendly and helpful.
Knoppix does a generally good job probing hardware though -- although it'd be nice if the normal liveDVD would have nvidia/ati drivers so that they can experience the magic that is tuxracer =p (yes I realize the legal limitation to this).
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"with the release of Mother Sheehan Linux 2.1 and Haliburton Linsux 1.0, the number of Linux distributions finally surpassed the number of actual Linux users."
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
If Linux is going to outdo OS/2, it needs to be more user friendly, easier to install and not break existing applications.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
I can't speak for the majority of Linux users, but most of the people I know who use Linux at all already consider it by far superior to Windows. I would guess that most of the developers for Linux applications are developing for themselves, and folks like them who need to solve similar problems. I would also guess that in most these cases, ease of use is directly equal to efficiency.
I'm not trying to say that there aren't some people/groups that want Linux to be in the hands of average people. In fact, most people seem to think that Ubuntu is really getting to the "everyman" point (or is already there).
Personally, I believe that "Linux" is far too nebulous to consider as a desktop operating system simply because there are too many variables. No sane help desk would support "Linux" for any purpose, as there's no particular standard for where things should be, or what the "proper" way to do thing X is.
I don't think that this is a bad thing. Linux and other Unix-likes which aren't supported by default can still be used by the people who want to use them. Those people take pride in configuring their systems and solving their own problems. Those like reading man pages and learning new things. Most computer users, though, just want to sit down at a computer, do something, and then walk away. If they have a problem, they want to have someone to turn to (in the same way that I would want to have someone available to work on my car if it was to break).
Linux may never be a real option for those people without support, and I don't think that's so bad.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This article is entirely wrong. Me, and almost all novice Microsoft users who want to run Linux do not want "better applications" as a reason to switch. We are license violators (or pirates if you want to call it that) who have 4-5 machines in a household (or sometimes even 1) and do not want to pay $300 for windows + $300 for office X 4-5. All we need is a clone, application compatibility. Give us that in a no-cost Linux and we would gladly switch. The same is true for medium size businesses who don't want to pay to upgrade to XP because NT4, 98, win 2k, or Me is unsupported. Linux doesn't need to be better (although a linux clone of windows will very likely crash less)- if it is free and close enough it could wipe out Windows almost entirely. People would buy $200-400 computers that were $75-100 cheaper with a good enough Linux, and so would businesses. And many of the home users stuck on win95,98, and Me who don't want to pay for XP would upgrade to a fairly compatible Linux to avoid virus and spyware problems because they know support and the windows firewall are not available on their old OS.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
So Linux'ers if you want to keep your toys to yourselves, so be it, but you will not gain general acceptance by being technically arrogant.
You can't be punished by not being provided what you don't want.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
If a survey were taken concerning what characteristics you would like to see in a "perfect OS", would you be interested? I have been wanting to do this for awhile now, so, if you think it's worth me getting it going, let me know at nathanaelblevins@hotmail.com.
- Nathanael
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg! You are great. I will come back to your comments more often. They are valuable to me. Keep it up!
Best
Zeno
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux, OSX blah blah.
I work in a data center and I laugh consistently when I see an alarm tick for a coldstart of a windows machine. Usually the windows machine will then "unexpectedly" eat it's registry for breakfast leaving the company it worked for with downtime and unhappy customers.
I for one have no problem using my Debian workstation and my powerbook to which I am typing this response. I agree to the earlier post that "this is not a winner take all world"
Far too often I find people pointing the finger to which distro is better or what have you. But in my mind, if my family was fed/clothed by my web-cluster it would not be running on an MS product.
Solaris/RH/Debian/OSX admin, yea I think I someone said us OSX users are like Joe Sixpack?
Well I assure you I do not have abs o steel and that I do like beer, so leave OSX and apple to those that like it and stop the slandering of my "precious"
November 02, 2005
hahaha said...
greg sounds like almost 90% of people that i know.. given that i'm in a very typical/usual surroundings whom are all users, and they dont giv a damn about how the os was build or done.. they juz wanna use it..
so.. 90% of these ppl will agree wit u.. and the left out 10% of programmers and alternative ppl who can cope wit some logical problems at any given time will hav enuf time/interest to read your post and mostly bombard u..
wateva anybody's opinion is, os that are easier to use, even for kids and grandmas', is what that matters.. and every1 have to agree that windows is easier to use.. i dun have to prove this fact..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You've got to be the most uninformed person on the planet when it comes to computers. Where have you been for ten years, and how did you find the internet?
November 02, 2005
Bobby said...
Very well thought out post. I have to agree with you on most points. There definitely has to be a solid standard.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The evolution of any technology tends to move toward ease of use. The early adopters latch onto to the complex early either to prove their technical superiority (and scoff at the less knowledgeable) or to be different. This may be a bit of a side note, but ComputerWorld has a survey (http://www.computerworld.com/
developmenttopics/development/
story/0,10801,100542,00.html) that demonstrates this fact. Most developers most are working on high-level languages (C#, JAVA, & VB) while the most complex language C++ trails. That is because efficiency and ease of use is much more valuable to business than a bunch of unorganized almost finished applications. In time the really smart Linux developers will move toward ease of use and those who moved into Linux for scoffing will be off on another OS. Hopefully this will happen before the impending fragmentation that is now happening in JAVA and will potentially happen to Linux.
November 02, 2005
Matej said...
I kind of like the article, except that it seems to be similar to many many other similar articles trying to comment on Linux without actually knowing it well. Talking about standardization -- did you know that most of the things you require from Linux (unification of user experience, standardized tools, not-reinventing the wheel) are already present in KDE in measure much higher than in Windows (AFAIK -- I haven't use Windows seriously for past couple of years; and I do not know enough about Gnome to comment on the current state of the things there)? Do you know that your standardized distribution environment is already available (Debian, [k]Ubuntu, I don't have enough experience with other distros)?
Matej
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I've untarred and compiled software.
I tried the automated installers.
They worked most of the time, but
several times I had dependencies on
the latest version of some other
library that could not be resolved
or introduced errors. For example:
Installed mythtv. It got the latest
version of the Qt lib. They had
changed the code to handle time
to fix a bug with timezones and
daylight savings. Mythtv was written
with a fix for the bug. Now my
clock is an hour off no matter what
I set the timezone to. I end up
having to manually install the
previous version of QT.
My big issues have been dependency
problems.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
the slackware linux package manager is easy. There is also dropline gnome for very easy installation and maintanence of installed software.. Not to mention swaret
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I dont think bashing is the way to go, here. One thing that has not been discussed is the live distro cds. You can purchase them, try linux, see if everything is compatible with your computer, and then install it. I would like to see more vendors (some are working on this) support linux ie dreamweaver (I know we have alternatives) and photoshop (gimp) but also games like flight simulator or nascar2000. Things like this make me keep one box with windows on it and constantly updating it. (uggh)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Are we all forgetting the fundamental principle behind open source GNU/GPL software. It comes with one main stipulation. You may use the software for FREE but if you make changes to the software they (the source) must be made available to the General Public. Let's see Apple and Microsoft distribute their software for free. The moment we allow some organization to form and standardize linux distributions, I believe we violate the GPL. However, I do think it is important to set up standards, but they should not be shoved down one's throat.
I liked the comment about buying a car with the hood welded shut. Those who know how to use unix/linux can appreciate how much flexibility there is. It allows us to get our hands dirty if you will.
I have had instances where I needed to use tar and gzip. I think it is great that they are there. I think every serious linux user should learn how to compile a new kernel. The fact that a package may not be available in an .RPM or other format is merely interesting. If you need software to do someting, and it isn't available in a package learn to install it the hard way. Don't be lazy, use your brain. In most cases you can find some kind of documenation.
People have families, and the fact is that this software is offered for free. Like most people I am not a developer, nor do I want to be, but I appreciate all the progress that has been made thus far. Without these people taking time aside from their lives and families none of this would be accomplished.
I think this was a good article, but fundamentally some arguments are just flawed because of the GPL. One of the biggest improvements that can be made to linix is better hardware support. I like being able to choose which distribution I want to use, I don't want them to all be the same. I also like how the kernel is seperate from the OS is seperate from the desktop environment. It allows me to plug different pieces together to my choosing. You don't see microsoft and apple doing that.
Need I also mention, the more people we have using linux, the greater security risk exists. Even though linux is inherently more secure than windows, once evil hackers start writing viruses and spyware for unix then no-one can hide. We will then need a completely new OS from anything that's ever been done before.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
windows installer allowed to write to anywhere, okay linux root and their packet managers can write to any directory too and mess around as it requires root to install, on windows it does the same except that they call it Administrator. That you are a tard that works as admin all the time is not a problem of windows. Btw. Registry uses ACLs too, you can set rights for any key in the registry to allow/disallow changing, adding, deleting ... gotta love how linux turds don't know shit about win and think they may critize it because they don't know shit.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Strongly suggest that you change Basicly what's in Greg's head to Basically what's... A typo at the top left of every page is really not a good look.
Nice blog layout though :)
Cheers.
November 02, 2005
jca said...
Thoughtful piece. Two points to extend the "what users do/don't like" argument. First, most users think first in terms of the stuff they want to do, not the computer environment they use to do it. Successful environments make it easier to do stuff. Apple excels at this. Microsoft is sometimes not very good at it. But MS makes up for it by exploiting a second point: users tend to follow the path of least resistance. They do what they already know how to do, or what they know they can have somebody do for them, or help them with. Dell will install Windows for you. And the fact that so many people use Windows makes it easy to ask for help.
Linux users fit this pattern too. It's just that the stuff we want to do is not as common. For example: configuring the behavior of the computer on many levels with very fine control--some people really like that. It can be reflected in one's choice of distro or desktop or package tool or scripting language or whatever.
What the article perhaps misses is that the happy tweaker is a fairly common user for Linux. We get pissy when you take away /etc.
I think these two points apply to both Windows and Linux users. After all, the whole reason Linux/BSD came into being was that users liked the idea of a free unix clone on cheap hardware that would let them perform the tasks that were important to them, using skills they already had.
Doing stuff. Following the path of least resistance.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux needs to ditch a lot of the legacy Unix architectural cruft that it has carried around for apparently no good reason (except maybe
"conceptual" backwards compatibility: lame script-jungle-based SysV init; antique file system conventions '/etc', '/usr', '/usr/local', '/usr/share', etc.; .so hell; entrenched non-relocatable package systems)
Take a look at GoboLinux if you want to see a modest revolution in this user space architectue. At least for desktop use, I just can't see why many vestigial userland Unix-ism persist.
November 02, 2005
kake26 said...
Points taken, thought about and sumarily dismissed. You don't give Linux enough credit. Lets take Suse linux 9.3 for this example. First off, I could train a monkey to install and use it. However, I've run out of monkies and had to settle for humans instead. As far as interfaces go yes there is alot available for use. As far as the one most newbies could deal with easily I'd say its KDE. I have always used KDE from the start. I know its a big GUI and has proably more apps and tools then one can comfortably use, but thats the great part you never know when you might find that app you've looked for so hard in KDE suddenly. I say so what that Linux is kernel, big deal. Its the apps and stuff you pile around it that make it a usable OS. Suse is proably the best RPM based distro out there. For example I can tweak the kernel till I am blue in the face and it doesn't care, unlike Fedora which is patch to hell and back. I used Fedora Core 3 for quite a while and I enjoyed it, but I was not able to tweak the kernel like I wanted to so I moved on. I'll take a moment to sing some praises to RPM, rpm does a damn fine job at managing and installing apps. In suse I open yast pull up the installer, type in what I'm looking for and hit Accept which installs the stuff I want. Makes windows MSI stuff look pathetic. Thanks to this article its confirmed some theories about M$ specifically the commoun controls. I get the point why apps and stuff can pile up so fast in Windows. I also agree with the person that made the comment OSX makes windows look hard, it does totally. I've been a die hard Windows user until I discovered Linux, and realized hey there is something better out there. I got fed up with XP a few years later and said screw it I'm using Linux. Even better I've managed to run my own business off of only Linux for about 1.5 years now. I've converted average joe type windows users to Linux and/or Mac users and they have all told me how much better than windows these things are. This from the average know nothing user thats used windows for a long enough period of time to realize how crappy it can be. Specifically with spyware and damned trojans and virii. I am a religous type fanatic about Linux and Open source, I made it my mission in life to show people they don't need to be mindless M$ slaves for the rest of their life. Guess what all you M$ sympathizers out there, I'm succeeding, by simply showing them and alternative. Showing all those average joe types there's better out there. Though this article had a few nicely made valid points, still came from a M$ sympathizer, so I obligated to take it with a grain of salt.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
All these different flavours of Linsux are like the ragtag fleet from Battlestar Galactica trying to take down a Cylon Basestar called Vista.
The game is up chumps - How many years has it been since Linsux began, and it still doesn't have standard icons. if it hasn't happened yet, it aint gonna happen!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Nice article!!! :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg after posting a comment that doesnt bash Microsoft, these hippies have to come out.... Realize that "the man" is not after you, put your bongs down and accept the marketplace.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is all fine and dandy and the suggestions are good ones, however, these suggestions are something for a distribution to implement. Linux IS the kernel, it's not the OS. We cannot change this.
November 02, 2005
White Cracka said...
--------------------------------
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform.
----------------------------------
There are 2 VB6 compatible IDE's. I believe KBasic is 100% code compatible, while Realbasic is about 95%. Binaries made with RealBasic are able to run on Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX.
Mono is an interpreter for .Net binaries and a compiler for the code. Their goal is to make all .Net binaries run on Linux and Mac OSX, and all code compile 100% natively.
There's also xbasic, pheonix from janus software, gambas, and a few other projects that make this idea come to life.
What you've suggested is correct, I'm just showing you others have come to this conclusion as well and progress has been made, even though there's room to grow.
-----------------------------------
Matching Microsoft feature for feature does suck. When you dont have certain features, you feel you're falling behind. A lot of features feel very natural, like God wanted them to be in an OS to begin with. 3D Screen savers, taskbar grouping, desktop switching, etc. Great examples, I know, but I am angered constantly by the idea open source developers are wasting their time watching MS to see what they're gonna do and copy it. MS never comes up with new concepts, just implementations. I REALLY wish there was a way to confrence with EVERY OSS GUI developer out there and shake them really hard and say "LOOK! These are the concepts...do them! Do them well, then pretty. Dont worry about Redmond, they'll be catching up to us in 2 years...concntrate!" but I can't. I also appreciate all the hard work people from around the world do for free when making OSS, so I don't want to anger anyone.
-----------------------------------
Lastly, the whole OS being called Linux, as a distribution, I disagree with. Windows doesn't do this. XP didn't have a "Windows" kernel, it was based on the NT Kernel. Debian doesn't have a "Debian" kernel, it uses Linux (and Hurd, Solaris, and I believe BSD...???)
Packaging Linux as a distribution isn't a great idea. The kernel is monolithic anyway, which makes it slower to develope than if it were more modular. If Linus Travolds chose to package and maintain a Linux distribution, the progress would slow greatly. The quality would be much better, but bugs would be harder to track and take longer to fix.
Now, I am not against some form of highly ogranized and modular council creating a Distribution, lets call it Lin-X. I think you could have developers on every platform, making it TRULEY platform independant and completely interoperable between architectures. They could standardize all GUI design. They could make an official installer that all programs would have to utilize. They could do what you're saying Linux should be. The only difference would be the name. Then people would forget about Linux a little. Talk of Lin-X would pick up. It would be like a dream.
I look for that to happen in the next couple of years as Ubuntu advances. Even though it is for profit, they are addressing a lot of these issues. Red Hat was doing it for a while, but stopped short to go to the enterprise where everyone is technical enough to figure out the hard stuff (less work for them to do). Mandrake, well I'm not to sure what direction they're heading in. I don't think any of these companies could acomplish the goals you've set forth. I think what you're suggesting is much larger than capitalism can accomplish, just my 2 cents though.
-WhiteCracka
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
My comment is on why Linux is doomed on the desktop.
Many IT specialits will blame the User and Microsoft for resisting the Linux charm on the desktop.
However this is far from the truth because DRM!!! is the main weakness for Linux.
Users get good security and flawless functionality in Linux until it comes to multimedia and proprietary technologies. The User then must surrender userability and create circumvention. This requires time and expertise which are scarce.
Linux will therefore keep doing best what it does and shall suffocate trying to get on the desktop.
The question is if IP is good for us.
Many experts contributing to OSS have day jobs related to proprietary projects and that is where the bread is. So IP and DRM is good and here to stay.
Bottomline is to leave Linux where it belongs--- on the Server.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
good read. It's funny how so many people attack this guys opinions and then go on to appear to have not actually read everything he had to say. What he said makes perfect sense and is entirely true.
All those people attacking him only verify why Linux will never be a dominant desktop OS and why Microsoft has and will continue to have ample time to fix the shortcomings in its server OS.
Some of you can't stop thinking that your way is the best way long enough to listen to what anyone else has to say. I've seen it for years in "the community" and that is why Linux will never "win"..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux predictions for 2001
LinuxWorld.com 1/5/01
Joe Barr, LinuxWorld.com
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2362/lw-01-vcontrol_1/
"I'll predict that it kicks Windows 2000's butt" - HaHaHaHa!!!!
"2001 will be a year of consolidation within the Linux industry." - HoHoHoHo!!!!
"One or more of the top five PC makers will begin offering Linux desktop machines for sale in retail outlets" - HaHaHa!!!
"Linux will find a backdoor to the desktop world dominated by Microsoft." - HeeHeeHoHoHo!!!! please stop!
"By the end of the year, we'll all laugh about the old days when Linux was considered only a server platform. " - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - he's right about the laughing part!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
See above for a Linsux fanboy response to losing an argument!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"they complicate the less obvious functions, like a screen capture, sure it auto-saves it, but do I really need three buttons from a company that touts simplicity?"
There's a utility (/Applications/Utilities/Grab) that allows you to take screenshots, timed screenshots, window-only screenshots, and rectangular-selection-based screenshots, review them, and save them if needed.
The three button thing is a hotkey for advanced users who just want a quick screenshot without having to open up the nice GUI-based app.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Slashdot fellows, i greet you
Linux is good
Ask kelly, she knows
Sometimes linux is a bit short
How can one hate it, thougH?
Don't count linux out
Other than linux, who can beat m$?
Together, mac & linux may have a chance
-one more thing, slashdot guys are nice
Now, don't get me wrong about that
In fact, i like slashdot
Go grab a linux iso and try it
Goodness, you won't be disappointed
Everyone loves slashdot & linux
Run, get your copy!
Sorry, i've nothing more to say...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
In all fairness, Linux has come a long way. it has network support, printer support, good text editing, and a great command prompt.
November 02, 2005
alex_t said...
Well, some comments:
1. VB6 developers are already mostly migrated to C# or VB.NET - after all VB.NET is REALLY better then VB6, nobody will deny that.
2. Visual Studio uses common controls from Office. It also looks like that next version of Office will use same WinFX controls as the rest of Windows.
3. IE uses trust zones, but also ACLs (as Windows does).
4. Since Windows2000 Microsoft has standard installer - "Windows Installer" (MSI) and most commercial application already moved to that standard.
5. All this remarks about inconsistancies on Windows are really funny. I mean, do you really expect Linux with it's huge numbers of incompatible widget sets to unite? (GTK, KWidgets, OpenOffice widgets, Mozilla widgets, etc, etc, etc). I mean, they even cannot decide between KDE and GNOME (and command line).
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
linux is bad
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Does anyone know how to connect a NetComm ADSL modem to a Red Hat Linux computer? I tried recompiling the kernel, but that didn't help.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Fedora is nice.Unix is way better, though.Choose one already!Kde is pretty attractive.Ssave money with linux, at least.Live by your own morals.As long as you don't use windows.Some of us are happy with CLI.How can you say windows is better?Do you have any proof?Or are you just blathering?Time for lunch.. see ya later.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I have been using Windows ever since release 3.0, MacOS since release 6.0 and Linux ever since RedHat 4.0. My home WLAN includes multiple machines running XP Pro SP2, CentOS/RHEL 4.2, SuSE Pro 9.3, and MacOS.
