From the posts since I started this thread it's clear lifestyle is a factor. We have many of our own personal needs and reasons for using PC's and operating systems, and to the 56yr old and his dear wife who posted saying they find Linux great then good for you, your lifestyle means you're pretty much using it out of the box (I assume...Sir), that's a tick in the box for Linux I'm more than happy to 'whoop' at. I posted originally under the guise of my lifestyle, as a long-standing and active IT Consultant/Project Manager with many interests on-line at home to that are tech related. I can add also that since I started this posting we have seen the arise of Fedora 14 and what a peach it is, finally I can switch all the home PC's to Linux and everyone is happy, all the individual lifestyles within my home (from 8yrs old to 78yrs old) can use it with ease, are we seeing the true birth of Linux onto the home user market? Maybe so! If you are a home user and your hardware isn't from today (newer stuff is just too damn quirky for me!) then I'd give it a try, you'll be amazed how clean, stable and quick it is (after the obligatory few days to find out where all the 'familiars' are ... email, browser, open source office suite etc). Roll-on Linux, the revolution has truly come into view for me, for everyone who has contributed to Linux since it began, I thank you!
And the debate goes on. All i say is its good that we have competion and choice of operating system's so that we have jobs for everybody. We do have to understand more than 50% of users at home or at work just want to do their work and go home without bringing any more headaches. So until the mindset of those users change we will have room for everything. So if you support linux good for you and if you support windows good for you as well what ever helps you pay the bill go with that. Just my Canadian 2 cents. Regars NewBeeAdmin
Sorry if I missed the thread this would most connect into - but, ... For me, one of the major hurdles for jumping into Linux was (and still is) the large number of distributions. I see mentioned in other comments (just on this article) the following: Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mandriva, Gentoo, Knoppix, ... When I go to http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html, I get 180 !! distributions matching English language for Intel processors and supported distributions. How to choose? I see comments about how well Suse worked, or that Ubuntu is pretty good (but then I see somebody disparing Ubuntu because it isn't Kubuntu ). If I can state my applications are this, that and the other thing, then maybe one of the sites to choose the best distribution would be helpful. Several years ago, when I thought I would try out Linux, I got stuck in indecision mode, because I didn't want to waste my time learning Redhat's version of Linux, if Mandrake's would prove out better. And until I jumped into Linux, I wouldn't really know how to compare different distributions. For Microsoft OS's the decisions are fairly simple - although cost trade off vs. version of Vista can be a question (one which I most recently resolved by keeping with XP). I got over the hurdle for Linux by thinking if Ubuntu was good enough for Dell's common user, then it should be a good enough starting point for me. If the choice is already made and the distribution is already installed prepackaged on a new system, that will eliminate this decision hurdle. You'll end up liking the distribution or you won't. But at least the decision is made. (It's a bit like studies on 401k choices at companies. When too many choices are given, enrollment in any 401k plans drops. Choice sounds like a good thing, but the confusion it creates hampers any final decisions.)
Not until you can run an .exe or .msi by a mouse click. That is as far as most people get when they try LINUX. When you can install a program by doing something as simple as that, then LINUX will be a contender.
And what comes to device drivers, i have soundcard which has not Vista drivers but it has linux drivers there is. OK. Not a good example because card has some age.. -Midiman Delta 2496.
Will Linux Ever be a Popular Desktop Product? In a word: Never. The vast majority who believe Linux can be a popular desktop product are merely anti-Microsoft zealots with no real sense of PC history. Windows is #1 for a very good reason. In a world where there is near infinite intellect and funding, you have to ask yourself why hasn't any other OS unseated Windows. Apple had the best shot but they shot themselves in the foot by making their hardware proprietary. You couldn't buy a cheap Apple computer back then and you still can't. You couldn't build your own Apple back then and you still can't. You couldn't buy an Apple clone back then and you still can't. Back in the early 90's, you could buy 3rd party parts for IBM clones but not for Apple boxes. Where we are today really isn't a Microsoft issue but an IBM issue. Once IBM allowed their hardware to be cloned, the door slammed shut. Sure, *NIX products were around but the folks that mattered, the typical enduser, couldn't use or make sense of the cryptic command-line syntax. And yes, DOS commands were MUCH easier to use, understand, and explain. How many of you remember the long lines in front of stores like EggHead for the latest copy of Windows? Have you ever seen a line for a *NIX product? And let's not even start on OS2. So you really have to start at the beginning before you bash Microsoft for the state we're in today.
