Does Open Source Software Really Work? 499
reflexreaction writes "This article on NewsFactor does a decent job of covering some of the issues facing Open Source Software (OSS). It points to Linux's growth area, non-mission critical projects in mid-sized companies, and its main weakness, the desktop. It also briefly discusses Linux's potential growth into mission critical applications if scalability issues are addressed. Quick easy read. My favorite quote from the article "Linux on the desktop is toast.""
NewsFactor (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it's good news ! (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it'll soon be fixed once people express their needs instead of their "états d'âme".
And BTW, the loudest ones are also the ones that are supposed to pay for apps, so, let's give money to Sun or Ximian or whoever develop corporate stuff and we'll soon have more than enough Office Suites, etc.
Of course, the others who actually work with Linux on a daily basis just didn't remark such lacks and, for example, are happy with the light-weight Ted when it comes to view/edit/print RTF
Re:NewsFactor (Score:2, Insightful)
Toast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Takes two to make a desktop work.
I'm running Debian/unstable, blackbox, mozilla, and a few multi-gnome-terminals, oh and emacs21, here, oh and the box is using XFS on LVM just for fun as well.
Do you think the author would know one of these if it bit them on the bum?
People ought to define this idea of "the desktop", because I keep thinking people mean "it's got to be accepted by mass corporations", for no good reason.
If there's one thing I've fought AGAINST it's getting the clueless masses involved in linux in any way; I am so not interested in fielding "mummy, if I click here it segfaults!" on usenet it's incredible.
Re:Toast? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Toast? (Score:3, Interesting)
I got all of the vindication I needed though, when one of my semi-computer-literate (he knows just enough to get himself in trouble) friends saw it yesterday. He loves to taunt me about my Linux zealotry, and because of him I have often doubted (forgive me Tux!) the "readiness" of the Linux desktop. I had left the room for a minute, and when I returned he was toying with my laptop, running games and digging through the menus. (Next time I'll lock the screensaver!) He looks up at me with a big satisfied smile, and says "Leave it to Apple to finally make a user-friendly Unix!"
Having never seen it, he just assumed it was OSX. He absolutely refused to believe it was Linux, even after I pointed out the penguin on the desktop and the little "K" button in the corner. Never again will I doubt.
Re:Toast? (Score:3, Insightful)
Colin Winters
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
I was using anti-aliased fonts in X11 (WindowMaker+Gnome) at least 2, 2.5 years ago. X has had anti-aliasing for quite awhile.
However, at the time I am talking about I did it with a hack that relied on having copies of MS fonts to use, so that particular method would be a hassle in certain settings. I understand things have improved in that area too however.
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
You think? Find me someone who's used neither before, and get them to give you an impartial view of the "control panel" systen. Sure I know much of that inside-out on everything from win3 to 2k and back, but then I also know my way around
And you don't address the idea of folks who don't *know* stuff becoming less ignorant - because the real crime here is cluelessness and not *wanting* to learn to use what's in front of you. I say let M$loth keep those cretins to themselves; these are not the droids I'm looking for.
"Maybe this elite attitude is precisely what holds Linux from breaking through on major scale."
When you see that bums on seats is no measure of quality (except perhaps to say "we glossed over all the interesting bits to make life easier for the mythical `luser'"), you'll see why I have no problem with this idea at all.
Re:Toast? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
You aren't introducing a bunch of naive neophytes to computers, you are introducing a bunch of Windows users to something completely new. The simpler the transition, the more will come across.
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
Sometimes. Sometimes it's also done cluelessly.
"Those kind of users are really the rotten apples in the community."
Quite probably so. Maybe in their case it's because they *don't* know the answers either and just have lousy egos.
"You are right about that quantity is not a measure for quality,"
Sure. It's one of those things I've always said, I'm not interested in count(bums_on_seats) or "linux" having a bigger user-base than M$loth; I'm interested in there being a louder quality signal from the user-base. Yesterday, I read an article on uk.comp.os.linux quoting a cable-modem installing company telling its field-rep "if it's a linux user, they'll know what they're doing, just get the MAC address and let them work out DHCP". That's what I'm proud to see.
The key here is the "sometimes", I think. It's not lack of knowlege of how your OS works, it's the clue to look locally and then remotely for documentation, *READ* the blighters, and try things out. It's not the fact that someone knowing only a little appears on one of "my" newsgroups, it's whether they want to learn or not. And of course it's possible for me to exhibit a lousy attitude on usenet (or here
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
Tell me what desktop-oriented task needs altering configuration text files.
In SuSE 7.1 and above there is none, everything can be done with the mouse. (But maybe I'm wrong, just tell me)
Re:Toast? (Score:3, Informative)
1. Start KDE control center
2. Choose Yast2 modules -> hardware -> X11 - configuration
3. Click on the "root" button as advised and enter root-password
4. Click "change"
5. Choose resolution
Or, you could just launch SaX2 directly from the SuSE-menu in the menubar. (skip steps 1-3)
You need to be root for that, and by FAR the quickest way is to hack on /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 yourself, IMO.
IMO not.
Unless it's got a magic way of becoming root
If you don't believe the magic why don't you just try it for yourself?
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
Actually, no, the answer is to learn to *read*. I go for whole years at a stretch without seeing any obscure error messages, things to which the answer is either "don't do that then" or "oops, quick tweak, goodie". You just have to understand getting your kicks in text-mode.
" Someone who's used neither before but has a working knowledge of computer technology in general, can be up and running much faster with a control panel system than with text files."
You're only a newbie once, or on a slow day, maybe twice.
Thereafter you're a serious user, and you're getting well bummed-out at having to click through reams of cruddy windows to find the one option you lost.
"But if the Linux developer community has no interest in making life easier for the mythical `luser', then their presence on the desktop deserves to remain marginal."
You don't get it. There is no `deserve' about it, and there's no negative stigma about `marginal' at all.
This boils down to educating the user-base, and in particular, those who don't want to be educated are the ones to whom businesses are pandering, and it makes me sick.