Like it or not, Windows is here to stay. MacOS X looks nicer and is more intuitive than Windows but also more expensive (hardware-wise) and therefore it is supported by a smaller bunch of geeks. I love Linux but it will never beat Windows simply because what people want and need is not a priority to Linux developers, nor do they have (most of them, at least) the resources that would allow them to care enough about that.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Wouldn't it be great if we could abolish M$ and just force all those newbie proles to use Linux!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Lady in the office across the hall from my consulting biz was "so excited that she didn't have to pay for a desktop O/S" when her Linux-Purist son installed it on her new computer. Within the week she was knocking on my door begging for XP.
People just want it to work the way they are used to it working.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
All of the points in the article have been debated to death before, many, many times over. I'll add one more, which is at least as well a beaten path, to the list.
Nearly all Windows users get their OS preinstalled by the PC manufacturer. I'd imagine a very small part of Windows users are actually capable of installing it on their own, nevermind making decisions about hard drive partitioning and such. A lot of people never buy a boxed Windows upgrade. They just use whatever came with the machine, until they get rid of the machine itself. Linux would need to get into this channel of distribution in order to become 'mainstream'.
Common sense would suggest that a PC with a no-cost OS would be cheaper to make than one with Windows. Through the mysterious workings of a free and competitive market, this fact somehow fails to translate to a Linux PC that was cheaper to buy than a Windows PC. Such things are nowhere to be bought. You may suspect that a certain convicted monopolist has something to do with it.
About software installation: it's true that installing a given proprietary piece of software on a given Linux distro can be a bit of a hassle, mostly because the distributors usually don't package proprietary software and the distro's differ just enough that writing a universally effective installation script is hard. That said, things look quite different from a system administrator's point of view. Say you need to install an obscure, not very well written but established scientific application on 50 workstations. On a Linux/Unix site, you'd probably have /opt or some such directory mounted over NFS. Compile the app, put it in /opt and once and for all go through any arcane contortions that are needed to configure this badly written app and make it usable. The app is instantly available to all.
Compare this with Windows, where a lot of apps cannot be installed on a network drive. So you need to install it on each workstation. Say the app is sufficiently badly written that it does not work as a regular user when installed by an administrator. You need to tweak default file permissions and such. On each machine. Some of which are W2K and some XP. Neither of which were built with remote administration in mind. Suddenly you need management software to deploy a silly little badly written obscure scientific application. And then, along comes a service pack, that ever so slightly breaks things.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As expected, most comments by Linux fans are either whining about the GNU/Linux thing or saying "no, it's not like that at all"...
Face facts boys - until you do, Linux can never be anything more than your hobby. For once take some suggestions on board instead of pretending that there is no problem. Companies like IBM and Red Hat (who do realize that most of what Greg has said is true) attempt to solve these problems and do a reasonable job, but Linux as a whole does not.
Finally, idealogues like Stallman are doing far more harm at this stage than good. Choose what you really want - should Linux replace Windows or should it just be something that more technical people choose? You have to pick whether you really want to stick with your position of smug intellectual superiority and moral indignation, and if you choose to do that then just admit it already. But if you do then don't pretent you want the rest of the world in your little club.
November 02, 2005
Daniel J Birkinshaw said...
Error: Linux != Windows.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
We already have Windows, we don't need to turn Linux into Windows. Attracting the VB developers? What were you thinking?? We already have a shitload of open source developers creating superior applications.
November 02, 2005
jimf said...
While it used to be true that people avoid change, and, granted that people don't like having their whole perception of the world turned upside down, I've noticed that if change is touted as a improved feature, or just the latest and greatest, people will flock to try it. While I'm sure there are still true conservatives who still don't accept change, the push by business to sell new technology has created a mob of people who will try anything if it is presented in the right light. MS has been as very active in advocating this, but it may be coming back to bite them.
The fact that people are now eager to try a new OS or, interface, or program, or even version doesn't guarantee it's success. Inertia, reluctance to change from the old familiar format , or just recognition of an inferior new design can all affect the users acceptance. A lot of users have, for example, stayed with Windows 200 because the new XP interface was stupid, ugly, and offered no perceivable improvement in function. Either your 80% rule had been broken, or the design didn't make it. Users who had been loyal MS customers began to feel that they were locked into a untenable position with a increasingly insecure platform and an increasingly bazaar interface. MS's notoriously shady business practice's added to the paranoia. Many of those people are the new wave of Linux users.
Linux has recently provided the most diversity of interfaces for the desktop and provides a lot of, still to be analyzed, information on what users really prefer. Gnome and KDE have both come of age as entirely usable environments and each has a rabid following, but other interfaces like Fluxbox also deserve consideration. All of these designs provide a workable desktop and appeal to different user levels and user tastes. Perhaps that is a clue that there is no magic user interface that is appealing to all, not even close to the 80% level. However, one advantage in all this is that most of the apps designed for one GUI will run perfectly in the others. That means that a user can run the interface of choice and still get all the perks.
In the the future, I see MS getting into either a web based system and/or something like a refrigerator which only supplies set application for the home user. That way MS can completely control the environment, piracy, virus, and all those other nasty little problems. Something which seems to be their paramount concern. I see Linux and, maybe, BSD as the future of the general purpose computer and of future desktop design and innovation.
You also mention that Linux is lacking in easy installation of applications. The Debian based Distros have, for example, apt, which, using either the kpackage or synaptic front end, is easier to install and use than anything in Windows. I suggest you try the latest Kanotix or Mepis or even Ubuntu. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. RPM based Distros have also come a long way from where you remember them. I would also suggest that it is now possible to find entirely equivalent applications for anything in Windows. Very rarely does one have to depend on wine or crossover to run a Windows program. Linux is already far ahead of Windows in most areas and still advancing.
November 02, 2005
Ripcrd said...
Holy crap! That is a lot of comments. I didn't read all of them, but had an answer for one of your problems.
A friend of mine was a VB and Delphi programmer. He used Kylix for a year when it first came out and then switched to RealBasic for his Linux programming. I've not used it, but looked over his shoulder and it looks pretty cool. The IDE is not too expensive (Std edition is free and Pro is $400) and has lots of libraries and plug-ins avail. for purchase. Best of all is that it runs on Windows, Linux and other OSes. He can write on Linux and compile for that or Windows, but he can't do the same on the Windows version. It only compiles for Windows as I recall.
http://realbasic.com/
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why do all you computer geeks have such a hard time expressing yourselves in coherent English?
November 02, 2005
davidsyes@yahoo.com said...
You said: "Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love. At the same time they need to make the default experience simpler to attract more beginner and intermediate users. The core mantra should be: “Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.”"
Well, something I don't think windoze has is Alt+rightmousekeydrag, where I can resize the KDE interface by putting the cursor outside of the center of the pane to be resized.
Something else windoze lacks is the myriad of click/double-click options built into KDE and other interfaces. For example, I can customize my double-clicking on the title bar to roll up the pane rather than it just being limited to min/max.
There's a TON of cool stuff in KDE as well as in Gnome and other DEs in Linuxland. Check some out...
Now, if only Lotus and IBM would open up their explicitly-owned code so that Lotus Approach and Lotus WordPro can have rapid uptake in Linuxland...
David Syes
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As usual Linux's biggest obstacle to general acceptance is its own users. Someone offers some well thought ideas and suggestions on improving the adoption of Linux on desktop and you attack him and call him an idiot. Keep up the good work guys. – We're really rooting for you here in Redmond.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"If you make the interface too simple you may loose some functionality that advanced users will like."
Lose, not loose.
Serious pet peeve of mine. Nice article, otherwise.
November 02, 2005
sean said...
I hope GNU/Linux...
... does not get more 'user friendly'.
... never achieves a 'standard' anything.
... will never have a 'single [insert_solution] for [insert_activity]'
... never becomes a brand.
... never becomes '100% Risk Free'
I shamelessly admit I am a selfish geek with a desktop configuration that is probably not navigable by anyone else on the planet.
I would be very happy if the majority of 'users' out there just stayed away. The whole experience not Windows-ish enough for you? There is the door.
Also, I hope lots of people disagree with me! The more arguing, the longer the current situation will last :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system.
Gaddammit, you deserve a shot into the head for perpetuating this stupid crap. The Linux community is not competing with anyone, Linux simply is. Besides, you could be improving the situation by writing code instead of aggravating people who do.
November 02, 2005
Danni Coy said...
Perhaps the brand you should be looking at is KGX. Which stands for Kde-Gnu-linuX. The Best Example of this so far has been Kubuntu (the last release was o so close to a linux I would give to a regular person - but had a few showstopping bugs).
KDE offers a lot of what you are talking about. There is a common spellcheckable widget. Contact information is in the process of being centralised in the KDE Address book (for the official IM Client at least). It is easy to build an application that can be embedded in another application.
While I acknowledge that there are currently Issues with linux on the desktop I am resonably confident Linux on the desktop will succeed. Its just not going to be an overnight sort of thing.
Areas that need improving...
Software Installation)
To the end user it needs to look like this. There needs to be an Icon on the desktop or in the menu that says "Install Software" - This should open up a catalogue style interface with a collection of the applications that a normal user would sanely want to install. User Clicks on the install button next to the application and confirms this is what they want to do. Thats It... If you haven't tried it Klik is getting pretty close to delivering this. I would love a native package manager work in the same way.
Hardware Installation....
This is probably currently the biggest problem on linux... For the most part adding new hardware that wasn't supported on your linux box when the thing shipped means finding software compiling a module for Linux and setting up the system to load this module. Beyond this these modules only work with the exact kernel that it was compiled for meaning that if you want to share your kernel module with somebody else it is very difficult you generally have to build the blessed thing over again. I think that generally this will be solved by moving drivers outside the kernel space. For example - My scanner uses LibUSB rather than a specific Kernel Driver. My scanner may run a little slower (I haven't noticed) but the advantages are significant. Furthermore it should reasonably easy to have that scanner supported on any system that libusb supports through the same driver.
Filesystem Incompatibilities...
I am hoping with the next generation of operating systems that the Filesystem largly disappears from the end users perspective - It is a conceptual model that most new users really struggle with. I think that most users will find a search/metadata model if implemented properly will provide a superior user experience. I think that Apple will be first to market with this. Both Microsoft and people within the linux community are working on providing solutions.
Distro incompatibilities - This one I think is well on its way to being sorted out... most recent distrobutions that have been targeted towards desktop users have been debian based. I think this will end up being a natural choice for distro's that don't want to go through re-inventing the wheel. What I would like to see most are reference binaries of important libraries such as QT.
Software Maturity - This one will just take good old fashioned time. Linux Apps range from the excellent to ones that definately need more work.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
hhmmm difficult to decide....
I am a user of both Windows and Linux. Have been for some time now. I like what linux offers espcially the diverse range of software options.
I installed Suse 10.0 and had to do all sorts of things just to get the video and DVD basics to work. The Direction that the two OS's comes from is different e.g. Windiows is a money making machine(business) and Linux and all it's various flavours is born out of a free diverse community whose focus is not making money, but having better functionality.
I think linux offers a great advantage but maybe more so to the more technically oriented people and not the no-idea about computers type people
My two cents....
November 02, 2005
Leon said...
Thanks for writing the “article”. Like many others, I have found myself thinking along the same path as you and so agree strongly with most of what you say.
Reading though the comments ... I can only hope that some of the HARSH (and misunderstood I think) comments don’t get to you too much :-)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
It does sound like the author has a bit of a dated knowledge of Linux.
Ignoring many of the stupid comments; I will say this: I look after 1000's of Linux and Windows desktops and servers. Linux desktops now are a breeze to install/maintain on servers or desktops, and Windows security ain't that bad anymore with good policies in place.
I almost consider them inter-changable. The only consideration I have is cost, stability and legacy needs. Otherwise I go with what works, whether it is Microsoft or Linux... who cares.
Biggest pain in the arse? People that have never used anything other thatn Windows and think they are IT experts because they can edit the reg (and still know nothing about it) and refuse to change. Give me a Mac user ot Linux user anyday... not dogmatic and open to change.
Just my tuppence worth
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I need attention, so I'm going to pick a fight over some obscure nit-picky crap.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
>To get an average consumer to switch you need to first get them to not fear change and be willing to try.
Live CD's like Knoppix have this covered.
>they also can’t be expected to properly partition their hard drive
Most distro's do this for them, e.g. try Mandriva which shrinks Windows (even NTFS) and does a parallel install with no user input needed.
> Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
KDE does this
> Create an office suite that can be used as a component in other applications.
KDE Office does this
> There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users
KDE does this
> Each distribution creates its own icons, interface elements, configurations and sometimes even their own shell.
No, most of that is done at a DE (Gnome/KDE/FWM) or Widget Set (QT, GTK/Wx) level, Distro's just put a different theme over-top.
> To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run
These exist, RPM and Deb being the big 2, most distros are based on one or the other, and have standard installers for browsing reporistories and selecting software to install with dependencies automatically taken care of.
I've got to ask, have you really used Linux more than just a test-spin? As you seem to exhibit some fundemental missunderstndings of how the 'Linux' stack hangs together.
John.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Yep I can agree with most of this, but I think that one day we will look back and ask how distro x managed to gain control of so much of the linux market. The answer will largely be contained in this article.
November 02, 2005
Moggy said...
I think the question of Linux itself being a "Server" or "Desktop OS is irrelevant". Rather it's the distros that make that decision. They either choose to focus on the desktop market, or server market or do both.
I do agree with the concept of standardising the file systems hierarchy and ensuring that most packages wind up in in the same place in all distros making un/installtion easier. But not even all Windows developers follow the MS rules and place apps outside of the "Program Files" directory, or follow MS's rules on using the registry. That's what happens when there are a lot of third party developers. Not everyone wants to get MS certified.
I believe if the Major distros could agree and stick to FSH standards then no matter what packaging/installation system one uses software can be un/installed at will (without having to reboot even, one up on Windows). Most distro's have packages in common tailored for their setup that work out of the box for the most part and are easy to use (I'm not including servers here eg apache, mysql, etc as these aren't used average john and jane doe).
As for OS installation: Debian. Redhat and their spinoffs are no more difficult to install than Windows XP (even in XP you have to decide about partitioning). And in reality what percentage of average users *actually* install Windows themselves?
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hm,
certainly the OS should not ensure that every application is "installed".
Exactly that is, what is most wrong with windows.
I want to unzip, or copy an application to a place where I like it, not into C:Programms e.g.
And I want to rm -rf directory it or put it into trash without the need to "uninstall" it.
And on a proper OS, Unix/Linux/Mac OS X any user can "place" software/Applications at a palce whre he has write access to, e.g. in /home/USER/bin or elsewhere.
While you are very right from your first two points of analysis, you seem never have worked with a true OS or a true computer, so you miss most of the stuff that is GOOD (TM) on linux/unix/Mac OS X.
angel'o'sphere
November 02, 2005
Moggy said...
Actually I've spent 18 years of my professional life in IT working with Windows, *nix, CLI & VMS on servers & desktops. I've been a Systems Engineer for the past 7.
In my desktop support days under DOS & Win3.x one of my biggest bug bears was people installing apps, saving files, etc into one directory (usually either DOS or )and having to work through the quagmire of what belonged to what.
*nix does have a recommened hierarchy eg system binaries go in /sbin, libraries go under /lib, config files in /etc. If users choose not to follow that recommendation thats fine, but it can be a nightmare for support techs
Do you file your paperwork all in one folder?
November 02, 2005
vitor said...
Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
KDE environment already provides this functionality, either in Konqueror web browser or simple text editor like Kate and Kwrite.
However, is not yet integrated with other non-KDe apps.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You are right. But also take a look under the hood. Microsoft has one component framework: DCOM. We've got XPCOM, OpenOffice UNO, Corba, why even "KParts" etc. to name a few.. As far as I'm concerned this sort of diversity sucks bigtime. Or... take a look at DirectSound... we've got SDL, OSS, Alsa, etc. etc..
November 02, 2005
nortypig said...
From my perspective I'm too time poor and technologically stressed learning new stuff on a daily basis to have time to learn linux until 3am every morning. Please don't be offended by this, its just a reality most people are time poor and just need an OS to work transparently to make life easier and not more complex.
So until Linux distributions can offer a full level of abstraction that Windows and Apple offer I just can't even think of making the move. I have thought of it before and spent half a day trying to find out how to do a simple chore that otherwise was 2 clicks.
But when, or if, Linux becomes prime time and de-geekified I'll be there with ribbons on to install. Just my perspective.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
*Yawn*
I'm getting too old for this ... And the fact that this is getting old is not helping either.
November 02, 2005
Jeff said...
I understand "Linux" = kernel but the word is used to represent the entire OS. When I say there should be a unified Linux I'm not suggesting that all the distributions go away. I'm just saying that the word Linux should be used to represent a single OS.
I would argue the opposite; rather than supporting what is misuse of the word 'Linux' as representing an entire operating system and thereby confusing matters further, encourage the use of individual distribution names in general. For example, if somebody asks you what operating system you're using, go ahead and reply "Debian" or whatever; hell, it might even make Windows sound less significant with more names being thrown around. ;)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
See i understand the arguments about linux being too difficult, thats why there are distros that come in a box with a big fancy instruction manual. Granted those manual's are getting smaller every day, heck you can go to Barns and Noble and find an 'Instruction' manual for and flavour of windoze at 800+pages too. I think the largest gain in Linux is going to come from the younger generations, it is true, that you just can't teach some dogs new tricks.
As for the installation and compilation comment. Every application I have downloaded that is mainstream has come with either a README or INSTALL file with that information. How hard is it to tar -xvf, make, make install? Or like many have said, yum install package (it finds dependancies), or whatever your repo manager of choice may be?
Just my two cents
November 02, 2005
Quiznos on FreeNode. said...
If one wants m$ functionality then redo m$-ware correctly. The fault with the article, although it *IS* good, it attempts to cast Linux (both senses of the word) in terms of m$. Linux descends from Unix(TM) and as such it's roots are in tool -building to accomplish tasks not forseen. Hence the shell's `|' is that symbol which allows us to build and rebuild with infinite complexity in a very simple language. Let's not forget that.
As for the gui, its best use is in the representation of data and non-textual information that can be massaged into graphical representations; squares, pies, charts, lists, comparisons - the interaction between the human eye and our brain makes it, not the computer, the best tool for recognising patterns which might escape a computer's linear/sequential analysis unless such pattern can be reduce to some programmability. Granted that ability is being done, but not everyone nor is every alternate visualisation available for the common linux user.
A computer Consultant once said to me, "customers want a `magic box'; they dont care how it works, only that it does what *THEY* want it to do." It's an old quote of several decades but it's still fresh to me.
Separate implementation of some characteristic x from the UI (proper partitioning of the protracted problem of beating M$) and then we can all begin to focus on the real problems.
You want tools that are context sensitively available? Then someone's going to have to use dlsym() to load libs or func()s to load code to do your SS-cell sorting...
There's more but i think this is enough. :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
- Create a single music solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS to music applications to TV experience.
The great thing about linux is that there are so many single music solutions already to choose from. Why would we want to create another?
November 02, 2005
Kyle said...
Some good thoughts.
I disagree on the VB alternative though; people have discovered how great VB.NET is compared to the original VB and are flocking to it. (And most worthwhile applications are not coded in VB.) Perhaps putting more effort into the Mono project's support for Windows controls in .NET would be a better use of time.
Regardless, I think the Linux zealot's responses to your post show the biggest reason why Linux simply will never be a major desktop OS; the community that controls it refuses to allow it to be.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The reason I like Linux is because it is not as dumbed down as windows. I don't want windows users using Linux. Linux is fine, leave it alone! Windows using dumbies that are "afraid" or "confused" by switching should just stay put in their miserable rebooting world...suites them right for not being educated about options.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why is it that Apple is mention once but everyone feels they need to comment on it?
I think you're 100% correct.
Anyone who has used linux for any period and claims to have never had to compile an application is full of sh1te!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As a software engineer, my OS choice lies with the best development platform.
