Linux

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Imagine a Googled Linux !!!

0 helpful
82 replies

by lastchip 2 views

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

There have been several snippets in TR News recently that suggest Google may be looking at producing it's own operating system. Another correspondent touched on the possibility of using Linux at the core of this (speculative) system.

This got me thinking; a rare occurrence, so make the most of it ;-)

It has been discussed as to why Linux has failed to make significant inroads on to the desktop in the USA and great parts of Europe. To me, it is quite clear. It's all about marketing (or lack of it in Linux's case) and the stranglehold Microsoft has on Pre-loaded OEM systems.

Now imagine a Linux that combines the easy interface that Xandros (my favourite), Linspire or Mandriva produces, with Google's marketing clout. Imagine every time you searched Google or switched on the TV, you had an advertisement in front of you, encouraging it's use. Imagine an integrated system, that showed just how bad Microsoft's pathetic non-compliant IE7, really is. Imagine Google turning the screws with a marketing campaign that had consumers demanding the "Google" operating system. (remember "Intel Inside" - how successful was that?)

Far fetched? Wishful thinking? Or closer to the future than we all know? I wonder......

82 replies

by prolifiq

... then it would make perfect sense, considering the bad blood between Google and Microsoft.

A Google/Linux alignment would give Linux the type of branding it needs to become a household (and boardroom) name. Everyone knows Google, so the right marketing would finally break Linux out of the geek circle.

But that's only if Google could put together a Linux distro that's as user-friendly (or more) than Windows. As you mentioned, Xandros or Linspire would be good choices.

by joeaaa22

The myth that MS Windows is user friendly has been perpetuated so much that it it is now ingrained in almost everyone. Anyone who's been on a Mac for 10 seconds has seen that MS and "User Friendly" as mutually exclusive. When everyone really means when they say, "As user friendly as MS Windows" is that if it doesn't look like and act like MS Windows then it's not friendly. Back in the dark ages of desktop computing (about 1993 or 1994) when Win95 came out an independent study was done to compare the amount of resources, i.e. time and money, to train users to go from Win3x to Win95 and to go from Win3x to Linux (with a slightly modified fvwm setup). The results were that there was virtually no difference in the "cost" of training in either time or money. A comparison of the jump from Win9x to Win2k vs Linux of 1999/2000 would have been interesting to see.

Anyway, I'm done ranting for today. Everyone back to work.

by underground_in_tn

Ask anyone who regularly works with Windows to operate and/or reconfigure a Mac for a day or so, then tell them how user friendly Macs are.

They'll laugh you out of the room.

by prolifiq

This is certainly not an attempt to advocate Windows, but... try replacing all the Windows desktops (and servers) in an enterprise with Mac-based technology, and then just wait to see how many ecstatic users you'll have.

I've got a cellar where you can hide out when all those users are chasing you with torches and pitchforks.

The secret passcode will be, "I take back what I said about Macs being more user-friendly."

by bfilmfan

I imagine that if Linux was advertised as heavily as Microsoft, then it would be more popular.

But who can afford to advertise what is basically free.

by lastchip

It depends on what the ultimate reward is. It depends upon (in this case) Google's strategy for the next 10(?) years. Sometimes the ultimate goal of a corporation is achieved by giving away something first off!

by lefty.crupps

I emailed Chris DiBona, the OSS guy at Google, about this idea back in June 05. He thought it interesting, but mentioned no plans. I think it would be incredible, and would boost Linux use to new heights.

Chris' response, at the time, was:
>Thanks for the email! I'm glad you like what we
>do here. We try to bring our simplicity to folks
>via their web browser, but I'll pass it on :-)
>
>chris

Google, which made their fortune running Linux, could afford to brand their own and put some serious cash flow into this little project... I could see their commitment being more showey and fun than IBM's...how great it would be!

by jaqui

need to look at linux.
it is MORE standardised than windows.
has MORE user friendly gui than windows
( has 14 guis, 2 of which are easier to work with than windows is )

the documentation included is weak, but then so is windows included documentation.

by joeaaa22

You can't be serious. Right now the major Linux distros have far better "user friendly GUI installations and use" than Win2k or WinXP. When my son was 6 (he's now 8) he was able to get on my Linux box and go to town with either GNOME or KDE. He gets frustrated with the WinXX boxes at school 'cause they are so difficult to use. And for the record his initial computer experiences were all on WinXX boxes.

