PDA

View Full Version : Linux Still Doesn't Make it On Desktop



freshanointing
October 2nd, 2007, 11:07 AM
Hello guys, it has come to my attention while reading my RSS feed at PCWorld this article:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/137903/linux_still_doesnt_make_it_on_desktop.html

Please I would like to read your reactions. Thanks...

scotty32
October 2nd, 2007, 11:20 AM
what does iTunes have to do with business desktop?

and is it REALLY a reason not to use linux?

ddrichardson
October 2nd, 2007, 12:36 PM
There are a number of things I could take issue with but this stands out:
And cost is the hidden factor. While much is made of Linux's being free, the truth is that software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs.
Concidering that the this is a Business Centre article, although the article talks to some degree of both business and home, this statement is absolute rubbish. Anyone who has worked in corporate IT will tell you that licensing software from Microsoft is a major cost.

Hardware, excluding replacement due to failure, is not typically replaced yearly unlike a lot of licensed software.

As for home use, software cost is a factor and his numbers do not add up: consider an OEM PC with pre-installed Windows Vista, here's one from PC World (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/store/pcw_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1947782199.119132416 8@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccddaddmegdhgdgcflgceggdhhmdfhk.0&page=Product&sku=921050&tabIndex=1) - £311.99. Now factor in a copy of Microsoft Office at £84.99 (Home and Student (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/539219)), Anti Virus subscription (Norton IS (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/074382) at £24.99) and a graphics package (Paintshop Pro (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/504380)) at £54.97. That comes to a total of £164.95 or in other words, 52.87%.

This factor of 10% would need to be aimed at a PC costing around £1650 which is well above what the "average needs" desktop user spends and certainly higher than neccesary for a client at work.

the.dark.lord
October 2nd, 2007, 01:27 PM
That article makes me wonder how he ever became an IT reporter...

And the lack of a substandard bloated crap like iTunes is actually a positive point for linux!

00arthuryu
October 28th, 2007, 02:09 PM
agreed
this is the most BS i've ever ever read
itunes lol

juxtaposed
October 28th, 2007, 02:31 PM
People act like windows is some holy grail of operating systems and being just like it is good.


And cost is the hidden factor. While much is made of Linux's being free, the truth is that software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs.

You're saving 10% here. Would you rather save less?


Sorry, consumers, but there's no version of iTunes for Linux.

People actually use iTunes? Honestly? Anything Linux has can beat it outright. The audio player that linux can't beat is foobar2000.


For now and the foreseeable future, it's going to remain a Microsoft world. Linux still isn't the answer.

Depends on what your question is.

"WHAT OS DO I RUN TO USE ALL MY MICROSOFT SOFTWARE?". Windows, obviously.

PmDematagoda
October 28th, 2007, 02:37 PM
If iTunes is the issue here, then he's stupid, hasn't he heard of a little gizmo called Wine? I personally managed to run the latest version of iTunes on my Ubuntu 7.10 and even better, it was the 64 bit version.

saulgoode
October 28th, 2007, 02:56 PM
About the author... (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/15/microsoft-hires-michael-gartenberg-as-new-evangelist/)

karellen
October 28th, 2007, 03:10 PM
About the author... (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/15/microsoft-hires-michael-gartenberg-as-new-evangelist/)
so everything becomes so obvious now...

PmDematagoda
October 28th, 2007, 03:13 PM
Considering the stuff in the article, here are my answers:-


significant features would be missing because of a lack of driver support.

Linux has very good hardware support, if he had a look at Vista, then he would know that even that has it's fair share of incompatible hardware. And concerning hardware, this is where Linux overpowers MS. Now one day, one of my friends came up to me with an external HDD that was corrupted. He told me that Windows doesn't read the disc at all and only told him that it was unrecognisable. I then decided to give it a try with Linux and guess what, the drive was detected completely with no errors, and after a format using Linux, it was fixed and started working with Windows as well:).


And cost is the hidden factor. While much is made of Linux's being free, the truth is that software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs.

I guess he hasn't seen the price of Vista. If someone bought a 2000$ laptop/desktop. Then if that person bought Vista(about 200$), MS Office(150$), That alone would be 17.5% the price of the laptop with the software being basic.


Finally, there's the lack of critical application support. Most notable for businesses is the lack of support for Microsoft Office.

What on earth?? Linux has a lot of applications, if anyone came over to Linux and had a look at the software then they would be amazed as they can find alternative software/Linux versions of their software that can fit their needs perfectly, and they are very usually free:).


I believe from what I've seen in the article, that the reporter has not used Linux at all, let alone a popular distro and is basing his facts on what he has heard from the Windows community. The fact that Linux is not ready for desktops is utterly ridiculous since Ubuntu is one the most user-friendly distros I have seen and the only distro I think I will ever need.:lolflag:

PmDematagoda
October 28th, 2007, 03:15 PM
About the author... (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/15/microsoft-hires-michael-gartenberg-as-new-evangelist/)

So that's what the Linux bashing is all about.

Wiebelhaus
October 28th, 2007, 03:20 PM
Something to remember is that it's been said by their former 17 year chief editor that quit over a dispute with Apple computers and the man who owns the company that publishes that rag, that they must submit their articles to their advertisers before publishing them , apple refused to pay for advertising if they published an article defacing something about Apple products so the guy stuck by his guns and quit.





"Linux" pays no advertising fees to that rag.


Also.....