Competition in the OS market is great - it drives innovation. However, the process fails when a competitor such as Linux fails to innovate. 1% workstation penetration is just pathetic. all those predictions over the years of Linux market domination and the end of MS have come to naught.
just look at the histrionic posts from Linux fanboys on this forum - feel the bile, the anti-MS market conspiracy theories, the contempt for non-Linsux users, the pretzel logic rationilzations for the failure of the system.
This article is the Gulag Archipeligo for open source. it was an introspective at looking at correcting faults in Linux development, and all we get from Linsuxers is denial and anger.
Socialism has failed - it failed in the Soviet empire, it failed in China and its failing in the open source movement/cult.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Xen is about to be added to the linux 2.6 series kernel.
It will change everything.
M$S can run virtualized with no more than a 2% speeding ticket.
NO MORE VIRI on M$S as it is a captive firewalled by windows.
The the x86 Tiger port should be virtualize-able too.
So you can have Windows, Tiger, Solaris, BSD and Linux running concurrently in sandboxes and displaying on a XEN-LINUX kernel.
It will be a new game.
The Xen story is covered in this e-week article:
Xen to go in 2.6
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
That's not the way I see things.
DOS was Microsoft's first mistake, they thought they would make something better than UNIX. DOS was like a sick and crippled bastard of UNIX. Microsoft really picked up speed after it knocked a few of it's buddies (e.g. IBM) out of the way and sinned against all of humanity with their abomination called Windows 95. Microsoft succeeded in their marketing strategy and their worries seemed to be over, but they forgot one thing, the internet! GNU/Linux grew and thrived on the internet all of those years. Now UNIX is back, reincarnated as GNU/Linux, and has rudely awaken the sleeping giant! :D
November 02, 2005
Siv said...
Why is it whenever anyone starts to talk about Linux making some constructive criticism we get a lot of "Linux is better than Windows", or OSX is better than Linux/Windows.
The point being made is a view of the state of play with Linux versus Windows and when you consider that Windows is installed on 90% of the World's PCs it must be doing something right whether you hate M$ and Bill Gates or not.
For me the key problem with Linux is that there are too many flavours which confuses Joe Average user. In his/her mind is the worry that they might not be able to go down to the local PC shop and get a program that runs on it that they really need. I know that pretty much everything is available for free but it is knowing that and knowing how to install it that causes the problem.
With Windows XP you know that it is easy to install or is already installed if you buy a box from Dell or Packard Bell etc. (I know there are some very esoteric machines that you might have troubles with, but on the majority of PCs XP will install without any problems and your sound card works and your printer works and you can get on the internet with a CD from your ISP).
To install a program you just insert a CD and wait for the setup program to start and pretty much if you just accept the "recommended" options it will work just fine.
This is where the FUD creeps in with Linux, chances are a lot of stuff won't work and the way to get it to work is time consuming and will probably end up with some Linux guru snarling at you for not knowing how to rcompile your Kernel or the correct command line parameters to extract the patch file etc etc.
This is the point where the Windows XP CD comes back out and the drive is being reformatted and good ol' Windows is going back on.
I'm with Greg, unless Linux seems easier, better and more compelling you won't see Linux being more than a desktop OS for geeks.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
All this is great, but in these Linux vs Windows articles, nobody ever mention games. I would venture to suggest that a significant portion of Windows PC households include at least one gamer. Linux simply doesn't cut mustard in that area. Yes, there are native Linux games and emulation software that might or might let you run Windows games, but not without problems and not in a timely manner following a particular game's release. Linux cannot win, period, without addressing this issue.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why is it that most of the time Windows zealots/shills try to tell us what Linux should be or do ?
What is a Windows zealot/shill ? Simple : someone who talks about Linux but never used it, or tried to use it one hour without documentation, thinking he's an expert at computers.
Look at the comments, it's full of Windows zealots/shills. All of their comments are outdated or wrong, it's amazing.
The article itself comes from a Windows zealot. All that is recommended in it is already done, or in the process of being done in the community, better than anything in Windows, which started to copy Linux in Windows XP (and keep on the trend with XP2 and Vista, announcing great innovations present in Linux for years). But if you're not part of it, you would never know.
And all the "should" in the article are wrong (as always).
Linux allows people to do whatever they want with it. No Windows shill/zealot can deal with this great freedom, so, being overwhelmed, they imagine all sort of grand plan for Linux, accomplishing their vision, and they think they should impose it on the uneducated mass (which actually passed this step years ago).
Well, come back to earth, we in the community have already thought of all of that, you're not the first, you are all late adopters in fact. People in the community are smart despite what you think.
Like I said, all is implemented already or in the process of being implemented.
The Linux desktop problems are outside the community : cooperation from hardware vendors, marketing, Windows zealots/shills, MS anti-competitive behaviour, ...
I see lots of very bad logic from Windows shills, having to do with market share. Well, these people have very narrow vision and no imagination, no wonder they can't think of a cause for Windows market share other than "it must be good and easy". I know, because buying a PC at the store without Windows is a real pain, unless you want to pay MORE to have LESS. Convicted of bad monopolist behaviour could never have anything to do with the 90 % market share, no, ...
For me, the key problem of Linux is Windows shills/zealots creating problems of Linux where there are none; talking about easiness of installing Windows XP on a machine when they themselves take 2 days to do it with all pirated apps (or it would cost them 1000s $).
Installation is not a problem in Linux since 98, but the zealots/shills will take an exception (like installing, say, the latest CVS version Firefox, like an ordinay user would want to do that), and tell you the compiling involved is hard and is a general problem (of course it's not, but their argument would not hold). Notice no one of them could tell you which app involved compiling, only one cited a MythTV install, which an ordinary user would never do, and the equivalent of which would cost you a Media Center price on Windows + the other machine necessary (ready made Linux solution exist for less).
And then you see comments like "chances are a lot of stuff won't work", "probably end up with some Linux guru snarling at you". Of course, given the definition, the zealots/shills don't know, but they mirror their Windows experience, and can't imagine it could work on Linux.
Linux is already everything the people want it to be, but they won't try it even if we score all their points, because these are just shills/zealots points meant as excuses not to use it .
I often tell my wife (who don't know squat about computers) that if I were to believe the Wndows zealots/shills, she is a genius with computers, given that she uses her KDE desktop exclusively since 2001.
Last thing, in 98 till 2003, Windows shills/zealots actually had valid complaints about Linux (I can recall fonts, multimedia, accessibility, speed of boot, ...), but not anymore. I saw the shift since 2003. The community fixed all of this so fast, the trolls had not the time to die. Now, they can't find any valid complaint, so they rehash old problems that do not exist anymore. This article is a perfect example of that.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
. . .admittedly, I am an elitist. I don't think people should be allowed to drive a car unless they can least change the oil.
That said, sheer numbers has very little to do with the quality of a product itself. Sure, it may say a bit about the "quality" of the folks that use them; but the products themselves? Nope. I mean, how many people own Mercedes SLRs as opposed to your Toyota Camry? Of course there are many more Camry owners, but does that in and of itself make the Camry a better quality vehicle? Absolutely not. It's just cheap enough and easy enough to use for the average person.
. . .and as for gaming? Get a console. They are more reliable, better quality, and guess what?. . .They do what they're supposed to without having to worry about goofy driver issues Windows .dll mishaps and conflicts. Besides, I can't figure for the life of me who in the world would trade Halo running in high def via Xbox for even the biggest baddest PC built.
. . .thank you, drive thru.
November 03, 2005
]<5 said...
I agree almost 100% with you.
I have had very bad luck with all my linux distros. Past week, I needed a server up and running fast, for a short time. I spoke with a friend of mine, system administrator, and told me "don't worry, give me 8 hours and I makes you happy with a debian box". The problem was that I didn't had 8 hours. I ended up installing a very inapropiated but fast Windows XP, in 30 minutes. Awful, but it worked (and no, Ubuntu wasn´t a good choice, for reasons that I will not comment).
Many times, the linux solution is too complex and slow to be useful, even for seasoned linux users, like me.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
The only part of this I happen to agree with is the look agressivelly towards new directions in the Linux world.
I dought that Linux has copied Redmond many times, or at all by the way.
The Apple interface I already believe has been plagierized enough times because it looks good.
Vista for example will be copying Gnome/Apple and a bunch of other Window Managers.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is very hard thing and I think to solve problems with switching to linux is far avay.:(
Im few months linux user and have sticked in gentoo, I love that so much:), coz I love to have my system in the exact way I want and I think tahat Im more than a regular user and know a lot about computers and operating systems, but I tryed to swich for many years and trust me it wasnt easy... Swiching is much expensiver than anyone thinks! I have to bought router instead of USB ADSL modem I had before(the price of the router was the same as price of windows!!), and its not only think,,,
Why I pay that? coz I hate uniformity, I hate If someone force me to use something he want...So I have a huge huge reasons to swich to linux,,, but imagine a regular user that doesnt matter if he had this or that, want everything to be "functional" and !compatible!,,
So I show some example:
My father is a leader of a company, he could say what will be used or make a changes. Sometimes I tryed to force him to give linux a chance and try that, but never have a luck, I exactly know why -
1) near everyone who use computer know windows and if he have a new employee he must not to explain lern him new thinks he now doesnt know
2) there are more companies that administrate windows than linux so if he want to change he will have to probably find new one and it spends time and money, because I agree that instaling linux distro like ubuntu is not so hard but not for me and a lot of power users, yes they dont know how to install windows but find a man who do that is much easier than find linux man. They dont want to do it, coz they do anything else in work.
3) yes anyone may argue that there are many companies like SUSE that provide good feedback, service etc. This cost the same money as setting up windows. And why not install windows if it is as same expensive as some thig I dont trus as much as windows coz I know that windows has everyone around and I know that I wont have compatibility problems...Why try some new if this work, when I dont care what it is,while its a consumption stuff for me..
4)special software needs, they have special software for their purpose and I dont know if is some same for linux(but I dont think it is so important), because if there would be some it will cost to rebuild few years of work if is not the same program,
other way to use something like wine, but why if they can use windows w/o wine and solve wine bugs.
there are some more reasons why its hard to swich for company,
but there are some same reasons for home users - using computer like some consumption stuff !!!!!!
How many of us care which microwave oven have, think none,,, only a consumption stuff to heat some food,, and the same think is for many users of computer, they just want to send mail, read internet, play games, conect mobilephone to computer, but where to find drivers, I have only cd with windoes support.
I see there a big problem with support form the site of hardware producers, how many of them have working drivers as easy to install as in windowze
many many things to do before linux will be realy easy to swich for a lot of people. I dont know how and what exactly do and think if anyone knows that and apply that, we would know him now:)
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg's Head needs to be examined!
Greg, it's almost like you delibreately went tou of your way to look for the most common myths & misconceptions that M$ click Monkeys who never use Linux, would imagine might have happened 7 yrs ago with Linux & placed them all into one article.
Where you looking for attention?
Are you happy now?
Now do us all a favor & go & get a Linux distro & actualy use it, if only for 1x week, & then come back & write something a bit more intelligent.
November 03, 2005
N-Bomb said...
Stuff like in this post is exactly what I've been saying to my Linux geek friends for a long time, and what they'd always get mad at me for saying. Great job putting these thoughts 'to paper'!
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
why does is linux supposed to want or need to cater to "the middle groung" users? it is built by advanced users, for advanced users, the things that are missing will come, but for the people who want their operating system to be like using a microwave, i say they can pay. pay someone else to do it for them. i would rather real useful things get created for linux rather than wasting effort for the people who dont want to have to read. ever.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hello!
article was interesting to read, but ihave some words to say
1) many people choose compile mysleft-way just ti be sure that software is compiled and configured his/her way, and so do i. LSF, Gentoo, Slackware.
2)some useful feaures from Gnome, and KDE are included into M$ like most/reacently used programs,
3) there should be many wariaions to give people abilty to choose from, not like - here is WinXP and forget about everything else, comes new MS os and we have to forget about previos version. Backward compatiblity IS important at all means (example TWAIN and WIA)
4) Abilty to reapair software bugs FAST and secure.
5) people should sstart to think, read, and listen, not guess, shout
6) if you change OS you should consider that there will be changes from your previos, and if you are not ready for these changes you should not do the move. It is not so tragic if you move from Debian stable (sarge) and Debian unstable (sid)
November 04, 2005
mu-tiger said...
"The brand “Linux” should stand for an entire operating system not just a kernel. There should be only one true Linux and perhaps many derivatives that should have their own brand and name."
No, no, no! That's what makes *nix *nix, is the idea of diversity and that anyone can write an OS as suits their own personal needs, and put it out there for others to tweak to their own personal needs; everything else you said, i either agree with, or am willing to consider.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
Definitely, you have some valid points here that are worthy of debate. Meanwhile, I'm loving Suse 10.0 just the way it is.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
"Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love."
Um, sorry to tell you, but linux does not copy windows. Windows really hasnt done anything new in... Along time.
"There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform."
Great idea, id support it all the way.
November 04, 2005
The Gadget Guru said...
Great points, Greg. Hopefully, your words won't fall upon deaf ears.
Back in the day, I used to scoff at Linux users, saying that I shouldn't need a degree in Computer Engineering to check my frickin email. Times have changed...the flavors I've played with have a wonderful GUI, and most common tasks are simple enough for even ME to navigate through.
Now if I could just find a distro that plays nice with my USB wireless adapter, I'd be all set :)
November 07, 2005
Anonymous said...
I still miss the OS2 Presentaion Manager. Any object can be a template, Drag and drop object spawning, REXX precompilation stored in extended attributes, Global scripting language (REXX), etc, etc.
November 09, 2005
bart said...
Excellent article.
So this is where we're at.
Linux is a system that is void of the 'falsity' that so pervades many commercial products both in software and other consumer goods: it is not made to sell. It is made to be good. It is made for quality. It is real.
But (desktop) Linux is not made to be used. Or to provide a real, excellent user experience. Quality in design or quality of code is irrelevant when user experience is not the ultimate design goal.
November 10, 2005
Anonymous said...
The problem seems to me that Linux has had no standard configuration gui for things that are more important to the user: Networking, Screen Resolution and Sound were always biggies. Is this the point about the splash screen?
I have read that KDE and Gnome projects dont consider themselves as Linux only, so they should not have to write Linux specific configuration tools.
Who should?
Maybe the distros, but then it becomes non standard. Sounds like a great idea for a new project. Perhaps this is what freedesktop.org tries to do?
Doing the basics of getting a polished product:
A project that simply looks at interfaces problems and flags them or even mends them and contributes back the code. They would do this only from a user perspective and not from the guts of the desktop. In Gnome the basic file manager interface is still not complete. Also presentation is king here. Why do all this work and then not spend a bit more time crossing the ts. Get Nokia or another company who is great at design and styling to do a Malmo on Gnome or KDE. It must look that much better than Macos or Windows and most of that is just a designer doing a spiffy backdrop, great window styling and appealing icons. We need to get *that* community involved and they will love us for it as they are shut out of Steve Js temple.
Funny that neither Gnome nor KDEs project home page kicks off with an appealing screen shot or users having fun with computers etc. Its like they dont want you to know what they are and that you have to delve into the site to solve the 'mystery'. Like a party where everyone has their back to you.
My glimmer of hope is Ubuntu.
After being so loyal for 5 years I'm finally tiring. Next year will be big for cheap laptops and desktops. Are we a server OS or can we do Desktop too?
Hope....
November 17, 2005
Anonymous said...
Check out "Desktop Linux", I've seen more user inspiration in soggy toilet paper. The bar needs to be raised. It looks like the visual equivalent of my Uncle Dave sitting down on the john, farting, parting his comb over, then dropping the creature from the black lagoon.
November 17, 2005
Anonymous said...
As a university student my linux distribution must be compatible with software used at university.
My coarse is software engineering hence i am not fazed by technical issues, however upon buying hardware which is compatbile with linux 100% i found out that the major problem is the availability of applications. Sure you have clones but those clones of applications almost in every case is not 100% compatible. This is not acceptable to many users.
The author is 100% correct about change, noone enjoys it and linux will never be adopted if a user has to search around for aplications which clone non-available apps.
As a student i have many issues with software requirements and linux is the ebst solution as obviously we cant buy all our software as u all know we are broke. Hence the reaosn y a uni students comp maybe 1% of his applications are legit.
Anyway to get on with it, office is not 100% supported even with openoffice 2.
Adobe only just now started supporting linux again, another major disadvantage that will hoepfully soon be solved. As for other software macromedia studio etc.... All software requirements are not easy to fix.
This leaves people frustrated and simply go back to windows. I as a student and part time technician have a major problem. Linux hates dual monitors of different brands.
Still trying to solve problems and it even killed my distribution. Fair enough it was my fault but i aint a novice, hence it should not eb so easy for me to kill it.
Apart from that i have always loved the idea about linux. The best chance it has is with the younger generation and if they actually support applications that many users require then it will be more widely accepted.
I know that is nothing to do with ditributions but in all honesty why does someone want a clone if windows provides the original.
Other problems include cross development, hopefully this will be solved with the mac osx which techinically should make it easier to port application to the linux environment.
The author is incorrect about making linux 1. Linux is a kernel and not an operating system as posted in so many posts. It is vital that the kernel is strictly controlled and stays as compact and simple as everything.
However thanks for time guys
November 18, 2005
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 27, 2005
Anonymous said...
For all of your who are saying linux isn't hard and that nobody compiles anything from source. Your nuts. Linux is only easy if you stick with the basics. The second you need to connect an ipod, connect to work with Cisco VPN (have to compile from scratch), lotus notes (figure out wine or, download crossover office, but then how do you install? now you need that darn terminal window with the exception of Xandros), and a thousand other jobs require various windows only applications from lawyers to realestate. I love linux, and I want to see it get easier to use. If companies would only make a bigger investment in packaging and integration it would be easy to use. or somehow come up with a unified installation method.
November 30, 2005
Mark Carter said...
I think that current Linux installation tools like Synaptic are excellent, but they're lacking in one crucial respect when it comes to end-users on the desktop.
That is, depending on the distribution, there can be a significant time lag between a new version of a program being released and its appearance in a software repository.
To make matters worse, desktop users don't appreciate the concept of providing only security updates rather than whole version updates until a new version of a distribution is released.
There's nothing more infuriating to a typical desktop user than to see a new version of a frequently used program be released, with crucial new features, and to find that it's either not available in their distribution's repository, or that only security updates (sans new features) have been provided.
To tell a desktop user to download the source and compile for themselves is not an option, it just highlights a bug in the system.
Unfortunately, it's also usually very difficult for said user to find and add the correct repository that may have the latest version, and installing software from non-official repositories often causes problems when it comes to doing a dist-upgrade.
Generally I think that apt/Synaptic is a great system, but there are serious operational flaws. Desktop users want the latest version of their software the day it's released, not two months down the road. In that respect, Windows, with it's plethora of installers and double-click an .exe installs, is su
173 Comments:
Anonymous said...
- There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs.
Gaim ?
November 02, 2005
kelly said...
Yes .. yes... yes...
[points franticly] What he said!!!
I caught myself agreeing on 90% of everything in this post. I only have reservations of a womb to tomb single vendor solution. That breads lumbering broken software. Competition breads good products. If we can add a user supported competitive development to the list, I'm all for it.
Me
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Apple has not taken the "lower road." Apple is on another road entirely.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
> The brand “Linux” should stand for an
> entire operating system not just
> a kernel.
I agree with most of the article, except I think that with the current fact that Linux is a kernel, this sentence is impossible.
Instead, people should be pushing e.g. the "Red Hat" or "Ubuntu" brands.
-- Asheesh.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Are you mad? Who does that on Linux anymore?
Perhaps developers et al, but hardly the bulk of the 29 million Linux users out there. My 12 year old sister types a keyword for the package she wishes to install into KPackage, chooses it from a list based on a handy description and then clicks 'INSTALL'. She says it makes Windows and OSX look hard!
November 02, 2005
hammy said...
Interesting viewpoints, though nothing that hasn't been re-hashed over and again on slashdot and various other open source fanatic websites.