The problem is the 'easability' is missing with Linux, we're just not good at marketing it. Take for instance a simple scenario: Joe(or Mary!) Bloggs walks into a PC shop, buys a totally Linux compatible PC, has Linux on it, takes it home, switches it on and everything does what he(she) wants. All hardware works and printers and broadband, in fact everything. For that to happen there has to be alot of relationships between Hardware/Software/Peripherals/Vendors/Service providers etc, etc. The only thing keeping Linux back is not being far enough along the 'Sales' route to have everyone on-board, Microsoft is because from day 1 they took that approach and put system quality second. Linux has continually grown and always resisted Corporate influence, as a result it's an amazing thing that has come about as a result of global input from millions of people who care about Linux and often do hard work for little or no reward. Linux will achieve greatness, it's very essence is what the world is globally realising, that Corporate and money-making comes second, because if you put it first you can't put what the Customer wants first, also the customer soon realises they don't want what they told you they did want. Linux is more 'realised' that you want it when you experience it, it has a huge 'family' value built within the very heart of it. More exposure will bring the people into that essence to help make it commercially viable and more 'user-friendly', then it may even dominate ... unless of course Microsoft pre-empt it and distort accordingly, but 'hey', we'll get there in the end, like the Dinosaurs who reigned long but lost their fight (apart from the birds...) and we are here now, from humble but persistent beginnings. Microsoft is starting to become the Dinosaur and I doubt with it's bulk it can evolve quickly enough to survive when the more personable and valued Linux comes of age. Personally I'm hung between the two in my work, but my efforts are towards Linux, frustrations quickly become learning, about me as I adapt to reach my goals, often realising benefits in not always doing things the way I have before, try it for yourself, you might just grow to like it!
For all of you diehard Windows fans, I have every Linux OS ever developed and have personally helped to improve on a few of them. If you want a stable Windows like environment, then suggest you try Linux Xandros Deluxe or Pro editions. If you're really computer savvy, then try SuSe Pro. I was brought up to believe that until you've walked in someone elses shoes then you'll never understand them.I also believe that some of the better things in life ARE FREE and should remain that way(like water) The moral is, DON'T KNOCK IT UNTIL YOU"VE TRIED IT!!!!
I've forgotten how many times I've had tried to shift to Linux from Windows. I remember my last attempt was someday in the last month when I put Ubuntu Live 7.04 on tap. All my required daily applications except Quickbook, CuffeeCup, DestopAutor and some utilities are found to have the close alternatives. But I just couldn't twist the screen resolution to 1280x800 for Gnome. Therefore I sweep this Ubuntu under the carpet again!
I think that that the article that was putout by EE times last week says it all. 7 reasons why Linux won't succeed on the desktop. http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807459
As a professional IT guy for 25+plus years. I would have to say no! The reason is it is more server centric. I order to be successful on the desktop they will need to isolate the average user from what goes on behind the seens. I have even seen IT professionals become frustrated with many flavors of Linux jusr setting them up and making sure the correct drivers get installed. The average user simply want something that is plug-play & go. The do not want to deal with the internals.