Who in the "know" give a crap about Itunes? lol , comical.

Wiebelhaus
October 28th, 2007, 03:22 PM
So that's what the Linux bashing is all about.

Special interest , Spineless yes man.

Caffeine_Junky
October 28th, 2007, 03:25 PM
.....And the lack of a substandard bloated crap like iTunes is actually a positive point for linux!

Amen to that!

mhenry35
October 28th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Well, he's obviously a paid lackey, so this isn't an informative, unbiased article in the first place, even though it's being sold as one. This article will (sadly) probably work for the average helpless windows user who can't handle typing anything in a command line.

I tried Vista and it was so bad I couldn't stand it. I'm much happier on Ubuntu Studio with no virus warnings, no malware, and much faster file copy operations. When I backed up my PC to my USB2.0 external HD, it took Windows about 1:15 minutes or so to copy several gigs of files (at least 20 gig of music). After I had originally installed Fiesty, it took about 45 minutes for Linux to handle the same operation.

The biggest problem with Micro$oft is that they continually try to control what is on your PC. They call an update to Media Player 'security' when what it really does is add Digital Rights Management. They do their best to force you to allow automatic updates, but I've had enough experience with their updates crashing otherwise stable systems, so it's always on the top of my list to remove any type of automatic updates. Micro$oft cannot be trusted to apply updates you NEED, they apply updates THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE.

Sorry, I guess I'm on a rant - I can't imagine loading a windows OS again.

ddrichardson
October 28th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I can't believe this thread has been resurrected after 3 weeks ;-)

Unreal223linux
October 29th, 2007, 05:46 AM
Considering the millions of people who have ipods you must admit that a lack of first party software for the player is a big draw back. I dont even have/like ipods and I'll say that much.

He does make a good point about office though. Without a native version of MS office linux's business usage is going to remain about where its at now. Its just been too many years that MS has dominated the business market with their software for people to just drop it and move to something else. They need their databases that they have been using for the last 10 years to still work, ect.

kulturloseramerikaner
October 29th, 2007, 10:16 AM
About the author... (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/15/microsoft-hires-michael-gartenberg-as-new-evangelist/)
That guy is a bought-and-paid for tool!

ddrichardson
October 29th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Considering the millions of people who have ipods you must admit that a lack of first party software for the player is a big draw back.I swore I wasn't going to pursue this thread, but who's fault is it?

Apple seem determined to retain control of all aspects of the iPod from hardware to software. It intrigues me that people can buy a product from a company that is intent on controlling what you can do with what you buy then insist that the open source community should support it!

Nano Geek
October 29th, 2007, 02:53 PM
Something to remember is that it's been said by their former 17 year chief editor that quit over a dispute with Apple computers and the man who owns the company that publishes that rag, that they must submit their articles to their advertisers before publishing them , apple refused to pay for advertising if they published an article defacing something about Apple products so the guy stuck by his guns and quit.Actually, if you're refering to Harry McCracken, he is actually still around. They were able to work things out and that article about Apple was published.
In fact, here's another one of his that just came out yesterday about what he doesn't like about OSX 10.5.

21 Quibbles I Have With Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139023-c,macos/article.html)

-grubby
October 29th, 2007, 03:13 PM
this is the third time I've heard that Linux is not ready for the desktop while they mention itunes as a reason!

undine
October 29th, 2007, 03:33 PM
I honestly got a good laugh out of this article. The best part is when he laments over the lack of iTunes for Linux. He might as well have bewailed the lack of viruses too.

ddrichardson
October 29th, 2007, 04:46 PM
iTunes, hmmm.

The thing that gets me is that two of the most oft stated reasons Linux is not ready for the desktop (application availability and gaming) are also true to a fair degree with Apple - yet no one is suggesting that Macs aren't ready for the desktop.

Unreal223linux
October 29th, 2007, 06:35 PM
It doesn't matter if its linuxses "fault" or not that something isn't available/not working. All people care is that they cant do what they need to do on the OS where they could before on what they were using.

MS Office isn't on linux but thats not linuxes fault.
First party Ipod support isn't on linux but thats not their fault.
Hardware drivers are lacking for linux and thats not linuxes fault.
Professional programs like dreamweaver, final cut, photoshop, ect aren't linux but thats not their fault.

The thing is that it is still a drawback on the OS not to have those things. Why would people change if they need the above things? Not all people do but a lot do and thats why windows/mac dominate. The writer in this article didn't say "Those stupid ubuntu devs didn't include itunes" he just merely stated that it isn't available and that alone could keep what millions away fromt he OS?

As far as mac having the same issues as linux, well I dont agree. Mac hardware always works(duh why shouldn't it), it has all the needed programs, and its dead easy to use(no command line necessary unlike linux). Its a completely different animal.

ddrichardson
October 29th, 2007, 07:03 PM
As far as mac having the same issues as linux, well I dont agree. Mac hardware always works(duh why shouldn't it), it has all the needed programs, and its dead easy to use(no command line necessary unlike linux). Its a completely different animal.I didn;t say Macs had the same issues, I said that two of the major critiscisms levelled at Linux are also true to a greater or lesser degree with Macs - gaming and application availability.

Calash
October 29th, 2007, 08:23 PM
How can you use iTunes as an argument when it is not a native Windows App?

Unreal223linux
October 30th, 2007, 12:56 AM
How can you use iTunes as an argument when it is not a native Windows App?

