Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Graphics Software

OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux 383

Posted by Hemos from the beyond-the-backroom dept.
Psyke writes "The Australian Financial Review is reporting that 'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.' and 'Meanwhile, the OSDL, which has largely worked on improving Linux's ability to run large servers, said it would work on improving Linux's performance on ordinary desktop computers.'" The article itself is a little off- those companies are working *through* the OSDL of which they are members - along with a number of additional companies as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux More

OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux

Comments Filter:

  • Support and pre-installed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WetCat ( 558132 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:33AM (#7463648)
    The only two problems with desktop linux that needs
    to be overcomed are
    Pre-installation on new PC by default on mainstream computers
    Support by the mainstream computers' builders.

    • Way Off... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cnelzie ( 451984 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:47AM (#7463743) Homepage
      Other things like, I dunno being able to buy software off the shelf in Best Buy, taking it home and simply running some autorun or one-click installation process, regardless of which distribution of Linux you are using needs to happen...

      Easier configuration, better transparency for applications and functions, a common clip-board and many more things...

      Even corporate desktops need a more cohesive system to be able to install, then later update individual packages without needing to install a dozen other packages, requiring a dozen other packages to be installed, which require still more packages to be installed.

      I have personally run into issues like that when wanting to update things like the version of Mr Project that came with Red Hat 7.3 to the latest release of Mr Project in order to take advantage of some new features. Since there was not a single Red Hat 7.3 Binary package made available, I downloaded the 'generic' RPM and found that I needed to install a dozen things to be able to install it. So... I downloaded the tarbal source and found the SAME problem.

      I love Linux, but it just sucks that I am unable to take a piece of recent software and install on an OS that is NEWER then Windows 98SE without having to update dozens of other pieces of software, when I can still take that old Windows 98SE and run MOST every piece of software that has recently become available. That is one of the largest usability issues keeping Linux from taking desktops over very easily.

      Not everyone wants to update their ENTIRE OS all of the time. Why should people take a handful of hours to most of a day every 6 months or so in order to migrate to the latest release of their chosen Operating System? They shouldn't have to do that. They should be able to install it and update the pieces they need to and then when and IF, they have the time, then they can upgrade to the latest release. There should also be no major issues with doing so...

      • Re:Way Off... (Score:2, Informative)

        by WetCat ( 558132 )
        I recently bought a disk with "Good Linux games"
        It was almost completely unusable - it contained .rpms and source code.
        I have Mandrake and .rpms won't run for me.
        I would prefer _statically compiled_ versions of all games which are in that CD with the sources and other stuff needed by GPL.

        • Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PReDiToR ( 687141 )
          What you say has merit.

          Distribution of Linux binaries would help things a lot. Before the advent of .MSI files, installation of a program on Windoze was, at the hardest level, comprised of four steps:
          • Get the installation
          • Click the install file
          • Get the VB Runtimes
          • Copy the VB Runtimes to the Windoze directory

          And the easiest ever was just to download one file to the right place and run it.

          No mention of source code, compilation, required packages, the occaisional Kernel module or anything like t

          • Re:Way Off... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by evilad ( 87480 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:20AM (#7464648)
            In The Inmates are Running the Asylum [indigo.ca], Cooper argues that the easiest application install of all is implemented by a web-browser, and that no application install needs to be harder than that. There is a single specification of the "application" you want to run, whether that be clicking a link or entering a URL, and then the browser does the rest of the work.

            I agree with this. Any well-written application should be able to determine reasonable defaults based on context. Therefore, on general principles, there is no need for an interactive installation process.

            The only exception I can think of right now is for security. Even there, digital signatures can go a long way towards streamlining the "install" process.

            • Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Interesting)

              by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 )
              In The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Cooper argues that the easiest application install of all is implemented by a web-browser, and that no application install needs to be harder than that.

              I agree. The long term UI plan for autopackage is clicking directly on icons in the web browser. You can of course drag the icon to your panel or menu as well, if you wish to make a permenant link. This isn't impossible to implement though it is fairly hard.