Side note: His computer here at home in an old iMac currently running Jaguar. I need to get the Tiger DVD and upgrade it one of these days.

by tngamecockfan

That's the selling point!!! If Google would put up the cash to support and doucment Linux, Linux would be a much better product.

Who benefits? How about the small business group. More jobs are created in this country by small business than all of the major corporations. Having to expend less capital on an expensive OS and browser would allow more people to expand their business or perhaps open a business.

Expecially those that fear computers. Linux, Firefox for the browser, open office, spybot, Adaware, and add Zone Alaram for protection. Not a bad system and all of it's free. Unless you purchase the full blow versions of Adaware and Zone Alarm.

by jonf

Some other big names with clout that have tried this...

Red Hat
Corel
Novel
Sun

At this point Linux is mostly competing with itself. If someone puts together something like ubuntu or xandros and the like that is more average user freindly but easier to repair than any linux distro in existence, then you may have something. Most people that run linux will also be running Windows.

by dnvrtechgrrl

Personally, I could easily live without yet another bombardment of media ads. However, should it happen to further a Microsoft competetor, I say "full steam ahead!"

My mind is spinning the growth opportunities for the software. Not necessarily the sales growth, but the actual evolution of the software...

I'll have a smile on my face all day now - thank you!

K

by jp-dutch

What really amazes me is the lack of fighting spirit with companies, which become the target of Microsoft. Microsoft practically owns the worlds desktops and from this base (and cash generator) they attack new markets. With their SQL*Server database they go after Oracle. With IE they went for Netscape (and once they cornered that market stopped development altogether). Recently with XBox MS went for Sony's PS2 in the gamemarket. What I don't understand is that Sony never launched a counter attack by supplying PS2's with Linux to offer an PC alternative. Perhaps they will rectify this error with PS3...
Now Microsoft wants the search market as well (they really want to controll the universe), but if Google launches a counter attack to the desktop, that is perhaps their best defense.
Take the war to the enemies homeland, because that hurts them the most.

by holdupmaster

Microsoft is a corporation, they exist to make money. They see a market they want a share. GET OVER IT. MS do it IBM do it, even educated bees do it, they make money and it keeps people in jobs. Im a professional, and dont advocate any particular OS, Im a use what works best person. I work in a large datacentre we have almost every OS ever made here, they all serve a purpose (no pun intended) and all have a cost associated with them (even linux) You should see the bill for HPUX clusters!!

Ok enough ranting can we keep what could be a sensible topic a directed one.
I was fortunate enough to meet the founders of Google during the dotcom boom whilst they were in London as they knew the java developer at the dotcom i worked for. Even back then they were talking about releasing there own distro.

You have to remember though that all these companies Google included are here to make money, and are looking to move to service / product model pricing in order to generate long term sustainable revenues. Google makes a lot of money, and can afford to punt resources at opensource projects like inkscape.org If they decide to ship "Googlux" or whatever they call it
they will probably want to make it an income out of it as shipping an operating system is not a cheap venture and to take on MS in the desktop space, will require a large amount of support etc.

It could be a very interesting distro, great desktop searching, low install footprint, and a decent window manager / web browser. How google will draw money from it will be interesting. I can't imagine anyone here being happy with an adware OS.

by johnofstony

What Microsoft needs more than anything else is a threat to its monopoly to force it to (a) improve security (b) lower its prices and (c) make its software easier to manage - e.g. who thought of storing data (such as templates) under "Program Files"?!?. Google does seem an ideal company to create this threat. Despite lower prices being desirable, it wouldn't surprise me if a product priced higher than Microsoft's would sell if it required less time to learn it and it was more secure. Roll on Google!

by malcolmas

Microsoft desktops, who is going to get all the companies to write /port software for the linux o/s. Sybiz,MYOB,Quickbooks,Arrow, Solution6 all accounting products running small and Medium business in Australia. With these applications support is what the end user needs. What would be the support costs to the above companies to support both Linux and MS based systems. Its the Apps not o/s, most users don't know about the O/S just their Apps. It's not about the O/S it what make my business run that business owners think about. Tell me what is worng with this View ?

by lastchip

But, it's a 'chicken and egg' situation. As long as Microsoft dominates the desktop, there is no incentive for your software suppliers to port any of their software to Linux.

