The market has rejected Linux desktops. Get over it.

LOL,
If it works for you: use it; if it dont : fine.
I also cant run some work tools on Linux which is disappointing, but not the end of the world.
( actually run best on Mac , then OS-X update screwed it and had to rejig some settings...amazing really )
There is nothing wrong with lots of Windows apps.

I dont (usually) use a longboard at Tavarua or use the 4WD to go to work, yet they both have a role for me according to settings.

I am increasingly happy with Linux for daily ops.
Still happy with Xp on desktop and at work: really great ( after a while )

Linux will roll on and grow: already owns the server side: all those "I never use linux, it will never work for me" naysayers are probably interfacing with Linux servers every day.

Choices, choices, choices...choose the right tool for the job.
Relish the freedom of effective alternatives, it aint such a big issue.
Being free of commercial tie ins and "tailored apps": ransomed to MS lcd so to speak has been great.

Who can deny the immense effect and effectiveness of FF ??
One of the greatest software releases of all time eh ?

I think MS is most afraid of open standards, agnostics and discriminating end users, hence the relentless negative spruiking re how shi**y everything else is.
Note the article went about "proving a negative" LOL.
Could have pitched the article as "Amazing 100% increase in Linux desktop users over 2 years" lol.
To the authors credit he did mention Linux as a prime driving force for mobile apps.
Think MS aint concerned re that ??

And lets face it, innovation aint the name of the game at creaky MS.
Lots of well founded critiques of the FOSS and Linux, Unix models : fine
I'd like to see some things change but sadly no one is likely to listen to moi:
Linux will continue to roll and grow and maybe with some convergent evolution...will Rule ... a bit ..more.
Really not bad from a bunch of hackers and a backyard project: is there some absolute expectation that Linux will displace every other desktop: rubbish:
- BSD will.


@ Blue: respect: I like being embraced : it's a discussion thread; you let my absurd pythonesque analysis stay: dont prune too much : let the rats have a nibble: easy meat for the gatling.

Regards

 

Hi,

Chuck57 nearly had it with this comment. If he stopped at the word "Windows", he'd have been pretty much spot on. Familiarity with Windows means that this is how users expect computers to work and look (I don't mean about bugs, or BSOD) but rather how the basics work and look.

Anything too different to this is going to be hard to push people towards because it "doesn't work right" or "doesn't look right".

I've tried before to push Open Office at one client - and they looked at me like I was insane, and said

Personally, I refuse to use Open Office because of problems I have encountered.

I've had word documents not open correctly in it (I know, I know, but at least I'm honest) which meant that some of my specifications were unable to be read - subtle, but nasty. Open Office came off that machine. When I have to communicate with Clients in word, the last thing I want is the fear that part of the message just won't show up.

One of my partners sent me an excel spreadsheet he did in Open Office - didn't work right and had to be redone, so for his statement about open source (despite having an Office licence) all it did was generate extra work for me (Send me a copy I can read, and then I had to redo half of it anyway). Businesses won't put up with it, and nor will users.

Another well known problem is that Windows comes bundled on new machines, and in my experience people just mentally include it in the cost. They think a computer can be had for $1000. Not for $800 + Windows. The computer costs $1000 and it has the latest windows (as you would expect on a new PC).

When I told my mum once that her computer probably needed Windows re-installed because it was corrupted/broken, she took my head off!

In her case, she doesn't understand the distinction between broken windows and broken hardware, and I didn't have the patience to explain it to an irate parent on the other side of the world.

I don't think desktop linux is dead at all, but I don't think it will be a real success until it can do something compelling enough to make people take the effort to learn something new and that's a hard ask - especially for a hundred dollars that they don't even realise they could be saving.

When do most people learn about malware and backups? I'll wager it's not as they unwrap their first computer, but rather after they spend a weekend (or hundreds of dollars) on getting their computer fixed.

IMO, the same it will be for Linux. If a must-have-killer-app was available on Linux, or Linux could do one thing remarkably well that appealed to a broad base of users, you'd start to see people get interested and get on board. Saving a hundred dollars just isn't enough.

One example of such an app (for the business world) is Asterisk (though this may also run on other platforms now, I haven't checked recently). Where's the consumer equivalent...?

 

For OpenOffice there is a package to improve compatibility with .doc types. http://katana.oooninja.com/w/odf-converter-integrator/download

Eg. for Ubuntu it's called 'Chocolate'
Seems to work quite well on especially older OOo versions.