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
However these are not the only options. A gui wraparound to a text based system configuration system can easily be even easier to use than a control panel metaphor. It can also be just as fast in the hands of an expert.
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
So you'll also assume that grandma will do Windows-configuration by hacking the registry?
Or is this just a double-standard?
FYI: The control panel in SuSE is much better than the one in Windows because it's structurized.
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
Now, this is not to say the control panel system is perfect. [...], some options are hidden in non-intuitive places, etc.
Maybe things are not always as easy as they seem, hum? BTW, you cannot grep control panels...
Re:Toast? (Score:3, Informative)
What distribution are you running? On the majority of "new" distributions (e.g. Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE - which covers 95% or more of new users' desktop Linux distribution) this stuff is already compiled into the kernel as a module, and it's plug and go, except that unlike on Windows you don't need to insert a driver disk from your manufacturer (it either works or it flat out doesn't - but that's a different argument to whether it's easy to configure or not - thats an issue of manufacturer support for Linux).
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
Re:Toast? (Score:2)
I am sorry, but their opinion is irrelevant anyway. The consumer market has until now been driven by the professional market. People bought PCs because to run Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordperfect long before they bought PCs to play The Sims.
Like in the past, the availability of general-purpose office workstations running Linux will eventually start a trickle of general-purpose home workstations (a.k.a consumer desktops), just like high-end Linux workstations are currently creating the impetus for mid-range office machines.
In short, computer technology has always trickled down to the masses via this road: first the engineers, then the clerks, then the home. Linux is only in the first stage, and thanks to a certain monopoly has a very hard time breaking into the second one.
But forget about the consumers. They will buy whatever machine runs their favourite applications. They are followers, not leaders.
MartRe:Toast? (Score:2)
I'm not so (un)fortunate as to know enough be the next AC, but such as I know I'll gladly share by pointing folks in the right direction, if they look interested enough and don't always seek a "just click here" answer.
I come from days when the Armadillo book (Essential Unix Sysadmin) was good reading - but it talked about Solaris. I suspect I'm very server-orientated in approach - the old unix province of Clueful Folks is something I see as on its demise when I was getting out of uni into the job market.
"Hmm, maybe I'm agreeing more with you then I first thought
It's allowed
Bad Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a sign of bad logic. Because I want to be able to pay somebody to fix it, I need the source.
The CTO of BigCorp is not going to hack code, but he wants to be able to pay someone *lots_of_money* to fix it so it works for his organisation. The fix might be becuase of a problem unique to his situation... (we've all seen how some programs can break OS), and so not on top list of priorities for whichever co built the software.
With closed source this is more difficult.
An example (Score:4, Insightful)
A unit head had become frustrated that he was paying his registrars to do hours of work collating the data from the various (incompatible) sources before each ward round. (paying doctors to do paperwork is expensive
He reasoned (correctly) that it SHOULD be easy to make a little program to collate the data. But the vendors weren't prepared to talk to one another, or to give advice on how their systems worked. Quotes from the companies to do the work were exorbitant.
If you have the source, little ad-hoc, specific additions are cheap and easy. If you don't, vendors can hold you to ransom and demand as much as they like.
The logic seems clear to me, but there is a lack of (production quality) open-source code for such applications.
Re:Bad Logic - Not so Fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, folks may not agree, but this is the way it works. Big corporations are in the business of doing their business, not maintaining an o/s (unless that is their business). Fact is, there's no such thing as "free' in the corp world. Corp wants to pay someone else (under an SLA) to maintain stuff. Where Linux is concerned, they want to (1) buy licenses from a vendor and (2) buy support from a vendor within an SLA. Any other arrangement does not work.
That said, I would love to exploit Linux desktops (and I'm considering that option for about 21,000 OS/2 desktops I have today). Why? Because I think it could be cheaper than going the M$ route - assuming vendor support is there. My biggest risk is the lack of applications (with support) and lack of peripheral vendors (with support). However, the picture is getting clearer and I have hope.
Re:Bad Logic - Not so Fast (Score:3, Insightful)
In engineering, there's more to life than fixes and support. It's about doing things, creating new things, using your tools to get things done. You might have software that you would like to perform some function, but the vendor is under no obligation to provide that function for you. You can apply pressure on the vendor, and if they get enough of the same kind from enough companies, maybe the next release will have it. Or not. But that doesn't help you if you want to get something done before the next release. Having the source code is an invaluable asset for an engineer.
Re:Bad Logic - Not so Fast (Score:3, Interesting)
This has it's plusses and minuses, but I prefer choice. Even if in current time everything balences out equally, when I project futureward I prefer to have the source available. That way I can't be coerced.
OTOH, I am not and have not been a manager. My manager prefers Windows. He doesn't seem to read MS licenses, or think he need to. (I think he assumes that the courts won't enforce anything too vile.) And he goes to meeting where MS salesmen talk to him, and comes back convinced that he was right. So, in a way, your argument about "how things are" matches my experience with management. I just doesn't cut any ice with me. And it won't. I find MS licensed software to be unuseable, and will refuse to install anything that has a license like what I've seen of the XP license. (But then I can retire whenever I decide to. And I will before agreeing to that license. With an explanation to the company lawyer (which he will probably ignore, sigh!).
All things being equal, that may be true... (Score:2)
The company that developed the software and is actively supporting it though is going to already know about the ins and outs of it and will have the necessary skills and procedures in place. They may or may not profit from your support requirements, but that profit is more than made up for by their increased efficiency.
An interesting analysis, and a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly how Windows invaded the enterprise: it was easy for businesses to buy into Windows servers simply because they looked & felt just like the desktop OS. Newbie network admins loved Windows over Netware because they could quickly transfer their knowledge into the server room.
Fast forward to today, and Linux is trying to invade from the other side. Suddenly, this guy makes me realize that it's just as if we were trying to get Novell to the desktop - it wouldn't have worked either, even if Novell had a desktop OS.
Does Open Source Software Really Work? (Score:5, Funny)
VERY basic stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.
What about KDE and GNOME diallers? Both work great.