              Any well-written application should be able to determine

        • "I have Mandrake and .rpms won't run for me."

          Erm, Mandrake, and always has been, rpm based. Do you mean "the rpms wouldn't install because they required some obscure library" or "the rpms wouldn't work because I don't know how install them"?
          • Yeah I was about to reply to that too... wtf...
            Mandrake is an RPM distro so if you can't install something *becaue* it's in RPM, you may want to RTFM.
        • Troll alert! Mandrake uses RPMs, in fact Mandrake is largely Red Hat with different graphics. And source code will compile and run on ANY properly-installed Linux distro, subject to hardware constraints. In fact, I actually prefer .tar.gz files because they are so reliable, and no need for a -devel package either {upon which, in my experience, 95% of dependencies really depend; if foo says it depends on bar, chances are it really depends on a file in bar-devel}.

          In case you aren't trolling:

          How to ha
      • And please, let's not forget device drivers...

      • Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by be-fan ( 61476 )
        Um, you're describing a problem that was fixed long ago. Most modern distributions (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, SuSE, etc) use a package repository. Thus, installing applications is as simple as double-clicking it in something like Synaptic (much better than the multi-step wizard-style MS Windows installer) and boom, its in your start menu. The repository manager takes care of everything else.

        As for dependencies --- they're the right technical solution. OSS can't afford to reinvent the wheel for every little
        • A few of us don't have net access at home and my work would be quite peeved if I hauled in my desktop just to upgrade some "packages". Right now my stop-gap is judicious use of a USB-keychain and downloading the rpms to it and trying to guess the right dependencies and grabbing those, as well. sometimes I forget one and have to wait until the following day to get it, which may or may not have dependencies of its own.

          Contrast that with my Win2K install. Go to best buy. Buy software. Come home, install,
      • This is actually a real problem with many linux apps, both on desktops and servers. I just experienced it while trying to get perl-suid installed on a server, with deb (which is generally easier on install than RPM in my experience)...

        So... base/stable version of perl-suid wasn't compatible with my newer Perl, so dipping into unstable I go, but then I also need to update Perl since unstable/testing perl-suid are newer than my Perl. So perl gets updated, which requires a new libc6...

        This breaks the ogg/v
    • I might agree with this statement if you assume that "desktop linux" = "home linux".

      Linux can currently work very well on corporate desktops where there is centralized management and clueful people in charge of selecting hardware that is supported.

    • Re:Support and pre-installed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:40AM (#7464213) Journal
      Support by the mainstream computers' builders.

      Therein lies the rub.

      Windows XP is difficult to support because it can be configured to any number of different interfaces (standard XP, Windows "Classic", or any combination in between). Do you honestly expect some headset-fast-food-phone-jockey to figure out what beta version of KDE has been installed? I couldn't do it...

      Redhat has been criticized for "dumbing down" their distro but I applaud them for it. Only when there is one standard, non-configurable interface should open-source be thrown to the desktop wolves. Open source (I refrain from using the term "Linux" because it doesn't include the GUI) has the opportunity to target what is so very wrong with Windows because it doesn't have to worry about the backward compatibility that makes Windows such crap in so many respects. But nobody seems to care about that right now so we have more crap to come. Everyone seems to love having a choice in crap but I digress.

      Short and sweet: wish list

      1) Get rid of the application execution shortcuts and put them in one, easy to use location. Windows has the desktop, the start menu (directly off of the start button), the programs submenu off of the start button, the quick-launch and the system tray. Most programs make use of this and flood the user with shortcuts mainly for the sake of advertising. Susie won't forget to run AOL if we give her 6 different locations from which to start it.

      There's also no reason that entire submenus need to be created off of the start menu. Applications should simply load a single shortcut to themselves instead of putting readme's, uninstallers and other crap in the start menu. It just adds to the clutter and will eventually require scrolling start menus ala Windows. Create some standards - programs could be grouped. Instead of a game creating gratuitous advertising in the start menu (who cares if the game was made by Sierra?), it should simply install a shortcut into the standard "GAMES" submenu. Utilities, Office, etc. One could probably come up with 6 or so default submenus that programs could utilitize.

