![Linux Business Linux Business](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linuxbusiness_64.png)
![Graphics Graphics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/graphics_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux 383
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.
Support and pre-installed (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
It was almost completely unusable - it contained
I have Mandrake and
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)
Distribution of Linux binaries would help things a lot. Before the advent of
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)
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)
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
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
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"?
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
Mandrake is an RPM distro so if you can't install something *becaue* it's in RPM, you may want to RTFM.
BZZZZZZZT! (Score:2)
In case you aren't trolling:
How to ha
Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Insightful)
_kernel_ that is compatible by syscalls.
(the size of module will be large, but who counts megabytes in game distributions now, anyway?)
Compile Install GUI? (Score:3, Insightful)
It might just be a small app where you drag&drop your tar.gz. The app then asks "Do you want me to install this package?" The beast could then run the "./configure && make && make install" stuff.
In case of trouble it would just fire up the console, so nothings lost, but a lot is won. I know it wouldn't work with any file but with quite a lot of the latest source-packages it would work fine and help
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for dependencies --- they're the right technical solution. OSS can't afford to reinvent the wheel for every little
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
Contrast that with my Win2K install. Go to best buy. Buy software. Come home, install,
Re:How long ago was this 'fixed'? (Score:2)
I'm running a RedHat 7.3 server as an email server. My box stays currnet buy using cron and up2date.
Updates needed, but a pain (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Way Off... (Score:3, Informative)
To upgrade Opera do:
emerge -u opera Voila...it is upgraded, and dependencies taken care of for you.
The initial build is a time consuming thing, if you go from source instead of the pre-built options that come with the LiveCD...but, once built...is a breeze to keep up todate or bleeding edge even.
Re:Way Off... (Score:4, Insightful)
I call meta-bullshit. Happens all the time on the non-NT line (and occasionally on the NT/2k/XP line).
WTF do you think the phrase "DLL hell" was invented to describe?
Re:Way Off... (Score:3)
I hear this all the time I just have never seen it personally. Maybe I've been lucky. If I've installed libwhatever manually I just emerge (or apt, or rpm, or whatever) with the relevent nodep option and it works fine.
Actually you probably have; the biggest part of "DLL hell" is that you n
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
Re:Way Off... (Score:2)
Re:Support and pre-installed (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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?
Sir, refrain from feeding the trolls (Score:2)
Re:Support and pre-installed (Score:2)
They acquire the Gnome Experts.
A few weeks later, they acquire the KDE experts.
That doesn't mean they are dropping KDE for Gnome or Gnome for KDE... it simply means they are going to invest in both and strengthen themselves in both areas.
Re:Support and pre-installed (Score:2)
Easier installation than what? Windows? Fine, except for Debian and Gentoo all the major distros are already easier to install than Windows. Next?
(Have you actually installed Windows lately? It's a TEXT MODE installation for Christ's sake! How can I expect my grandmother to deal with a text mode installation? Windows installation is only "easy" for the user in that somebody did it for them at the factory.)
Re:Support and pre-installed (Score:3, Insightful)
It really needs something first in order to get those apps. Package and Dependancy management. Get this, and the apps will start trickling in. Right now it is just too hard to develop an app and expect to be able to install it onto anyone's Linux system without providing massive tech. support.
Redhat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Redhat (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Redhat (Score:2)
Goodbye.
Re:Redhat (Score:2)
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
Re:Redhat (Score:2)
No, I think they abandoned the individual home user to concentrate on selling to business. Businesses use lots of desktop computers.
Home user != "the desktop" (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Someone hasn't done their research
Re:No, really, its not (Score:5, Insightful)
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
you're redefining "based on" (Score:2)
Re:you're redefining "based on" (Score:2)
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
Re:No, really, its not (Score:3, Funny)
Linux has the "look and feel" of
Re:No, really, its not (Score:2)
Goddamnit, this is another one of those (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait. Wrong article.
I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:2)
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
Re:I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That day is far, far off... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the grandparent's last paragraph is interresting. Combine the power of some of the "more geeky" distros with the easy of use of others. Might be a winner.
Re:That day is far, far off... (Score:2)
But they are one less player. And that is not a good thing for "Desktop Linux".
>They might say what they please, but imho players like IBM and Intel want linux to succeed, and more often than not, they get what they want.
They seem to have done more for the "Server Linux" than "Desktop Linux". What have they really contributed to Linux which would be "eye-candy" or "ease of use to a newbie computer user"?
Re:That day is far, far off... (Score:2)
Re:I am really looking forward to the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean exactly by "the average user"? Clearly the average user, as in the user who is the average of all users in every respect doesn't exist, and people even closely aproximating him are pretty rare.
Do you mean the median user? (That is to say, when 50% of the people can use it.) Or do you mean a higher percentile? Or is 100% necessary? (Including illiterate people?)
You cant say, it is erady, but only for the geeks desktops. That kinda defeats the purpose.
Why not? Why does it have to black and white? Why can't an OS be ready for some peoples desktops and not for others? If Linux has 2.6% of the market today, would going to 15% not be an improvement? Would those 15% be using an OS that wasn't "ready" simply because it was unsuitable for the other 85%?