It doesn't matter where the program started, there is a version supported from the author for windows so whats the difference?

RebounD11
October 30th, 2007, 01:09 AM
There are Linux fanatics and there are Windows fanatics, the author is in the second group. What I can say in defense of Linux is that any problem in Linux can be solved by googling it - at least any problem I ran into so far (and they weren't few).

As for the article, I think I can write a better Pro-Windows/Anti-Linux article if I didn't want to, and I am a VERY poor writer (I think a little faster than I can speak/write and what comes out is understandable only by me - but I'm working on that :D).

Anyway, Linux is ready for the Desktop, all that's missing is WILL (and I'm not talking about Will Smith) because where there's a will there's a way, and the way is here already.

p_quarles
October 30th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Professional programs like dreamweaver
While I suppose that Dreamweaver is "professional" in the sense that it is used by people who get paid for their time, the kind of code it produces is really very far from being professional. WYSIWYG web design just produces bloat and browser wars. Aside from that, there are plenty of project management tools for *nix that rival or exceed Dreamweaver.

osxcapades
October 30th, 2007, 01:30 AM
People here are putting way too much thought into whether or not "Linux is ready for the desktop". That phrase, in fact, does not mean anything at all, because no precise definition of 'ready' exists in this context.

If we define an operating system to be "ready for the desktop" if and only if it can run iTunes natively, then Windows and Mac OS X is "ready for the desktop", and Linux is not.

If we define an operating system to be "ready for the desktop" if and only if there exists some open source component of the operating system's window system, then Windows and OS X are not "ready for the desktop" (AFAIK) and Linux is.

In most cases, people will disagree with your definition anyway, putting you back at square one. The best definition of an operating system "ready for the desktop" that I can think of is


An operating system x is ready for the desktop if and only if y% or more of desktop operating system users think x is ready for the desktop. [Let y be some number between 50 and 100.]

and proving that this definition is true is next to impossible (the survey would have to be enormous, and then we'd need to deal with desktop operating system users who are not familiar with operating system x).

It's pointless. The only thing that saying "Linux is not ready for the desktop" without a definition of 'ready' will do is encourage a flamewar (quite literally) about nothing.

inversekinetix
October 30th, 2007, 01:45 AM
itunes should be dragged into the street and shot, i hate that piece of turdware, I had the misfortune of installing it for my wife's ipod (the only apple product in my house) it runs three background processes at startup consuming a total of 40MB, why? its a piece of junk with a built in STORE! suffice to say it is long since gone.

Anyways, I think that as it is, ubuntu is ready for the desktop but there are 3 things that are holding it back

1. Unfamiliarity, people don't like what they don't know and linux has a big learning curve, most people don't want to learn, they want to use.

2. Terminal, console, whatever you want to call it. Tell an unitiated person to ~sudo apt-get blah blah blah and they run for the nearest gui and hug it.

3. Gaming and app support.

In terms of usability out of the box it does what most people want to do on a computer, but i never see that being promoted, i see lots of cool (to me ) stuff, wow look at compiz, kiba dock with akamaru is wild, modified code etc etc, why arent normal people shown doing normal stuff on it? isn't that what the aim of this is? an easily usable alternative to windows that everyone can use for free?

As for gaming and app support, why on earth would someone use an OS that wont run all the software they bought for anyother os? yes theres tonnes of open source equivalents but i dont think people want to change every app theyre using all at once, maybe one at a time i dont know, but everything at once is too much. Now if wine was fully intergrated (and auto conf'd) into the ubuntu install (like compiz now is) it would make changing over so much easier, people could still use their old apps and try out new ones in safety.

I love ubuntu now i have it working properly, my windows is still faster for most things but i rarely boot it anymore, as i get more and more familiar with linux I guess windows will fall by the wayside (i cant go back having used compiz), I just wish it was less of a headache to get it doing the things i want it to. On the bright side, there is no itunes for it;.,

ddrichardson
October 30th, 2007, 02:30 PM
2. Terminal, console, whatever you want to call it. Tell an unitiated person to ~sudo apt-get blah blah blah and they run for the nearest gui and hug it.I have supported hundreds of users and they have never baulked at using the terminal. It is not going to go away - it's an integral part of the operating system. If anyone can suggest an occasion where it is necessary to use terminal commands, when the system is functioning without fault, I'm open to correction, apt-get has synaptic for your example. It may be necessary when there is a problem trying to configure a driver, but if that were to happen in Windows (which it does - I've experienced it lately with several TV cards), then you're out of luck until the vendor writes a driver.

If anyone has a good idea as to how to develop a fully cohesive GUI wrapper for everything that can be typed in seconds to a terminal in a usable interface (consider how many commands we are talking about here) then lets do it but its a hell of an order.

The problem with all this "desktop ready" nonsense is that what people really mean is "works like windows" - seriously is anyone debating if Macs are desktop ready? of course not. Its a completely meaningless metric.

Ubuntu is Linux made easy - it is still Linux, we're talking about tools here people not lifestyles. I use a PS2 to play games because it works and it works well. I use a Windows box out of necessity with work and Linux for everything else. These are just tools to solve a problem and not all problems have the same solution.

If iTunes is so incredibly important to you and is not available in Linux then why would you consider moving OS?