But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I think what they mean is a lack of Microsoft Office Compatible applications. However, what about OpenOffice [openoffice.org] and StarOffice 6 [sun.com] (though there is a very brief mention)
"All the system vendors are pushing Linux on the server side, [but] there's really no large company that is
Looks like Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com], RedHat [redhat.com] et al. have been forgotten?
Re:VERY basic stuff (Score:2)
Except if the distribution does it for him - in recent Red Hat Linux versions, it comes down to entering the username and password for DSL.
Re:VERY basic stuff (Score:2)
some people like toast (Score:2)
My estimate is that maybe 0.5% of Internet users are running GNU/Linux on the desktop. That's not a huge percentage, sure, but it works out at something like 2.5 million people - some people like toast!
Danny.
Why do programmers choose windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
It turns out that CCI, the DTP company, don't want the clients to run on Solaris, but on windows. That sounds fucked up. Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app? And easier to deal with in a crisis?
Re:Why do programmers choose windows? (Score:2)
Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app?
Because technical decisions should never trump marketing decisions. From a business perspective, the way to phrase the question is: Is the extra cost of porting the product to Windows made up by additional sales?
The answer must have been yes.
Linux on the Desktop is only beginning (Score:3, Interesting)
But recently, I've noticed doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers and programmers using Linux on their desktops (I'm in Europe, and therefore there is a chance that the situation in America is different). The "Desktop" is not one market. Linux is already satisfying lots of desktop needs.
It's like AI - every time one of the problems in AI is solved, someone says "that's not AI"...
Re:Linux on the Desktop is only beginning (Score:2, Insightful)
On the server side, there is no excuse not to use Unix. Some customers want "NT" so they can hire low quality, low paid workforces. Firewalls at the provider proxy all input and output, so the end users are actually talking to Unix which is talking to "NT".
The remark in the FreeBSD handbook that it costs 100x more to run a "NT" server is no exageration. It is well justified for providers to charge upto 1000x or so more for "NT" services.
IMO, it would be better business to train people to use computers and pay them. Presently there is a very high turnover in the low paid "NT" office user section. A very large organisation here in NL is actually paying over 100k Euro a month to a provider so they can hire semi-skilled, computer illitterate labour from the street. People who are well paid and given challenging work tend to stay far longer than 'people off the street'. This is a very bad, shortsighted business model and "NT" seems to encourage it and somehow convince managers it is the right move.
*"NT" is a generic term for any Microsoft product, generally Win2k today.
"the problem with linux is..." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"the problem with linux is..." (Score:2)
Re:"the problem with linux is..." (Score:2)
Actually the article says, "But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system."
I agree. Before I get flamed, I know there is wads of software for Linux, much of it ported from earlier Solaris and other big-Iron Unix. But it's not the software the analysts are talking about. The missing software is the software that Businesses are using that is missing. MS Office, Visual Basic (for millions of in-house apps), thousands of small to large vertical applications that business use, and other stuff that just happens to run on Windows.
BTW, Windows NT Server has the same problem as a server; it's missing the thousands of Unix applications that are not available (nor easily ported to a native NT)
The lack of Linux apps is often decried as red-herring on Slashdot. It's not red-herring; it's just that the missing apps are not the ones dear to the Slashdot crowd -- it's the ones dear to the other guys. These same applications are also the ones that won't get ported to Linux quickly, because they were written for profit, and Linux market size is considerably smaller.
So, despite the original posters comment it is a problem, not for the original poster, but for the people that want to be freed from the MS tryanny, but don't know it yet.
No open source, please, we're British (Score:3, Funny)
Still, a couple of programmers I've spoken to say are actually against Open Source. They argue since they spend hours coding, debugging and maintaining a program, shouldn't they be allowed to make an honest buck in return? I guess that's their decision, and ya just gotta respect it - some want the money, others just want to help create nice software for everyone.
And what if you don't like b33r? What if you're a teetotaler, a recovering alcoholic or a PHP hack [aagh.net]? Can I create software that's free as in Coca-cola instead?
Re:No open source, please, we're British (Score:4, Funny)
I see that you're a full time student... but pretty soon, you will realize that in the real world, people need money. Not to flame you, but until someone cracks the problem of making actual cash money, you know, the stuff that buys groceries and houses and cars (spending venture capital is not making money) then there will be no open source industry.
Let me give you an example. ESR drives his pickup truck to the nearest small town (he lives in a log cabin in the woods for the purpose of this story) to pick up some oatmeal, beef jerky, tinned beans and this month's Guns & Brides magazine. But since the NASDAQ crash, he's a little short of money, so he says to the cashier, hey, I wrote a tiny part of the OS that runs your cash register, can I just take this stuff for free? Ummm, no, says the clerk, pushing the button connected to the local Sherriff's office.
See, that why wanting to help create nice software doesn't cut it in the real world. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to ya, kid.
Re:No open source, please, we're British (Score:3, Insightful)
It's already been cracked. What's happening is that software service companies... companies that make money off selling their workers for hire on a contract basis... are using the product of open source code as a market descriminator for their services. This is in tune with the larger-scale socioeconomic realities: we are becoming a service economy. Open source is actually well-synchronized with the changing economic landscape by that standard.
C//
Re:No open source, please, we're British (Score:2)
I would need some convincing of that, since IT systems within large corporations are largely bespoke, and are a source of competitive advantage. Look up articles in business journals about Cisco's "daily close" of their accounts, for example.
If you buy SAP, then you do get the source for (most of) it, and you customize it to fit your business - this is bread-and-butter work for the "Big 5" consultants. You can't release it, but nor would you want to, since it encodes intimate details of exactly how your business works. If you need code written from scratch, large corporations hire IBS, EDS, CSC et al to do that, the source is right there, but it will never be let out "into the wild".
If code is the source (pun intended) of competitive advantage, and costs a great deal to develop (and/or customise) then that's incompatible with the Open Source tradition of giving it all away for free.
So, people already do make lots of money from services, but that's entirely unrelated to the business of producing free software.