When I wrote the original post, it was more aimed at the home market rather than companies for all the reasons you stated. Large server systems in many corporations, invariably don't use MS products anyway.

However, you could also take the view, other than specialised software, Linux now has more than adequate applications for most small business needs. It is lack of knowledge (the scared factor if you like) that stops those businesses even trying Linux on a one off trial basis. Introduce it one person at a time, from the lowest common denominator - I mean that in the nicest possible way. If you have a secretary that only needs a Word Processor, try Linux with Open Office. It's near as damn-it the same as MS Office, wont cost you a fortune, you can save all your documents as Word documents and wave goodbye to viruses, malware, patches and all the rest of the crap you put up with with MS products.

Whether there is any truth in the rumours of a Google/Linux operating system remains to be seen, but clearly from andrew.barratt@...'s post, it has been discussed.

As they say, often there's no smoke without fire!

by jaqui

atfer all they support linux already, so getting them to port simply ( previously known as bedford accounting ) to linux.

I gave them a hard time when they sold out to acpacc.
they didn't get anything near what they should have from them.
( yes, the couple that owned Bedford are friends, we used to do ballroom dancing together :) )

by vetch_101

Absolutely; there's a quote from one of the upper echelons of MS when asked what made them the number 1 OS of choice... "Developers, developers, developers"...
The point is that without applications being written for Windows, the OS would not have risen to it's current place in the market.
Now we have cross-platform languages, including MS's own .Net (does anyone else wonder about their gameplan when releasing the specs so it can be ported to linux/other competetor's platforms?).
Novell are pushing Mono (.Net Linux port) to become the language of choice for developers...

When apps can be written cross platform, the OS market becomes more open to competetors...

by spareher

Malcomas is right. In the end it's not about the OS. Linux may be more stable and offer a variety interfaces, but does it support the files that people use (and misuse). I have tried the alternatives to MS Office, Open Office and Star Office and had trouble with files not looking the same when opening on one or the other, or not opening at all. Linux will never take over until it provides the rich (flashy), easy to use interface that a general user expects because of windows. When I can set up a Linux box (with a preinstalled OS,all the niggly little drivers in place or easily available) for my mom and she can click through and figure out how to use it, Linux will have made it. No tar files or root commands to handle and the ability to have the same media rich experience that Windows provides on the Internet. To the user, it should be no different than having an AMD processor instead of Intel.

by jck

It reports to be able to run Windows apps under Linux, including Windows itself.

At least, that's the jist I got from their last email.

I haven't purchased it yet, however. So, I can't give first-hand knowledge.

by gauravy2k09

It's very true, that Linux is not much popular as a desktop OS.But, I don't think this is because of poor marketing.
Linux (or rather GNU/Linux) is something seen as techies system (and it is!).The level of customization introduced to many of it's Desktop Versions are considered to be Not very familiar for persons who are habitual of Windows "Spoon-Feeding".
If the customization grows to a good level, may be it will take time, Linux will grow as Computer Users Operating System. That will be the day when Linux will be accepted as a true OS, capable of supplementing all the needs of Computer Users, without any hide-in deals.

by threv

"level of customization introduced to many of it's Desktop Versions are considered to be Not very familiar for persons who are habitual of Windows "Spoon-Feeding"."

I've seen this Term come up with reagrds to Windows. If MS Spoon feeds its users what does Apple do keep them on the Teat??

by vetch_101

Had a play with a Live FreeBSD cd recently - was looking for a secure OS to deploy a firewall...

Even less user friendly than Linux...

Could only just get the directory listings and navigate directories...

Other than that it was a brick...

