Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[juxtaposed]

Can Linux Replace Windows?

It has for most of the stuff I do.

From the article...

Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies).

It has kind of. Right click on a .deb, open with GDebi, and press install.

[forrestcupp]

Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all. Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies). Again, Linux is going to have to play by the rules set by Windows in order to take Windows down a notch.

The guy must not have ever seen Synaptic.

Other than that, I agree with most things he said.

[izanbardprince]

The thing that annoys me is trying to deal with software that doesn't come in a nice DEB package, it always leaves me cussing whenever I come across something where the guy either just tarballed the source (or the compiled product) and says "here".

[vexorian]

At the time, it was essentially the only desktop operating system worth anybody’s time. At the time,

biiaaas.

What would need to happen for Linux to become more of a replacement?

* Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all.

Already there.

Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file

No, it shouldn't. I think synaptic is the perfect balance between "please know what you are doing" and "easy of use" the problem with windows is that installing things is way TOO easy.

(not tracking down package dependencies).

This shows that the guy didn't make his homework, with synaptic and also rpm and stuff, there is as much dependency hell as there is with windows (hey, ever tried using an installer that was not compatible with your MSI version?)

Again, Linux is going to have to play by the rules set by Windows in order to take Windows down a notch.

Why? Why should Linux be as broken as windows in order to beat it? Also, I don't really think I want Linux to beat windows, I just want it to gain a decent market share, and in the desktop world 10% is a decent share. See firefox, it is far from achieving total market dominance yet it is so big already that nobody can ignore it, web sites have to follow the global rules instead of simply dumping out IE only pages.

* Open standards need to become more the norm than the exceptions. Companies should make a special point to use open standards. For example, using OpenOffice rather than Microsoft Office will make your documents more open and more cross platform.

In this regards I agree, the world should use open standards, it is the only rational thing to do, but somehow they don't , we need to reeducate people I guess.

* Vendors need to flow more effort into supporting Linux. It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg problem, though. They will put more effort into it if Linux gets popular enough to warrant their time.

On the other side, Linux isn’t really going to get that popular if these vendors don’t do it.

there's not much that can be done here besides, keeping improving and trying to offer decent compatibility. And I actually think that if we try harder things will change, and if I am not being over optimistic things are changing already. I think that Linux has managed to get considerable amounts of users already without the help of the hardware vendors and that it can only go up. (The numbers are miserable in comparison to windows' market share but they are big)

[phrostbyte]

Ubuntu is not Windows, and it will never be Windows.
It's goal is not to strive to be more like Windows.

Please read this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017

and this

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=439163

Also read this:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

[reyfer]

All I have to say is that if I wanted something that works like windows, I would be using windows.

[Dimitriid]

I dont agree. Playing by windows "rules" means adding unnecessary levels of complexity or failing that, making the same mistakes.

People should learn not only from the mistakes made by Microsoft's design but they need to learn their own mistakes cause your average windows users its a liability to ANY system.

If a person refuses to learn from mistakes like "Yeah I can just open this little program I downloaded no problem" it wont take long before he is saying "Yea I can just doubleclick this little .deb file I found, sure here's my password no problem". Or "yea there's no problem ill read this email attachment from a complete stranger on IE no problem" its gonna just be replaced for "yea there's no problem ill read this email attachment from a complete stranger on Epiphany/Konqueror no problem"

Point and click ain't enough, if you don't want to bother beyond point and click please do the world a favor and stick to your TV Removes, Microwaves and cellphones ok?

[steven8]

Linux has already replace windows for me in the form of Ubuntu. I don't want it to be 'like' windows, and if something 'requires' windows, I don't require it. 'Nuff said.

[Somenoob]

The article's author wants it to be more like windows, which it is not.

[frup]

Ubuntu is perfect, all I am interested in is the development of individual projects.

Using synaptic is the smartest way of installing software I have ever come across. If Ubuntu was the dominant OS we would see many trusted 3rd party apps maintaining their own repos I'm sure... Adding those 3rd party repos would be trivial and instead of having anti-virus the most you would need is a repo validator/certification scheme.