Re:No open source, please, we're British (Score:4, Interesting)
Well. Far be it from me to believe all of those economists who are all largely in a agreement and have things like PhDs from well respected instutitions. I guess I should just believe some yahoo on
The service economy is a reality. It's a nation-wide economic trend that transcends software. Professional services are growing at an incredible rate. Look it up.
>Linux companies are trying to go service orientated, doesn't mean it's a great idea.
This isn't about goodness of ideas, but higher level economic forces. Your reference to "all these Linux companies" misses the picture. There are huge numbers of knowledge-worker service businesses in existence now, as we speak; they've been there for a long time, and have established and proven business models.
Think "contract software development".
Now, consider this. Should my company sell my last years project, or bill me out to a client for $160 an hour? My company can pull $320K annually on my service work. Getting $320K after expenses on my software may be a stretch, considering amortized business costs, and so forth.
Or they can "open source" my software. What's this do for them? 1. They don't spend a $1 Million in product/market development fees. 2. This creates goodwill for the company. 3. Next time we're proposing work to a client, the whole *company* gets to say "Yeah, buy our services, we did XXX product on open source."
In case your curious, I'm not speculating. This is really what's happening. I'm there, in the thick of it, and know what's going on.
Contract software guys love this sort of stuff.
C//
Desktop isnt a weakness (Score:2, Interesting)
If people are afraid to try somthing new, or a proprietry application isnt available doesnt mean its a failing of the free software movement.
Gnome is a beatiful thing.
Another obstacle. (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of our larger clients, the ones with hundreds of desktops, who on the surface would benefit most from moving to linux, are hamstrung by the applications they use.
Typically in a larger organisation, the "desktop drone" is running a piece of client software which interfaces with a piece of server software.
Inevitably two things are true...
1. It's windows - client and server.
2. The developer has no interest in porting to linux.
This, in addition to the old "no replacement for exchange server/outlook" chestnut, is the major reason large organisations don't move away from windows.
Drives me nuts.
Something that has occurred to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've figured this out due to an earlier assumption I made about netscape, I thought, jeez, with the massive installed base that netscape currently enjoys in the www market, IE has no chance, no matter if it's free, especially considering that the early versions of IE, probably up until about 4.x were actually enormously worse than the comparitive time based offerings from Netscape, a lot of people at the time shared my opinion.
But, as we all know, IE won, and is probably about to be overtaken once more by gecko.
The reason IE won isn't bundling into the desktop as so many people like to think, it's because of a few things that it had going in it's favour over netscape and these few things that it had going over netscape, linux currently has going over windows, plus some.
1) Microsoft was giving away their product for free, as much as you like to blather on about TCO and crap like that, it's a simple fact that this matters, I've implemented corporate wide solutions before and seen people blanch at licensing fees for commercial software, especially the exorbitant rates which microsoft charge, and people are looking at ways to cut these costs, Microsoft could afford to give their Browser away for free because they had a whole bunch of other products still making them money and providing them with a nice fulcrum to leverage the www market.
Linux, is basically invincible, you can't kill it, you can't target the company and choke it by removing it's revenue sources, it doesn't matter if it's not a commercial success, there's nothing that you can do that will stop people from making linux a better mousetrap time after time after time, and it does get better, with every iteration, it's amazing just the difference between RH6.2 and RH7.2, what do you think will happen by the time we have RH8.2?
In this respect, Microsoft has no come back, there is nothing that they can do in the long run, short of making linux illegal (touch wood) that will stop it from eventually destroying their monopoly.
Disagree with this single point all you like, but ask yourself how much people would be willing to pay for a car with metallic paint which cost 30,000$ vs a car which they could simply get for free and was just as usable as the original option.
2) Linux, unlike MS IE, is actually coming from a technical position of strength, if you all remember the version of IE that MS first put out, you'll understand where I'm coming from here, IE 1.0 was a joke, it was completely laughable, there was nothing even remotely in it that was percievably a threat to the dominant browser.
In the modern OS market, Linux vs Windows from a purely technical standpoint without the UI issues results in a resounding win to Linux, I will grant that application, driver, and even debatably User Interface is superior under Windows, but if you think that is going to remain the truth forever, I advise you to look back at humble old IE 1.0 vs the current offering from netscape, and Windows XP vs. the latest RedHat distribution, I think you'll find the gap to be quite significantly smaller.
Judging Microsoft's recent business initiatives I am beginning to think that perhaps they're hedging their bets on the windows hegemony with the
Anyway, the article, oh yes, the article.
Bunch of fucking hacks.
;)
Cheers
Genj
They are so wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
"Linux on the desktop is toast," said Goldman.
"Pathetic," Claybrook noted.
These people, whoever they are, don't know what they are talking about. I think the prediction that Linux is toast on the desktop is so far from the truth. I wish the myth that Linux is for servers and Windows is for desktops would stop. That categorization only looks at a few features of each OS. Sure Windows IIS Web or whatever the hell it's called sucks, and Apache rules. And Windows ease of use on the Desktop for doing stuff like web surfing and general file handling is far better than in Linux (IMHO). But I think that in general you could use either one for server or desktop and do just fine IN GENERAL. It's sort of how you use it, not what you use.
But about Linux's potential for the desktop now...
After switching to Linux as my desktop OS just a few months ago, I've come to realize that Linux can do almost everything. For example, just today someone sent me a link to a 7 MB DivX home video. I was in Linux at the time, I have dual boot with Win98 but I like to stay in Linux. I had installed a DivX program in Windows a while back called The Playa, which comes with the DivX codec. But I wanted to see if Linux could play it. In Mandrake 8.2 I looked on the distro CDs and found "aviplay" which has just added DivX support. I installed it, and it showed the video clip beautifully. This could not be done this easily in Linux before. For example, in Mandrake 8.1 I don't even remember finding anything for DivX on the CDs, unless it was hiding somewhere.
Another example of things that Linux can now do: Ximian Evolution is quite an amazing program. It is a total Outlook clone but still, it exists. And Ximian Connector which allows it to connect to all that Microsoft crap.
