mshelby wrote:I like your logic here. And your way of thinking. I agree with everything you wrote. I still stand by my original post because I had framed it around Google's marketing efforts to push the ChromeOS. I didn't communicate that very well. I still think that if Google succeeds in garnering marketshare for the ChromeOS that it will be done without calling it 'Linux.' and if that happens then 'Linux' as a desktop truly is a non-starter. It's not '****' enough to be marketable so it will be marginalized. Not saying I like that... just that it is what it is.

I just don't understand why that's going to matter, and I think it's going to matter a lot more that ISPs will not be able to discriminate against Linux if Chrome OS gets a market share. Verizon refuses to support Linux fpr its DSL. They flatly told me I couldn't use Linux on their network, and that was a lie. Once I used a Windows system to set up the network, I was golden. I used Linux on Verizon DSL for six years. Later, I bought my own modem that came with a web interface to set up the DSL network, and then I didn't even need Windows. It would be child's play for Verizon to cooperate with getting my business, but they refused, probably because they're so completely in bed with Microsoft.

Consider the effect that noncooperation from an ISP the size of verizon has for everyday users. I think Google Chrome has the potential to end this problem, and I think this is just one example of how Chrome OS could open doors for Linux support. Support is nearly all of the problems involved in migrating the new user to Linux. It takes many forms, from needing to install it yourself to fighting with ISPs, to not being able to find more experienced users to help you along. When I was learning how to use Windows, there were friend, co-workers, and relations who were able to advise me, giving me the information that I needed a little bit at a time. People don't always realize what a difference that makes.

But once again, we have one advantage. Linux is not a business, therefore it cannot be put out of business. The bottom Line is that, no matter what happens, we're still going to be here. Hack tech bloggers predict that Linux will "break through", and then they predict that it will die out. It's I've been reading this bunk for eight years now. It's all made to sound dramatic as possible, so that you will click on it when you see the headline. Nobody would read their blogs if they reported the dull, never-changing truth, which is that Linux just keeps chugging along, as slow and unstoppable as a glacier.

Note: A tip of the hat to Spoovy for reediting *his post, and getting down to specifics. When he talks about Office suites and PIM as opposed to Desktop Linux in general, his case becomes compelling. I've rarely used Office applications other than word processing, but it makes sense to me that Microsoft would have an advantage. Microsoft IS a business, and therefore, it makes sense that they may have a handle on business applications.

But the Linux Desktop is not dying. It's alive and well and thriving in last place, same as it ever was. We will be around long enough to fix this problem.

I don't agree with Spoovy when he* says that the Desktop Metaphor is irrelevant. The expansion of possibilities that KDE4 has brought to how the Desktop GUI arranges information is fundamental. We now have the DEDICATED DESKTOP, which is huge. Recent research indicates that multitasking is inefficient, and may be destructive to the brain's ability to maintain attention. So now we can have a Desktop that it devoted to a single task. The college student taking four courses can have one desktop devoted to each course. IMO, the plasmoids make more sense when utilized in the service of this concept.


*or she

blackbelt_jones wrote:Don't trust what anyone says about the relative merits of different desktops until they get down to specifics. "Sheer productivity" is NOT a specific.

I'm sure you and everyone else knows what I mean. A typical day's PC use for me might involve the following -
Arrange a meeting - invites to be sent out to five-ten external clients; Review calendar and update with incoming appointments etc; Read and sort emails into different categories and action items; Prepare for a meeting by swatting up on previous correspondence from all those who accepted the invitation; Open and edit an Excel file; Use software packages that are only available for Windows (AutoCAD, ArcGIS etc); email the resulting 8GB .dwg file, or upload it to a Windows or Mac -only project bin; Review a Powerpoint presentation i've just been sent; Use Skype to review someone else's drawing in real time.

If I was to limit myself to linux/FOSS software only, every one of those tasks would become at least a little, if not a lot, harder work, or in the last example would be impossible (afaik), and my boss would be jumping up and down on me because my utilisation rate had gone down - i'd be less productive and earn less money for the company.

This is the case in most of these examples because of MS's market dominance and lack of third party support for linux, but in some cases due to the superiority of MS products as well; it's silly to deny it.

spoovy wrote:This is the case in most of these examples because of MS's market dominance and lack of third party support for linux, but in some cases due to the superiority of MS products as well; it's silly to deny it.