Nekiruhs
October 30th, 2007, 02:42 PM
All I can say to that article is:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128346821708593750yourproblemsar1.jpg

lancest
October 30th, 2007, 03:05 PM
I do a lot of very productive things in Ubuntu. Much more so than I ever did in Windows. I never need the command line for any Ubuntu office tasks though. However when I want the shell- it's there waiting. Can you create multiple directories, move files, delete everything in one quick swoop WITH A MOUSE? No way. CLI rules!

inversekinetix
October 31st, 2007, 12:53 AM
I have supported hundreds of users and they have never baulked at using the terminal. It is not going to go away - it's an integral part of the operating system. If anyone can suggest an occasion where it is necessary to use terminal commands, when the system is functioning without fault, I'm open to correction, apt-get has synaptic for your example. It may be necessary when there is a problem trying to configure a driver, but if that were to happen in Windows (which it does - I've experienced it lately with several TV cards), then you're out of luck until the vendor writes a driver.


It's great that you help people, but please notice that I put unitiated people and unfamiliarity, I didn't say nor suggest for one second that there is anything wrong with using terminal, don't forget there are still people who don't know what 'reboot' means, not everyone is familiar with computing nor its methods a gui is more easily comprehended for that kind of person, unless linux isn't designed for that kind of person's desktop.

BTW nice jab at windows, a little exaggerated but nice. I think that if you are helping 100s of satisfied users with terminal commands you would think to research compatability issues with TV card drivers before you acquired several borked ones. Them not working with your system is nobody's fault but your own.



If anyone has a good idea as to how to develop a fully cohesive GUI wrapper for everything that can be typed in seconds to a terminal in a usable interface (consider how many commands we are talking about here) then lets do it but its a hell of an order.


my mouse has 7 buttons, how do I get them all to perform the functions i want?


The problem with all this "desktop ready" nonsense is that what people really mean is "works like windows" - seriously is anyone debating if Macs are desktop ready? of course not. Its a completely meaningless metric.


no my friend, that is what you think people really mean, don't be so presumptious as to tell people what they mean.


Ubuntu is Linux made easy - it is still Linux, we're talking about tools here people not lifestyles. I use a PS2 to play games because it works and it works well. I use a Windows box out of necessity with work and Linux for everything else. These are just tools to solve a problem and not all problems have the same solution.


well duh, isn't that what desktops do.



If iTunes is so incredibly important to you and is not available in Linux then why would you consider moving OS?


unless 'taken in to the street and shot' is a compliment where you come from I can't fathom what you mean by this.


Overall I really like how you took one tiny part of my post and made some rant from it, i think about 80% of my post was saying that ubuntu is great, didn't i say IT IS READY for the desktop? Why did you have to throw in windows bashes? You don't agree with me about the other points I made? or did you not read them and rush in as soon as you read point 2?

Whatever I've used windows for 9 years and know it inside out, Ive been using ubuntu for 5 days now,
Ive learnt so much by doing so, I don't really see a benefit of one over the other, my windows works faster than ubuntu because I know it well and have it set up properly, my ubuntu will probably catch up when I know how to configure it properly. They both do the same things, namely what i tell them to do. Ubuntu is a little more exciting because its new to me and compiz is flashy, neither improves my productivity. They boot in about the same time, if i wasn't wanting to try something new there would be no need for me to change.
The thing I really hate about ubuntu is trying to get help, yeah there are people who are willing to help with simple explanations, but I get an awful lot of RTFMs and still haven't gotten anyone to answer this simple question.

How do enable the searchability of my root directory in the thunar? its locked and says I dont have permission, google only tells me to log in a root to be able to do it, or do it through terminal, i dont want to do that, i want to use the search function in the browser.

lancest
October 31st, 2007, 10:45 AM
The problem with all this "desktop ready" nonsense is that what people really mean is "works like windows" - seriously is anyone debating if Macs are desktop ready? of course not. Its a completely meaningless metric.

1. Microsoft made the rules and really the PC market and Linux is following it as a replacement

2. MS has enormous control over the minds of many pc users about EXACTLY how a desktop should look and act.

So really most people have no experience with any other OS and therefore define computing as Windows style only!

Of course they think "desktop ready" means WORKS LIKE WINDOWS!

This is why it's difficult to get users to try Linux sometimes because they have a Windows mindset and habits that die hard.

It made Bill very rich.

ddrichardson
October 31st, 2007, 02:07 PM
BTW nice jab at windows, a little exaggerated but nice. I think that if you are helping 100s of satisfied users with terminal commands you would think to research compatability issues with TV card drivers before you acquired several borked ones. Them not working with your system is nobody's fault but your own.Its not a jab at Windows, I work with both but thanks for the insult I'll add it to the list of things I could care less about. As for the borking - its not mine its Vista and the manufacturers - many of whom are not providing BDA (Media Centre) compliant drivers. Perhaps you would do some research before spouting a half baked insult.


no my friend, that is what you think people really mean, don't be so presumptious as to tell people what they mean.And perhaps you could not be so patronising?


Overall I really like how you took one tiny part of my post and made some rant from it, i think about 80% of my post was saying that ubuntu is great, didn't i say IT IS READY for the desktop? Why did you have to throw in windows bashes? You don't agree with me about the other points I made? or did you not read them and rush in as soon as you read point 2?No I read the whole thing - I just had a problem with one point. In any case the rest of the post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at a consistantly levelled and inaccurate metric.

thelugnut
October 31st, 2007, 02:47 PM
Oh wow ! That is so biased !