The bit that I must contend with though, is your ideal of a "standard" Linux. This cannot and will never happen. The "caveat" of being truly free is that you cannot muscle out the folks around you who wish to do it a different way. Linux is a trademark certainly, but not a privately-owned commodity which can be controlled by a single ruling party or parties.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is just twisted, Linux copies M$! Linux is a clone of Unix which M$ has been trying to copy. Who is behind who?
Function come before fancy, some of us remember using Unix in COLOR before DOS came round to depress the masses.
Old Amiga user.
November 02, 2005
Nicolas Fatoux said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
I haven't compiled anything in linux since maybe 2 years ago.
All major linux distribution have central packages repositories, and graphical interface that does the magic. All you have to do is to select which softwares you want to install and then everything is automatic.
see http://www.ubuntu.com/include/ubuntu-5.10-addapp.jpg
for an example.
November 02, 2005
gropo vectos said...
Huh? Apple takes the lower ground? Have you used OS X? Surely you must have. They're way ahead of both MS and Gnome/KDE in terms of API standardization. And a slew of other "suggestions" you've listed above. what gives?
November 02, 2005
SpeaksTruth said...
I read the first Paragraph and basically have figured for the microsoft fanatic that you must be. If you truely want to get in to a contest over who is "keeping up" with whom, look no further than NFS... Anyone ever heard of DFS? Seems that kind of functionality was available on Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, you name the distro), LONG before M$ got a handle on how to do it with their "Kernel". How about memory leaks? My desktop runs without requiring a reboot except for Kernel upgrades (few and far between), how long should someone expect to run a Windows desktop without a reboot? The truth is that the Linux desktop is truly built on the same kernel as the Linux server. It is a shame that the same can be said for the Windows desktop and server platforms... Shame on you and your narrowmindedness.
November 02, 2005
cmcanulty said...
I was very excited to install Ubuntu. Then after hours trying to figure out the install-problems with user name that forced me to install again, anoother 3 hours. Now it works but resists all my efforts to get it to connect to the internet. This has completely soured my Linux experience and I want to just go back to Windows which actually works.
November 02, 2005
dmsnell said...
Spreadsheets in all grids?
Spell check in all text-boxes?
wtf?
If a component doesn't need some functionality, it is a waste of size and speed to put it in.
Why should spreadsheet functionality be built into a static and read-only table?
Why should you be able to spellcheck a username prompt or a code-block?
Although integration and seamlessness is important, thinking that everything should involve everything leads to code bloat and projects like OpenOffice where, although very usable, isn't accessible to a quarter of the users because it is so big and slow.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I don't see much new here. We even have the traditional misspellings.
The speed of innovation in any software can be both a boon and a bomb.
It's easy to drop in the word "framework": with a well-designed framework, you can extend and reuse existing tech. This is why the underlying pipe mechanism in Unix derivatives is so powerful. It's also why it's hard for many to master.
There's also a point when the framework - which should be strong-yet-supple - can instead ossify, like so much old glue that's set up and cracks easily.
Ultimately it is real work to take the time to design something that meets both current *and* future needs. While many working in the kernel and the distributions realize this, there remain the folk who just want to sling code and do the sexy, fun stuff first and fast and loose.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software. To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
Who said forced? THEY downloaded the .tar.gzip, that's their problem. Don't want to compile, un-gzip, un-tar? Ever heard of .rpm? Idiot. PS: most programs have pre-compiled files READY. If I didn't get to compile SOME stuff I'd be screwed, I'm a java developer.
November 02, 2005
Michael Acosta said...
So basically, copy features you like from an existing OS, integrate them more tightly, without bugs, maintaining backwards compatibility, and do it more quickly than a company with a specific direction? Piece of cake, right?
And as for "Linux" being a branded entity - you'd be spitting on a lot of your developers. Who knows, they may defect to .NET. Stallman is probably already cursing your name, as are the folks (and their employers) who dedicate incredible amounts of time and money to various apps. Linux is a kernel. A distribution is the OS.
Also, you mention standardization - who's in charge? You? Linus? A group of non-technical marketing-folk? Herding cats, my friend...
November 02, 2005
FunnyLookinHat said...
I once saw an apple salesman in best buy literally force someone to try using a powerbook, just for 5 minutes, to see how this customer liked it. The customer, albeit against her will, went along for 5 minutes. After the 5 minutes, she loved the operating system. She enjoyed the fact that it was both easy to use, and bubbly (i.e. graphically appealing)...
Should linux advocates take a similiar road? I've heard of some of my friends literally taking their parents' computers and installing Gnome on them overnight with debian or a similiar (largely backed) distribution, and the parents ended up loving it...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Discussing Linux's GUI and components is a very issue, unlike Windows and OSX, Any Linux distro can be modified and configured in any way the user will like to.
It can be as easy and stable as OSX and as hard and crappy as Windows (Comparing to OSX, Windows is a hard).
The biggest problem is that even the easiest distro (Like Mandriva for example) needs quite a skillful hands for initial configuration.
IMHO, initial configurations ARE the most difficult and unattractive of Linux. Even expirienced Linux users often have problems with their distro.
Another big problem is the Linux community who is simply not ready to accept all kinds of people into it. Many things are made harder than they should be, unfortunately most people are either not too bright or simply lazy. Those who use Linux usually do like the little difficulties because too simple things are not for them.
The best situation for an ordinary user is using OSX and Linux for the advanced user.
Both has the power and stability of a UNIX OS and programs are easily ported from one to another.
You can't make everyone happy, that's true but you can make two OSes that will be compatible, one for the Regular Home User and one for the Power User. That way everyone will be happy, or almost everyone.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The latest KDE does quite a lot of that.. KParts > OLE/COM, so you can specify tables to actually be a KSpread embed. KDE Wallet plus KAddressBook tries to do what OS X does with keychain and Address Book.app, which is keep your contact info, IM info, etc. in a single source. KOffice is close, though its format filters aren't as comprehensive as OpenOffice.
Drawbacks are: too many music players, konqueror's not easy enough to configure ('ignore fonts' checkbox please!!), Naming convention is weird for the sake of weird, etc..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
About some of your points, I whole heartedly disagree.
For years, I have observed that Microsoft does not seem to operate with a cohesive strategy, and often seems to compete with itself.
Then, one day, I realised "What if that is on purpose?"?
Microsoft allows internal groups to "re-implement the wheel" and duplicate work for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is: You are more likely to hit a home run if you get more than one chance to swing.
Internally, Microsoft operates like a bunch of smaller companies that are competing with eachother, and raising the overall bar of quality.
Microsoft doesn't really care if Word or Frontpage becomes the dominant method of WYSIWYG web development because it gets paid either way.
November 02, 2005
Patrick McFarland said...
A microsoft employee posted on his blog about the future of Microsoft GUI designs. Basically, they are violating the GPL and stealing GNUstep's Gorm.
November 02, 2005
cros13 said...
You're right.....
Been saying the same thing for years.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
great essay, I hope we (the linux community)
follow some of these points, like making a VB
clone, making a unified contact architecture, etc.
Wrong about one minor point though- Apple.
It's is the best example of providing both
a simple consistent interface for beginners,
and power to the advanced users. It takes a while
to realize it, but the whole system is customizable
to a greater extent than even linux. GUI apps can
be scripted (applescript), their menus can be changed/rearranged (even the finder), etc.
November 02, 2005
OrlandoDad said...
For those looking for "a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux", I suggest looking to Borland's Kylix/Delphi/C++ solution.
One IDE, one source providing both Linux and Windows apps.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The only way to make an end-to-end solution with Linux is to custom tailor a bunch of "similar" applications with glue code into a single Linux distribution. No application or set of applications, save maybe OpenOffice, could possibly provide everything at once. Theyre all too different, too unique, and dont look to hook into anything that doesnt come with the tarball.
Not to mention there will NEVER be a universal installer, just like there isnt for Microsoft applications. You need a custom-tailored solution like Debian and Gentoo provide, with lots of man-hours of support to keep it up to date.
November 02, 2005
Jamil said...
The funny thing is, OS X already has almost everything he mentioned in that article.
Spellcheck everywhere? Got it.
Centralized buddy list? Got it.
Standardized API? Got it.
etc...
November 02, 2005
stevew said...
Some of the the ideas are correct - but something I think that is a fundamentally BAD idea is the suggestion of a single database that controls all the applications. Can you say "registry" boys and girls. This is one of the single biggest security flaws in MS OSes.
This is different from a database for installed applications. Heck - rpm does that, i.e. an "old" idea.
While it is true that "look and feel" issues are something that wonders all over the place whether you be Gnome/KDE/other even within those environments, there is a move to a more common look inside Gnome/KDE anyway. There are also professionals that are starting to examine/measure "Look and Feel" for both of those windowing environments - this will improve.
I agree with the author about people wanting their applications to just work, and that people don't like installing new software - they don't want headaches. BUT people still get over this if they want the application in question - so is this REALLY a major issue??????? If the installation system WORKS and is relatively painless and it WORKS...did I say and it just has to WORK yet, then I don't think that installation is really REALLY that large an impediment..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You are dead on target. A basic core linux branded for the different distros is the way to go. Zealots are offended when linux is critized for being difficult to install and when synaptic works it is fantastic but the fact is it often breaks one or more things on a system requiring research and editing to get back on track. An example would be the ongoing transition to xorg. A fundamental operating system on which the rest are based along with bringing in the windows developers as you described would entirely change the desktop world for the better.
November 02, 2005
Doke said...
What you are proposing for Linux is the "Microsoft Philosophy". Integrating everything, and having only one way to do things, are typical Microsoft goals. They may do things several ways internally, but they try to present a single uniform interface to the users.
A large part of Linux's success is due to the range of choices available to it's users. It allows different user interface ideas to compete, evolve, and learn from each other. Total uniformity would stifle this wonderful forum for innovation.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
A lot of your guideline have been followed in OSX, I don't know why you say that Apple is lower level? I've you try it since OS X it's out.
November 02, 2005
Georgi said...
- There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs.
Contacts, buddies and users can or can not be different objects. Putting them all together will confuse users more than you can imagine. Linking them somehow to show that a buddy or conntact is also a system users can be more appropriate solution.
November 02, 2005
Reed said...
You have some good ideas, but they're pretty out of touch with Linux, GNU, and free software development.
Basically, a centralized One And Only Linux Desktop System fundamentally *can not* happen. You should be focusing on one or more individual distributions (RedHat, Debian, etc.). These are your "brands", and these are the folks that try to bring all of the independently created software into one cohesive end-user experience (with lots of help from KDE or Gnome).
It's very important that Linux *is* just the kernel, and that *anyone* can develop a software package based on the GNU/Linux system.
November 02, 2005
Praetorian said...
Great article!
I have been using windows for the past 10 years and recently tried using fedora core 4. What a mess!
There's no doubt that windows leads
the pack when it comes to ease of use. The word 'Linux' usually is a synonym for 'fear'. Linux development should be lead by a group consisting of expert coders and thinkers...
All the comments posted so far indicate a reluctance among linux users to bring about changes needed in linux development to ensure more desktop users switch over to Linux. But, remember that not everyone is a developer...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
While the article is very interesting and provides good ideas on ways to improve Linux as a whole, one thing stands out if you look deep into the possible motives behind the article:
FUD
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I 'grew up' on Windows, but every so often I get fed up with Windows (OS activation anyone?) and decide it is time to make the switch to Linux.
Every time I've tried, however, I end up frustrated. Here are my top complaints:
1. Installing applications. Tar? gzip? Where is setup.exe? Where do I specify where in the filesystem I want this to go?
2. Lack of helpful error messages. I could maybe troubleshoot and learn something if only I knew what was going wrong. The last distribution I tried was Ubuntu. Trying to see Windows shares (see #3 below) the application would just...go away. No error, nothing.
3. It has to play nice with Windows. I can't give up Windows entirely until I'm more familiar with Linux. In that time it has to play well with a Windows network. In Ubuntu, I finally got to where I could see my shares, but accessing them was a royal pain. My windows account started with a capitol letter and had a space, so I couldn't use that as a Linux account. If I specified the Windows account to use to access the share, I had to re-type it and the password numerous times.
November 02, 2005
Matthew C. Tedder said...
- Yes. These are the core barriers to GNU/Linux adoption on the desktop--and very well said.
- The analysis of Microsoft weaknesses is also very useful.
- However, KDE does have significantly innovative features over Windows (e.g. kio slaves for protocol/format transpearant file open/save dialog component).
- The idea of a solid package management solution that is distro agnostic holds a lot of potential over the status quo.
- Sadly, the LSB seems to be near proposing specific toolkits as part of its new Linux Desktop Standard (GTK for now). This is a very bad thing. Desktop standards should be based on component models, cut & paste, software management, etc. Trying to standardize on one or more specific toolkits unnecessarilly limits innovation, diversity, and alienates developers for no reason that matters to developers or end users (except for those developers who favor the particular toolkit). It's just stupid.
Matthew C. Tedder
However, I disagree that
November 02, 2005
digitizelife.com said...
This is some incredible and invaluable insight not only into Linux, but to OSS as a whole. I beleive a pheasable way to achieve such a lofty goal would be to form a unified open standard for all aspects of Linux software development. Once developers meet the criteria for this standard, a 'seal' of approval is given to the product, and thus larger investors (such as IBM) would be more likey to validate and support the software. The key would be for these large enterprises to support and sponsor this 'union', or 'consortum' of standards. Many large software and hardware companies have already invested large amounts of capital into Linux and could only benefit from getting together to insure that their investment remain lucrative, and continue to grow.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The level of ignorance in this article is astounding.
As has been pointed out: RPM has been an established format for years. When I got my first taste of Linux in 2000 (Red Hat 6 I think), RPM was quite common.
I agree that content handling (music, contacts, et cetera) could be vastly improved in every operating system. MS discussed that years ago when they first started talking about Longhorn (now known as Windows Vista, due out next year)...I expect the next generation of operating systems, starting with Vista, will take care of this problem. But that's about the extent of what the author got right. Once again, Linux will be left following suit because Microsoft got to it first.
November 02, 2005
solomonrex said...
He's dead on. Really. I'm a programmer, and quite frankly po'd that I can't setup samba on my linux box easily, that Ubuntu has 100 different places to answer my question and none of them work. Windows networking is basic stuff.
apt get is great with a visual interface, but it doesn't solve everything.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I think you will be very interested in Symphony OS. Check out www.symphonyos.com. They use the same kind of approach you've mentioned here. There is still a lot to be done though, as with most things...
November 02, 2005
Shadowhawk said...
Software Installation
In properly configured Linux distribution not geared towards deveopers you have only to run the package manager of your distribution, or of your choice (yum, apt-get, PowerPM or appropriate GUI like KPackage, Synaptic, GYum), type the name of the package you want to install, and it would download it, check dependencies and download them, and install it. Even the Slackware users I think usually download ready packages and install them using addpkg and similar.
Rarely one does download && ./configure && make && make install (or rather checkinstall) path. I think.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I'll stick with Plan 9, thank you.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I agree with EVERYTHING said, except the there should be only one linux distro. I totally disagree, that is one of the strengths of linux. For example I use SUSE for my main desktop, knoppmyth for my media PC/TV needs. Agnula for my pro audio system and opie for my handheld. With only ONE linux these very specialized distros would simply not be around.
November 02, 2005
Andy said...
"There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users, and this should be used consistently across the OS and related programs."
Since people talked about Mac OS X, this request above is also on the road. The Address book in OSX stores not only names but messenger buddies (shows up in Adium and iChat etc.) and is connected to a various of other software, for example the Calender which notes down your contacts birthday and stuff like that.
November 02, 2005
Mark said...
For those commenting on the 'Apple low road' comment:
One-button Mouse. Apple has enough control over their OS and hardware that they could really improve on numerous features to add better functionality while not alienating users with an extra button. Also, don't bring up the Mighty Mouse, the right-click is clever, but hardly par with any truely two-button mouse. Also, in turn they complicate the less obvious functions, like a screen capture, sure it auto-saves it, but do I really need three buttons from a company that touts simplicity? I have nothing against them and like thier products, but really...
For those commenting on Linux and the wonderful world of distros with package servers and managment systems:
As for compiling things, well, the moment you want to try something that isn't in a package list you're in a tough spot. Sure all the distros have package lists and installers, but they're not standard and sometimes they're out of date. I know for Mandrake it tends to lag several subrevisions behind on Firefox, and that's not even an obscure application. The trouble with this non-standard is that if you want a specialized distrobution you're forced to do the extra footwork and track down and compile the needed applications and correct dependancies. In this way the less technical user is forced into a limited range of linux products, sure they may never have gone out to a lesser-known one, but they may never bother trying others if they feel it'll be too much of a hassle, which defeats that 'freedom of choice' notion that keeps coming up.
For the article:
I think it makes many valid points, and actually I was reminded of a product while reading on the VB issue. I remember reading up on RealBasic which touts itself as being similar to VB, but being able to compile for Mac, Linux, and windows. The idea makes sense, and the product seems to make sense, especially in light of the fact that VB6 is on the outs for support and development. Of course I've never tried it, so I can't speak for or against, but I just wanted to bring up that such solutions indeed exist (albeit with a cost, for this one.)
November 02, 2005
Jeom said...
I say we let this guy rest in peace. He may not have installed any distribution since Red Hat 5.2; I reckon. He may not understand sharply what linux is about.
However he made two quite obvious yet smartish statements:
"1. People avoid change - People don’t want to switch operating systems. As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new."
"2. New Operating Systems break old applications - Every new operating system will change the user experience in some cases it will add new useful features but in many others it will break some level of application compatibility. The larger the changes the more likely things are to break and cause problems."
I had to endure insults as I suggested last week on a IT-Management student mailing-list that they [The students] had at least to get comfortable with linux to get a better understanding of their field of expertise [future expertise in this case]. Knowing that those people will one day have take strategic decisions in an IT environment gives me the shivers.
Well anyway it wasn't my point. My point is we shall not insult [or insult back] Win users/fans/freaks whatever you want to call them. Studies proove take anti M$ sentiments is one of the last reason people gave to explain why they switched to another OS.
So let's not mix the feelings with the facts.
Ubuntu rules by the way...
November 02, 2005
Steve said...
Seems to me you have a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of GNU/Linux and the desktop platform.
Linux is a kernel. GNU is the operating system that runs on the kernel. Gnome/KDE are desktop environments. All of these are completely independent of the layer below them.
Linux is not a brand. Its a kernel. It is not an OS, its a kernel. It is not a desktop, its a kernel.
GNU is not a kernel, its an OS. It is not a desktop, its an OS. It is also a way of life for many. You'll even find significant parts of it in products like Solaris and MacOSX.
Debian is a distribution that takes a kernel, an OS, a desktop and a collection of applications and makes them available under one banner. Ubuntu does the same. Redhat, Mandriva, Novell/SuSE, and others do it as well. Those are names are brands.
On top of that misunderstanding, you come across has if you haven't actually used any of the modern Linux-based platforms at all. No one has to install from source anymore. I've been using Linux nearly 12 years and for at least the last 3 I haven't had to install from source unless I chose to. APT and RPM are two of the most popular packages out there. AutoPackage is another one thats gaining popularity as well. If you're installing from Source, then you're doing what Microsoft did and comparingn Windows XP to Redhat Linux 6.2.
Get Ubuntu 5.10 or the latest Mandriva, or even the latest Fedora Core. None of them require you to install from source and all maintain extensive repositories of software.
As for your comment about 'integration' between the apps. I'm sorry, but I don't want my desktop being bloated by a word processor just so all my text boxes have spell and grammer checking. I don't need that, I don't want that. Why would I want a table to have full spreadsheet ability? If I want a spreadsheet, I do the work in a spreadsheet. Why bloat the desktop?
Interfaces such as QT, GTK+, wxWidgets and many others are now very extensive. I can't think of a generic app that cant use widgets already provided by those. Even many Windows developers are using wxWidgets now.
I think that before you open your mouth and spew forth junk like this, you should actually take time to use the products you're trying to start a flame war about.
Unfortunately I'm just as bad for feeding the troll.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
“Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.”