Yes and no. It made inroads into the media/animation arena, and paint, 3D, and animation programs have been ported. This caught the attention of Apple, because Apple pretty much owned that market. Apple made a move and bought the company that created Shake, and an important application was ported to Apple, and Linux (and unix admins) suffered the loss of a significant product. Xara's being ported, and Linux may yet grow in the media and graphics niche. (I doubt if it could edge out Apple in publishing, though.) Linux is doing well with netadmins, who use it to manage networks. The tools are just more flexible, and installing a full dev environment is easier. Linux is becoming a factor in GIS. ArcGIS has been ported, many public tools are unix-based, and unix is a great platform for number crunching and developing extensions.
it comes ever closer and closer. I 've just installed Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon on my wife's machine and within an hour she could surf, email and play games; all she ever needs ! It is a big succes and I myself am happy with it too ! OpenOffice is a standard too and is more than enough to work with from home. These days, even reading and writing NTFS is a default trick of this distro ... ;-)
Red Hat Debian Mandriva SUSE it does not matter all of them have things common as well as differences. Life is full of choices and decisions to make. Make any decision toss a coin.
It's easier to use than Windows Update and includes a huge selection of software you can add in with a single click; even easier than running a .exe or .msi isntallation.
Firstly, the reason you don't see people waiting in line to purchase the next Linux distro is most likely because the software is free and downloadable from any number of websites. Also, Linux [i]does not have to "beat" Windows[/i], not at all (and this is the main point which even Linux fans compleely miss). You see, it's not about gaining superiority; instead, it's all about getting a large enough install base to catch the attention of all the companies making our favorite software and drivers. As things stand now, Linux has these issues because no company is going to give a hoot about an OS with less than a 2% marketshare; so there's a dearth of software support, and up-to-date drivers for a lot of hardware can be hard to come by (if not non-existent). Because of that there's a lot of hobbyists and IT professionals reverse-engineering drivers, installing API layers (like Wine or Crossover Office), installing virtual machines, or even dual-booting. The main point is that if Linux-based OS's can gain even a measly 10% marketshare then the number of users will have grown to a point where the companies making all your favorite software and drivers will no longer ignore those particular users and start porting their applications for Linux. That, in turn, will make life a lot less of a PITA for anyone wanting to use a non-Microsoft OS. Linux doesn't have to "unseat" Windows to do any of this.
Have always been great strengths of Microsoft. In the early days of the PC in industry and commerce with hardware available in those early years, single user PC's (no networks or internet) An IBM or clone was the only option. Security was lock your machine with key switch. Now we have networks and internet and those compromises in the basic microsoft architecture, which helped in the early days to keep things simple and improve performace with limited resources (many apps needing administrative rights to run) now make things more difficult. Maybe Microsoft should rewrite OS to be more UNIX like to catch up with linux, Apple has seen the light and gone this way. As a footnote remember the first viruses that showed up on Microsoft OS - the your computer is stoned virus which wrote a lot of gibberish on your on your screen and "your computer is now stoned". Now viruses are much more deadly. If Linux dose or dose not become a bigger player in desktop PC's technical superiority will not be the deciding factor because linux has been superior to windows at a technical level for some time. Install XP and any linux version from 2003 upwards on a PC set up to dual boot and see which OS performs best. Connect both OS's to internet without any additional virus protection and see how long it takes for XP to be screwed
I spend 8 + hrs a day at work producing cutting programs and cad drawings on apps that run only on windows OS. When I come home I use my PC for things that interest me. Linux OS and the apps I use do all the tasks I require better faster, more reliably than I could ever do before I switched, with the added benefit of minimal cost. I don't care if linux becomes a major player in the PC desktop area, but I am sure I will never bother to install windows on any of my home machines again. I started with Mandrake 6.5, and have used Red Hat, Novell SUSe, Fedora Core, and at present Debian is my chosen Distro. All linux disros I have used have been easy to set up even the machine I use as a server/gateway/firewall I use to interface my internal network to my cable modem internet connection. I have never used Vista MS's latest offering but if I had been in a coma for the last 7 years and came across XP and linux for the first time and I was asked to guess which was the OS developed by a group of volunteers in their own time or the OS developed by a large corporation,with a large well resourced team of programmers I would pick the more polished, reliable, well engineered OS designed and built with a much more sensible core architecture which is of course Linux, as the commercially developed OS. I would see XP as the less polished, less reliable OS, developed by a less resourced bunch of part time developers. Linux (Kde desktop) looks slicker than XP even without going into all the wizzy 3D desktop features, and runs better than XP does on the same hardware. Linux may or may not become a much bigger player in the desktop only time will tell.