      2) Use the desktop for something other than the aforementioned annoyance. Maybe build in a tabbed desktop with a control panel on one tab, an extensible calendaring tab on another (I use Palm Desktop and I don't even have a Palm device - calendaring is needed!). Perhaps another "default" tab could be a combination of email, most recently used applications and the calendar. Stick a log-off/shutdown tab in there and maybe a media player, too. Make some freakin' use of this space (besides the pretty wallpaper). Make it all extensible so third parties can make use of it (i.e. - Palm can create a plug-in for the system calendar, third-party media players can embed themselves into the media tab, etc).

      3) User data management - give the users ONE FREAKING PLACE to put data. Sure - Windows might *try* to do this but, ultimately, it does nothing to stop uneducated users from doing the wrong thing. If you've ever had to explain to someone that they shouldn't save their Microsoft Office documents in \PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\, then you might know what I am talking about. ONE PLACE... certainly, make it flexible (allow users to share, etc) but for crying out loud.

      4) Program installation - Joe Users don't need to see the intricate details of the files on a program installation (either hard or soft media). Program installations should be ONE file. Joe Users don't need to see everything inside. Additionally, the programs should only have ONE FREAKING LOCATION to which they can install (i.e. - PROGRAM FILES). Once installed, Joe Users should *never* be able to go into this folder and poke around. There's no need for it (but certainly provide the functionality for an advanced user to do so).

      Argh... I'll be here all day of I go on. Ultimately, if someone can point me to someone who cares, I'd be happy to spend a few hours suggesting improvements. Does anyone need a GUI designer?

  • Redhat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by samadhi ( 140608 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:34AM (#7463653)
    Strange I thought Redhat had just abandoned the desktop. If Redhat are going to push Linux out of the back office, where are they going to push it too?

    • Re:Redhat (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 )
      Strange I thought Redhat had just abandoned the desktop. If Redhat are going to push Linux out of the back office, where are they going to push it too?

      Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS I would imagine. They abandoned the free desktop version, not their overpriced enterprise Linux distribution. Red Hat finally woke up and realized, no matter how much you try, you're not going to successful selling nothing but support for an otherwise free product. That's where the GNU model is flawed unfortunately. Writing

      • I'll be brief: you can still download it.

        Goodbye.
      • Well, it sounds like a new model for business is in order. Here's a shocking revelation:

        You don't have to go public with your company.

        I know, Redhat already has, and as a public company, it must do things a private company wouldn't be forced to do, i.e., satisfy stockholder demands. However..

        If you're just going to publish manuals, I seem to recall that FreeBSD folks "self-publish" manuals, as do the FSF (I know I've seen an EMACS, the Autoconf book, and I think one other at the local Borders.. they're
    • Strange I thought Redhat had just abandoned the desktop.

      No, I think they abandoned the individual home user to concentrate on selling to business. Businesses use lots of desktop computers.
    • They're talking about corporate desktops. Linux is arguably better suited to that desktop environment than Windows is. Not to say there isn't the occasional thing which needs careful consideration.

      I'm currently managing several hundred Gnome desktops on Solaris for engineers at the moment but there's absolutely no reason it couldn't be Linux instead. Using the right architecture and using the workstation edition of redhat for the login servers and execution nodes you can scale to thousands of concurrent s

  • No, really, its not (Score:2, Informative)

    by SkArcher ( 676201 )
    in the 'will push' article
    Linux, a free operating system based upon Unix
    Someone hasn't done their research

    • Re:No, really, its not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:42AM (#7463710) Homepage
      Linux, a free operating system based upon Unix"...Someone hasn't done their research

      Of course Linux* is based on Unix. It may not be derived from the sources of Unix, but the idea and the running of it most certainly is based on Unix.

      *I'm prepared to accept arguments from the GNU/Linux crowd here.

      Cheers,
      Ian

      • In the computer industry, based-on generally means something is actually derived from something else, unless more explicitly noted.