Make sure you read what I wrote above. It looks like we were posting at the same moment.

Honestly, I didn't know what you meant because I don't do any of the same things with my computer that you do.

I deny nothing, and I acknowledge nothing. When people tell me that Window based products are superior, I keep an open mind, but I also know that everything that most people know about what makes software "superior" was learned at the feet of Mother Microsoft.

Incidentally, I have one Windows-based application that I can't live without:

http://www.readplease.com/

I used to run VMWare just for this one application, but these days it works perfectly with wine.

spoovy wrote:I'm sure you and everyone else knows what I mean. A typical day's PC use for me might involve the following -
Arrange a meeting - invites to be sent out to five-ten external clients; Review calendar and update with incoming appointments etc; Read and sort emails into different categories and action items; Prepare for a meeting by swatting up on previous correspondence from all those who accepted the invitation; Open and edit an Excel file; Use software packages that are only available for Windows (AutoCAD, ArcGIS etc); email the resulting 8GB .dwg file, or upload it to a Windows or Mac -only project bin; Review a Powerpoint presentation i've just been sent; Use Skype to review someone else's drawing in real time.

If I was to limit myself to linux/FOSS software only, every one of those tasks would become at least a little, if not a lot, harder work, or in the last example would be impossible (afaik), and my boss would be jumping up and down on me because my utilisation rate had gone down - i'd be less productive and earn less money for the company.

This is the case in most of these examples because of MS's market dominance and lack of third party support for linux, but in some cases due to the superiority of MS products as well; it's silly to deny it.

Silly? All of the meeting and email associated stuffs are now integrated into the KDE4 Plasma Desktop through the database linking through Akonadi, Strigi, Nepomuk and Virtuoso and their integration with applications like Kontact. Excel files are trivial anymore.

AutoCAD? See ProEngineer and other products http://www.ptc.com/

ARCGis? Runs in VirtualBox for the few client side components that don't run natively.

PowerPoint no problem

Skype now runs natively in Linux

When you add to this the huge reduction in maintenance I really can't see "silly" in the same sentence.

Superiority of MicroSoft products? I suppose that's why Apache, MySQL, and PHP are the backbone of the internet and Linux is championed by IBM, Google and most other serious servers? Clientside I suppose you're going to propose that IE is superior to Mozilla? Not for anything with the remotest need for security and function or a reasonable development cycle.

The list goes on but it is only logical that it would. The principles of software development outlined in The Cathedral and the Bazaar are more true and active today then ever before. The axiom that "given enough eyes all bugs are shallow" is proven over and over. As for development motivation just look how IE stagnated for 5 years while Firefox developed tabbed browsing and extensible applications, to name a few I'm fairly certain you depend on today.

Plus the fundamental issue of being allowed and able to configure and even rebuild software to suit very specific needs not possible or practical in fundamental proprietary software is still a force and as the market place diversifies and deeper niches are created this will only increase.

Then there is scalability. With the exploding mobile market (and what is more important to business than nimble portability?) and until the release of the Windows Phone, although apparently decent, this market was and still is dominated by embedded Linux and it's branches, not Microsoft.

64 bit CPUs were in use for eight years before software support hit the tipping point. It will likely be another several years before 64bit dominates 32bit. Similarly software's response to changing business models is slow but grinds with huge inertia. Deep changes are slow but the tipping point has already begun and while a possibly a trickle now this will not be a linear progression because of the underlying inexorable forces at work. To deny that is what is silly. Are you and your business going to be stuck in a stodgy past or a nimble future?

I think the fact that we're always hearing about "percentage of market share" is another indication that we're seeing the world in Microsoft terms, i.e., a business model that depends on world domination. Worldwide, the PC userbase continues to expand, and that means that Linux could maintain one percent of the market for years and still be showing robust growth in terms of real users.

As the twentieth anniversary of the Linux Desktop approaches, followed by the thiretieth anniversay of the GNU Project, it's pretty clear that Desktop Linux is not dying. Its user base expands, its application development surges. The only "sign of death" that anyone can point to is an inability to conquer the world. No, we haven't taken over the world, but we're still here. Viewed from inside, the world of Desktop Linux is alive and thriving. KDE4 proves that-- both the hard-fought controversy, and the big awesome fact of it. Obviously, we don't need to dominate to survive, or even to thrive.