... Sounds like OS X to me.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
It's funny how biased some people are. They say that they only read the first paragraph and then choose to comment. And of course they read certain lines take them out of context, neglect your tone, voice, and anything implied and declare that you're an idiot.
It's ok. You're not an idiot because once in a while as a linux user you HAVE TO (which is why he does say forced) compile your own programs. Sometimes there is no RPM, sometimes you can't just go and click Install, and it is those times which he is referring to.
Anyways. Linux people are seriously really really biased.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is a very well thought out post. A few problems...
> Linux users don't want Linux to "be" like windows in any way. I have noticed that this often coincides with having easy configuration. Is is that hard to make an operating system scalable?
> The Linux community doesn't really want Linux to be mainstream.
I don't want Linux to be a windows clone. But I can see Linux being a scalable operating system that is easy to use if you want that, and difficult to use if you want that. Linux has the potential to be an operating system for anyone to use.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
OrlandoDad, forget Kylix (which is a dead product) and try Lazarus.
While it is still work in progress you'll be suprised to see how far it has gone.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Uhm, doesn't the last paragraph pretty much sum up OS X? It's got all the simplicity tied into the GUI for the "not so advanced", then a fully loaded (with a touch of 'proprietary') BSD underbelly. What did I miss?
And being able to compile (in some cases needing to) is by no means a weakness. It's like the open-source argument about "would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" I certainly wouldn't, even if it meant 100% up-time (which Windows doesn't even come close to having). Responsibility does come with that power, but it is very much worth the perceived risk.
I'm sure this isn't the place for it, but people need to quit with the "but it's what I know" attitude occasionally. After all, why is it "what [you] know"? Because you tried it in the first place, no?
November 02, 2005
Benoit said...
General users are not, and never will become, computer geeks. They need to control their computer through GUIs. This means that the GUI must present the following inescapable, unavoidable characteristics:
- Clarity (When people say they want simplicity, they usually mean clarity);
- Exhaustivity (Everything that must be done must be available through the GUI. No dropping into .config files for the end user);
- Consistency (To minimize learning curve or, in other words, reuse what the user has learned);
The role of clarity and consistency is to provide quick and painless learning.
By exhaustivity, I mean that users must have a (clear and consistent) way to do the following:
- install Linux;
- upgrade Linux;
- install and uninstall all applications;
- replace hardware parts and their associated drivers;
- personalize their own Linux;
- manage security;
- and everything else I may have missed.
We need an organisation structured like the IETF or the W3C whose purpose would be to evolve a complete specification of a clear and consistent user experience giving the user total control of his machine. Programmers and distributions would be free to branch out, but over time, the availability of a good user experience proposition (and high level libraries to easily implement its various facets) would win over developers as well as users, and a commun culture will develop.
Right now, the geeks are happy with Linux, but the genral user is totally, utterly confused.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hmm... Mac OS X has most of these controls available for all apps.. Check out the Cocoa API's sometime. ;-)
Toolbars, menus, File dialogs, color pickers, date pickers, etc, etc, all written at least three times.
- Spreadsheet functionality should be built into every list or grid. I should be able to sort, filter, copy paste any list like data cells.
- Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
- Entire dialog metaphors should be reusable. (add/edit/remove)
- Concepts like a back forward button and navigation should be re-usable in applications other then a web browser.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Some one brought up the Delphi/Kylix connection in this.
Pascal is not a hard language to jump to either for hard core C++ JAVA developers or for VB developers. It is a nice middle ground. As for third party controls there are millions of them for free (check out the Delphi Jedi library), and millions more that you can pay for. And because they also have CLX controls that work on both Linux and Windows you can create nice cross compiled applications.
Now being an avid Delphi user, I love their product, it does have short falls, especially when importing COM and .NET controls. But if these get solved perhaps they will also have a cross .NET - MONO development tool eventually?
As for Linux. I am trying desperately to use Linux. But here is my story. I install MYSQL on Windows and download and install the management desktop tool and everything is great.
On Red Hat MySQL is installed but everytime I try to install the desktop management tool it gives me some error about shared objects missing. No hint on where I can get them from or how to install them.
With windows the installer just works. On Linux it sucks donkeys. I don't want to hunt down some SO files, and figure out how to install them.
To top this off I am running in VMWare. I terminal servered into the host machine from home when I did the install. Now back at work I start up the Red Hat image and the "xserver" will not start because it is not configured, and asks if I would like it to autoconfigure, I select yes and nothing happens. So I gets the idea that if I terminal into the host machine and see what happens. Sure enough it works.
THIS NEVER HAPPENS WITH WINDOWS. Windows works. And when it doesn't work it at least doesn't work in an expected manner. Linux has to be more user friendly.
Get a proper standard installation processs, similar to the MS installer, so anyone can log onto the machine and install a peice of software.
I expect my Mom to be able to install MySQL, Office, practically anything on Windows. I don't expect her to necessarily be able to use them.
Why can't I have the same expectations for Linux? Until all the major distributions out there get together and come out with some standards that can make their OS easy for newbies to use it can not compete with Windows or that Macintosh crap.
As a side note BEOS had it right. You download a file in BEOS and it would pop up a message that said something like "I noticed that the zip file contains an installation package, would you like me to install it for you", select yes and it unzipped, installed, then gave you a message saying "product installed". That is it.
Linux is far from this. And until it gets there it can not compete on the average users desktop.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg your thoughts are right on. I marvel at all of the negative posts that cannot see the forest for the trees. These are suggestions for improving Linux's 'desktop' acceptance by the user community at large. For those of you that have referred to Linux are successful must be over looking the fact that it is not generally considered successful have the percentage of your userbase in the single digits.
On the server, where you have a staff of technical people, it has been sucessful, but on the desktop it has not because it requires a level of technical expertise that average joe does not have. So Linux'ers if you want to keep your toys to yourselves, so be it, but you will not gain general acceptance by being technically arrogant.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
In the competitive proprietary mind, I would see how someone arrives to that conclusion. But I, for one, don't see it that way. Linux doesn’t need to be “dominate”. This is not a competition where winner takes all.
From my narrow perspective, I would rather see Linux stay out of the main stream. It only brings commercialism and PHBs who want to take over and regulate. I like it as a geek system. If Joe Sixpack can’t use Linux, fine by me. That is what Mac OSX is for.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Well, for precompiled packaged, about 80%+ of OS X "installation" is drag-and-drop. Simply put it anywhere you choose on your HD Packages are self-contained, and reference shared libraries (or ".dlls" for those with an inhibited world view) as needed. The others are regular "installs" as the rest of the world knows it.
Again. . .why not OS X?
November 02, 2005
Brian Zimmerman said...
Linux is like a box of leggos. You can make what you want from it. There is no competition, there is no company.
For distros that are after the desktop market, then yes, heed this advice. A wave of apps and tools that make the end user experience easier are definately needed and on the way.
If you think the distinction between the kernel and a desktop distro is nitpicking, you are probably forgetting that Linux is in cell phones, PDAs, multi-function printers, gaspumps?!? What next, medical equipment and air traffic control systems?
And as an aside, my install of Ubuntu went flawlessly. All hardware worked, as well as all network resources (DHCP, shared drives, printers, internet, etc.)as easy or easier than XP. Some users may have problems with WinModems though.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I would argue that the core issue being discussed here is not how exactly Linux should develop or evolve, but instead about how we in the world of open source want to advance. If we eventually want to see open source solutions dominate the market over proprietary software, we will HAVE to find a way to make linux simply and easy to use for everyone. As a side note, his proposed suggestions do not imply that that must be the only direction linux goes in, merely the direction it must go in order to gain market share. I don't think anyone needs to worry about closing out "advanced" users, since there will always be people willing to produce specialized/customized OSes and applications. But I think you have to admit that for your average, every day user who doesn't do much, integration is a good thing and that the idea of a unified OS/application package (unavailable to Microsoft due to anti-competition laws) is a brilliant one. most people just want a computer to crunch out documents and browse the web. I agree that OSX does that well, but the truth is that transitioning from Windows to OSX is some what of a shock to the system, and since most people have Windows machines, that transition isn't going to happen. A linux based distribution is the best hope we have to move people from Microsoft into the wider world of open source.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Single interface for contacts - Kmail and Kopete?
API - GTK+ and QT?
Office suite - Koffice and OpenOffice.org?
Installation - Synaptic, apt-get, and Yast?
Just some examples of where your "experience" and/or research has failed you.
Question for the curious: Where is Windows' centralized software package repository and installtion program with automatic dependency resolution where all programs have been tested and known to work together?
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Attention Apple zealots: When he mentions "lower" he is talking about the lower road, which in his blog was on UI Expertise requirements. The "lower route" is the easiest-to-use route, while the upper route is console / text-config / too-many-options-in-one-tab UI (much like Gnome 1.x).
Next time don't be like "omfg?! APPLE LOWER?!". He was not saying it is a bad thing.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"Linux accounts for about one per cent of desktop operating systems in the whitebox space, according to figures from IDC."
- http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8251
Thats pretty FUBAR, even for Linsux!
I'm looking at XAML, Workflow Foundation, LINQ. good luck with your standard icons, losers.
November 02, 2005
Speak Geek said...
Well, i agreed with this article on most points, except, again, the branding of linux. And I partially agree with that. I think there should be standards set, such as the file system, desktop environment. etc. For example, KDE and GNOME. Software has to be developed often for each of them. Pick one and always use that. Jumping back and forth just makes lots of repetitive software and inconsistencies
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Jesus looks like someone opened a can of worms. Well if u set out to piss of alot of people well done :D
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This "greg" fellow, I think, is generalising.
To get an average consumer to switch you need to first get them to not fear change and be willing to try. In order to try you need to reduce confusion and risk. This means users can’t be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images, they also can’t be expected to properly partition their hard drive. Users don’t want to manually import their favorites and browser settings and email configuration. To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE.
There's no such thing as a 100% RISK FREE operating system, not even OS X. Anyways,
If a user doesn't want to untar/zip and burn an ISO, they can check out Ubuntu ShipIt or just (gasp!) buy a commercial Linux distro, like Redhat or Mandriva. If an average user is afraid of partitioning their hard drive, then they can ask a geek or do the default configuration. Beyond this, the author has a limited grip of what installing an operating system means. If a person is afraid of losing their precious Windows or OSX installation, then they can do a backup.
later in the article, the author complains about multiple control sets and labyrinthine media organisation methods. I've got a really simple response: If you don't like something in Linux, you can go and fix it yourself or even hire someone to fix it for you. Linux was never intended to be the next (I shudder to use this phrase) "Killer App" to eliminate Windows in terms of ease of use; Linux can be easy to use, but that doesn't mean it emulates Windows. He mentions the necessity of having a core "Linux" operating system. My response: try the Linux Kernel, which is the operating system. Everything else is just packaging extra software with it. He also talks about the difficulty of installing software. My response is: if you go trolling for software on Linux using the Web, of course you aren't gonna find the installation experience pleasant! Open up your package manager and do it from there. Simply because it's installation process doesn't copy Windows' doesn't make it hard.
In all, this guy doesn't understand that Linux was never about Konquering the World. It wasn't about attracting new market shares, it was about giving the user (Either technically able or willing to learn) the choice of an operating system that he didn't have to "Activate", didn't have to subscribe to, or forfeit his rights to if the EULA so demanded.
November 02, 2005
Linux Addict said...
Great Article. Being a linux enthusiast I would say these kind of Articles should be taken as positively as possible by the people.
Think about it mostly we face lack to feedback from users, when we get it, we bash the user for his innocous remarks which we think are very detrimental to the OS we love. We can stand behind Linux and other OSS and stop people from Criticizing it but ultimately we should try learning things.
There are a bunch of good things about Linux and their are a bunch of bad ones, somethings which developers might think very simple and obvious could not be making any appeal to the user and look non sense.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Redhat user 'anonymous': The reason that you get missing-library problems is because, unlike windows applications which bundle every single dll that it uses, Open Source projects only have what they are working on. The reason for this is 1: Having every dependancy will make all projects have huge downloads. 2: They CANNOT ship binaries for every distribution because they are all configured differently and are often incompatible with each other (much unlike the monolithic windows). 3: Instead of randomly whining how you can't get XXX product to work, how bout you check your repository to see if they have the package available, AND HAVE IT INSTALL ALL REQUIRED LIBRARIES. Gentoo: emerge, Debian/Ubuntu: apt-get, Slackware (if you've installed it): either slapt-get or swat, RedHat: yum. I do not know of the other distributions, but seriously. Check your dependancies when you download things that are NOT in your repository.
November 02, 2005
RobGTX said...
Very interesting article. As a Windows application developer for the last 10 years, primarily focused on Business Application I took note of a few interesting points:
Controls – He has got it right on the mark, how many times have I heard about some 3rd party custom control that “looks just like MS Office…”, build this into the OS in a standard way and you have a pot of gold.
I have played with many version of Windows, ranging from 2.0 through the current Vista betas, not much has changed with the exception of some more pleasant graphics. Similarly, not a whole lot has change in Linux over the past few years KDE and gnome do some things nicely while other things are very difficult.
Look to Apple and we see a major change between OS9 and OS X. Apple saw the need for change and changed things radically.
Now I have read a lot of responses stating that you can do a given task with X, Y or Z. That is exactly what is wrong. For a distribution targeted at the mainstream desktop user, you need exactly 1 way for most people to do something, while not constraining advanced.
From the outside looking in, again for the mainstream targeted desktop deployments, there seems to be far too much infighting and competing projects between the project teams. So the end users is left with multiple packages some that target very advanced tasks and have only the basics in others. Why do we need 2 major desktops anyhow (gnome vs. KDE), personally I prefer Ximian Desktop, because I could make it “look” more like Windows, but it no longer seems to be available, did Novell kill it?
Anyhow, many people have nailed it in their comments regarding “… sounds like OSX …”. The only real downside is the cost associated with Apple hardware and the lack of acceptance of Apple in corporate America.
Now, to pre-respond to the naysayers that will no doubt respond with commentary about the need to specific distributions targeted at specific industries or hobbyists. There is certainly a place for distributions like Gentoo, Slackware and Yellow Dog, however in terms of targeting the “mainstream” I do not feel that anyone has produced a linux distribution that is suitable for “grandma and grandpa” that simply want a computer to get email, browse the internet and perhaps play some music or movies… Umbuntu Linux comes close, but is not quite ready for prime-time.
November 02, 2005
Cpgeek said...
The problem isn't just a unified interface, but also a modular one... - what happens if said unified user interface for handing files metadata, contacts, etc. sucks? (arbitrarily, on a user to user basis, one user is going to love it, another will hate it, it's the way of the world). there should be multiple modular interfaces that are stored in libraries and can be switched out completely switched out, like themes for a GUI. the standardization comes in when calling these GUI "themes". applications need calls for elements that are variables. for example, if an application needs a file dialog box it should go out, ask the preference files what library ("theme") to go get that data from, make the call, and return with the user interface. all of these "themes" should also have a standard way of replying to programs that call them... - it's about protocol, not static user interface design.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Well, this might solve the KDE/GNOME issue. Maybe. . .
As for the seemingly anti-Apple comments; Apple Zealot here. Simply put, I "converted" from Windows to OS 9 with little trouble. Admittedly, the change was somewhat forced, but once in, it was immediately like home. Then, with the advent of OS X, I wondered why anyone would use Windows ever. I mean, obviously if gaming is all you do, then more power to you, but if you want a real, useful OS, then OS X is currently the way to go. Notice the use of "currently"; things could change once again. Just not in the foreseeable future. ;)
November 02, 2005
Jason Kichline said...
When Greg mentions Linux should be the operating system he is merely reflecting the set brand expectation. Most programmers or technical people have no idea what brand management is and you probably can't appreciate this. But in the heads of consumers and business people Linux == OS. The problem is that there is a brand descrepancy because as stated, Lunux is not, in reality, an OS but a kernel.
The core challenge that Linux development faces is that it is created in a way that focuses first on function, and then on form. Most of the programmers probably don't give a damn about how the UI looks, you think that's just eye candy. In some ways you are right. However, this eye candy is the visual embodiment of the Linux "brand".
However, the UI is not just to make it pretty, but also need to help users accomplish tasks. Microsoft was very adept at this in the Windows 95/98 style interface but has of late struggled to reinvent the way people interface computers. Why? I think its because they are inventing the technology and searching to solve a problem that does not exist. Why do my windows need to be transparent? Does that fulfill a need I had to get my stuff done quicker? Linux need to build "Results-Orients User Interfaces". Get the task done quicker.
I think Linux can overtake Microsoft if we listen to the consumers. We need open source market research and workflow analysis. We need to analyze what people want to do and then maximize the user experience. We need to get really picky and make performing certain tasks happen in two clicks instead of four. It doesn't matter how much better your code and performance is if it takes users 10 minutes to figure out how to send an e-mail.
What all the Linux developers need to learn is how to properly frame a solution WITHOUT jumping to design. We need to identify the workflows WITHOUT uttering the language we are going to write it in. Programmers have a real tendency to "just start coding", when what we need to do is think about how to solve the user's problem in the best manner possible. Technology must serve the user. At least 50% of your comments suggest that the users must serve the technology. For instance, insisting its OK that installing something takes 3 hours to figure out, or that users should deal with lots of clicks because the code is beautiful or modular or whatever. That's just backwards.
So Greg is right, we need to align the Linux brand with consumer expectations. That means normalizing the Linux distributions. It doesn't mean their can't be variations on the theme, but we need a consistant brand and user experience.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
From Anonymous : Are you mad? Who does that on Linux anymore?
Me I must do ? Why ? Because i use a 64bits linux, and most packages don't exists on it. Why I don't switch on a 32bits distro ? Because I must recompile/reconfigure the kernel to make him handle my AMD64 3400+, and I think an OS woudn't take us to do that kind of things. Linux is for advanced users as soon as you have an advanced computer, it's a fact.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I agree to a point on the standadization of linux, not the kernel, but the file system at least. want to know what i mean? take fedora, it stores files in a directory structure COMPLETLY DIFFERENT than my suse 10.0 laptop. and plaes...you .RPM etc. freaks... what are you going to do when you kernel upgrade? get the basic one that is an rpm? no thanks, not for me. I would rather COMPILE my own lean running kernel that is cutom tailored to my system it is running on. if I don't want NFS compile into the kernel, i can select to load it AS NEEDED as a simple module, no need for it to be taking kernel space when booting or as the kernel is running.
Also, one thing MS has over linux is a standerdization of libraries (.DLL's) you ever try to upgrade one component of linux and have to upgrade like say...GTK+ and once you have upgraded it the app that needed it works...but the apps that depended on the old version don't recognise the new version so fail? i have many a times found this to happen in linux. what needs to be done is make a standard for writing/rewriting these types of apps, especially for backwards compatibility. thats what i would like to see with linux, standardized filing structure, and application libraries. why update libgtk+.so for one call when the developer could just as easily write it in his/her code? just because they don't want to take the time? i also agree that there should be a standardzized package manager FORMAT. there really is no rease to have 15 or more pakage managers for 4-5 package types. settle on like 3 of the top chosen managers and develop from there. that way you can have more coders working to output code than if you have the same amount working on ten times as many DIFFERENT apps to OD THE SAME THING.
think on this, if the file structure was the same and the libraries the same, red hat ubunto mandrake and suse plus all the other distro's out there could have their devels work on ONE CVS repository, and just put their brand names on the DISTRO. the coding would be done much more rapidly than MS and then could far outstrip them, insted of playing catch up as they are doing now. there are probably a lot MORE coders working on linux than windows, so imagine what they could accomplish if they all worked together.... MS wouldn't stand a chance.
November 02, 2005
The Truth said...
This article makes alot of good points. You blind zealots just cannot see it objectively anymore.
The biggest point to me is the new software installation. If I want a new MP3 player for Windows what do I do? I get on the net and search for 'winxp mp3 player', right? Regardless what what piece of crap site I end up at I will be able to download install.exe or the like that I can simply double-click. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT!