        • In the computer industry, based-on generally means something is actually derived from something else

          Erm...how shall I put this? I've been 'in the computing industry' for fifteen years or so, and am fully aware of what the term 'based on' means.

          Cheers,
          Ian

      • So, I was correct all along... Microsoft Windows *IS* based on Macintosh. It may not be derived from the sources of Macintosh, but the idea and the running of it most certainly is based on Macintosh. The look and feel is definitely there. The similarities are definitely there. Reading the history of Bill's "borrowing" (read: cloning) of Apple's GUI goodies adds weight to the geneology, regardless of what the judge says (that there are only so many ways to do similar things).

        Linux has the "look and feel" of
    • For all intents and purposes, it is. A good reporter isn't going to go into the minutae of the history of Linux if the article isn't about that. Come out of your cave every now and then. Most of the planet hasn't even heard of Linux, never mind know that it's Unix-y. Hell, my guess is that most of the planet has no clue as to what Unix is.

  • Goddamnit, this is another one of those (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    SCO / Microsoft sponsored conspiracies!!!

    Oh wait. Wrong article.

  • I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lee7guy ( 659916 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:43AM (#7463724)
    ...when the number of Linux desktops reaches the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have no choice but to support linux with drivers, etc. If you'd asked me a year ago I would have told you that that day probably is a decent amount of time into the future. Now, I say we will most likely soon start seeing the signs on the horizon.

    Often we hear people talk about how "linux isn't ready for desktop". Bah. Nonsense. I would rather say; Some people aren't ready for the linux desktop. It might not be as easy as Windows or OSX, but nothing really stops you from using linux instead of windows, except for specialized applications only available on that platform.

    The only thing needed for success is a distro as easy to set up as Mandrake/Suse/Redhat, with the ease of upgrading of Gentoo or Debian. Maybe Fedora is the choosen one, tho I doubt it.

    • Re:I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Theatetus ( 521747 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:15AM (#7463941) Journal
      Often we hear people talk about how "linux isn't ready for desktop". Bah. Nonsense.

      I got sick of my friends' and relatives' asking me to help them configure their home computers. I installed SuSE for them and they've found it much easier and more intuitive than Windows XP (I'm not a SuSE fan, but it seems to work for them).

      Just goes to show that Linux is ready for the desktop, and Windows XP still has some catching up to do before people like my grandmother can use it as easily as they can use the desktop Linux distros.

    • Re:I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:20AM (#7463985)
      There's nothing stopping the Free software community from replicating the success that OS X is experiencing.

      To succeed on the desktop, we need drivers. There are way more people writing drivers for Linux than for Darwin, but in order for those drivers to be any good we'll need cooperation from the manufacturers. So, we'd need to create a viable desktop solution that runs extremely well on commonly available hardware (i.e. NVidia cards) to show the smaller manufacturers that if they help a Free software developer write a driver, they may sell more units.

      GNU/Linux with X is slower than Windows, and way slower than OS X. Linux 2.6 is going to help a lot, but it isn't going to fix things. The X people say that the widget developers don't know what they're doing. The widget developers say that they've done they best they can with what X has to offer...

      So it seems to me that X is either too complicated, or not sufficiently optimized. I think that we need a complete X replacement. Forget about X compatability.

      It needs to be networked, like X, but have a standard widget set and clipboard. GTK+ and QT can be implemented in this environment, just like they are in Windows.

      A faster, graphical bootup, no editing of config files by hand, yadda yadda yadda...
      you've all heard this before.

      But is it beyond our reach? I don't think so. What we need to do is admit that a lot of the stuff that we're doing on the desktop isn't working that well, and then change it.
      • It needs to be networked, like X, but have a standard widget set and clipboard.

        I'm not so sure that the clipboard should be a part of X, or it's equivalent. Wouldn't it be even nice if cut-n-paste was a system wide thing?

        I think one of the biggest mistakes in Linux usability has been the mistaking of X's built in text drag-n-drop capability (which is what the highlight and middleclick is, not cut-n-paste) with a clipboard in the Windows or Mac sense.