OpenOffice and StarOffice are now being included in the Mandrake distro for the first time AFAIK. OpenOffice is almost identical to Word as far as I can tell (they are still missing a few features, but those are of course being worked on as we speak). I just noticed the other day the OpenOffice Writer even has reviewing capability. I also think it is better than Word in many ways. It is far better than WordPerfect, which some people believe it or not, still use. I find that inserting pictures and figures into my text with OpenOffice gives me 10 times fewer headaches than with Word.
The things I still need to run in Windows: Microsoft Money 2002 (GNU Cash has far more potential, it's system of handling catergories and accounts is far superior. I just haven't bothered doing to switchover yet), Mathematica (although I could buy a UNIX version of this), Matlab (don't actually need this anymore because I have GNU Octave for Linux. That's about it. I'm thinking of looking into Wine in the next few months to try and run any of those programs in Linux. Wine development is pretty heavy apparently and it's getting better all the time by the sounds of it.
That's the best part about Linux and open source. Development is so much quicker when it really matters, for things like Mozilla (it has MathML before IE did), KDE (which is just getting better exponentially), and the kernel-type stuff as well, which is always on top of the latest hardware advances (USB was a litte slow to come, but I think it is getting better. Look at ATA133 for example). I think Linux has gone as far in two years as Windows did in 5 years. The best is yet to come. Windows can never win. It is programmed by a bunch of people in Redmond who aren't really in touch with the customers as much as they could be. Linux is programmed by the customers/users themselves. The open source model works, and it is what has made Linux the best server OS and will make it the best desktop OS in the future.
GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbies (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop is that the mac development community has always been very committed to designing usable and consistent interfaces. They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging. The problem the linux development community faces is not a technological problem like the kind they've had in the past, but a people problem. Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux has some of the best desktops. I use WindowMaker on every machine and I install it as the default on every machine. Even people new to computers settle into it within a few minutes. It is far better than KDE/GNOME/Windows/MacOSX. I've never edited a single WM config file by hand either.
Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
What I think you really mean is that they are too interested in porductivity and not enough in interesting little icons. Well, most secretaries are interested in productivity too and they don't give a shit about GUI theories that spout all kind of ways to "interface with the user": they want a clean simple fast method of telling their computer what they want it to do next.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop
Is that it's preinstalled on Macs. Reactions to it are mixed at best but, just like Windows, the users are locked in and frankly Apple isn't interested in whether they like it or not. Jobs made it pretty clear that the desktop was changing and the users could like it and ask for more, please Sir.
They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
There is a lot less anti-newbie feeling than there is a dislike of being told that useful and productive tools that need some time to master are less important than pandering to simpletons that can't handle difficult words like "directory". Explain again why "folder" makes more sense; particularly the bit where I open a folder and find more folders inside. Which metaphor are we using here?
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging.
Assuming they wanted to get to that point, where their market is shrinking and the hardware they use is grossly overpriced for the performance and there hasn't been a new application of any note for a decade.
Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
How true. It is much harder to get people to try thinking instead of just following the latest pronouncements of the Gates and Jobs of this world. Imagine if people using computers felt they had a chance of arranging their desktop to suit themselves instead of some expert with a joke degree in Human-Computer-Interfaces. Or even, Jobs-forbid! an actual choice in which desktop to use! Jesus Christ! The sky is falling, the users have choice; the unified user interface is under attack!
Basically, to hell with you and to hell with people that want their users to be good little sheep. Linux on the desktop does every work related task I've had for four years now ranging from graphics to web design to large document preparation to programming and if you want to pretend it's not happening it's no skin off my nose. I'm not depending on a financially insecure company with a terrble track record for supporting its users when things get tough.
TWW
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
Sorry to cut your sentence in half, but this part is the important part.
It works for what you need - that doesn't mean it works for everyone else. I've been wearing size 11 shoes for more than 10 years now, and they work just fine for me , so just shut the fuck up and use the size 11 shoes you're handed.
Heaven forbid that some people actually want the unified interface. Let me give you a few simple reasons why they might want that:
Moving on to another subject, try finding your nose. Place your finger on the tip of your nose. Now - try looking beyond the tip of your nose.
When ever you have trouble with the concept of "other peoples perspective" - repeat what I just learned you.
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
Exactly. The problem is that the unified interface approach is exclusive. You simply can not have both a unified interface and choice so if you are in favor of choice and you getting what you want and me getting what I want then you're in trouble. In this case one has to throw one of the options out; I choose to throw out the restrictive one.
If you want restrictive mass-produced, lowest common denominator interfaces that have the very minor virtue of being consistant in their mistakes then go and use one but fuck you if you're going to try to force me to do likewise.
TWW
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
This is the one area that bothers me too. It really hacks me off when I use a GNOME app that doesn't undersand that highlighting=copy and middle button=paste.
But, on the other hand, this shows up the biggest problem with the unified UI: progress dies. The highlight/middle buttion is far better than the menu/keyboard shortcut method used in Gnome and Windows. But UUI fans would not tolerate adding this to an existing system because there would inevitably be a period of half-adoption where some people had it and others did not, leading to brain-haemorrhaging amongst users.
The answer is to produce sensible UI's that work for the task at hand and not to introduce changes on a whim, but don't avoid new things just because you think the users are too stupid to cope.
TWW
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
Here's how it's supposed to work:
- Middle button pastes the currently selected text.
- Ctrl+C, Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V copy, cut and paste with a hidden 'clipboard'.
Early versions of Qt got this wrong, and therefore didn't work well with GNOME. Recent versions of both get it right.Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
See here [jwz.org] for more info.
TWW
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
No. There is no copying done when selecting. Middle-paste pastes the currently selected text. If you select some text and then unselect it, you can't middle button paste.
QT has got this right since at least version 2.0, the version of Gnome that came with RH7.2 still didn't.
Qt used to be completely broken. Try this:
Now do the same in gedit. Note that it works correctly here.
This has apparently been fixed in newer versions of KDE.
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
If you try going between Kword and gedit you'll see:
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
If you select some text and then unselect it, you can't middle button paste.