I purchased my system just a few months ago, and I have a Seimens modem/router, web cam, multiple card reader, HP printer all-in-one, wireless English/Hebrew keyboard, wireless mouse, Logitech USB controller, etc.

All of these items run perfectly with my main operating system Ubuntu Feisty 7.04. I have to say I am a really new to the Linux world, but obtaining and running this op system was a lot cheaper and a lot easier than installing MS Windows XP and guess what? NO VALIDATION bull crap.

Just another Microsoft cheap attempt at scaring people away from Linux. Maybe its because Billy Gates has fallen from the ranks of being the richest man in the world.:lolflag:

inversekinetix
November 1st, 2007, 04:59 AM
Its not a jab at Windows, I work with both but thanks for the insult I'll add it to the list of things I could care less about. As for the borking - its not mine its Vista and the manufacturers - many of whom are not providing BDA (Media Centre) compliant drivers. Perhaps you would do some research before spouting a half baked insult.

Firstly, why on earth would you use vista? secondly, exactly who's fault is it that you didn't check to see if the vendor of your hardware supplies BDA compliant drivers? would you blame a car if wheels you randomly bought didn't fit?


And perhaps you could not be so patronising?


Not while you're telling me what I actually mean.



No I read the whole thing - I just had a problem with one point. In any case the rest of the post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at a consistantly levelled and inaccurate metric.

I'm sorry you have a problem with other people having opinions, is it related to you telling people what they really mean because you don't like what they think they mean?

Anyways, thanks for setting me straight, I agree with you now, is that ok? can we be friends?

TeaSwigger
November 1st, 2007, 05:48 AM
Turntable Still Doesn't Make It In Car Audio.

Car Still Doesn't Make It In Living Room.


...granted, most folks seem to have transitioned to an often very low "portable" audio experience and no longer "bother" with the potentially more enriching experience of quality listening to quality audio in a more dedicated environment like a living room. But some folks know better and enjoy their music be it from an iPod(tm), the computer or a turntable (or the latter via the former). They're not going to miss out because some industry-and-trend-oriented professional gabber erroniously claims that "you can download the hottest new tunes for your hot new Honda's hot new six-way media dvd/tivo/flashdrive mobile theater" which is "a far cry from the days of scratchy old records playable only in your home." If they enjoy their old records at home and can't have a mini DVD theater playing in every seat of their old mass media-bereft car, who's to say who is missing out and who will be enjoying the drive more anyway?

Which is admittedly skirting the subject here due to a fortunate absence of substance.

ddrichardson
November 1st, 2007, 02:18 PM
Firstly, why on earth would you use vista?It came on the laptop. Believe it or not some of us do use Windows as well.

secondly, exactly who's fault is it that you didn't check to see if the vendor of your hardware supplies BDA compliant drivers? would you blame a car if wheels you randomly bought didn't fit?Manufacturer is to blame pure and simple - by certifying Vista on the box when it isn't. Nice analagy but not accurate - if a wheel is advertised as 14" and is actually 13" the liability lies with the manufacturer not the purchaser.


Not while you're telling me what I actually mean.I'm not telling you what you mean, I'm stating that the vast majority of people saying "desktop ready" appear to mean "by comparison to Windows".


I'm sorry you have a problem with other people having opinions, is it related to you telling people what they really mean because you don't like what they think they mean?No I don't, I have a problem when people start insulting me. I'm not telling anyone what they mean I'm telling them how I interpret their comments.


Anyways, thanks for setting me straight, I agree with you now, is that ok? can we be friends?I'm not setting anyone straight, I just choose not to be insulted. As I have not insulted you I see no need for you to do so to me.

saulgoode
November 1st, 2007, 03:36 PM
In most cases, people will disagree with your definition anyway, putting you back at square one. The best definition of an operating system "ready for the desktop" that I can think of is


An operating system x is ready for the desktop if and only if y% or more of desktop operating system users think x is ready for the desktop. [Let y be some number between 50 and 100.]

Not a bad definition, but your y is too high. "[Let y be some number greater than or equal to 1]" is all that matters -- so long as that "1" is the person using the system.

inversekinetix
November 2nd, 2007, 01:21 AM
It came on the laptop. Believe it or not some of us do use Windows as well.
Pinnacle is to blame pure and simple - by certifying Vista on the box when it isn't. Nice analagy but not accurate - if a wheel is advertised as 14" and is actually 13" the liability lies with the manufacturer not the purchaser.

I'm not telling you what you mean, I'm stating that the vast majority of people saying "desktop ready" appear to mean "by comparison to Windows".

No I don't, I have a problem when people start insulting me. I'm not telling anyone what they mean I'm telling them how I interpret their comments.

I'm not setting anyone straight, I just choose not to be insulted. As I have not insulted you I see no need for you to do so to me.

Cool, enjoy your vista and its lack of compatible (but advertised as being so) hardware. I actually use windows way more than linux, and it all works better than linux. Ubuntu is just a toy for me to mess around with. Anyways, have fun, enjoy and don't let your perception cloud what people really mean.

professor fate
November 2nd, 2007, 03:52 AM
I have supported hundreds of users and they have never baulked at using the terminal. It is not going to go away - it's an integral part of the operating system

Any serious Windows or Linux user must know the command line. Even MS tests for command line knowledge on the latest round of MSCE exams. For instance, this is how one would rename a user account on 2003 server:
C:\>dsmove CN=savillj,CN=Users,DC=it,DC=uk,DC=savilltech,DC=c om -newname johnsavill

Ya just got to suck it up and learn it. LOL.

inversekinetix
November 2nd, 2007, 05:04 AM
Any serious Windows or Linux user must know the command line. Even MS tests for command line knowledge on the latest round of MSCE exams. For instance, this is how one would rename a user account on 2003 server:
C:\>dsmove CN=savillj,CN=Users,DC=it,DC=uk,DC=savilltech,DC=c om -newname johnsavill

Ya just got to suck it up and learn it. LOL.