Now that uncle Bob wants a new mp3 player for Linux he will most likely do the same thing, right? So he gets on the net and searches for something like 'linux mp3 player'At this point he will be lucky to end up at a site he can download a binary from. Even if he is lucky enough not to be staring blankly at something like this: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-fedora.html or this http://downloads.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/0.8.1/rpm/fedora/fc3/vlc/, I can almost gurantee that whatever packaage he downloads will have additional dependency requirements.
If he was zealous he spent awhile searching around for something like xorg-x11-XFree86-glue-Mesa-libGLU-4.4.0-2 ...
But now uncle bob is rebooting back into Windows ...
November 02, 2005
kelvie said...
The two conditions you posted initially may be easily satisfied by someting really simple: live distributions.
After explaining to a few of my friends (I must admit, I'm quite the linux zealot among my peers) about Knoppix, burning it for them (the DVD version), and telling them how it's completely risk-free, and a fun way to try it, they get hooked.
In about a month, I'll pose them the linux challenge -- do what you would normally do in linux for a week, and don't touch Windows.
Also, introducing them to the online forum/IRC community helps -- the open source community (at least Gentoo anyways) is surprisingly friendly and helpful.
Knoppix does a generally good job probing hardware though -- although it'd be nice if the normal liveDVD would have nvidia/ati drivers so that they can experience the magic that is tuxracer =p (yes I realize the legal limitation to this).
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"with the release of Mother Sheehan Linux 2.1 and Haliburton Linsux 1.0, the number of Linux distributions finally surpassed the number of actual Linux users."
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
If Linux is going to outdo OS/2, it needs to be more user friendly, easier to install and not break existing applications.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
I can't speak for the majority of Linux users, but most of the people I know who use Linux at all already consider it by far superior to Windows. I would guess that most of the developers for Linux applications are developing for themselves, and folks like them who need to solve similar problems. I would also guess that in most these cases, ease of use is directly equal to efficiency.
I'm not trying to say that there aren't some people/groups that want Linux to be in the hands of average people. In fact, most people seem to think that Ubuntu is really getting to the "everyman" point (or is already there).
Personally, I believe that "Linux" is far too nebulous to consider as a desktop operating system simply because there are too many variables. No sane help desk would support "Linux" for any purpose, as there's no particular standard for where things should be, or what the "proper" way to do thing X is.
I don't think that this is a bad thing. Linux and other Unix-likes which aren't supported by default can still be used by the people who want to use them. Those people take pride in configuring their systems and solving their own problems. Those like reading man pages and learning new things. Most computer users, though, just want to sit down at a computer, do something, and then walk away. If they have a problem, they want to have someone to turn to (in the same way that I would want to have someone available to work on my car if it was to break).
Linux may never be a real option for those people without support, and I don't think that's so bad.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This article is entirely wrong. Me, and almost all novice Microsoft users who want to run Linux do not want "better applications" as a reason to switch. We are license violators (or pirates if you want to call it that) who have 4-5 machines in a household (or sometimes even 1) and do not want to pay $300 for windows + $300 for office X 4-5. All we need is a clone, application compatibility. Give us that in a no-cost Linux and we would gladly switch. The same is true for medium size businesses who don't want to pay to upgrade to XP because NT4, 98, win 2k, or Me is unsupported. Linux doesn't need to be better (although a linux clone of windows will very likely crash less)- if it is free and close enough it could wipe out Windows almost entirely. People would buy $200-400 computers that were $75-100 cheaper with a good enough Linux, and so would businesses. And many of the home users stuck on win95,98, and Me who don't want to pay for XP would upgrade to a fairly compatible Linux to avoid virus and spyware problems because they know support and the windows firewall are not available on their old OS.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
So Linux'ers if you want to keep your toys to yourselves, so be it, but you will not gain general acceptance by being technically arrogant.
You can't be punished by not being provided what you don't want.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
If a survey were taken concerning what characteristics you would like to see in a "perfect OS", would you be interested? I have been wanting to do this for awhile now, so, if you think it's worth me getting it going, let me know at nathanaelblevins@hotmail.com.
- Nathanael
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg! You are great. I will come back to your comments more often. They are valuable to me. Keep it up!
Best
Zeno
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux, OSX blah blah.
I work in a data center and I laugh consistently when I see an alarm tick for a coldstart of a windows machine. Usually the windows machine will then "unexpectedly" eat it's registry for breakfast leaving the company it worked for with downtime and unhappy customers.
I for one have no problem using my Debian workstation and my powerbook to which I am typing this response. I agree to the earlier post that "this is not a winner take all world"
Far too often I find people pointing the finger to which distro is better or what have you. But in my mind, if my family was fed/clothed by my web-cluster it would not be running on an MS product.
Solaris/RH/Debian/OSX admin, yea I think I someone said us OSX users are like Joe Sixpack?
Well I assure you I do not have abs o steel and that I do like beer, so leave OSX and apple to those that like it and stop the slandering of my "precious"
November 02, 2005
hahaha said...
greg sounds like almost 90% of people that i know.. given that i'm in a very typical/usual surroundings whom are all users, and they dont giv a damn about how the os was build or done.. they juz wanna use it..
so.. 90% of these ppl will agree wit u.. and the left out 10% of programmers and alternative ppl who can cope wit some logical problems at any given time will hav enuf time/interest to read your post and mostly bombard u..
wateva anybody's opinion is, os that are easier to use, even for kids and grandmas', is what that matters.. and every1 have to agree that windows is easier to use.. i dun have to prove this fact..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You've got to be the most uninformed person on the planet when it comes to computers. Where have you been for ten years, and how did you find the internet?
November 02, 2005
Bobby said...
Very well thought out post. I have to agree with you on most points. There definitely has to be a solid standard.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The evolution of any technology tends to move toward ease of use. The early adopters latch onto to the complex early either to prove their technical superiority (and scoff at the less knowledgeable) or to be different. This may be a bit of a side note, but ComputerWorld has a survey (http://www.computerworld.com/
developmenttopics/development/
story/0,10801,100542,00.html) that demonstrates this fact. Most developers most are working on high-level languages (C#, JAVA, & VB) while the most complex language C++ trails. That is because efficiency and ease of use is much more valuable to business than a bunch of unorganized almost finished applications. In time the really smart Linux developers will move toward ease of use and those who moved into Linux for scoffing will be off on another OS. Hopefully this will happen before the impending fragmentation that is now happening in JAVA and will potentially happen to Linux.
November 02, 2005
Matej said...
I kind of like the article, except that it seems to be similar to many many other similar articles trying to comment on Linux without actually knowing it well. Talking about standardization -- did you know that most of the things you require from Linux (unification of user experience, standardized tools, not-reinventing the wheel) are already present in KDE in measure much higher than in Windows (AFAIK -- I haven't use Windows seriously for past couple of years; and I do not know enough about Gnome to comment on the current state of the things there)? Do you know that your standardized distribution environment is already available (Debian, [k]Ubuntu, I don't have enough experience with other distros)?
Matej
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I've untarred and compiled software.
I tried the automated installers.
They worked most of the time, but
several times I had dependencies on
the latest version of some other
library that could not be resolved
or introduced errors. For example:
Installed mythtv. It got the latest
version of the Qt lib. They had
changed the code to handle time
to fix a bug with timezones and
daylight savings. Mythtv was written
with a fix for the bug. Now my
clock is an hour off no matter what
I set the timezone to. I end up
having to manually install the
previous version of QT.
My big issues have been dependency
problems.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
the slackware linux package manager is easy. There is also dropline gnome for very easy installation and maintanence of installed software.. Not to mention swaret
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I dont think bashing is the way to go, here. One thing that has not been discussed is the live distro cds. You can purchase them, try linux, see if everything is compatible with your computer, and then install it. I would like to see more vendors (some are working on this) support linux ie dreamweaver (I know we have alternatives) and photoshop (gimp) but also games like flight simulator or nascar2000. Things like this make me keep one box with windows on it and constantly updating it. (uggh)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Are we all forgetting the fundamental principle behind open source GNU/GPL software. It comes with one main stipulation. You may use the software for FREE but if you make changes to the software they (the source) must be made available to the General Public. Let's see Apple and Microsoft distribute their software for free. The moment we allow some organization to form and standardize linux distributions, I believe we violate the GPL. However, I do think it is important to set up standards, but they should not be shoved down one's throat.
I liked the comment about buying a car with the hood welded shut. Those who know how to use unix/linux can appreciate how much flexibility there is. It allows us to get our hands dirty if you will.
I have had instances where I needed to use tar and gzip. I think it is great that they are there. I think every serious linux user should learn how to compile a new kernel. The fact that a package may not be available in an .RPM or other format is merely interesting. If you need software to do someting, and it isn't available in a package learn to install it the hard way. Don't be lazy, use your brain. In most cases you can find some kind of documenation.
People have families, and the fact is that this software is offered for free. Like most people I am not a developer, nor do I want to be, but I appreciate all the progress that has been made thus far. Without these people taking time aside from their lives and families none of this would be accomplished.
I think this was a good article, but fundamentally some arguments are just flawed because of the GPL. One of the biggest improvements that can be made to linix is better hardware support. I like being able to choose which distribution I want to use, I don't want them to all be the same. I also like how the kernel is seperate from the OS is seperate from the desktop environment. It allows me to plug different pieces together to my choosing. You don't see microsoft and apple doing that.
Need I also mention, the more people we have using linux, the greater security risk exists. Even though linux is inherently more secure than windows, once evil hackers start writing viruses and spyware for unix then no-one can hide. We will then need a completely new OS from anything that's ever been done before.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
windows installer allowed to write to anywhere, okay linux root and their packet managers can write to any directory too and mess around as it requires root to install, on windows it does the same except that they call it Administrator. That you are a tard that works as admin all the time is not a problem of windows. Btw. Registry uses ACLs too, you can set rights for any key in the registry to allow/disallow changing, adding, deleting ... gotta love how linux turds don't know shit about win and think they may critize it because they don't know shit.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Strongly suggest that you change Basicly what's in Greg's head to Basically what's... A typo at the top left of every page is really not a good look.
Nice blog layout though :)
Cheers.
November 02, 2005
jca said...
Thoughtful piece. Two points to extend the "what users do/don't like" argument. First, most users think first in terms of the stuff they want to do, not the computer environment they use to do it. Successful environments make it easier to do stuff. Apple excels at this. Microsoft is sometimes not very good at it. But MS makes up for it by exploiting a second point: users tend to follow the path of least resistance. They do what they already know how to do, or what they know they can have somebody do for them, or help them with. Dell will install Windows for you. And the fact that so many people use Windows makes it easy to ask for help.
Linux users fit this pattern too. It's just that the stuff we want to do is not as common. For example: configuring the behavior of the computer on many levels with very fine control--some people really like that. It can be reflected in one's choice of distro or desktop or package tool or scripting language or whatever.
What the article perhaps misses is that the happy tweaker is a fairly common user for Linux. We get pissy when you take away /etc.
I think these two points apply to both Windows and Linux users. After all, the whole reason Linux/BSD came into being was that users liked the idea of a free unix clone on cheap hardware that would let them perform the tasks that were important to them, using skills they already had.
Doing stuff. Following the path of least resistance.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux needs to ditch a lot of the legacy Unix architectural cruft that it has carried around for apparently no good reason (except maybe
"conceptual" backwards compatibility: lame script-jungle-based SysV init; antique file system conventions '/etc', '/usr', '/usr/local', '/usr/share', etc.; .so hell; entrenched non-relocatable package systems)
Take a look at GoboLinux if you want to see a modest revolution in this user space architectue. At least for desktop use, I just can't see why many vestigial userland Unix-ism persist.
November 02, 2005
kake26 said...
Points taken, thought about and sumarily dismissed. You don't give Linux enough credit. Lets take Suse linux 9.3 for this example. First off, I could train a monkey to install and use it. However, I've run out of monkies and had to settle for humans instead. As far as interfaces go yes there is alot available for use. As far as the one most newbies could deal with easily I'd say its KDE. I have always used KDE from the start. I know its a big GUI and has proably more apps and tools then one can comfortably use, but thats the great part you never know when you might find that app you've looked for so hard in KDE suddenly. I say so what that Linux is kernel, big deal. Its the apps and stuff you pile around it that make it a usable OS. Suse is proably the best RPM based distro out there. For example I can tweak the kernel till I am blue in the face and it doesn't care, unlike Fedora which is patch to hell and back. I used Fedora Core 3 for quite a while and I enjoyed it, but I was not able to tweak the kernel like I wanted to so I moved on. I'll take a moment to sing some praises to RPM, rpm does a damn fine job at managing and installing apps. In suse I open yast pull up the installer, type in what I'm looking for and hit Accept which installs the stuff I want. Makes windows MSI stuff look pathetic. Thanks to this article its confirmed some theories about M$ specifically the commoun controls. I get the point why apps and stuff can pile up so fast in Windows. I also agree with the person that made the comment OSX makes windows look hard, it does totally. I've been a die hard Windows user until I discovered Linux, and realized hey there is something better out there. I got fed up with XP a few years later and said screw it I'm using Linux. Even better I've managed to run my own business off of only Linux for about 1.5 years now. I've converted average joe type windows users to Linux and/or Mac users and they have all told me how much better than windows these things are. This from the average know nothing user thats used windows for a long enough period of time to realize how crappy it can be. Specifically with spyware and damned trojans and virii. I am a religous type fanatic about Linux and Open source, I made it my mission in life to show people they don't need to be mindless M$ slaves for the rest of their life. Guess what all you M$ sympathizers out there, I'm succeeding, by simply showing them and alternative. Showing all those average joe types there's better out there. Though this article had a few nicely made valid points, still came from a M$ sympathizer, so I obligated to take it with a grain of salt.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
All these different flavours of Linsux are like the ragtag fleet from Battlestar Galactica trying to take down a Cylon Basestar called Vista.
The game is up chumps - How many years has it been since Linsux began, and it still doesn't have standard icons. if it hasn't happened yet, it aint gonna happen!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Nice article!!! :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg after posting a comment that doesnt bash Microsoft, these hippies have to come out.... Realize that "the man" is not after you, put your bongs down and accept the marketplace.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is all fine and dandy and the suggestions are good ones, however, these suggestions are something for a distribution to implement. Linux IS the kernel, it's not the OS. We cannot change this.
November 02, 2005
White Cracka said...
--------------------------------
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform.
----------------------------------
There are 2 VB6 compatible IDE's. I believe KBasic is 100% code compatible, while Realbasic is about 95%. Binaries made with RealBasic are able to run on Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX.
Mono is an interpreter for .Net binaries and a compiler for the code. Their goal is to make all .Net binaries run on Linux and Mac OSX, and all code compile 100% natively.
There's also xbasic, pheonix from janus software, gambas, and a few other projects that make this idea come to life.
What you've suggested is correct, I'm just showing you others have come to this conclusion as well and progress has been made, even though there's room to grow.
-----------------------------------
Matching Microsoft feature for feature does suck. When you dont have certain features, you feel you're falling behind. A lot of features feel very natural, like God wanted them to be in an OS to begin with. 3D Screen savers, taskbar grouping, desktop switching, etc. Great examples, I know, but I am angered constantly by the idea open source developers are wasting their time watching MS to see what they're gonna do and copy it. MS never comes up with new concepts, just implementations. I REALLY wish there was a way to confrence with EVERY OSS GUI developer out there and shake them really hard and say "LOOK! These are the concepts...do them! Do them well, then pretty. Dont worry about Redmond, they'll be catching up to us in 2 years...concntrate!" but I can't. I also appreciate all the hard work people from around the world do for free when making OSS, so I don't want to anger anyone.
-----------------------------------
Lastly, the whole OS being called Linux, as a distribution, I disagree with. Windows doesn't do this. XP didn't have a "Windows" kernel, it was based on the NT Kernel. Debian doesn't have a "Debian" kernel, it uses Linux (and Hurd, Solaris, and I believe BSD...???)
Packaging Linux as a distribution isn't a great idea. The kernel is monolithic anyway, which makes it slower to develope than if it were more modular. If Linus Travolds chose to package and maintain a Linux distribution, the progress would slow greatly. The quality would be much better, but bugs would be harder to track and take longer to fix.
Now, I am not against some form of highly ogranized and modular council creating a Distribution, lets call it Lin-X. I think you could have developers on every platform, making it TRULEY platform independant and completely interoperable between architectures. They could standardize all GUI design. They could make an official installer that all programs would have to utilize. They could do what you're saying Linux should be. The only difference would be the name. Then people would forget about Linux a little. Talk of Lin-X would pick up. It would be like a dream.
I look for that to happen in the next couple of years as Ubuntu advances. Even though it is for profit, they are addressing a lot of these issues. Red Hat was doing it for a while, but stopped short to go to the enterprise where everyone is technical enough to figure out the hard stuff (less work for them to do). Mandrake, well I'm not to sure what direction they're heading in. I don't think any of these companies could acomplish the goals you've set forth. I think what you're suggesting is much larger than capitalism can accomplish, just my 2 cents though.
-WhiteCracka
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
My comment is on why Linux is doomed on the desktop.
Many IT specialits will blame the User and Microsoft for resisting the Linux charm on the desktop.
However this is far from the truth because DRM!!! is the main weakness for Linux.
Users get good security and flawless functionality in Linux until it comes to multimedia and proprietary technologies. The User then must surrender userability and create circumvention. This requires time and expertise which are scarce.
Linux will therefore keep doing best what it does and shall suffocate trying to get on the desktop.
The question is if IP is good for us.
Many experts contributing to OSS have day jobs related to proprietary projects and that is where the bread is. So IP and DRM is good and here to stay.
Bottomline is to leave Linux where it belongs--- on the Server.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
good read. It's funny how so many people attack this guys opinions and then go on to appear to have not actually read everything he had to say. What he said makes perfect sense and is entirely true.
All those people attacking him only verify why Linux will never be a dominant desktop OS and why Microsoft has and will continue to have ample time to fix the shortcomings in its server OS.
Some of you can't stop thinking that your way is the best way long enough to listen to what anyone else has to say. I've seen it for years in "the community" and that is why Linux will never "win"..
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Linux predictions for 2001
LinuxWorld.com 1/5/01
Joe Barr, LinuxWorld.com
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2362/lw-01-vcontrol_1/
"I'll predict that it kicks Windows 2000's butt" - HaHaHaHa!!!!
"2001 will be a year of consolidation within the Linux industry." - HoHoHoHo!!!!
"One or more of the top five PC makers will begin offering Linux desktop machines for sale in retail outlets" - HaHaHa!!!
"Linux will find a backdoor to the desktop world dominated by Microsoft." - HeeHeeHoHoHo!!!! please stop!
"By the end of the year, we'll all laugh about the old days when Linux was considered only a server platform. " - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - he's right about the laughing part!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
See above for a Linsux fanboy response to losing an argument!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"they complicate the less obvious functions, like a screen capture, sure it auto-saves it, but do I really need three buttons from a company that touts simplicity?"
There's a utility (/Applications/Utilities/Grab) that allows you to take screenshots, timed screenshots, window-only screenshots, and rectangular-selection-based screenshots, review them, and save them if needed.
The three button thing is a hotkey for advanced users who just want a quick screenshot without having to open up the nice GUI-based app.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Slashdot fellows, i greet you
Linux is good
Ask kelly, she knows
Sometimes linux is a bit short
How can one hate it, thougH?
Don't count linux out
Other than linux, who can beat m$?
Together, mac & linux may have a chance
-one more thing, slashdot guys are nice
Now, don't get me wrong about that
In fact, i like slashdot
Go grab a linux iso and try it
Goodness, you won't be disappointed
Everyone loves slashdot & linux
Run, get your copy!
Sorry, i've nothing more to say...
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
In all fairness, Linux has come a long way. it has network support, printer support, good text editing, and a great command prompt.
November 02, 2005
alex_t said...
Well, some comments:
1. VB6 developers are already mostly migrated to C# or VB.NET - after all VB.NET is REALLY better then VB6, nobody will deny that.
2. Visual Studio uses common controls from Office. It also looks like that next version of Office will use same WinFX controls as the rest of Windows.
3. IE uses trust zones, but also ACLs (as Windows does).
4. Since Windows2000 Microsoft has standard installer - "Windows Installer" (MSI) and most commercial application already moved to that standard.