I can. I've never used a Linux machine where this worked as you suggest.
Open KWord
KDE/KOffice are not the same as QT. I don't have KWord installed here.
Doing what you say works as expected ("selection" gets pasted) in Opera which is a QT app and the wrong way in KHexEdit, so it seems as though the KDE people are interfering in the process and getting it wrong, rather than TrollTech. Since I don't use KDE I was not aware that they'd screwed it up.
TWW
Re:GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbie (Score:2)
I think you'll find that it is, but anyway,
And the general public are the people who really count, not you.
Why? This is a fundimental issue. As Linus has said, if it works for him and other people have things that work for them, who cares? Why do you feel Linux is a failure until it has converted the entire world? Why do the general public matter more than the people actually using Linux now? If they're happy and we're happy then what is your problem?
he was just complimenting OS X as having the best Unix UI and you couldn't even respond on that point.
No, he said that it was the most "successful" desktop and I responded to that. Sorry if I didn't respond to things he didn't say.
People who don't give a crap about the semantics of the word used for folder or directory are not "simpletons".
Again, it was the original poster that brought up the issue, not me. The implication he made was that "directory" was a less intuitive word than "folder". I responded by implying that anyone who did actually find the word "directory" confusing was a simpleton; I did not mean that I believe such people exist other than in the poster's head.
they view computers as tools to accomplish tasks or to obtain entertainment from but not anything more than that.
Try reading my post, that was my point.
if they don't want to take the time to learn the most trivial of computer trivia they must be idiots
I think you're still suffering under the delusion that I brought up the whole folder/directory thing aren't you? I specifically stated that people are not interested in these things.
Can you see how silly you sound yet?
Can you see the importance of actually reading things before mouthing off about them yet?
TWW
Linux is great, but there ARE flaws (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I started off with a blatantly obvious statement that can be said about just about any software. I have yet to find a piece of software that does more than one or two things that doesn't have flaws. (Kudos to those out there who have done it. Too bad I haven't seen it.)
Anyway, I know even from a server position that there are issues with memory management and garbage collection that make Linux unwieldy at times. We use it, but we also know that sometimes we have to reboot systems. Yes! We reboot Linux machines because we haven't coded around the lack of features. We easily have RAM allocated on our machines and then can't release it easily for other applications. Oh well. Rant, rant, rant.
I see the posts about Aqua and how Macs are so great, but I hate that I can't customise Aqua to how I want it. I hate the big bulky bars. Yeah, Apply MAY have been really great, but I think they've lost touch with people now, and are fighting a losing battle of trying to control. Microsoft may be a big bad behemoth that has wielded a lot of power out there, but at least I can customise windows to some degree as I like it.
As far as getting applications onto Linux, it's not that hard. Support the companies that are building good IDEs! Get better and better documentation written. If you wonder why widget X and Y hasn't been built to work with your application, perhaps your documentation isn't so good. I found this with our own developers in that we had lots of docs written by our developers ostensibly for others, but only really targetted towards themselves. No one had any idea beyond a basic presentation as to what our apps did as standard features and how they could be configured.
And for those trolls who love to bash anyone who's not a great tech geek, well, I'm sorry, but someone has to pay the bills. And people who design those pretty boxes and that cool anime and write a lot of great sci-fi books, scripts, and so on, tend to not be the most technically oriented people, and they don't like fighting to get an OS to work for them. If you don't have the user base, you don't get the supporting tools, and without the tools, you can't easily increase the base. The Linux user base has to reach critical mass, and not only in the server area.
OSS works. But bad attitudes and bad practices by the self-appointed mini-evangelists (i.e. trolls) who would rather engage in idealist wars than work together have hurt OSS more than Microsoft or any other corporation. There are very few idiot users. But there sure are a lot of socially inept engineers.
Does Closed Source Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
The most pathetic thing in the world is a prisoner what spends their time rationalising about how much better off they are than those poor saps that have to pay for rent and food outside.
TWW
Re:Does Closed Source Work? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, that why I use WindowMaker. Yes, WindowMaker for all your desktop needs. The problem with KDE/Gnome is that they are repeating Windows' mistakes in the belief that users can not cope with change when in fact what they really can't cope with is not getting their work done. This error has led them both far down the bloat path.
Star Office is moving away from the "load everything at once" approach but does still have some way to go I'll admit.
But, on Linux you have the choice to use something a little more svelte if you want to.
TWW
It's Sooooo outdated (Score:2)
This article is so like 1998.
But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I mean that line alone brought made me blow Dew all over my monitor. Lack of applications? Chuckle. Hehe. Good one.
Has Jill been in a cave for four years?
Sigh.
Maybe Linux on the desktop would have hope if... (Score:2)
-Rob
bah (Score:2)
Re:bah (Score:2)
There is nothing these days that Linux doesn't do better for me than Win2k, and I use my Linux box almost exclusively. Especially as Galeon is better than IE (and IE6 seems to be buggy, wish I'd stayed with IE5). I'll probably get the Crossover plugin in case I ever need to view a Word document. There will be plenty of people locked into Windows who are forced to use niche Win-only software, but as a software developer who also wants to play games and watch movies Linux fulfills all my needs.
Phillip.
Services (Score:2)
So I don't see it as any different from any other consulting or services business, I think the problem comes when boxed products are thrown into the mix. But the it's chicken and the egg, covering development costs needs a good turnover, but only if you want it done on a commercial timescale.
I've always wondered if the best bet would be to turn developement over to a educational sector and fund them through commercial business. That way you'd have a ready pool of good recruits and the company could concentrate on selling and promotion of the services provided on the educational establishments development plinth. A lot of government projects work in a similar way - look at SE-Linux.
But I don't see Redhat or any of these companies as different from those selling any other product. You can get the same product elsewhere but Redhat has factors that differentiate them from others, the code is free - but so what, most people aren't bothered about the underlying code, they are more bothered about what it can do for them and what the company that provided it can do for them over the companies competitors. Provided they can out market and provide cost advantages over the competitors Redhat and others should do well.
