Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[SunnyRabbiera]

Linux is ready for the desktop, its just people demand that it would work instantly with thier favorite hardware and software right away.
Linux is not meant to be a replacement for Windows, it is an alternative windows.
If a hardware or software wont work in linux there are good resaons for it:
1: most hardware and software companies dont know about linux, or how to code for it.
2: Most hardware and software companies are contracted by microsoft so thier hardware would only work for Microsoft.
3: Most companies dont even see Linux as a viable OS, mainly because it is open and they dont want thier precious money to go away.
Most of your faults are caused by the companies that make that mouse, Printer, DVD player, wireless card, internet router or whatever and not linux.
Linux has come a long way without much support by big companies, and you should not place your blames on linux but on those companies you buy from...
Linux isnt the issue, big companies are.

[chickengirl]

These people are regarding Linux in a different way.

I find the attitude to say 'Linux is not Windows. Change your habits or go dying' rather rude and it does not fit to a community which wants people to change their main operating system.

The "Linux is not Windows" article isn't saying "you're not l33t enough for Linux, so **** off." It's saying "Linux fundamentally is not Windows, so if you come to Linux expecting Windows, you will be disappointed. This is what you can expect instead."

It's not elitist, it's just a statement of fact.

[dalani]

Then the question obviously becomes "Who is Linux intended for?" as opposed to "Is linux ready for the desktop?" By your statement here, if what you say is ultimately true (and I know from using several distros that it most certainly is), then Linux will never be an operating system for those who can only stand point and click.

Of course, I'm not saying this is right either. I think Linux should be just as equally used as Windows or Mac or any other operating system in the mix, but until the question 'Who is Linux intended for?' becomes solved definitely, then Linux will continue growing without an ultimatum on who it's ultimately growing for.

Not everyone has time to wade through man pages and loads of syntax to solve something when they have things to do.to do!!! So the question of who is Linux intended for is moot.

The question should be "what do users want to do with their computers?"

EDIT: Just so this not be construed as a pointless rant, here is my two cents worth of constructive advice:

Someone with a few hours to spare (maybe months) could create a cross referenced GUI access to man pages (BEagle with some code) such a user need only type in the problem and Beagle thing could display the required commands with syntax examples. Contrary to popular belief a CLI is not the problem (anyone can type), its the syntax and total lack of concrete examples that keep most new users from trouble shooting the probelm themselves. Context help tools are not new but it might be what Linux is missing;

[aysiu]

Not everyone has time to wade through man pages and loads of syntax to solve something when they have things to do.to do!!! So the question of who is Linux intended for is moot.

The question should be "what do users want to do with their computers?"

In my experience, my Windows-using friends and co-workers spend more time being frustrated and trying in vain to find the answers to their problems than I do when using Ubuntu.

I experience this every day at work--people having things "mysteriously" go wrong because they can't be bothered to learn how to use their Windows computers efficiently and effectively.

Time? I don't see how I have any more time than anyone else. We all have twenty-four hours in a day, and I spend the same hours working that all my Windows-using co-workers do. In fact, if anything, I see Windows users (at least the non-"power users") around me wasting lots of time because they don't bother to learn keyboard shortcuts or tricks to automate processes they take hours to do.

If those people "don't have time to waste" reading man pages (by the way, I don't read man pages, but I seem just fine using Ubuntu), why do they waste time comparing Excel sheets by hand? Why do they waste time clicking on a file in the open dialogue and then clicking on the Open button instead of just double-clicking the file to open it? Why do they make manual edits to documents instead of using Find/Replace or the "Compare and merge documents" feature in Word?

Most users who don't put forth the effort to learn how to use a Linux distro also put forth very little effort to learn how to use Windows. Time is not of the essence to these people--minimal learning with maximum labor is.

P.S. Can you explain what man page you have to read in order to use Linux on the desktop? Thanks.

[dalani]

The phenomena here is that there are experienced users including windows 'power users' who are not making the complete switch to Linux for various reasons most of which revolve around the idea that linusx is not ready for the desktop.

PERSONALY i WOULD HESITATE TO RECOMMEND LINUX because if grandmawants to hook a webcam (for example), there is possibly a few hours of forum time toget it working. With windows( for reasons some else cited) it's just plug and play..

Now if the beagle help thing existed , I know I just need to type in the problem (webcam) and know what I need to look for. SOrt of a formailzed wiki with links. Ubuntu should build that into the distro Call it the Ubuntu KnowledgeBase

[emarkay]

I, humbled, reappear with my palms out and my tail between my legs.

I THOUGHT, that Ubuntu was a Windows replacement. I THOUGHT that it was RFTW. I THOUGHT that I could take a decade plus of GUI and a few years of command line experience and adapt to Unix in a flash.

I was wrong.

I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

Sure, put up all the "This is illegal" and "Do not use this in the USA" and all that other crap, and add the Automatix and Easy-Whatever repositories, and then you will have some fey representation of a Windows replacement OS that can be used for both the hobbyists and the Capatalists.

Isn't that the point? Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole Apple vs. PC thing is so last century.

Aren't we ALL trying to accomplish the same thing now? I close my rant with the following question:

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

MRK

PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

[pony-tail]

Unfortunately I would not be of much assistance to you as I am Unix trained and not that familiar with windows - but what I can say is that my 10 year old grandaughter has no issues installing Ubuntu (or Win2k) on her 2.4gig P4 and making the necessary configuration changes including installing XGL and Beryl thanks primarily to a couple of pretty good how-tos on this forum . She installs all of her own software and generally maintains the machine so how hard can it be the biggest thing I see is unlearning the habits of sometimes years of windows use Linux no matter what Disto is NOT windows and due to software patents etc never will be ! But that does not make Linux bad - just different. I am trained on AIX and even that is a vastly different animal.

[aysiu]

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

The answer? Read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/linuxdesktopmyth

[mrgnash]

Unfortunately I would not be of much assistance to you as I am Unix trained and not that familiar with windows - but what I can say is that my 10 year old grandaughter has no issues installing Ubuntu (or Win2k) on her 2.4gig P4 and making the necessary configuration changes including installing XGL and Beryl thanks primarily to a couple of pretty good how-tos on this forum . She installs all of her own software and generally maintains the machine so how hard can it be the biggest thing I see is unlearning the habits of sometimes years of windows use Linux no matter what Disto is NOT windows and due to software patents etc never will be ! But that does not make Linux bad - just different. I am trained on AIX and even that is a vastly different animal.

Bravo. That's exactly right... Linux is not inherently harder than Windows (in fact, I think it's much easier in a lot of ways) it's just that the learning curve in any situation is always going to be steeper when previous operating methods/habits/expectations interfere.

[chickengirl]

I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

You may be looking for ReactOS.

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

Ubuntu shouldn't become a Windows replacement for anybody. It should be the best open source OS it can be, and if more people use it as a result, so much the better. But those people should be coming to Linux because they want to use Linux, not because they want a free Windows clone.

PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

I hope you don't think anyone is telling you to STFU and not ask questions. If you wait until you're totally overwhelmed to ask for help, you'll come here all "Linux sucks!! It's all BROKEN and I'm going back to WINDOWS!!!!" And that doesn't help anybody.