If we believe that an inability to conquer the world = death, that's because we're imposing the Microsoft model on reality. It's something people do all the time, in little ways and big ways. Microsoft taught us all what good software is, so we judge Microsoft the superior operating system, because it is better at being Microsoft. Well, don't get me wrong. Microsoft has done a lot of great things for the world, and, in my opinion, they deserve to make a lot of money. I have faith that, in the end, they will be very successful financially. But they can't own the future outright, and they don't own reality.

enorbet wrote:Silly? All of the meeting and email associated stuffs are now integrated into the KDE4 Plasma Desktop through the database linking through Akonadi, Strigi, Nepomuk and Virtuoso and their integration with applications like Kontact. Excel files are trivial anymore.

AutoCAD? See ProEngineer and other products http://www.ptc.com/
ARCGis? Runs in VirtualBox for the few client side components that don't run natively. PowerPoint no problem. Skype now runs natively in Linux

When you add to this the huge reduction in maintenance I really can't see "silly" in the same sentence.

One thing I have got to point out about a lot of linux software is that a lot of it is so painstaking to configure. That is one of the attractive things about MS products. They usually just work, right out of the box. You can tweak them, but it normally doesn't take a long time nor do you usually have to spend hours on the internet looking up this compatibility issue or that hardware issue. M$ products are usually pretty good at utilizing setup wizards and linux would be wise to emulate this. KDE4 is starting to do a pretty good job at this I think.

mshelby wrote:One thing I have got to point out about a lot of linux software is that a lot of it is so painstaking to configure. That is one of the attractive things about MS products. They usually just work, right out of the box. You can tweak them, but it normally doesn't take a long time nor do you usually have to spend hours on the internet looking up this compatibility issue or that hardware issue. M$ products are usually pretty good at utilizing setup wizards and linux would be wise to emulate this. KDE4 is starting to do a pretty good job at this I think.

What specific Linux programs do you have this problem with? I personally have never encountered this on Linux. Even my most annoying hardware problems took about 10 minutes to fix, and that has only happened a couple times.

I have had problems like this on windows, though. Such as spending an half an hour finding the solution to a problem and another 30 minutes searching and modifying the registry to get Microsoft's own software functional (and I have to do this every time I set up a new computer).

TheBlackCat wrote:

mshelby wrote:One thing I have got to point out about a lot of linux software is that a lot of it is so painstaking to configure. That is one of the attractive things about MS products. They usually just work, right out of the box. You can tweak them, but it normally doesn't take a long time nor do you usually have to spend hours on the internet looking up this compatibility issue or that hardware issue. M$ products are usually pretty good at utilizing setup wizards and linux would be wise to emulate this. KDE4 is starting to do a pretty good job at this I think.

What specific Linux programs do you have this problem with? I personally have never encountered this on Linux. Even my most annoying hardware problems took about 10 minutes to fix, and that has only happened a couple times.

I have had problems like this on windows, though. Such as spending an half an hour finding the solution to a problem and another 30 minutes searching and modifying the registry to get [/i]Microsoft's own software[/i] functional (and I have to do this every time I set up a new computer).

I'd have to agree with TheBlackCat - most of the time in terms of time spent configuring, linux is on par with Microsoft. KDE and Gnome both work well out-of-the-box. Server applications are as easy or easier to configure on linux than on other systems (especially when they provide web-based configuration pages, or when the package manager sets them up right the first time). If you talk about time to configure a complete system from scratch, and you take into account time spent researching and implementing linux solutions to hardware issues, you need to make the comparison against setting up a Windows system from scratch as well and take into account time spent researching and implementing windows solutions to hardware issues.

I also have to agree with blackbelt_jones about the market share thing. How many times do people look at the 1% market share figure and think: thats just an obscure group of hobbyists and geeks; but never realize that 1% represents millions of users, many of which are casual users who never make noise on the net, but don't have any complaints because things work perfectly well for them (or well enough, at least).

Personally, I decided Linux had a serious chance when Sandisk starting putting "compatible with Linux" labels right on the box, complete with a Tux logo right next to the windows and mac logos. Anyone who doesn't realize Linux can read pretty much anything can't be considered a hard-core techy.

TheBlackCat wrote:

mshelby wrote:One thing I have got to point out about a lot of linux software is that a lot of it is so painstaking to configure. That is one of the attractive things about MS products. They usually just work, right out of the box. You can tweak them, but it normally doesn't take a long time nor do you usually have to spend hours on the internet looking up this compatibility issue or that hardware issue. M$ products are usually pretty good at utilizing setup wizards and linux would be wise to emulate this. KDE4 is starting to do a pretty good job at this I think.