"Linux Not Ready"-discussion of the month (Score:2, Insightful)
Excellent, that's probably the reason why we don't see any Linux rendering farms in digital FX companies or Apache on webservers of e-commerce outfits.
Every month or so some creep winds up telling us that opensource or Linux is not ready for whatever. Who cares?
Regarding the lack of applications, only one thing can be said: Do it yourself or help others to do it for you, damn it!
There are opensource developers out there who actually listen to what you have to say. It's not "If you build it, they will come", but rather "If you tell them, they will build it right." Well, depending on how you do it. Most developers of opensource projects where thankful for useful comments and at least tried to implement the feature suggested. How often do you see Microsoft responding to your inquiries? Hell, they don't even give required security patches in a timely manner.
The problem IMHO isn't the acceptance of opensource software, but rather a complete misunderstanding of the opensource processes and the way they can be influenced by anyone with at east half a brain and some decent manners. That's still often enough a problem with managers (I am one myself, and I have seen enough of those already), especially at large corporations: "I WANT X, Y AND Z!!!! AND I WANT IT YESTERDAY!!!" rarely works in opensource. Hmmmm....., it doesn't work anywhere else either, but gets rarely noticed.
I love this quote as well: ""[Linux] just doesn't easily plug into the management framework," Goldman said. "The applications aren't standardized. When that level of standardization occurs in terms of applications and management tools, then I think Linux will get there. "For now, it's great when you want to tinker," he noted.
Yes it is great if you want to tinker, because you can. With most closed source products you have to tinker as well to get it running the way you want, but alas, you can't. Instead you get any number of consultants in who will then tell you, that you have to reengineer your business processes (if you can't pay for the software customization) to fit the software. While this is sometimes a very good approach, this is often enough not the case. With opensource a company, even with a limited budget, can influence the developers of OSS projects and maybe donate hardware, money or whatever else is required. Yes, it might take a little longer and cost is hard to predict, but so it is with business process reengineering.
Another string of myths and ignorance (Score:2)
Desktops are for hobbyists anyways (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real reason most companies don't use it... (Score:2)
The article is saying that Enterprise users would prefer the "no fixes/changes until someone else feels like it" option over the "we can fix it if we have to but it's a pain" option and it's just not true. Obviously they'd rather have "the vendor fixes it quickly and for free when we ask" but that box is usually greyed out in closed source.
TWW
Gee that wasn't biased. (Score:2)
Here let me winch my fist up up your ass a little deeper. Twist! How does that feel?
Of course Linux on the desktop is toast (Score:2)
Since 1993 (Score:2)
My wife and I have used Linux on the desktop (a laptop at first) at home since 1993! Of coure, before that (and for a while after) we ran SunOS on an old Sun 3/50, which was immensely better, and actually cheaper (from a workstation reseller) than any of the PC's available in 1991. I've used SunOS, NextStep, Solaris, and now Linux (since 1999) on my work desktop since the late 1980's. And it just keeps getting better - the latest upgrade to RedHat 7.2 was the smoothest yet: an 11 minute install, plus about half an hour of futzing with KDE (I'd used Gnome at work before).
Some maybe we're weird - but I've never used Windows as a desktop, and never regretted it.
The code is willing, but the geeks are weak (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give a example of how this might work:
Lets say that, across the country, there are 20 randomly scattered firms in the same industry that compete locally but not with each other. (or even if they do compete with each other, software is not their core competency) Each of those companies has very similar software needs, with some minor customizations needed by each. The companies now have a choice on how to meet some specific software need. The traditional choices are:
1.) Hire in-house programmers to do everything
disadvantage: too costly, too much time to develop
2.) Find an existing proprietary solution that just happens to cover all needs
disadvantage: very unlikely to find pre-made solution that fits, no ability to customize later->compromises or crude hacks end up being made instead, upgrades require additional costs for licenses, per workstation license fees may be exorbitant
3.) Pay to have an existing proprietary solution customized to suit specific needs
disadvantage: all the cost of licenses from #2, plus the time and cost for the customizations required
4.) Outsource development of a complete custom solution
disadvantages: way too expensive, way too much time to develop
The "ideal" Open Source solution would be for each company to contract their own community-focused Open Source developer who would collaborate with the others to develop the base application (drawing from existing code as available), then perform any customizations needed to meet their own client's needs if they differ. Each contracted developer would then also assist in installation and perform any support services based on the contract terms. The base code base is fully open and free to the public. Customizations deemed of potential value to others are also included. Modularity in design is key.
Advantages: much faster and lower cost than in-house or single-party contracted design due to distributed workload among other contractors with similar clients, utmost in customization flexibility, investment in the future--codebase will evolve and improve so no need for costly upgrade licenses, (hopefully) better quality code assuming you ended up with ethical consultants. (-:
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's. That has nothing to do with stupidity. Do you think most people who use windows even know a definition of "Operating System"? No! Because they don't need to and shouldn't have to! The interface is intuitive enough so that people can quickly figure out how to do what they want to do, move on and be productive. Learning thousands of rediculous shell commands with all their options is not intuitive and makes people become distracted from what they want to use their PC's for. Hacking config files, compiling software, unsucessfully hunting for apps with well thought out user interfaces... these are things that drive away linux users. Look at this story! If it were left in a comment on /. it would be modded into oblivion because nobody here can solve these problems, so they ignore them.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2, Insightful)
Carp, I agree with you. Having to be an expert to use an OS is like being able to only drive a car, if you also know how to fix the alternator yourself. While I love tinkering with Linux and computers, I *hate* tinkering with cars, motorcycles and other things like it! I don't want to. Period. If it doesn't get me from A to B I'll bring it someone who *does* love tinkering with these engines. It is not a matter of effort and not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of simple preference!
The stringing together of many utilities is partially the strength of Linux/UNIX but at the same time it's weakness. Why setting up sendmail, fetchmail and a mail client (even assuming it works on first try which is unlikely) when all one needed before was Eudora and three lines in EDIT/PREFERENCES? Again, it's a matter of preference, as in "why make it harder than it needs to be?"