5. All this remarks about inconsistancies on Windows are really funny. I mean, do you really expect Linux with it's huge numbers of incompatible widget sets to unite? (GTK, KWidgets, OpenOffice widgets, Mozilla widgets, etc, etc, etc). I mean, they even cannot decide between KDE and GNOME (and command line).
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
linux is bad
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Does anyone know how to connect a NetComm ADSL modem to a Red Hat Linux computer? I tried recompiling the kernel, but that didn't help.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Fedora is nice.Unix is way better, though.Choose one already!Kde is pretty attractive.Ssave money with linux, at least.Live by your own morals.As long as you don't use windows.Some of us are happy with CLI.How can you say windows is better?Do you have any proof?Or are you just blathering?Time for lunch.. see ya later.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I have been using Windows ever since release 3.0, MacOS since release 6.0 and Linux ever since RedHat 4.0. My home WLAN includes multiple machines running XP Pro SP2, CentOS/RHEL 4.2, SuSE Pro 9.3, and MacOS.
Like it or not, Windows is here to stay. MacOS X looks nicer and is more intuitive than Windows but also more expensive (hardware-wise) and therefore it is supported by a smaller bunch of geeks. I love Linux but it will never beat Windows simply because what people want and need is not a priority to Linux developers, nor do they have (most of them, at least) the resources that would allow them to care enough about that.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Wouldn't it be great if we could abolish M$ and just force all those newbie proles to use Linux!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Lady in the office across the hall from my consulting biz was "so excited that she didn't have to pay for a desktop O/S" when her Linux-Purist son installed it on her new computer. Within the week she was knocking on my door begging for XP.
People just want it to work the way they are used to it working.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
All of the points in the article have been debated to death before, many, many times over. I'll add one more, which is at least as well a beaten path, to the list.
Nearly all Windows users get their OS preinstalled by the PC manufacturer. I'd imagine a very small part of Windows users are actually capable of installing it on their own, nevermind making decisions about hard drive partitioning and such. A lot of people never buy a boxed Windows upgrade. They just use whatever came with the machine, until they get rid of the machine itself. Linux would need to get into this channel of distribution in order to become 'mainstream'.
Common sense would suggest that a PC with a no-cost OS would be cheaper to make than one with Windows. Through the mysterious workings of a free and competitive market, this fact somehow fails to translate to a Linux PC that was cheaper to buy than a Windows PC. Such things are nowhere to be bought. You may suspect that a certain convicted monopolist has something to do with it.
About software installation: it's true that installing a given proprietary piece of software on a given Linux distro can be a bit of a hassle, mostly because the distributors usually don't package proprietary software and the distro's differ just enough that writing a universally effective installation script is hard. That said, things look quite different from a system administrator's point of view. Say you need to install an obscure, not very well written but established scientific application on 50 workstations. On a Linux/Unix site, you'd probably have /opt or some such directory mounted over NFS. Compile the app, put it in /opt and once and for all go through any arcane contortions that are needed to configure this badly written app and make it usable. The app is instantly available to all.
Compare this with Windows, where a lot of apps cannot be installed on a network drive. So you need to install it on each workstation. Say the app is sufficiently badly written that it does not work as a regular user when installed by an administrator. You need to tweak default file permissions and such. On each machine. Some of which are W2K and some XP. Neither of which were built with remote administration in mind. Suddenly you need management software to deploy a silly little badly written obscure scientific application. And then, along comes a service pack, that ever so slightly breaks things.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As expected, most comments by Linux fans are either whining about the GNU/Linux thing or saying "no, it's not like that at all"...
Face facts boys - until you do, Linux can never be anything more than your hobby. For once take some suggestions on board instead of pretending that there is no problem. Companies like IBM and Red Hat (who do realize that most of what Greg has said is true) attempt to solve these problems and do a reasonable job, but Linux as a whole does not.
Finally, idealogues like Stallman are doing far more harm at this stage than good. Choose what you really want - should Linux replace Windows or should it just be something that more technical people choose? You have to pick whether you really want to stick with your position of smug intellectual superiority and moral indignation, and if you choose to do that then just admit it already. But if you do then don't pretent you want the rest of the world in your little club.
November 02, 2005
Daniel J Birkinshaw said...
Error: Linux != Windows.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
We already have Windows, we don't need to turn Linux into Windows. Attracting the VB developers? What were you thinking?? We already have a shitload of open source developers creating superior applications.
November 02, 2005
jimf said...
While it used to be true that people avoid change, and, granted that people don't like having their whole perception of the world turned upside down, I've noticed that if change is touted as a improved feature, or just the latest and greatest, people will flock to try it. While I'm sure there are still true conservatives who still don't accept change, the push by business to sell new technology has created a mob of people who will try anything if it is presented in the right light. MS has been as very active in advocating this, but it may be coming back to bite them.
The fact that people are now eager to try a new OS or, interface, or program, or even version doesn't guarantee it's success. Inertia, reluctance to change from the old familiar format , or just recognition of an inferior new design can all affect the users acceptance. A lot of users have, for example, stayed with Windows 200 because the new XP interface was stupid, ugly, and offered no perceivable improvement in function. Either your 80% rule had been broken, or the design didn't make it. Users who had been loyal MS customers began to feel that they were locked into a untenable position with a increasingly insecure platform and an increasingly bazaar interface. MS's notoriously shady business practice's added to the paranoia. Many of those people are the new wave of Linux users.
Linux has recently provided the most diversity of interfaces for the desktop and provides a lot of, still to be analyzed, information on what users really prefer. Gnome and KDE have both come of age as entirely usable environments and each has a rabid following, but other interfaces like Fluxbox also deserve consideration. All of these designs provide a workable desktop and appeal to different user levels and user tastes. Perhaps that is a clue that there is no magic user interface that is appealing to all, not even close to the 80% level. However, one advantage in all this is that most of the apps designed for one GUI will run perfectly in the others. That means that a user can run the interface of choice and still get all the perks.
In the the future, I see MS getting into either a web based system and/or something like a refrigerator which only supplies set application for the home user. That way MS can completely control the environment, piracy, virus, and all those other nasty little problems. Something which seems to be their paramount concern. I see Linux and, maybe, BSD as the future of the general purpose computer and of future desktop design and innovation.
You also mention that Linux is lacking in easy installation of applications. The Debian based Distros have, for example, apt, which, using either the kpackage or synaptic front end, is easier to install and use than anything in Windows. I suggest you try the latest Kanotix or Mepis or even Ubuntu. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. RPM based Distros have also come a long way from where you remember them. I would also suggest that it is now possible to find entirely equivalent applications for anything in Windows. Very rarely does one have to depend on wine or crossover to run a Windows program. Linux is already far ahead of Windows in most areas and still advancing.
November 02, 2005
Ripcrd said...
Holy crap! That is a lot of comments. I didn't read all of them, but had an answer for one of your problems.
A friend of mine was a VB and Delphi programmer. He used Kylix for a year when it first came out and then switched to RealBasic for his Linux programming. I've not used it, but looked over his shoulder and it looks pretty cool. The IDE is not too expensive (Std edition is free and Pro is $400) and has lots of libraries and plug-ins avail. for purchase. Best of all is that it runs on Windows, Linux and other OSes. He can write on Linux and compile for that or Windows, but he can't do the same on the Windows version. It only compiles for Windows as I recall.
http://realbasic.com/
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why do all you computer geeks have such a hard time expressing yourselves in coherent English?
November 02, 2005
davidsyes@yahoo.com said...
You said: "Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love. At the same time they need to make the default experience simpler to attract more beginner and intermediate users. The core mantra should be: “Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.”"
Well, something I don't think windoze has is Alt+rightmousekeydrag, where I can resize the KDE interface by putting the cursor outside of the center of the pane to be resized.
Something else windoze lacks is the myriad of click/double-click options built into KDE and other interfaces. For example, I can customize my double-clicking on the title bar to roll up the pane rather than it just being limited to min/max.
There's a TON of cool stuff in KDE as well as in Gnome and other DEs in Linuxland. Check some out...
Now, if only Lotus and IBM would open up their explicitly-owned code so that Lotus Approach and Lotus WordPro can have rapid uptake in Linuxland...
David Syes
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As usual Linux's biggest obstacle to general acceptance is its own users. Someone offers some well thought ideas and suggestions on improving the adoption of Linux on desktop and you attack him and call him an idiot. Keep up the good work guys. – We're really rooting for you here in Redmond.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
"If you make the interface too simple you may loose some functionality that advanced users will like."
Lose, not loose.
Serious pet peeve of mine. Nice article, otherwise.
November 02, 2005
sean said...
I hope GNU/Linux...
... does not get more 'user friendly'.
... never achieves a 'standard' anything.
... will never have a 'single [insert_solution] for [insert_activity]'
... never becomes a brand.
... never becomes '100% Risk Free'
I shamelessly admit I am a selfish geek with a desktop configuration that is probably not navigable by anyone else on the planet.
I would be very happy if the majority of 'users' out there just stayed away. The whole experience not Windows-ish enough for you? There is the door.
Also, I hope lots of people disagree with me! The more arguing, the longer the current situation will last :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system.
Gaddammit, you deserve a shot into the head for perpetuating this stupid crap. The Linux community is not competing with anyone, Linux simply is. Besides, you could be improving the situation by writing code instead of aggravating people who do.
November 02, 2005
Danni Coy said...
Perhaps the brand you should be looking at is KGX. Which stands for Kde-Gnu-linuX. The Best Example of this so far has been Kubuntu (the last release was o so close to a linux I would give to a regular person - but had a few showstopping bugs).
KDE offers a lot of what you are talking about. There is a common spellcheckable widget. Contact information is in the process of being centralised in the KDE Address book (for the official IM Client at least). It is easy to build an application that can be embedded in another application.
While I acknowledge that there are currently Issues with linux on the desktop I am resonably confident Linux on the desktop will succeed. Its just not going to be an overnight sort of thing.
Areas that need improving...
Software Installation)
To the end user it needs to look like this. There needs to be an Icon on the desktop or in the menu that says "Install Software" - This should open up a catalogue style interface with a collection of the applications that a normal user would sanely want to install. User Clicks on the install button next to the application and confirms this is what they want to do. Thats It... If you haven't tried it Klik is getting pretty close to delivering this. I would love a native package manager work in the same way.
Hardware Installation....
This is probably currently the biggest problem on linux... For the most part adding new hardware that wasn't supported on your linux box when the thing shipped means finding software compiling a module for Linux and setting up the system to load this module. Beyond this these modules only work with the exact kernel that it was compiled for meaning that if you want to share your kernel module with somebody else it is very difficult you generally have to build the blessed thing over again. I think that generally this will be solved by moving drivers outside the kernel space. For example - My scanner uses LibUSB rather than a specific Kernel Driver. My scanner may run a little slower (I haven't noticed) but the advantages are significant. Furthermore it should reasonably easy to have that scanner supported on any system that libusb supports through the same driver.
Filesystem Incompatibilities...
I am hoping with the next generation of operating systems that the Filesystem largly disappears from the end users perspective - It is a conceptual model that most new users really struggle with. I think that most users will find a search/metadata model if implemented properly will provide a superior user experience. I think that Apple will be first to market with this. Both Microsoft and people within the linux community are working on providing solutions.
Distro incompatibilities - This one I think is well on its way to being sorted out... most recent distrobutions that have been targeted towards desktop users have been debian based. I think this will end up being a natural choice for distro's that don't want to go through re-inventing the wheel. What I would like to see most are reference binaries of important libraries such as QT.
Software Maturity - This one will just take good old fashioned time. Linux Apps range from the excellent to ones that definately need more work.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
hhmmm difficult to decide....
I am a user of both Windows and Linux. Have been for some time now. I like what linux offers espcially the diverse range of software options.
I installed Suse 10.0 and had to do all sorts of things just to get the video and DVD basics to work. The Direction that the two OS's comes from is different e.g. Windiows is a money making machine(business) and Linux and all it's various flavours is born out of a free diverse community whose focus is not making money, but having better functionality.
I think linux offers a great advantage but maybe more so to the more technically oriented people and not the no-idea about computers type people
My two cents....
November 02, 2005
Leon said...
Thanks for writing the “article”. Like many others, I have found myself thinking along the same path as you and so agree strongly with most of what you say.
Reading though the comments ... I can only hope that some of the HARSH (and misunderstood I think) comments don’t get to you too much :-)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
It does sound like the author has a bit of a dated knowledge of Linux.
Ignoring many of the stupid comments; I will say this: I look after 1000's of Linux and Windows desktops and servers. Linux desktops now are a breeze to install/maintain on servers or desktops, and Windows security ain't that bad anymore with good policies in place.
I almost consider them inter-changable. The only consideration I have is cost, stability and legacy needs. Otherwise I go with what works, whether it is Microsoft or Linux... who cares.
Biggest pain in the arse? People that have never used anything other thatn Windows and think they are IT experts because they can edit the reg (and still know nothing about it) and refuse to change. Give me a Mac user ot Linux user anyday... not dogmatic and open to change.
Just my tuppence worth
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
I need attention, so I'm going to pick a fight over some obscure nit-picky crap.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
>To get an average consumer to switch you need to first get them to not fear change and be willing to try.
Live CD's like Knoppix have this covered.
>they also can’t be expected to properly partition their hard drive
Most distro's do this for them, e.g. try Mandriva which shrinks Windows (even NTFS) and does a parallel install with no user input needed.
> Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
KDE does this
> Create an office suite that can be used as a component in other applications.
KDE Office does this
> There should be a single interface for dealing with contacts, buddies and users
KDE does this
> Each distribution creates its own icons, interface elements, configurations and sometimes even their own shell.
No, most of that is done at a DE (Gnome/KDE/FWM) or Widget Set (QT, GTK/Wx) level, Distro's just put a different theme over-top.
> To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run
These exist, RPM and Deb being the big 2, most distros are based on one or the other, and have standard installers for browsing reporistories and selecting software to install with dependencies automatically taken care of.
I've got to ask, have you really used Linux more than just a test-spin? As you seem to exhibit some fundemental missunderstndings of how the 'Linux' stack hangs together.
John.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Yep I can agree with most of this, but I think that one day we will look back and ask how distro x managed to gain control of so much of the linux market. The answer will largely be contained in this article.
November 02, 2005
Moggy said...
I think the question of Linux itself being a "Server" or "Desktop OS is irrelevant". Rather it's the distros that make that decision. They either choose to focus on the desktop market, or server market or do both.
I do agree with the concept of standardising the file systems hierarchy and ensuring that most packages wind up in in the same place in all distros making un/installtion easier. But not even all Windows developers follow the MS rules and place apps outside of the "Program Files" directory, or follow MS's rules on using the registry. That's what happens when there are a lot of third party developers. Not everyone wants to get MS certified.
I believe if the Major distros could agree and stick to FSH standards then no matter what packaging/installation system one uses software can be un/installed at will (without having to reboot even, one up on Windows). Most distro's have packages in common tailored for their setup that work out of the box for the most part and are easy to use (I'm not including servers here eg apache, mysql, etc as these aren't used average john and jane doe).
As for OS installation: Debian. Redhat and their spinoffs are no more difficult to install than Windows XP (even in XP you have to decide about partitioning). And in reality what percentage of average users *actually* install Windows themselves?
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hm,
certainly the OS should not ensure that every application is "installed".
Exactly that is, what is most wrong with windows.
I want to unzip, or copy an application to a place where I like it, not into C:Programms e.g.
And I want to rm -rf directory it or put it into trash without the need to "uninstall" it.
And on a proper OS, Unix/Linux/Mac OS X any user can "place" software/Applications at a palce whre he has write access to, e.g. in /home/USER/bin or elsewhere.
While you are very right from your first two points of analysis, you seem never have worked with a true OS or a true computer, so you miss most of the stuff that is GOOD (TM) on linux/unix/Mac OS X.
angel'o'sphere
November 02, 2005
Moggy said...
Actually I've spent 18 years of my professional life in IT working with Windows, *nix, CLI & VMS on servers & desktops. I've been a Systems Engineer for the past 7.
In my desktop support days under DOS & Win3.x one of my biggest bug bears was people installing apps, saving files, etc into one directory (usually either DOS or )and having to work through the quagmire of what belonged to what.
*nix does have a recommened hierarchy eg system binaries go in /sbin, libraries go under /lib, config files in /etc. If users choose not to follow that recommendation thats fine, but it can be a nightmare for support techs
Do you file your paperwork all in one folder?
November 02, 2005
vitor said...
Spell check should be available from every text box from Firefox to Gimp.
KDE environment already provides this functionality, either in Konqueror web browser or simple text editor like Kate and Kwrite.
However, is not yet integrated with other non-KDe apps.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
You are right. But also take a look under the hood. Microsoft has one component framework: DCOM. We've got XPCOM, OpenOffice UNO, Corba, why even "KParts" etc. to name a few.. As far as I'm concerned this sort of diversity sucks bigtime. Or... take a look at DirectSound... we've got SDL, OSS, Alsa, etc. etc..
November 02, 2005
nortypig said...
From my perspective I'm too time poor and technologically stressed learning new stuff on a daily basis to have time to learn linux until 3am every morning. Please don't be offended by this, its just a reality most people are time poor and just need an OS to work transparently to make life easier and not more complex.
So until Linux distributions can offer a full level of abstraction that Windows and Apple offer I just can't even think of making the move. I have thought of it before and spent half a day trying to find out how to do a simple chore that otherwise was 2 clicks.
But when, or if, Linux becomes prime time and de-geekified I'll be there with ribbons on to install. Just my perspective.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
*Yawn*
I'm getting too old for this ... And the fact that this is getting old is not helping either.
November 02, 2005
Jeff said...
I understand "Linux" = kernel but the word is used to represent the entire OS. When I say there should be a unified Linux I'm not suggesting that all the distributions go away. I'm just saying that the word Linux should be used to represent a single OS.
I would argue the opposite; rather than supporting what is misuse of the word 'Linux' as representing an entire operating system and thereby confusing matters further, encourage the use of individual distribution names in general. For example, if somebody asks you what operating system you're using, go ahead and reply "Debian" or whatever; hell, it might even make Windows sound less significant with more names being thrown around. ;)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
See i understand the arguments about linux being too difficult, thats why there are distros that come in a box with a big fancy instruction manual. Granted those manual's are getting smaller every day, heck you can go to Barns and Noble and find an 'Instruction' manual for and flavour of windoze at 800+pages too. I think the largest gain in Linux is going to come from the younger generations, it is true, that you just can't teach some dogs new tricks.
As for the installation and compilation comment. Every application I have downloaded that is mainstream has come with either a README or INSTALL file with that information. How hard is it to tar -xvf, make, make install? Or like many have said, yum install package (it finds dependancies), or whatever your repo manager of choice may be?
Just my two cents
November 02, 2005
Quiznos on FreeNode. said...
If one wants m$ functionality then redo m$-ware correctly. The fault with the article, although it *IS* good, it attempts to cast Linux (both senses of the word) in terms of m$. Linux descends from Unix(TM) and as such it's roots are in tool -building to accomplish tasks not forseen. Hence the shell's `|' is that symbol which allows us to build and rebuild with infinite complexity in a very simple language. Let's not forget that.
As for the gui, its best use is in the representation of data and non-textual information that can be massaged into graphical representations; squares, pies, charts, lists, comparisons - the interaction between the human eye and our brain makes it, not the computer, the best tool for recognising patterns which might escape a computer's linear/sequential analysis unless such pattern can be reduce to some programmability. Granted that ability is being done, but not everyone nor is every alternate visualisation available for the common linux user.
A computer Consultant once said to me, "customers want a `magic box'; they dont care how it works, only that it does what *THEY* want it to do." It's an old quote of several decades but it's still fresh to me.
Separate implementation of some characteristic x from the UI (proper partitioning of the protracted problem of beating M$) and then we can all begin to focus on the real problems.
You want tools that are context sensitively available? Then someone's going to have to use dlsym() to load libs or func()s to load code to do your SS-cell sorting...