I must say for home use I find Linux Ubuntu (and CentOS) easier to use than Windows, which I am no longer running. OK I admit I don't run state of the art type stock futures/options trading programs or special graphics programs (Gimp does all I need at home).
Also I'm not sure why I would need something like Shadowprotect Desktop.
With Windows I spent a great deal of time boosting my security profile - SandboxIE, Returnil, Avira, Proxomitron, MBAM, Comodo FW, SAS, LUA etc.
Now I have more time for fun and still feel secure with built-in FW, Apparmor for Firefox, and an on demand AV(clamscan) which I run from time to time just so I don't send my friends some or other virus crafted for Windows OS.

 

Ahh,

For Linux and lean client fans, there is still hope glowing in the future with two developments

1. Intel OS
Because Intel controls the hardware platform the cause of the bad name of unix/linux desktops (hassle to get drivers) will a be non-issue. Problably the low cost CPU and excellent performance will attract new customers and might rise marketshare.

2. Google OS
The Web 3.0/Cloud - lean client vision revived. Google argues that the majority of people only surf, post, mail, blog, etc via the internet. Having all applications as a cloud based service including storage in the cloud of your documents, will save them the hassle of installation, configuration and purchase of applications.

When those two developments do not lift the marketshare of desktop linux, then linux will never be embraced any more.

Cheers Kees

 

A firewall and limited user account is all you need in Windows as well. There are also viable options for more secure browsers than Firefox so you don't need to worry about things like AppArmor (though Google Chrome for Linux is on the way).

I don't understand why you see the need for grossly-overkill security only in Windows. And then think it's somehow Windows' fault.

 

Right here - Wilders forums - they made me do it ...

Edit: I am not yet able to create my own Apparmor profiles, but the one for Firefox is included in Ubuntu 9.10
All I did was:-
$ sudo aa-enforce /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5

To remove it:-
$ sudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5
$ sudo ln -s /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5 /etc/apparmor.d/disable/usr.bin.firefox-3.5

Easy peasy and no problems with it so far.

 

On a side note, why would you want to create an apparmor profile
Mrk

 

Gotcha
The FF profile was there offered on a platter, so I use it for better or for worse.

 

I do wish you two would get a room.

 

Linux could probably help its cause a great deal if it concentrated on developing 5 or 6 of the best, most popular distros. All the Linux developing brain childs could focus their energy on a select few distros, rather than there being > 100, or whatever the mind-boggling count is at currently. Now hopefully this doesn't get removed by the admin's broad-stroked eraser

 

I agree. I've got half of them on CD's, much to my wife's displeasure when she goes looking for a box of CD's (that she bought) for music or something. Mostly, I download, look at, see that this or that distro is very similar to the last I looked at, and put it away never to use it again.

I do have Ubuntu 9.10 sharing the HD on my desktop with XP Pro. I somehow managed to partition the drive (that stuff scares me) and get it all working.

My point in the long ramble is, they all at least look very much alike; they all have pretty much the same apps, same kernel, and if they're even interested in a larger market share, what would it hurt, other than the odd ego, for them to have 5, 6, or even 10 good offerings rather than a hundred?

My favorite Linux? I run Ubuntu but have probably played more with Slackware through the years than any other. I never did master it and haven't even looked at it in ages.

 

And still, each of these distro's have something that stands out and something that is missing.
Maybe a desktop environment approach would work? Linux/KDE, Linux/Gnome, etc.

And then, when I use Firefox or OpenOffice.org, I think it should make API calls to QT4, when I use KDE, as opposed to relying on GTK2 libraries.
In a real free world, win32, OSX and Xorg API's should be standard and compatible, so that Quicken 2010 runs on any OS that I use. Just like I can read email in any recent client on any recent OS.

And perhaps there is an advantage to have improving driver API's in the linux kernel, but it puts a burden on the user. Windows doesn't change the driver API often, drivers for Windows 2000 golden stil work for XP sp1, sp2, sp3, etc.

And how interesting that Linux is famous for clean install/uninstall, unlike Windows with it's registry leftovers, but somehow most distro's are best updated by a clean installation, with release schedules of every six months?

I'm big on Linux, but I find myself dreaming of a different concept...

 

Yep, for those of us who live in an MS-Office ecosystem it's not so much that desktop Linux gets "rejected" as much as it never even gets considered at all. My computers are platforms for web browsing, E-mail and running MS-Office with none of those really being negotiable.

