Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[weatherman]

most free software coders do it for fun, so they really don't have to listen to any customers but just work on what they want. If there's a company employing them you should complain about the company.
Usually though if there's enough users requesting a certain feature someone with enough knowledge will start working on it (which as far as my understanding goes is how free software works).

[ago]

I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.

As explained that is not so much of an issue. If there are some aspects worth adding, someone will add them, if nobody will do so, it is probably because those aspects are not that worth.

In my mind there are 2 advantages that closed/commercial solutions have over FOSS ones.

1) It is easy to "standardize", on several levels. But how much that is beneficial in the long term is uncertain. In the FOSS world, when people diverge and go for different routes and then you need to make them converge (see the portland project for instance), the standardization process will create very interesting results, something you loose when you standardize since day 1. Moreover often commercial companies try to standardize on closed protocols/formats in order to lock-in the users. Not to mention the "choice is good" sermons. Never the less it is undeniable that "standardization" simplifies things quite a bit.

2) The other advantage, regards the chicken and egg problem; in some FOSS niches you need a certain critical mass without which few people cooperate, the product stagnates, few people cooperate, the product stagnates.... In a commercial setting you can focus lots of resources on a niche product and make it happen.

[ZylGadis]

As a first constructive criticism, it is high time someone created an actually intelligent packaging system. Heck, it might even be me, if I find the time.

Imagine not having to install a new distribution every 6 months or whatever the release cycle is. Imagine updates to your installed programs just happening, because you have told them to, and you don't want to be bothered with all the details. Imagine obsolete software being automagically removed from your machine without damaging anything else. It should all be possible by now.

Each software project would supply something like a repository, where regular updates would happen, etc (and I mean something more than CVS - rather, something like a ready-to-install point version in the format required with all dependencies or pointers to repositories containing them). Then, if you are interested in that particular program, you just add the repository in your sources file, install the program once and forget about it and any updates.

There would even be no need for distributions as they exist. They would turn into large repositories adhering to such and so principles / personal choices of the creator.

This is not something that can happen in a proprietary world, of course. But we are free.

On a side note,

The idea that "quality" is somehow even remotely related to the mass adoption of software is misguided, and I have posted at length on it elsewhere.

Brunellus, can you please point me to that "elsewhere?" This is something I have often thought about, and I'd be glad to read another's opinion.

[codypumper]

I'd say, to sum it up, go open source but keep open minded.

[zcal]

This could lead to some major problems. If you think that Ubuntu is almost perfect, then why and would you want to improve it? If improvements slow down, than their is no way that Ubuntu will become a better operating system than it's competitors.

I'm not sure where you got this idea. If Ubuntu were perfect, I wouldn't be receiving software updates every day. Development ought never to slow down as long as there's something else to catch up to. Linux has been steadily playing catchup to Mac OS X for years now. It's WIndows that has been trailing behind. Microsoft's only just now adding certain features to its flagship with Vista that Mac OS X, and even Linux, have been supporting for nearly 5 years.

The only danger of Ubuntu, or any Linux distro for that matter, slowing down or stopping development because the OS is already "perfect" is Linux taking Windows' crown away. And let's be realistic...this certainly isn't happening any time soon.

[Shay Stephens]

I think the problem here is in defining the words used. Much as people get confused when the word free is used and they latch on to the "free as in beer" meaning only. When people say that free software is better than proprietary, they are not necessarily talking about it being perfect, they are simple saying that free (as in freedom) software is "better" because of all the benefits it offers over non-free software.

People just coming on board may confuse the meaning of "better" to mean "perfect" or currently working with fewer bugs than the non-free version. But that is not the correct meaning of the word "better". What is meant is that over time, the free software will be more of a benefit for the users because it is more customizable, does not take freedoms away, does not deactivate itself, etc, etc. This is a longer term view of software than many are used to, so it is easy to see how many can be confused by the terminology.

Free software is better than non-free software, but in the short term, it may be buggier, not have as many features, and/or be uglier. But with each passing update, these things get better, while the freedom to use and alter the software remains the same. That can't always be said of non-free software (*cough* vista *cough*). Better does not mean perfect, but it's the freedom that makes it better.

[aysiu]

It's nice to think Ubuntu is near flawless.... If you think that Ubuntu is almost perfect, then why and would you want to improve it?

You're operating based on a faulty premise. No one thinks Ubuntu is near-flawless, least of all the developers. They are not resting on their laurels. They are working constantly to improve Ubuntu and have better versions every six months.

If you're being sincere (and not just posting flamebait), back it up. Show me at least two posts in the Ubuntu Forums or one post in the developers' mailing list where people say Ubuntu is perfect and cannot stand any improvement. Show me people saying we can stop development on Ubuntu. If you can't post any proof of this, you've created about the worst straw man I've ever seen.

This will likely end up in the "not ready for the desktop" thread.

How right you are.

[Brunellus]

I dealt with why software is adopted (from a rough economic perspective) in a post on my blog. The short form: the dominant OS is NOT the OS that is "most ready for the desktop" by any measure. A related point (and I'm not sure I develop it fully there) is that individual users don't actually choose their operating systems.

Another excellent essay on the subject is Aysiu's The Linux Desktop Myth.

As far as "buried" and "proof of denial," let me repeat: if you want improved software, put up or shut up. File your reports and requests in the proper venues, express your support morally and monetarily, or go find software that suits your needs better (giving your time/money/attention) to the competition. Ubuntu is not perfect. The Linux kernel is not perfect. Free application software is not perfect. But you know what? It's improving. It's improving in a transparent, verifiable, way that can be tested against its own hype by any user wishing to do so.

I am actually very annoyed when I have to use windows. Why did I have to reboot a running system just to install a printer driver? Why can't I have forward slashes and not backslashes as directory separators in the shell? But I don't wade onto Windows support forums and trash their OS needlessly.

I leave that sort of misbehavior to Apple users.

[aysiu]

if you want improved software, put up or shut up. File your reports and requests in the proper venues, express your support morally and monetarily, or go find software that suits your needs better (giving your time/money/attention) to the competition.

In other words, What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference.

[wiggleroom]

I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.

Any particular aspects you're thinking of?