        Why couldn't we make a .clipboard directory in the use
      • X is faster than windows, it's the bloated desktop environments and toolkits that bog it down.

  • OEMs a must for linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by obsid1an ( 665888 ) <obsidian@NOSPaM.mchsi.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:46AM (#7463739)
    Seeing Linux distros as an option pre-installed into major OEMs systems would be great. Desktop linux has all the tools that the average consumer needs (especially those buying from OEMs). Not to mention that consumers might be more willing to use linux if they didn't have to actually buy Windows first.
    • PC Club already sells computers with linux installed, I am not sure what distro's for sure but i know they ship computers and laptops with "Lindows" :(. I ended up talking to the manager of a local pc club store and he said he could install debian, gentoo, rh, or mdk on a new system for me. If they start advertising better other manufacturers might get the idea

  • Bleh! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by POds ( 241854 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:50AM (#7463766) Homepage Journal
    What happened with IBM telling the UK gov that Linux wasnt ready for the desktop?

    Also will the choose a certain linux distributing? Or just linux in general. Cause normal consumers would be able to choose for themselfs you know! They've going to have to have a list of suitable linux distros cause some of them are no wear near usable for newbies... And i assume thats what they are trying to do when they say they are pushing it for the desktop?

  • Copy paste? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe we'll finally get a reliable copy/paste. Year or two... what the heck. We can wait. Its not like Longhorn is any kind of competition, is it?!
    • Maybe we'll finally get a reliable copy/paste

      Um, as far as I'm aware, we *have* a reliable (and consistent) copy/paste. No, it's not *exactly* the same as in Windows (in case you hadn't noticed, X desktop environments aren't Windows), but if you use common "end user" apps like KDE 3.x, Gnome and Mozilla, you won't go far wrong by assuming everything works like Windows.

      There are two "selections", PRIMARY and CLIPBOARD (actually, there's also SECONDARY, but I'm not aware of any program which ever uses it).

  • movie time (Score:5, Funny)

    by xao gypsie ( 641755 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:53AM (#7463785)
    this is all almost like a movie. all you need to do is replace those involved with some more exciting entity, and you got the next billion dollar blockbuster:

    Sco: liken to sauron, but with no real power

    torvalds: some kinda of wizard

    red hat: that land of humand you are sure you can trust

    bsd: the dwarves that can kick anyone's ass but are more content with chillin in the mountains

    Ibm: the elves that youre pretty sure are on your side...

    and so on

    xao

    • You don't quite have it right: (Score:5, Funny)

      by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <royNO@SPAMstogners.org> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:27AM (#7464070) Homepage
      AT&T is like Sauron: they created The One Ring (Unix), tried to use it to exert a hold over thousands of licensees, but lost it inadvertently (to the public domain and the valiant Berkeley).

      SCO is more like Gollum: they got a hold of the Ring, they're convinced it's "My Preciousss..." and will make their lives wonderful, yet they are essentially unable to do anything powerful with it. They are also schizophrenic, having one happy Caldera personality that wants to be friends with Linux users and one evil The SCO Group personality that wants to kill them all.
    • I've been reading slashdot for a long time but have not seen the movie (I assume its lord of the rings). Thanks for explaining the movie to me :).
    • "I like my women like I like my coffee......bitter."

      I was once at a bar with a friend, his girlfriend (R), and *her* friend (J), whom I quite fancied. It was winter, so I had a pint of Greene King Christmas Ale.

      R: Rupert likes his women like he likes his beer.
      J: You mean dark and strong?
      R: No, flat and expensive.

      No more dates :( It must be noted that the first three adjectives did indeed describe J quite well.

    • So where would you put Mac OS X in this panoply? I offer: as a hobbit. You think that you know them, that they're "mostly harmless" cuddly and cute, and serves no real purpose; but then, one day one goes off and steals from a dragon.
    • To sum up:

      AT&T: Sauron. They created The One Ring (Unix), tried to use it to exert a hold over thousands of licensees, but lost it inadvertently (to the public domain and the valiant Berkeley).