Any serious computer user doesnt need a desktop. I think the title of this thread relates to linux being in a position to be used by the masses, it's already used by plenty of geeks.

p_quarles
November 2nd, 2007, 05:16 AM
Any serious computer user doesnt need a desktop. I think the title of this thread relates to linux being in a position to be used by the masses, it's already used by plenty of geeks.
Which means, I presume, that you posted that last message with Lynx. Right? :)

professor fate
November 2nd, 2007, 05:20 AM
Any serious computer user doesnt need a desktop. I think the title of this thread relates to linux being in a position to be used by the masses,

I know that if my parents used Linux, I'd still have to support them like I do with Windows, so I'm not sure if either one is ahead of the other in that respect. I will say though, at this stage I'd feel more comfortable walking them through a fix over the phone with Windows because I know it so much better.

Chrisj303
November 4th, 2007, 11:12 AM
That article seems pretty fair to me.

Linux isn't fit for use for the majority of the public.

Chrisj303
November 4th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Any serious computer user doesnt need a desktop. .

Are you living in 1985?

inversekinetix
November 5th, 2007, 05:08 AM
Are you living in 1985?


sorry I can't take you seriously, you use vista ultimate (hope you didn't pay for it) and you bought into macstyle.

Chrisj303
November 5th, 2007, 01:15 PM
sorry I can't take you seriously, you use vista ultimate (hope you didn't pay for it) and you bought into macstyle.


And, to cap it off - I use a GUI desktop!

The horror.


Seriously, people like you are the reason Linux has this:


http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w268/chrisj303/pcmaclinux-thumb.jpg

....reputation.

Yes, I use Mac's as they are the best tools for what I do. I installed Vista, because I like the flexibility of being able to run windows software as and when needed.

beast2k
November 5th, 2007, 01:51 PM
Hello guys, it has come to my attention while reading my RSS feed at PCWorld this article:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/137903/linux_still_doesnt_make_it_on_desktop.html

Please I would like to read your reactions. Thanks...

"For now and the foreseeable future, it's going to remain a Microsoft world." I agree with him he's dead on correct.

inversekinetix
November 6th, 2007, 04:47 AM
And, to cap it off - I use a GUI desktop!

The horror.


Seriously, people like you are the reason Linux has this:


http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w268/chrisj303/pcmaclinux-thumb.jpg

....reputation.

Yes, I use Mac's as they are the best tools for what I do. I installed Vista, because I like the flexibility of being able to run windows software as and when needed.


How is leopard better than whatever the other cat name they used before it? is it a better tool than the previous version, or does it elevate your macism?

lancest
November 6th, 2007, 05:06 AM
I know that if my parents used Linux, I'd still have to support them like I do with Windows, so I'm not sure if either one is ahead of the other in that respect. I will say though, at this stage I'd feel more comfortable walking them through a fix over the phone with Windows because I know it so much better.

Opposite for me I'd much rather my parents or friends use Linux. Then they'd never have to worry about malware or Windows software kludge. If they had the Windows disease that dies hard I'd suggest they stick with MS and don't bother calling me.

Chrisj303
November 6th, 2007, 06:18 AM
How is leopard better than whatever the other cat name they used before it? is it a better tool than the previous version, or does it elevate your macism?




If you must know, I got Leopard free with my new Macbook Pro.
I honestly find it quite sad that anybody would take such things as what OS somebody uses, so personally. You really should get out more.

inversekinetix
November 6th, 2007, 06:56 AM
If you must know, I got Leopard free with my new Macbook Pro.
I honestly find it quite sad that anybody would take such things as what OS somebody uses, so personally. You really should get out more.


whats the pricing on a mac book pro in the uk? more of a rip off than elsewhere? What I think is sad is people answering pointless comments in forums at 6am.

frodon
November 6th, 2007, 10:02 AM
Lets not turn this into flame war and please try to be polite and respectful, there's no point in attacking others whatever your argument is.

You both gave your opinion and you disagree, this is not a problem and often the case as we are all passionate by the topic however there's no need to repeat over and over the same things and especially no need to attack others.

So please calm down a little bit, next personal attack will receive infraction.

Chrisj303
November 6th, 2007, 02:23 PM
:lolflag:


Again, if you really must know - I had been up all night finishing a track on me Mac - taking a well deserved break.

And yeah, my Macbook Pro cost quite a bit - but I can afford it .

I prefer Rolex over Casio ;)

Humph
November 7th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Why Microsoft? There’s a revolution going on. A battle for the hearts and minds of consumers in terms of their digital lives.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/15/microsoft-hires-michael-gartenberg-as-new-evangelist/


Personally I think that comment says it all. Just replace "hearts and minds" with "disposable income".

This "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" nonsense is FUD dressed-up to look like informative, informed discussion when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It has more to do with the protection and enhancement of revenue streams than with any open or honest discussion.