Your thinking makes no sense to me. Linux is ready for the desktop, and has been for some time. It is not ready for everybody's desktop, but it is ready for more users today than it was two years ago, and will be ready for even more in another two years. I see no contradiction.
OEMs a must for linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OEMs a must for linux (Score:3, Informative)
Bleh! (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Copy paste? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:movie time (Score:2)
OT: Your sig (Score:2)
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
Re:movie time (Score:2)
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.
Re:movie time (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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
Re:Did i read this right?? (Score:2)
Jay (=
Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:2)
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
Re:Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:2)
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).
Re:Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. (Score:2)
Never "upgrade" to a new version of your OS. Always format and install the new version from scratch. Failure to do forfeits any rights you have to complain about bugs and complications.
Mac OS X Specific for Joe Sixpack:
Mac OS X is pre-installed. If you want to add new hardware, external or internal: RTFM, do as instructed, and it'll work. This is the same practice as with Windows.
Mac OS X Specific for Technical People:
When installing a new version of Mac OS X, take out any thir
A little market segmentation might help (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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.
Re:A little market segmentation might help (Score:2)
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.
Re:A little market segmentation might help (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A little market segmentation might help (Score:2)
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.
Re:A little market segmentation might help (Score:2)
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?
Re:A little market segmentation might help (Score:2)
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.... ;-)
Clarifications and Terminology (Score:2)
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
Small Office applications (Score:2)
But most such users are very conservative with their equipment and upgrades, and don't form an important market for (new) Windows sales, nor for migrations to Linux.
GNU/Linux needs nothing. (Score:2)
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)
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)
So, I agree with you, but I guess I don't feel like linux could be very far from success in these areas.... IMHO.
Re:What Linux needs for desktop use. (Score:2)
K3B. gToaster. Burn.app.
2) It needs A pre-configured link to download a p2p system like Kazaa so kids can download music if they want. (it's what the consumers want, lets face it.)
But do the parents want a $2000 settlement with the RIAA?
3) It needs plug-n-play. I heard rumors about mandrake having it, anyone tried it though? If I plug in my USB-pen, it better find it, and open it as
Personally... (Score:2)
-t
Moving out? (Score:2)
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)
How Good Can Linux Be, Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:How Good Can Linux Be, Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Actually, its a matter of "apt-get install " or "yum install " or "emerge foo". The package repositories don't have 100% coverage, but for the stuff your average office worker or home user needs, its all there. Going back to Windows installer "what, I have to download it myself???" is positively archaic.
Diversity i the desktop isn't for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
In related news ... (Score:2, Informative)
The Register has a cheery article Asian first-timers prefer Linux to Windows [theregister.co.uk] worth reading.
From the article:
Re:In related news ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
StarOffice at Best Buy, Circuilt City, etc. (Score:2)
Sun is going to sell StarOffice through traditional retailers [yahoo.com].
Re:This? (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when RedHat was one of the companies backing away from the desktop in favour of enterprise installations. In the coming chaotic times for the desktop, I expect that we'll see lots of mixed signals as companies change directions or move in multiple directions at the same time. (In the last chaotic times, look at Microsoft's sudden shift from OS/2 to Win 3.)
Re:Pushing won't work... (Score:2)
Damnit they said desktop not dining room tabletop.
Re:Pushing won't work... (Score:2)
Give it time. I'll stick my neck out and make a few predictions on what to expect in the next two to three years. First Novel will want a desktop that is corporate friendly, i.e. looks neat and looks good. One of the current problems with say KDE is that it looks ugly, icons that are all different colours and sizes. It takes money to achieve this, good graphics will cost a few million dollars. That sort of money has previously been a big ask for Linux distributors, and if they've had the cash they've had ot
Who said anything about home users? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be aiming more for the enterprise and business desktop. Better defined hardware configuration issues, productivity tools for Linux are already out there and it could be bundled with back-end services in a very attractive end-to-end package, both in terms of price and function.
This is really an exciting time in Linux development. It's fun to watch it coming togeth
Re:IBM PPC970 (Score:2)
As you wish [ibm.com]
Product features
* Two 1.6 GHz PowerPC 970 processors with full-speed 512 KB ECC L2 cache
(snip)
The following network operating systems have been tested for compatibility with the JS20 blade:
* SuSE Linux Enterprise Service 8 (Service Pack 3)
* Turbo Linux Enterprise Service 8 (Service Pack 3)
Under 3K..... course this is a real machine rather than a reference board. (grin)
Re:IBM PPC970 (Score:2)
Like Keyboard and mouse support, support for more than two 40 gig drives, and the possibility of putting this thing in a case that doesn't need an 1,800 watt power supply. With these specs I'll bet it's more expensive than a Power Mac G5.
Re:IBM PPC970 (Score:2)
My experiences w/ Yellow Dog have all been very satisfactory, and I'm looking forward to a G5-based laptop in the future.
Re:This happens year after year (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that Windows will automatically die and Linux takes over the desktop. In means that you get a period where companies, developers and users all try to second-guess each oth
Re:They're wrong (Score:2)
Windows and
Re:Red Hat's doublespeak (Score:2)