There's more but i think this is enough. :)
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
- Create a single music solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS to music applications to TV experience.
The great thing about linux is that there are so many single music solutions already to choose from. Why would we want to create another?
November 02, 2005
Kyle said...
Some good thoughts.
I disagree on the VB alternative though; people have discovered how great VB.NET is compared to the original VB and are flocking to it. (And most worthwhile applications are not coded in VB.) Perhaps putting more effort into the Mono project's support for Windows controls in .NET would be a better use of time.
Regardless, I think the Linux zealot's responses to your post show the biggest reason why Linux simply will never be a major desktop OS; the community that controls it refuses to allow it to be.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
The reason I like Linux is because it is not as dumbed down as windows. I don't want windows users using Linux. Linux is fine, leave it alone! Windows using dumbies that are "afraid" or "confused" by switching should just stay put in their miserable rebooting world...suites them right for not being educated about options.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why is it that Apple is mention once but everyone feels they need to comment on it?
I think you're 100% correct.
Anyone who has used linux for any period and claims to have never had to compile an application is full of sh1te!
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
As a software engineer, my OS choice lies with the best development platform.
Competition in the OS market is great - it drives innovation. However, the process fails when a competitor such as Linux fails to innovate. 1% workstation penetration is just pathetic. all those predictions over the years of Linux market domination and the end of MS have come to naught.
just look at the histrionic posts from Linux fanboys on this forum - feel the bile, the anti-MS market conspiracy theories, the contempt for non-Linsux users, the pretzel logic rationilzations for the failure of the system.
This article is the Gulag Archipeligo for open source. it was an introspective at looking at correcting faults in Linux development, and all we get from Linsuxers is denial and anger.
Socialism has failed - it failed in the Soviet empire, it failed in China and its failing in the open source movement/cult.
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
Xen is about to be added to the linux 2.6 series kernel.
It will change everything.
M$S can run virtualized with no more than a 2% speeding ticket.
NO MORE VIRI on M$S as it is a captive firewalled by windows.
The the x86 Tiger port should be virtualize-able too.
So you can have Windows, Tiger, Solaris, BSD and Linux running concurrently in sandboxes and displaying on a XEN-LINUX kernel.
It will be a new game.
The Xen story is covered in this e-week article:
Xen to go in 2.6
November 02, 2005
Anonymous said...
That's not the way I see things.
DOS was Microsoft's first mistake, they thought they would make something better than UNIX. DOS was like a sick and crippled bastard of UNIX. Microsoft really picked up speed after it knocked a few of it's buddies (e.g. IBM) out of the way and sinned against all of humanity with their abomination called Windows 95. Microsoft succeeded in their marketing strategy and their worries seemed to be over, but they forgot one thing, the internet! GNU/Linux grew and thrived on the internet all of those years. Now UNIX is back, reincarnated as GNU/Linux, and has rudely awaken the sleeping giant! :D
November 02, 2005
Siv said...
Why is it whenever anyone starts to talk about Linux making some constructive criticism we get a lot of "Linux is better than Windows", or OSX is better than Linux/Windows.
The point being made is a view of the state of play with Linux versus Windows and when you consider that Windows is installed on 90% of the World's PCs it must be doing something right whether you hate M$ and Bill Gates or not.
For me the key problem with Linux is that there are too many flavours which confuses Joe Average user. In his/her mind is the worry that they might not be able to go down to the local PC shop and get a program that runs on it that they really need. I know that pretty much everything is available for free but it is knowing that and knowing how to install it that causes the problem.
With Windows XP you know that it is easy to install or is already installed if you buy a box from Dell or Packard Bell etc. (I know there are some very esoteric machines that you might have troubles with, but on the majority of PCs XP will install without any problems and your sound card works and your printer works and you can get on the internet with a CD from your ISP).
To install a program you just insert a CD and wait for the setup program to start and pretty much if you just accept the "recommended" options it will work just fine.
This is where the FUD creeps in with Linux, chances are a lot of stuff won't work and the way to get it to work is time consuming and will probably end up with some Linux guru snarling at you for not knowing how to rcompile your Kernel or the correct command line parameters to extract the patch file etc etc.
This is the point where the Windows XP CD comes back out and the drive is being reformatted and good ol' Windows is going back on.
I'm with Greg, unless Linux seems easier, better and more compelling you won't see Linux being more than a desktop OS for geeks.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
All this is great, but in these Linux vs Windows articles, nobody ever mention games. I would venture to suggest that a significant portion of Windows PC households include at least one gamer. Linux simply doesn't cut mustard in that area. Yes, there are native Linux games and emulation software that might or might let you run Windows games, but not without problems and not in a timely manner following a particular game's release. Linux cannot win, period, without addressing this issue.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
Why is it that most of the time Windows zealots/shills try to tell us what Linux should be or do ?
What is a Windows zealot/shill ? Simple : someone who talks about Linux but never used it, or tried to use it one hour without documentation, thinking he's an expert at computers.
Look at the comments, it's full of Windows zealots/shills. All of their comments are outdated or wrong, it's amazing.
The article itself comes from a Windows zealot. All that is recommended in it is already done, or in the process of being done in the community, better than anything in Windows, which started to copy Linux in Windows XP (and keep on the trend with XP2 and Vista, announcing great innovations present in Linux for years). But if you're not part of it, you would never know.
And all the "should" in the article are wrong (as always).
Linux allows people to do whatever they want with it. No Windows shill/zealot can deal with this great freedom, so, being overwhelmed, they imagine all sort of grand plan for Linux, accomplishing their vision, and they think they should impose it on the uneducated mass (which actually passed this step years ago).
Well, come back to earth, we in the community have already thought of all of that, you're not the first, you are all late adopters in fact. People in the community are smart despite what you think.
Like I said, all is implemented already or in the process of being implemented.
The Linux desktop problems are outside the community : cooperation from hardware vendors, marketing, Windows zealots/shills, MS anti-competitive behaviour, ...
I see lots of very bad logic from Windows shills, having to do with market share. Well, these people have very narrow vision and no imagination, no wonder they can't think of a cause for Windows market share other than "it must be good and easy". I know, because buying a PC at the store without Windows is a real pain, unless you want to pay MORE to have LESS. Convicted of bad monopolist behaviour could never have anything to do with the 90 % market share, no, ...
For me, the key problem of Linux is Windows shills/zealots creating problems of Linux where there are none; talking about easiness of installing Windows XP on a machine when they themselves take 2 days to do it with all pirated apps (or it would cost them 1000s $).
Installation is not a problem in Linux since 98, but the zealots/shills will take an exception (like installing, say, the latest CVS version Firefox, like an ordinay user would want to do that), and tell you the compiling involved is hard and is a general problem (of course it's not, but their argument would not hold). Notice no one of them could tell you which app involved compiling, only one cited a MythTV install, which an ordinary user would never do, and the equivalent of which would cost you a Media Center price on Windows + the other machine necessary (ready made Linux solution exist for less).
And then you see comments like "chances are a lot of stuff won't work", "probably end up with some Linux guru snarling at you". Of course, given the definition, the zealots/shills don't know, but they mirror their Windows experience, and can't imagine it could work on Linux.
Linux is already everything the people want it to be, but they won't try it even if we score all their points, because these are just shills/zealots points meant as excuses not to use it .
I often tell my wife (who don't know squat about computers) that if I were to believe the Wndows zealots/shills, she is a genius with computers, given that she uses her KDE desktop exclusively since 2001.
Last thing, in 98 till 2003, Windows shills/zealots actually had valid complaints about Linux (I can recall fonts, multimedia, accessibility, speed of boot, ...), but not anymore. I saw the shift since 2003. The community fixed all of this so fast, the trolls had not the time to die. Now, they can't find any valid complaint, so they rehash old problems that do not exist anymore. This article is a perfect example of that.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
. . .admittedly, I am an elitist. I don't think people should be allowed to drive a car unless they can least change the oil.
That said, sheer numbers has very little to do with the quality of a product itself. Sure, it may say a bit about the "quality" of the folks that use them; but the products themselves? Nope. I mean, how many people own Mercedes SLRs as opposed to your Toyota Camry? Of course there are many more Camry owners, but does that in and of itself make the Camry a better quality vehicle? Absolutely not. It's just cheap enough and easy enough to use for the average person.
. . .and as for gaming? Get a console. They are more reliable, better quality, and guess what?. . .They do what they're supposed to without having to worry about goofy driver issues Windows .dll mishaps and conflicts. Besides, I can't figure for the life of me who in the world would trade Halo running in high def via Xbox for even the biggest baddest PC built.
. . .thank you, drive thru.
November 03, 2005
]<5 said...
I agree almost 100% with you.
I have had very bad luck with all my linux distros. Past week, I needed a server up and running fast, for a short time. I spoke with a friend of mine, system administrator, and told me "don't worry, give me 8 hours and I makes you happy with a debian box". The problem was that I didn't had 8 hours. I ended up installing a very inapropiated but fast Windows XP, in 30 minutes. Awful, but it worked (and no, Ubuntu wasn´t a good choice, for reasons that I will not comment).
Many times, the linux solution is too complex and slow to be useful, even for seasoned linux users, like me.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
The only part of this I happen to agree with is the look agressivelly towards new directions in the Linux world.
I dought that Linux has copied Redmond many times, or at all by the way.
The Apple interface I already believe has been plagierized enough times because it looks good.
Vista for example will be copying Gnome/Apple and a bunch of other Window Managers.
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
This is very hard thing and I think to solve problems with switching to linux is far avay.:(
Im few months linux user and have sticked in gentoo, I love that so much:), coz I love to have my system in the exact way I want and I think tahat Im more than a regular user and know a lot about computers and operating systems, but I tryed to swich for many years and trust me it wasnt easy... Swiching is much expensiver than anyone thinks! I have to bought router instead of USB ADSL modem I had before(the price of the router was the same as price of windows!!), and its not only think,,,
Why I pay that? coz I hate uniformity, I hate If someone force me to use something he want...So I have a huge huge reasons to swich to linux,,, but imagine a regular user that doesnt matter if he had this or that, want everything to be "functional" and !compatible!,,
So I show some example:
My father is a leader of a company, he could say what will be used or make a changes. Sometimes I tryed to force him to give linux a chance and try that, but never have a luck, I exactly know why -
1) near everyone who use computer know windows and if he have a new employee he must not to explain lern him new thinks he now doesnt know
2) there are more companies that administrate windows than linux so if he want to change he will have to probably find new one and it spends time and money, because I agree that instaling linux distro like ubuntu is not so hard but not for me and a lot of power users, yes they dont know how to install windows but find a man who do that is much easier than find linux man. They dont want to do it, coz they do anything else in work.
3) yes anyone may argue that there are many companies like SUSE that provide good feedback, service etc. This cost the same money as setting up windows. And why not install windows if it is as same expensive as some thig I dont trus as much as windows coz I know that windows has everyone around and I know that I wont have compatibility problems...Why try some new if this work, when I dont care what it is,while its a consumption stuff for me..
4)special software needs, they have special software for their purpose and I dont know if is some same for linux(but I dont think it is so important), because if there would be some it will cost to rebuild few years of work if is not the same program,
other way to use something like wine, but why if they can use windows w/o wine and solve wine bugs.
there are some more reasons why its hard to swich for company,
but there are some same reasons for home users - using computer like some consumption stuff !!!!!!
How many of us care which microwave oven have, think none,,, only a consumption stuff to heat some food,, and the same think is for many users of computer, they just want to send mail, read internet, play games, conect mobilephone to computer, but where to find drivers, I have only cd with windoes support.
I see there a big problem with support form the site of hardware producers, how many of them have working drivers as easy to install as in windowze
many many things to do before linux will be realy easy to swich for a lot of people. I dont know how and what exactly do and think if anyone knows that and apply that, we would know him now:)
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
Greg's Head needs to be examined!
Greg, it's almost like you delibreately went tou of your way to look for the most common myths & misconceptions that M$ click Monkeys who never use Linux, would imagine might have happened 7 yrs ago with Linux & placed them all into one article.
Where you looking for attention?
Are you happy now?
Now do us all a favor & go & get a Linux distro & actualy use it, if only for 1x week, & then come back & write something a bit more intelligent.
November 03, 2005
N-Bomb said...
Stuff like in this post is exactly what I've been saying to my Linux geek friends for a long time, and what they'd always get mad at me for saying. Great job putting these thoughts 'to paper'!
November 03, 2005
Anonymous said...
why does is linux supposed to want or need to cater to "the middle groung" users? it is built by advanced users, for advanced users, the things that are missing will come, but for the people who want their operating system to be like using a microwave, i say they can pay. pay someone else to do it for them. i would rather real useful things get created for linux rather than wasting effort for the people who dont want to have to read. ever.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
Hello!
article was interesting to read, but ihave some words to say
1) many people choose compile mysleft-way just ti be sure that software is compiled and configured his/her way, and so do i. LSF, Gentoo, Slackware.
2)some useful feaures from Gnome, and KDE are included into M$ like most/reacently used programs,
3) there should be many wariaions to give people abilty to choose from, not like - here is WinXP and forget about everything else, comes new MS os and we have to forget about previos version. Backward compatiblity IS important at all means (example TWAIN and WIA)
4) Abilty to reapair software bugs FAST and secure.
5) people should sstart to think, read, and listen, not guess, shout
6) if you change OS you should consider that there will be changes from your previos, and if you are not ready for these changes you should not do the move. It is not so tragic if you move from Debian stable (sarge) and Debian unstable (sid)
November 04, 2005
mu-tiger said...
"The brand “Linux” should stand for an entire operating system not just a kernel. There should be only one true Linux and perhaps many derivatives that should have their own brand and name."
No, no, no! That's what makes *nix *nix, is the idea of diversity and that anyone can write an OS as suits their own personal needs, and put it out there for others to tweak to their own personal needs; everything else you said, i either agree with, or am willing to consider.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
Definitely, you have some valid points here that are worthy of debate. Meanwhile, I'm loving Suse 10.0 just the way it is.
November 04, 2005
Anonymous said...
"Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love."
Um, sorry to tell you, but linux does not copy windows. Windows really hasnt done anything new in... Along time.
"There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform."
Great idea, id support it all the way.
November 04, 2005
The Gadget Guru said...
Great points, Greg. Hopefully, your words won't fall upon deaf ears.
Back in the day, I used to scoff at Linux users, saying that I shouldn't need a degree in Computer Engineering to check my frickin email. Times have changed...the flavors I've played with have a wonderful GUI, and most common tasks are simple enough for even ME to navigate through.
Now if I could just find a distro that plays nice with my USB wireless adapter, I'd be all set :)
November 07, 2005
Anonymous said...
I still miss the OS2 Presentaion Manager. Any object can be a template, Drag and drop object spawning, REXX precompilation stored in extended attributes, Global scripting language (REXX), etc, etc.
November 09, 2005
bart said...
Excellent article.
So this is where we're at.
Linux is a system that is void of the 'falsity' that so pervades many commercial products both in software and other consumer goods: it is not made to sell. It is made to be good. It is made for quality. It is real.
But (desktop) Linux is not made to be used. Or to provide a real, excellent user experience. Quality in design or quality of code is irrelevant when user experience is not the ultimate design goal.
November 10, 2005
Anonymous said...
The problem seems to me that Linux has had no standard configuration gui for things that are more important to the user: Networking, Screen Resolution and Sound were always biggies. Is this the point about the splash screen?
I have read that KDE and Gnome projects dont consider themselves as Linux only, so they should not have to write Linux specific configuration tools.
Who should?
Maybe the distros, but then it becomes non standard. Sounds like a great idea for a new project. Perhaps this is what freedesktop.org tries to do?
Doing the basics of getting a polished product:
A project that simply looks at interfaces problems and flags them or even mends them and contributes back the code. They would do this only from a user perspective and not from the guts of the desktop. In Gnome the basic file manager interface is still not complete. Also presentation is king here. Why do all this work and then not spend a bit more time crossing the ts. Get Nokia or another company who is great at design and styling to do a Malmo on Gnome or KDE. It must look that much better than Macos or Windows and most of that is just a designer doing a spiffy backdrop, great window styling and appealing icons. We need to get *that* community involved and they will love us for it as they are shut out of Steve Js temple.
Funny that neither Gnome nor KDEs project home page kicks off with an appealing screen shot or users having fun with computers etc. Its like they dont want you to know what they are and that you have to delve into the site to solve the 'mystery'. Like a party where everyone has their back to you.
My glimmer of hope is Ubuntu.
After being so loyal for 5 years I'm finally tiring. Next year will be big for cheap laptops and desktops. Are we a server OS or can we do Desktop too?
Hope....
November 17, 2005
Anonymous said...
Check out "Desktop Linux", I've seen more user inspiration in soggy toilet paper. The bar needs to be raised. It looks like the visual equivalent of my Uncle Dave sitting down on the john, farting, parting his comb over, then dropping the creature from the black lagoon.
November 17, 2005
Anonymous said...
As a university student my linux distribution must be compatible with software used at university.
My coarse is software engineering hence i am not fazed by technical issues, however upon buying hardware which is compatbile with linux 100% i found out that the major problem is the availability of applications. Sure you have clones but those clones of applications almost in every case is not 100% compatible. This is not acceptable to many users.
The author is 100% correct about change, noone enjoys it and linux will never be adopted if a user has to search around for aplications which clone non-available apps.
As a student i have many issues with software requirements and linux is the ebst solution as obviously we cant buy all our software as u all know we are broke. Hence the reaosn y a uni students comp maybe 1% of his applications are legit.
Anyway to get on with it, office is not 100% supported even with openoffice 2.
Adobe only just now started supporting linux again, another major disadvantage that will hoepfully soon be solved. As for other software macromedia studio etc.... All software requirements are not easy to fix.
This leaves people frustrated and simply go back to windows. I as a student and part time technician have a major problem. Linux hates dual monitors of different brands.
Still trying to solve problems and it even killed my distribution. Fair enough it was my fault but i aint a novice, hence it should not eb so easy for me to kill it.
Apart from that i have always loved the idea about linux. The best chance it has is with the younger generation and if they actually support applications that many users require then it will be more widely accepted.
I know that is nothing to do with ditributions but in all honesty why does someone want a clone if windows provides the original.
Other problems include cross development, hopefully this will be solved with the mac osx which techinically should make it easier to port application to the linux environment.
The author is incorrect about making linux 1. Linux is a kernel and not an operating system as posted in so many posts. It is vital that the kernel is strictly controlled and stays as compact and simple as everything.
However thanks for time guys
November 18, 2005
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 27, 2005
Anonymous said...
For all of your who are saying linux isn't hard and that nobody compiles anything from source. Your nuts. Linux is only easy if you stick with the basics. The second you need to connect an ipod, connect to work with Cisco VPN (have to compile from scratch), lotus notes (figure out wine or, download crossover office, but then how do you install? now you need that darn terminal window with the exception of Xandros), and a thousand other jobs require various windows only applications from lawyers to realestate. I love linux, and I want to see it get easier to use. If companies would only make a bigger investment in packaging and integration it would be easy to use. or somehow come up with a unified installation method.
November 30, 2005
Mark Carter said...
I think that current Linux installation tools like Synaptic are excellent, but they're lacking in one crucial respect when it comes to end-users on the desktop.
That is, depending on the distribution, there can be a significant time lag between a new version of a program being released and its appearance in a software repository.
To make matters worse, desktop users don't appreciate the concept of providing only security updates rather than whole version updates until a new version of a distribution is released.
There's nothing more infuriating to a typical desktop user than to see a new version of a frequently used program be released, with crucial new features, and to find that it's either not available in their distribution's repository, or that only security updates (sans new features) have been provided.
To tell a desktop user to download the source and compile for themselves is not an option, it just highlights a bug in the system.
Unfortunately, it's also usually very difficult for said user to find and add the correct repository that may have the latest version, and installing software from non-official repositories often causes problems when it comes to doing a dist-upgrade.
Generally I think that apt/Synaptic is a great system, but there are serious operational flaws. Desktop users want the latest version of their software the day it's released, not two months down the road. In that respect, Windows, with it's plethora of installers and double-click an .exe installs, is su