Most "home" computer users I deal with do little more than use email, surf eBay, write the odd letter and the like. All of which can be performed using Ubuntu utilising "substandard" (i.e. "inexpensive", "low profit margin") hardware.

No-one involved in the Windows franchise (and I guess the Mac one too) wants to see these people move to an operating system that would reduce their income. Every new Windows system has greater hardware requirements, which means more hardware sales.

If, by investing in an "evangelist", Microsoft can prevent the loss of more paying consumers, they are protecting not only their own revenue, but that of all their hangers-on, such as Norton and McAfee, to name but two.

popch
November 7th, 2007, 04:30 PM
If, by investing in an "evangelist", Microsoft can prevent the loss of more paying consumers, they are protecting not only their own revenue, but that of all their hangers-on, such as Norton and McAfee, to name but two.

Strangely enough, they kill off some of the hangers-on from time to time whenever they decide to integrate their functions into the OS. Dog eats dog.

meindian523
November 7th, 2007, 04:58 PM
It's meaningless FUD........simple and sweet.....

inversekinetix
November 12th, 2007, 05:53 AM
:lolflag:


Again, if you really must know - I had been up all night finishing a track on me Mac - taking a well deserved break.

And yeah, my Macbook Pro cost quite a bit - but I can afford it .

I prefer Rolex over Casio ;)

Yes rolex is very very well know, very popular, I collect digital watches like casio etc, this is what I'm wearing today

http://pocketcalculatorshow.com/nerdwatch/fun2.html

the uc2000

Kowalski_GT-R
November 14th, 2007, 12:42 PM
And yeah, my Macbook Pro cost quite a bit - but I can afford it .

I prefer Rolex over Casio ;)

Wrong example :):)

Cannot compare electronic commodities to such things as mechanical watches (and there's way better than Rolex). Effectively, Apple IS Casio, with a white coat and touchscreen :)

Ok, out for a walk, hi all, enjoy your machines ;)

inversekinetix
November 15th, 2007, 04:56 AM
Wrong example :):)

Cannot compare electronic commodities to such things as mechanical watches (and there's way better than Rolex). Effectively, Apple IS Casio, with a white coat and touchscreen :)

Ok, out for a walk, hi all, enjoy your machines ;)


Rolex does have good branding though, I guess might be an important feature for some.

SomeGuyDude
November 15th, 2007, 08:19 AM
Wrong example :):)

Cannot compare electronic commodities to such things as mechanical watches (and there's way better than Rolex). Effectively, Apple IS Casio, with a white coat and touchscreen :)

Ok, out for a walk, hi all, enjoy your machines ;)

I dunno, it's a pretty accurate analogy. Apple is Rolex: it's unnecessarily pricey, shiny without adding new functionality, and doesn't get anything done that couldn't be done equally well or better for a fraction of the price. :lolflag:

Anyway, I know everyone points this out, but...

"And cost is the hidden factor. While much is made of Linux's being free, the truth is that software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs."

You know what a huge cost is? Necessary hardware.

If you're buying a new laptop, you're gonna need a bare minimum of 1.5GB of RAM if you want Vista to run adequately. It uses around 700MB or so doing absolutely nothing. 1GB will have Ubuntu going with all the bells and whistles and you'll always have space left over. I'm almost never above 512, honestly (making my purchase of a gig stick of RAM last month seem a dumb idea...). And if your hard drive isn't pretty damn big, you're out. Vista takes up a good 10GB+.

And that's crap, anyway. 10%. If you buy a laptop for $700, you can bet your *** that unless you're pirating it, you'll spend more than $70 on software. Hell that's how much a decent security suite (Kaspersky) costs. If you want to do something crazy like have MS Office that'll jack it up more. Lord help you if you have a subscription antivirus like McAfee.

popch
November 15th, 2007, 09:18 AM
software costs account for only about 10 percent of total cost of ownership for PCs.

You know what a huge cost is? Necessary hardware.

(...)

If you buy a laptop for $700, you can bet your *** that unless you're pirating it, you'll spend more than $70 on software. Hell that's how much a decent security suite (Kaspersky) costs.


In a corporate setting (the only place where measuring TCO makes sense) the costs for hardware and software combined account for something like 20 or 25 per cent of the total costs per seat. It varies quite a bit, also depending on the license model of the software you use.

All of the rest goes into personnel , infrastructure and services.

This is part of the reason why in corporate environments free software does not usually have any kind of priority on manager's agendas.

inversekinetix
November 16th, 2007, 05:55 AM
In a business environment the cost of necessary equipment can be written off as part of the expense of running a business.

popch
November 16th, 2007, 08:55 AM
In a business environment the cost of necessary equipment can be written off as part of the expense of running a business.

True. You can also write off all other expenses of running a business such as software, personnel , infrastructure and services.

The higher the costs you are writing off, the more expensive your product gets.

abubin
November 19th, 2007, 04:38 PM
despite years of linux in development and it's distro, it is still not ready for the mass public as it is still quite hard to setup and configure. Not every tom, **** and harry can setup linux. Some even thought that setting up linux is like as simple as windows until they actually tried it. That's why linux is FREE and windows vista USD599.

If you understand my statement above, then you have got the answer to your question.