What specific Linux programs do you have this problem with? I personally have never encountered this on Linux. Even my most annoying hardware problems took about 10 minutes to fix, and that has only happened a couple times.

I have had problems like this on windows, though. Such as spending an half an hour finding the solution to a problem and another 30 minutes searching and modifying the registry to get Microsoft's own software functional (and I have to do this every time I set up a new computer).

Well, it was a bit overly dramatic to say that a lot of my linux software requires tedious configuration. Configuration is one of the reasons I love linux. I guess I'd have to say that a lot of my frustration would be distro driven and not specifically KDE driven.

Still, my point is kind of valid. Getting hardware configured for linux can be a nightmare. even if it's quasi-supported. Hunting down the right drivers that are not out of date... then having to tweak another program to utilize your driver or hardware... sometimes having to manually edit and write a config file for a given product and a needed folder location. I've had to do it all...! I've had quite a few nightmares in the past! I was just pointing out that KDE could be so far ahead of Gnome if they had wizards to generally configure your software the first time you used the product. Sort of the way k3b does it, I think...

At least with all the hardware in my computer, it has worked 100% out of the box, no driver installation required. Choosing hardware which has shipped open source drivers is a good start (most systems still ship with Broadcom wireless unfortunately)

mshelby wrote:Still, my point is kind of valid. Getting hardware configured for linux can be a nightmare. even if it's quasi-supported. Hunting down the right drivers that are not out of date... then having to tweak another program to utilize your driver or hardware... sometimes having to manually edit and write a config file for a given product and a needed folder location. I've had to do it all...! I've had quite a few nightmares in the past! I was just pointing out that KDE could be so far ahead of Gnome if they had wizards to generally configure your software the first time you used the product. Sort of the way k3b does it, I think...

Once again, I have only had two hardware devices cause me problems on Linux. One was a printer that just required I get a third-party driver (they provide rpms and debs), the other is a rare USB TV tuner that required me run one shell script and copy a file to get it working (in the past, it works out of the box now). Everything else works out of the box, just plug it in and go.

I've had much more hardware trouble on windows, actually. Even for an off-the-shelf USB thumbnail drive windows needs to spend at least 30 seconds finding drivers, while it works immediately under Linux. Same with standard keyboards and mice. Anything else requires far more time then that to find and install drivers (assuming they are packaged by windows, otherwise you need to find the CD or download them off a web page).

Just the other day a friend came to me to complain that he couldn't get his keyboard working on windows, so he couldn't login. He is by no means computer illiterate, being the second-best techy in the lab after me. It turns out he had plugged the keyboard into a different USB port, so windows couldn't see it anymore. Windows needs to install drivers for devices when you plug them in, but it cannot do this unless you are logged in, but you can't log in without the device drivers being installed. We had to try moving it from USB port to USB port in order figure out where it belonged. That is why, whenever I get a new USB device on windows, I always plug it into every USB port one after another so it won't matter where I plug it in the future, but he wasn't aware of the problem.

There is also the issue with my scanner not having 64-bit windows drivers at all, meaning it works out-of-the-box on Linux but does not work at all on windows and never will. Linux also comes with raw decoders for my father's and sisters' cameras, while they needed to find and install software for it.

So overall my experience with hardware has been far worse on windows than on Linux, despite running the same devices on both.

Once again, I have only had two hardware devices cause me problems on Linux. One was a printer that just required I get a third-party driver (they provide rpms and debs), the other is a rare USB TV tuner that required me run one shell script and copy a file to get it working (in the past, it works out of the box now). Everything else works out of the box, just plug it in and go.

Haha, let me guess, dib0700 for a dvb-t stick?
Same experience here.

Actually it was a hauppauge HVR-950

neverendingo wrote:

Once again, I have only had two hardware devices cause me problems on Linux. One was a printer that just required I get a third-party driver (they provide rpms and debs), the other is a rare USB TV tuner that required me run one shell script and copy a file to get it working (in the past, it works out of the box now). Everything else works out of the box, just plug it in and go.

Haha, let me guess, dib0700 for a dvb-t stick?
Same experience here.

Luckily it works out of the bow now