Even Torvalds himself couldn't say that. You *do* realize that there are more than two flavors, right? Of course, you also realize that there has been no such thing as a Professional version of SuSE for about two years now, right? If you want a stable Windows-like environment, I suggest resurrecting Rod Serling. It would take an imagination like his to come up with it.
I don't know the Ubuntu install process so I'm unsure but there must be an option to set your video card in the system controls. I'm getting 1280x1024 perfectly. what monitor and video card do you have and does x800 match your screen shape or video card maximum? It may be a quick and easy fix since you sound perfectly comfortable with the machine.
... I put it alongside: "There will only by a need for 5 personal computars in the world" and "Elvis lives". Typically re-cycled version based on old views and old news.
People have to accept this is now becoming less about Linux -v- Microsoft and more about personal choice. People discover Linux and either come back to it until they are 'on-board' or switch off to it. There isn't a single car manufacturer, HiFi manufacturer, different vacuum cleaner brands and TV's too. The Desktop market will become the same. Microsoft achieved it's domination with sales promises and by forging profitable relationships with other vendors and suppliers, people are seeing through the promises and seeing shortfalls they don't really want and many want other (more suiting)options now, more and more every day. Linux is there, as is MAC, Microsoft dominates now and for a long time to copme, but Linux and MAC remain and will do so, because enough people want them and enough people care to make thos esystems beter for the users, not the profits of the vendors. The attitude of the worls continues to evolve and Linux and MAC fit right in with where the future appears to be going, I mean ethically and pursposeful, not commercially, the commercial thinkers are on the decline, a decade from now and you'll see what I mean, a century from now and our children's children will be the common man's ethical thinkers, as will the things they interact with, like computers and their operating systems ...
Windows works out of the box is his contention. So why did I have to wait five months to get my new portable with vista on it? Some of the problems are very real, however presenting thenm with this sort of factual inaccuracy and obvious bias makes a complete arse of any attempt to address them. Windows just works, wanker !
That would be as daft as having 95,98, 2K, 2K3, XP Pro, XP ME, Vista this Vista that Vista other wouldn't it? Just because you pick Distro X, doesn't mean I or anyone else has to. If it comes pre-installed the user doesn't have to bother about behind the scenes. When you as a professional trying to make a choice of which distro to use then a wide ranging overview is required. Talking about linus as a desktop waht you are really talking about is the congiguration of the GUI, which unlike windows sits on top of the OS.
You go to buy a car. There are all kinds of different models out there and they are in different shapes and sizes. How do you make a decision then? You read up and compare what sounds like what you are looking to get in the way of a vehicle. Same with Linux. The basics are the same. You have an engine (Linux kernel) which is composed of just about all the same things. You have distros that force you to dig deep and spend a lot of time learning and tailoring what your system will be like and you have distros that will practically do it all for you. YOu have distros that are aimed at those looking for eye candy and distros that are aimed at covering the basics. You can start with one distro and then move to another. In my case I knew almost nothing about Linux at all and I ended up installing 6 different distros. I found out what each was like and I have it down to 2 now and I am comparing and contrasting them. I will probably end up with the final one soon. The point is that I took a leap and tried a couple out to see what was there. The result for me is that I dumped Windows completely since I found that all the things I found important were handled at least as well in Linux and I needed whole lot less time just running things to clean up the mess that the system left. I will not be going back since this is working out very well for me. YMMV. You just need to try it and see. What you read about how difficult it is and how you have to be such a geek may be true for a couple of distros but then those distros are aimed at that market. There are others that this is not true of and that is their market.