Linux is awesome and I support it wholeheartedly. But it still has a long way to go. It will eventually, I am sure.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not what I took from that. Although poorly said, what he (I feel) is trying to say is something like:
People are lazy (yes, there's stupid ones too). They don't want to LEARN anything new. They want to be handed something that they know the person sitting next to them knows because when the person is stumped, rather than hit Google, or try to figure it out, they turn to the person next to them.
"Hey Sam, how do I change the background of my main window here?"
"Main Window? You mean the Desktop?"
"I dunno, I guess."
THAT is my point, and I think Teknogeek's as well.
I'm an Admin. I've seen this in action for 7 or 8 years.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:3, Insightful)
My Mom, who, at retirement age, is beginning a 3rd career as a landscape designer, who takes dance lessons, who got 2 Master's degrees in her forties, who travels regularly to Europe and Latin America, who studies botany, history, and languages. She doesn't want to learn vi to get email, but don't dare say she doesn't want to learn anything. That you think of the computer as the horizon of knowledge is really very, very sad.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at this article:
Linux for Mom and Dad [newsforge.com]
This article "kills" a myth: only geeks can use Linux.
When reality says: only an expert can install and configure Linux or Windows so anyone can use it
This is why Microsoft is so against Linux being pre-loaded on computers, as seen recently [washingtonpost.com].
Off the horse, sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is. If I hadn't been hacking UNIX for the past 20 years, there's no way in hell any Linux distro would appeal to me over MacOS or Windows.
People aren't necessarily stupid just because they can't be bothered to learn complex new OS environments for negligible gain (for their purposes, not yours). Most people just want to look at the mummies, and despite the museum curators' infantile protesting to the contrary, not learning to interpret hieroglyphs doesn't make them "stupid".
Re:Off the horse, sir (Score:2, Insightful)
Not Word, or Excel or graphics - but TRAINED HOW TO USE A DAMN COMPUTER
It doesnt really matter what OS they are using, the basic *understanding* is the same.
1. If I type shit in, I need to save it somewhere
2. The shit that I typed in, is saved in what is called a 'file'. This file exists in a folder/directory on the hard disk.
3. Just because I printed the shit out, doesn't mean it is saved
4. I need to make a backup of the file from my hard drive, because hard drives can - and WILL - fail.
People aren't stupid, but if they use a computer - they really need to LEARN the very basics of it.
Managers are NOT excluded.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:3, Insightful)
People are stupid.
It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
True, these people are also linux developers.
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.
Tom
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2)
I don't know which 'You Guys' you're talking to, but he never said people shouldn't have the right to make a stupid choice, just that they're stupid for making it
Seriously, the good thing is the freedom to make the choice; Just as I think anyone who voted for Bush is even stupider, I would never dream of claiming it's not a good thing they CAN, just that they DID.
-Chris
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, but if i had a buisiness and i saw these companies failing why would i even want to try and write any software for people that are not used buying software?
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:5, Insightful)
What a truly ignorant point of view. Boo hooo, the public don't understand how to use Linux, that's their fault. No - if Linux wants to successful on the desktop, it needs to satisfy the public's needs. If it's being written by a load of arrogant wankers (which I'm not saying it is) who think the public are 'stupid' for what they want, then it is toast.
On the behalf of the general public, fuck you.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2, Interesting)
As it might be true, that's one of the things I love about Linux. Once and for all I can enjoy an OS where the community behind it isn't just a bunch of newbies and generally stupid ppl. When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2)
Doesn't somebody have to ask the question for there to be an answer? I guess you missed that part.
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:2)
Re:Wizard's First Rule: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the classic mistake that many technical people make, that if you don't know about computers, you're stupid.
If you do believe it, I expect that you are expert in the electronics in your TV and DVD player, understand the mechanics of launching a satellite to relay phone calls, the chemistry of an oil refinery that fuels your car, all the routes driven by the postal service to deliver packages to and from your door to anywhere in the world, etc...
Of course not. That's why we have specialists. You happen to be a specialist in computer technology, but you'd starve to death without specialists in field-ploughing to feed you. Remember that.
Re:oss vs non-oss (Score:5, Funny)
Does anybody know why? (Score:2)
Re:Well, Well!! (Score:2)
Linux works just fine on my desktop, thank you very much, and frankly, that's the only one I care about.
I don't understand why the pro and anti linux on the desktop groups bother flaming each other. They're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. It just wastes time, effort, bandwidth and storage space, and needlessly gets people's backs up. Use what works for you; what do you care what other people use?
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Well, Well!! (Score:2)
I have 6 salespeople... the absolute bottom of technical abilities using linux on the desktop. it wasnt difficult for them. it isn't difficult for them.
and in fact they have mentioned lately how it is easier than Windows 2000.
So again, you are mis-informed and are spreading things as truth that are made up facts (lies to the rest of the world outside of microsoft supporters) based on non-evidence and non-testing that are designed to purely mislead people that would mistaken you as a credible source for accurate information.
Again I ask, where is your Journal showing your findings that Linux is too difficult for someone to use on the desktop? I'll gladly share my 5+months of data showing that linux+Gnome is very easy for the non-pc expert (and in many instances for the user that is not as bright as a small salad bar)
If you have no hard facts and data... then to put it bluntly... shut up.
Re:Perhaps qualification of the quote is in order? (Score:3, Funny)
By Gad, sir! You stir the emotions! If only we had some music to play. I don't know if a room full of geeks would stand at the sound of "P-P-P-Pick up a P-P-P-Penguin", but I can't think of anything else appropriate.
TWW
Re:IF Linux is toast on the dekstop then (Score:2)
Linux will no longer be able to dual boot with Microsoft's OS.
Keep in mind that most people who can set up a dual-boot environment for Linux and Windows are also quite capable of using the BIOS to do the same exact thing, without the need for making any changes whatsoever to the bootloader. Granted, you would have to use 2 separate hard disks to do it this way (IDE-0, IDE-1, etc.), but you would still be able to use both OS's on the same machine.