      SCO: Gollum. They got a hold of the Ring, they're convinced it's "My Preciousss..." and will make their lives wonderful, yet they are essentially unable to do anything powerful with it. They are also schizophrenic, having one happy Caldera personality that wants to be friends with Linux users and one evil Th

  • Did i read this right?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by floydman ( 179924 ) <floydman@gmail.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:02AM (#7463857)
    "Red Hat, the leading supplier of Linux to business, also said it would produce major enhancements to its distribution of Linux, which would make it easier to use the operating system on corporate desktops."

    Because i swear i read a couple of days ago that RedaHat will stop its RedHat Linux line, and stick [slashdot.org] with the RedHat Advanced server

  • Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:08AM (#7463896)
    Apple successfully brought Unix to the desktop with MacOS X. It's a very pleasing and easy-to-use GUI on top of unix.

    It gives you the easy usability Joe Sixpack needs ("It just works."), yet still gives you access to a console (Terminal) and developer tools for technical people to do technical things with it.

    If some group out there could slap on an OS X-like GUI on top of Linux that looks, runs, and plays as well as OS X does ontop of Unix (for non technical people and technical people alike), and have the OS be free, Windows would be done for.

    • What happens when Joe Sixpack wants to run current games?

      What happens when Joe Sixpack wants to run a Windows program?

      What happens when Joe Sixpack get a new piece of hardware?

      GUI is just one part of what Joe Sixpack wants and it will take a lot more for Windows to be done for.
      • You're still thinking about the world in it's current Windows Monopoly 2003 state without a viable desktop linux option.

        Now let us assume a Linux with an OSX-like GUI came out and started selling in stores and is getting pre-installed by OEMs:

        What happens when Joe Sixpack wants to run current games?

        If Linux became popular for Joe Sixpacks and had enough of population to be seen as a "market", game developers would release new games in a multi-format style, including a Linux version.

        What happens
    • If some group out there could slap on an OS X-like GUI on top of Linux that looks, runs, and plays as well as OS X does ontop of Unix

      They Already have... It's called KDE, and provided you use Mozilla for web browsing it does look, work, and play as well as OS X

      (sorry Konqueror developers, it still breaks my DOM2 & CSS2 scripts).

  • It is difficult and wasteful to try to market products at too large a market. So, "Linux for the Desktop" is probably an unattainable and moving goal.

    This is how I see the real market segments for desktop computers, their percentage value, and how well Linux fits. I apologise in advance for doing zero research and just basing this on my experience of the field, but... hey... this is Slashdot, exactly the place for uninformed opinion.

    Here goes.

    1. "Small Office" use. Value: 20%. Requirements: edit/print documents, spreadsheets, graphics. Web. Email. Music. Linux: perfect. Windows: perfect.

    2. "Medium Office" use. As above, but add support for exotic hardware such as notebooks, scanners, DVD burners, whatever. Value: 10%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.

    3. "Large Office" use. As above, but add integration with enterprise information systems, currently done mainly through Exchange and Office macros :-). Value: 20%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.

    4. "Cybershop" use. Value 10%. Requirements: web, chat, email, office, VoIP, p2p, trivial (re)installation, efficiency on cheap, old systems. Linux: perfect. Windows: too expensive and complex.

    5. "Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work. Windows: perfect.

    6. "Serious home user". Value: 10%. Requirements: as for Small Office, but more solid, tighter on the budgets, slightly hackable, and with loads of free software. Linux: perfect. Windows: slightly too expensive, but otherwise perfect.

    7. "Naive home user", Value: 15%. Requirements: as for cybershop, but with ability to plug in digital camera to download snaps of baby. Linux: perfect, with some limitations on range of exotic hardware. Windows: perfect, except for security.

    Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.
    • >Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work.

      Needs work?!?!? That is the understatement of the year.

      >Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.

      How many software products can I get from my local computer store that are products that can run on Linux? What about Windows?