That's not a good thing or a bad thing and doesn't say anything about the worthiness of desktop Linux for other people. It just is what it is. It's like saying I've "rejected" a career as a supermodel.

 

Don't get me started on Office.
Standards need to be enforced for those reasons. Yesterday

Sometimes i bump into the most stupid issues with both MSOffice and OOffice. What we all desperately need is ODF enforced now, so we can get on with competition and better office programs. They (whoever) must win on merit, not BS. I don't want to even think about formats, it's really retarded that we still need to think about these problems.

 

I've removed Totem and Rhythmbox from my Ubuntu Karmic install, but somehow there are entries stuck in the Configuration Editor that reference those two programs, with no apparent way to remove them.

 

Because it increases security? I have created many AppArmor profiles for personal use.

Really this is all M$'s fault. Their refusal to utilize open standards is the reason this happens. It's the same with their browser and the way it parses HTML -- it does it in a non-standard way so that webmasters have to make sure their website is viewable in IE and then all the rest of the browsers (which all render it the same way). And M$ isn't the only company guilty of this; it's the same with all of these silly video codecs like Apple's Quicktime, Real Player, Adobe Flash, etc. We need one video codec that does everything and does it well -- it should be open-source and open licensed. We already have this with audio (ogg vorbis) and hopefully HTML5 will bring us it with video. I doubt these vendors will ever get on board with this idea -- they all want to control the market.

I agree that the average computer illiterate will never install an OS in their lifetime and that these people will always just use what came with the PC. However, I think the moderately skilled to advanced users will eventually migrate towards Linux/BSD and what it offers -- a free OS (free as in beer and as in source code) that can do what Windows does and do some of it better.

 

Hi All

My 10 penn'orth.

The problem with Linux and Open Source is that there are too many people beavering away in an uncollective sense so that there is a total lack of synergy. Look at the number of Linux Distros as an example, cut them down to three or four employ the best people to produce a useable user friendly alternative to Microsoft, then, Linux may have a sporting chance.

Much as I dislike Microsoft and its Office Suite, Open Office is cumbersome. As an example, I use MS Works with Word 2002 integrated. The facility to use a simple wizard that inputs letter headings addresses and produces envelopes with addresses on it is so far superior to Open Office that it is surprising that OO survives. Yet I am talking about MS software developed for 2002. In 2009 OO still cannot compete.

The key is the use of resources. The Open Source community is like a tsunami, uncontrollable, and until it does so it will never become anything other than a sideshow.

Terry

 

What you hate about open-source is what's great about it, imo. We are trying to get away from M$ and how it and similar companies do things. Open source gives choice -- you aren't locked into a single vendor (M$).

A lot of people echo your sentiment: "we need a united Linux." It wont happen because Linux is not a product, no one owns it. If you need a Linux distro with corporate support, there are numerous versions already (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu). The last thing I want to see is a united Linux with a controlling body that forces us to do things their way or the highway. That's no better than M$.

 

For some reason, I doubt that a concerted effort to better utilize available resources and talent so as to present a more cohesive challenge towards Microsoft/Apple has to be synonymous with "lock-in". Instead of fighting the so-called war against proprietarism, Linux seems to be fighting against itself instead.

 

I think consolidating things into a few major distros might also tend to improve quality control, which I find lacking in many Linux distros. It's amazing how one release can work flawlessly while the next one 6 months later is suddenly full of issues. I have seen this many times, even with distros like openSUSE and Fedora. My vote would have to go for a more concentrated effort put into fewer products.

 

the beauty of linux is that you can build it the way you want and not have things built in that are unnecessary
so no its not been rejected
its just that most ms users are sheep
how many have bought win7
and of those who can answer why
i'll stick with xp pro on my desktop and puppy for my old p3 laptop

 

On hardware that old, I doubt upgrading to Win7 would be a viable choice anyway. Sour grapes much?

 

i can buy a new one if i wanted but i see no advantage my desktop is p4 3gig 1gig ram and works great so no sour grapes here sheep

 

Sure you could. But that would, you know, involve spending actual money rather than just cheap talk.

A list of new features found in Win7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

Maybe you don't see any benefit in all those things. But does it really take such a stretch of imagination to realize that your views don't hold true for everyone? Your need to use personal attacks on people who don't make the same choices as you do only reveal how immature you are, or how insecure you are about your own choices - or, quite possibly, both.

 

Folks,

This is a thread on Linux desktop market penetration, not Win7 adoption. If you wish to have that latter discussion, feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate subforum (i.e. not here....).

Blue