The three distributions I've tried were all configured to download software from the Internet. If you don't have a broadband connection, it is difficult, nay, impossible, for Joe Keyboard to install an app from CD or thumb drive with any of the GUI tools. I speak from experience, as documented here: http://tinyurl.com/35rgnn Maybe some distro's now play better with on-board "Winmodems" and Joe can use dial-up ISP without having to play with modem drivers. Otherwise, while installation can be done from CD / DVD / thumbdrive, it will require command line prowess Joe is never going to bother acquiring.
Using a linux desktop is no harder to use than a windows desktop Spend some time with linux, become familiar with linux and you will see some things are easier in linux. It took awhile for the human species to accept that the earth is not flat or the centre of the universe so it may take time for the "linux is hard to use" myth to go away
Neon, thank for your touch. It was about to run Ubuntu Live on my Dell Inspiron 710m with the Intel 82852/82855 and the resolution of 1280x800 associated. You meant getting kernal be recompiled after a native installation?
"Windows works out of the box is his contention. So why did I have to wait five months to get my new portable with vista on it?" I'm sorry, how does the hardware vendor's delivery schedule reflect on the software's functionality? When you finally received it, did it work when you turned the system on and completed the installation process? Also, what factual inaccuracies did you find in the article?
I remember when DOS was new. My first experience computing wise was a 6502 8 bit processor, my physics teacher soldered together in 1977.
as Neon suggests and get back to something in Linux with a more modern graphical user interface. I've only tinkered with Linux commands; but I was pretty good with DOS in the old days. UGGH! Man I'm old!
In fact it was my first distro in terms of work. The install detcted my card and installed some Mandrake sponsored driver. It occasionally just stopped talking. Found the vendor driver and that worked fine. Overall I've got to say Mandrake impressed me. I went from knowing next to nothing about linux to enough to use it well as a LAMP server in a real world system. Apart from KCron, the guy who wrote that should have his ass kicked up the back of his neck. Pretty much my first real venture into command line, to get round that drivel.
I was surprised how well it worked when I installed it in my old machine! But then I considered it beginners luck! Even installed it as dual boot with Windows - worked seemingly flawless. Didn't have any problem with a dialup adapter either but then it had onboard DSP using Hayes code. Haven't tried installing a network card yet.It made me feel I was in the Windows 3.1 days; is it THAT old?
Have all without any difficulty enabled me to set up where it looks for location of packages. It can be from CD drive , internet, in local filesystem.Sometimes to become familiar with how to accomplish a task, a look through documentation makes a big difference. One thing further, I can never understand how so many people on Tech Republic who are Professionals in this industry can't install a common version of Linux ( released within the last 7 years ) on common hardware, set up internet and network connections and have a working system up and running. If a Pro can do this with windows they should have the fundamental knowledge and be able to apply this knowledge to setting up a basic Linux box, its' not hard, being a Pro means keeping your skill set up to the job. Any one in this industry who can't gain basic linux skills off their own bat would be better off in another career. Becoming an "expert" in linux based technologies is another thing again and would require a lot more effort, and would be worth it, if you can make a dollar or two from this skill set. But come on, getting a linux box up and running is not rocket science, though it would not suprise me if many Rocket Scientists are not Linux Users
for "filesystem hierarchy" I posted it a long time back and drew the parallels between windows and linux filesystems.. never mind, I found it for ya. :p http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=90&threadID=177260
I ended up with my CD drive as the source. Course that was because it screwed up my network card driver :( Once I fixed that though, changing the package location was simply a matter of clicking on an icon. I've had some real head scratchers navigating around linux with my windows head on, but not much so than trying to figure out how to print something in Office2007. Where the F is it, is 30% of the problem and 60% of it assuming it should be somewhere else.
A myth indeed, no great 'genie in a bottle' or 'dark art'. My whole family adapted with ease to Fedora 14 and Open Office, all finding it not entirely different to use, just a little thought tweaking to do!
yippee yippee yeah yeah! Finally my trial run yesterday over the newly release Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon had beautifully and perfectly brightened up my 1280x800 notebook screen. I love it and is preparing to hit the install button to give Linux be supervened upon windows.