      They need a whole lot more than good marketing to take that sort of command on the desktop.
      • How many software products can I get from my local computer store that are products that can run on Linux?
        You don't buy software for Linux in your local computer store. You download software for Linux from your distributor's, or the developer's, website. That's the fundamental difference between free software and slaveware. It's also why the distro that makes it into the home bigtime will be the one that makes it next to impossible not to contribute.
        • >You download software for Linux from your distributor's, or the developer's, website.

          Thats why a little marketing will not help. Physical big bright flashing signs in a store do a whole lot more than a website.

          And that is what is important to the non-technical, comptuers-is-not-my-life, desktop person.
      • how many software products are you buying for windows, that are all ready included in a linux distro? Probably a lot.

        how many useful little utilities did you use with windows 95 that were slowly discontinued as you upgraded through win95 - win98 - winME to winXP? probably a lot.

        how many times have you paid for hardware with bundled software that broke your windows system by installing crap DLL over top of good DLLs?
    • I agree for the most part with your analysis (I am keeping in mind that it was off-the-cuff), but....

      "Naive home user", ... Linux: perfect...

      Naive home user? Linux is perfect for them?

      I'd like to meet some of these naive users for whom Linux is perfect. They should work here, it would make parts of my job (desktop support) a lot easier.... ;-)

    • 1. "Perfect" is not literal, this is IT after all. By this I mean "tolerable", or even "better the Devil you know."

      2. In all cases I assume that some expert help is available for installation and configuration. This is how Linux gets 'perfect' for naive home users: quick installation from Knoppix, Xandros, Lindows, and no phone calls or 'domestic help desk'. I speak from experience.

      3. The two markets where Linux lacks applications are games and enterprise desktops. But these account for perhaps 35% (m
  • All it takes is some glue around the pieces. Granted it hasnt happened yet on all the dists but if a big push gets rolling towards the desktop i have no doubt that it is an easy task once in motion.

    Many of us who now uses GNU/linux WANT to have complete control. Because of that there are maybe not that much incentive for developers today to put that much effort in doing things as simple as possible . They know most of the userbase today is perfectly fine with some tweaking. If the userbase changes i have n

  • What Linux needs for desktop use. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:27AM (#7464058)
    In my opinion, the current state of Linux is still not going to match what Windows 2000/XP now supports.

    For Linux to succeed in the desktop/laptop market on a large scale, they need to do the following:

    1. Standardize on the programs installed. That means no more KDE-vs-Gnome wars, Mozilla Thunderbird/Firebird Internet access programs as standard, and most likely OpenOffice as standard. I hope the Linux Standards Base project will aim for such a standard for "base install" of Linux.

    2. It MUST have widespread hardware support. That means it supports the latest graphics cards, sound cards, network cards and I/O cards at full functionality of the device.

    3. We need the equivalent of Microsoft DirectX on Linux to make it easier to program and access multimedia devices. Hopefully, the SDL project will fulfill this need.

    4. It really needs support for the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) for truly automated system configuration and the ability to easily hot-dock devices through the USB and IEEE-1394 ports.

    If Linux succeeds in these four goals, then I can see its adoption by everyone become much more widespread.

    • Re:What Linux needs for desktop use. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by revividus ( 643168 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namssirc.lihp>> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:42AM (#7464229) Homepage
      Just some thoughts... if IBM/et al. are just pushing one particular distro (or standard base)....

      1. Need for standards: As long as all the default apps work well together, that will be the de facto standard; the new linux users will not know the difference, and as they get more experience, could experiment on their own.
      2. Hardware support: I may have just been lucky in my choices of hardware so far.... But isn't this area fairly good right now? (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Also, if Linux were pre-installed on desktops, the manufacturer would have tested ahead-of-time and presumably chosen only appropriate hardware.
      3. DirectX equivalent: I guess I agree with you here.
      4. Support for ACPI: Doesn't it already? I don't use firewire, but when I plug my USB printer into my gentoo box, it detects it. Maybe I lucked out again, I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination....

      So, I agree with you, but I guess I don't feel like linux could be very far from success in these areas.... IMHO.