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 09:09 PM
despite years of linux in development and it's distro, it is still not ready for the mass public as it is still quite hard to setup and configure. Not every tom, **** and harry can setup linux. Some even thought that setting up linux is like as simple as windows until they actually tried it. That's why linux is FREE and windows vista USD599. An interesting theory, but I don't see much evidence for Linux being harder to set up, and I also don't see the difficulty level in setup being relevant to the mass public, since they generally buy computers with an operating system preinstalled.

ddrichardson
November 19th, 2007, 09:18 PM
despite years of linux in development and it's distro, it is still not ready for the mass public as it is still quite hard to setup and configure. Not every tom, **** and harry can setup linux. Some even thought that setting up linux is like as simple as windows until they actually tried it. That's why linux is FREE and windows vista USD599.

If you understand my statement above, then you have got the answer to your question.
Not every Tom, **** and Harry can set up Windows either, I am pretty sure that most everyone on this board has experienced at least one relative or friend who repeatedly breaks there Windows PC and needs your help to get it up and running again.

It's nothing to do with Linux Vs Windows - it's the sudden acceptance of PC's as a home appliance that precipitates an increased number of IT problems.

The assumption that if Linux was ready for the desktop then it would cost USD599 is flawed too. Linux is an open source operating system. Realistically, there are always going to be free (as in beer) versions.

Chrisj303
November 19th, 2007, 11:13 PM
An interesting theory, but I don't see much evidence for Linux being harder to set up, and I also don't see the difficulty level in setup being relevant to the mass public, since they generally buy computers with an operating system preinstalled.


It's the mount points that confuse people, and the idea of a 'Home' partition. Most people don't understand what a 'Swap' is either, and what " / " means...

Most people just want to point the installer to a single partition and click 'Go' (like windows/osx)

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 11:19 PM
It's the mount points that confuse people, and the idea of a 'Home' partition. Most people don't understand what a 'Swap' is either, and what " / " means...

Most people just want to point the installer to a single partition and click 'Go' (like windows/osx) If you set up a single-boot system, Ubuntu's installer doesn't ask you to create a /home partition and doesn't require you to know what swap is. It just installs and sets that all up for you.

If you decide to dual boot or set up a separate /home partition, then, yes, that concept can be confusing.

p_quarles
November 19th, 2007, 11:21 PM
It's the mount points that confuse people, and the idea of a 'Home' partition. Most people don't understand what a 'Swap' is either, and what " / " means...

Most people just want to point the installer to a single partition and click 'Go' (like windows/osx)
I've installed various Linux distros (Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, Fedora) and have yet to come across one that forces you to set up partitions by hand. They all default to installing everything on a single partition, and creating a swap partition twice the size of your system's memory.

So, it's true that mount points might confuse some people, but those people aren't the ones messing around with partitions.

Chrisj303
November 19th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Ah right!

I've only ever installed Linux as a multiboot setup, and I thought that was the norm.

It took me a *long* time, and many failed attempts at install due to the 'define mount point' page, and poorly written guides!

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 11:33 PM
Ah right!

I've only ever installed Linux as a multiboot setup, and I thought that was the norm.

It took me a *long* time, and many failed attempts at install due to the 'define mount point' page, and poorly written guides! It too me a long time, too, to understand the whole concept of mount points. I didn't get it through any online materials, but I did get it through a book:
Point and Click Linux (http://www.amazon.com/Point-Click-Linux-Robin-Miller/dp/0131488724)

Even though I've long since abandoned Mepis, that book was the only resource that put the idea of partitions in plain English.

p_quarles
November 19th, 2007, 11:34 PM
It asked you for a mount point on a multiboot setup? I've never seen that happen, honestly. It only asks for that info when you run "manual partition," which isn't necessary unless you specifically don't want the default setup.

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 11:36 PM
It asked you for a mount point on a multiboot setup? I've never seen that happen, honestly. It only asks for that info when you run "manual partition," which isn't necessary unless you specifically don't want the default setup.
Well, Gutsy now offers you only two options--guided and manual. As far as I can tell, Guided just erases everything, and you have to use Manual to set up a dual-boot. Am I wrong about this?

p_quarles
November 19th, 2007, 11:37 PM
It too me a long time, too, to understand the whole concept of mount points. I didn't get it through any online materials, but I did get it through a book:
Point and Click Linux (http://www.amazon.com/Point-Click-Linux-Robin-Miller/dp/0131488724)

Even though I've long since abandoned Mepis, that book was the only resource that put the idea of partitions in plain English.
I got the basics down from your tutorial, which you failed to mention ;) :
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/separatehome

I highly recommend it.

p_quarles
November 19th, 2007, 11:38 PM
Well, Gutsy now offers you only two options--guided and manual. As far as I can tell, Guided just erases everything, and you have to use Manual to set up a dual-boot. Am I wrong about this?
I don't know about Gutsy, but when I set up a dual-boot before, it offered to resize an existing partition and install Ubuntu on the freed space. So, yeah, you can use the Guided option to setup a dual-boot.

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 11:39 PM
I got the basics down from your tutorial, which you failed to mention ;) :
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/separatehome

I highly recommend it.
Yeah, if I'd had my own tutorials around in 2005, my switch would have been a lot easier.

popch
November 19th, 2007, 11:42 PM
The last couple of posts appear to be saying that Linux Did Not Make It On Desktop because multiboot systems are hard to install.

As far as I remember, the last time I installed Windows on any PC it did not offer at all to create a dual- or multi-boot system. Also, Installing Windows took me much longer and required many more intervention than did Gutsy.

What's this about yardsticks of similar lengths?