If Ubuntu recognizes the hardware, it should just pickup during the boot process; no recompiling the kernel afterward. I'm not sure where the screen resolution settings will be found in X but probably under the system tools menu. You should be able to change the screen resolution there. I'm not familiar enough with Ubuntu to walk you through it off the top fo my head. You may want to try a few different liveCD encase there's something that recognizes your hardware better or is more to your preferences. Mandriva One tends to have good hardware recogntion and under "Configure Your Computer" you can set you X video driver and resolutions easily.
I couldn't resist; would putting the OS disk in the drive and be reading this forum through a liveCD on a thinkpad count? I put the disk in, it loads, I connect to the wifi through a networking icon at the screens bottom right and tada. The irony has me giggling to myself; I'm reading an argument over "Out of the Box" being the OS install disk fresh from packaging or being in combination with the hardware while using a computer that I've not yet touched the hard drive of and both video and wifi networking "just work". Both are right but targeting different market segments. There are probably a greater number of people who have technical knowledge and are going to buy an OS alone. I'd have thought that it was this way also due to discussing the OS in general rather than preinstalls. In terms of included with hardware; any OS the manufacturer chooses better be Out of the Box when the packaging is opened. There again, with most of the hardware; the Linux kernel and X know it, or they don't. If they Don't, you have to go looking for the proper module which may or may not exist. Windows knows a greater list of hardware as the drivers for each version become available. While it's more likely that the hardware ships with a Windows driver, there's rarely not a disk and install process involved. It doesn't really relate to the original post in the thread though.
To be quite honest I wwould have had to bone up on windows admin again to get it working myself. Our IS types got lumbered with the task of providing me a machine. Drivers were a problem, as was sysprep, the company av wouldn't work either. After I got it, it was another two weeks before I got the correct video driver from the vendor and the inhouse snooper software (checks what apps I have installed) still doesn't work. Not a windows problem as such, I daresay there would be a few problems if I loaded a linux distro on to it. Last I looked (five months agao) I still couldn't get linux to work properly with the power management on my own Toshiba as well. XP Home it does work with. Is out of the box basic minimal install, or the hardware software choices the user requires?
windows works out of the box. That's inaccurate.... In fact it's a damn lie. Without even going into what's in the box I'm using Vista, I quite like it, it did not work out of the box, and to be quite honest if it had I would have been suspicious about what was in the box. Some of the old and oft mentioned (number of distros for instance) are accurate, but that's a pro and con. Linux is not windows and will never be windows (hopefully).
that if you didn't disagree it just wouldn't feel right. :D I know what you and Tony were referring to, I was being contrary on purpose.
and I'm not going to pass up this opportunity :-) Tony said nothing about drivers, wireless, or his "out of box" experience. All he said was he had to "wait five months to get my new portable with Vista on it." It appears you assumed it took him five months to get it working once he received it. I assumed it took him five months to receive it after he ordered it. This would all be cleared up if Tony would specify what he was waiting five months for: delivery or successful operation of all components. I'd also like to know what parts of the EE article he found to be factually inaccurate. I agree with you that if I wipe my H/D and then install any flavor of Windows, I'm going to have to add drivers (probably more than 20%). In this case, it appears you and I are using the term "out of box" differently. It sounds like you're using it to refer to a retail purchase of the OS independent of a computer. I've been using it to refer to opening a new computer with an operating system pre-loaded to begin installation at initial boot. In that case, the manufacturer should include the appropriate drivers for the components regardless of OS. Since Tony was referring to a new system, I assumed (there's that word again) that he was talking about an OS pre-installed on the system. As others here have noted, the average home user doesn't buy (or download) an OS individually; he runs whatever is on the system when he buys it. That's the only "out of box" experience he's ever going to have.
wipe your hard drive and install any MS os fresh. 20% of the drivers you need are not there, so it didn't work "out of the box" any current linux distro will power everything with wireless networking being the only problem device "out of the box" which one then is better in a fresh install with no driver disks?