  • I think multimedia support and device drivers are at the top of the list. The UI's are pretty good. Distro installs are getting pretty good.

    -t
  • 'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.'

    So when Redhat moves linux out of the back office do they recommend we move Window in?

  • If you keep pushing Linux on the desktop... (Score:3, Funny)

    by tangent3 ( 449222 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:38AM (#7464185)
    ...wouldn't it fall off the desk?

  • How Good Can Linux Be, Really? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This isn't a troll, it's an honest question.

    I'm looking at switching to Linux because Windows SUCKS. But Linux can't really be very good; I mean, almost all of the Slashdot editors (Slashdot being owned, of course by "the sinister OSDN keiretsu") admit that they use Mac OS X. If OSDN themselves don't use it, why should I? Why should I go out of my way to use something that even these guys don't think is worth the trouble? Why help code/debug/improve/write docs for/ my own operating system when I can have s

  • Diversity i the desktop isn't for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pcause ( 209643 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:53AM (#7464347)
    What too many hard core Linux folks forget is that diversity and choice in the desktop isn't what most of the market wants. The vast majority of users see a computer as a tool and don't care about all the nuances of GNOME versus KDE. They want an integrated package with a few tweaking options and are happy to have a vendor pick a single stack and deliver it.

    Microsoft does this and has 90+% of the market. Apple tightly controls their stack, including tight hardware control, and while their share isn't growing, they've tuned to their users and hold their base. But most Linux folks are developers or hobbysists. Many care passionately about what are inconsequential differences between KDE and GNOME.

    Each technical point about everything is debated and the choice is usually no choice but another splinter project or variation. So much god work, but also a tremendous amount of wasted energy. MS and Apple are businesses. They look at alternatives and make choices and compromises to meet market needs. Linux is a hobby. The purpose os to tweak, customize and change, not to have the same Linux as everyone else.

    The Enterprise / back office stuff is different. There the IT staffs are customers. They do want to tweak and customize the stack. Even though most of the time they really don't need to, they have the skills and time and $$ to do this so that they get the kind of custom IT shop environment they want.

    These folks are not the home user / desktop user. They are geeks just like the folks who make Linux. They speak the same language and often care passionately about the same minor and irrelevant issues. And since this is where the $$ are for Linux (Red Hat's recent announcements confirm this)this is where the paid Linux folks will spend their energies. A different Linux is worth $$ here.

    Why can't people accept that Linux on the desktop is just like APple. There is a niche market, geeks/hobbyists, and they want Linux on their desktop. The rest of the world doesn't care. Windows is just fine for them.

  • The Register has a cheery article Asian first-timers prefer Linux to Windows [theregister.co.uk] worth reading.

    From the article:

    "First-time computer users are flocking to a government-subsidised programme to bring cheap PCs to the public. Although pirate copies of Windows and Office have a street price as low as $4, the information ministry's scheme of selling PCs loaded with Linux and OpenOffice for $250 is a runaway success. A million new PC owners will be using Linux within the next few months. ... Linux Insider report

    • First timers. That really is the key. Read a lot of the posts and what you will hear people complaining about is that Linux != Windows. They want or expect computers to work the way windows works. For some reason they are unable to accept that windows != computers. It is just one way of doing things. Seriously some even say that they want a C: drive on linux since this is the way it is supposed to be.

      They are unable to remember back to the time that they first encountered a windows/dos machine and were tot

  • attitude change in order (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zpok ( 604055 )
    IF - and that's a big if in the linux world - you're a "Linux desktop for the rest of us" fan, you're in for a real treat.

    You'll have the pleasure of handling with a lot of gripes and user requests that you suddenly have to take serious.

    The moment you say "Whip out Terminal" you'll have lost 90% of your user-base. Compare with W95 "Go to DOS" comments. Yeah, right, that's why users like GUI's, so that they can give commands.

    Furthermore, you'll have the pleasure of contemplating a shitheap of philosophica
  • I guess this is tangentially on-topic, here (my story submission got nixed, oh well).

    Sun is going to sell StarOffice through traditional retailers [yahoo.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Close