Totally secure - you can't do anything with it...;)

by andeanderson

My users could care less about what OS they are using. All they know is they want a program that can do what they want; write emails, documents, spreadsheets, etc...

Most are spoonfed Microsoft users and when they hit the "F1" key they expect a "Help" menu to pop-up no matter what application they are using. If it doesn't happen I get a phone call.

I have been exploring the Linux world for about a year now and I do not find the same standardiztion for the applications. I do not have time to learn all of the different commands for each individual application and then turn around and teach my users how to use them.

Not to mention the different flavors of Linux and the different uses of the same command line switches, depending on what build, that each individual programmer set-up for their version of Linux.

If Google actually entered into the desktop arena with their flavor of Linux, I pray they follow Microsoft's blueprint by requiring standardized code and applications with user friendly documentation. If they did, then I would welcome them. Even then, I see a five to ten year period before it would even put a dent into the Microsoft Home Market.

by threv

" when they hit the "F1" key they expect a "Help" menu to pop-up no matter what application they are using."

Whoa! Hold on dude your users actually use the Help Files? My world is spinning!

by charliespencer

How do you get them to hit F1? Smear peanut butter on the key? Will they click "Help" on the application menu too?

by andeanderson

They prefer chocolate on the F1 key.

My users are an independent technically savvy and curious bunch and very self-dependent. If they can figure something out without help from me they go ahead and do it. Of course that gives me job security in fixing what they do wrong.

But, at least they do use the Help keys and menus instead of just calling me with all of their questions.

by tigertim

I experimented with Linux a few months back. I was very happy with the standard applications that came with the OS. I could do everything that I used to do with MS Office and moreso. However, I could not find device drivers for my scanner/printer (I went to the HP site and found only printer drivers). And I had a hell of a time trying to interface my PDA. And the hassle of having to mount and demount drives every time I changed disks, CD's or memory sticks.

My ISP (AOL) also could not interface with my PC, Try finding an ISP who would let a home user running Linux access the net.

It was for those reasons alone that I reverted to MS Windows XP. If the proposed new Google version could rectify those issues I, for one, would be very happy to change over.

by jaqui

hpoj
that's the hp supplied in distro drivers for thier psc systems.
sane(d) is the scanner drivers.

as far as internet access with linux, aol is the only one that doesn't support linux.
it's aol's windows specific content filtering that screws linux connectivity.

by jaqui

google doesn't have to do anything but brand Xandros or linspire, they have the money to buy both outright.
and both are exactly the type of linux distro windows users want.

for real linux, use slak or lfs.
nothing with a software / package manager qualifies as a geek / teckie os.

by garnerl

For real work, get a stable, manageable distribution. RedHat has made money with theirs, Google can probably do the same.

Feel free to hack on a "geek" version of Linux on your own; it's not likely to get into business systems.

by jaqui

any software development company that wants to guarantee working on all linux distros will use something like lfs or slakware.
to get thier lsb compliant version of linux.
not even debian is completely lsb compliant.
the package management tools, on top of the customisations in utilities in the main distros all remove compliancy.
( and mandriva's altered kde menus.. )

every tweak to make the distro fit the developers opinion of how it should be is a step away from standards compliancy for lsb.
( which is set up to ensure portability between distros.. said portability not working as people are not using lsb compliant systems to develop on. )

use a 100% compliant version and you have that geek / teckie distro. perfect for software development.

by nottheusual1

are nice. Many of us "geek"-types now embrace package managers and auto-update processes. Dever's are writing this "auto" stuff to take Linux distro's more mainstream. You eventually get tired of shifting the gears in traffic. Well, we have, anyway.

by jaqui

you like that blinding white flash from airbags.. you know, the one that will break your neck as it explodes from the steering wheel. or the put the brakes on and have the pedal sink to the floor with no resistance from the abs.

my comment re package managers not being on a true linux was pointing out the falacy of saying linux is only for geeks, not for end users.

end users need package managers, geeks can build from sources.

only slak and lfs do NOT have package managers.. gee which 2 have the least number of users? slak and lfs.

by vetch_101

That's one thing I've been wondering about...

If you deploy Linux in a corporate environment, you presumably still have to keep it up to date with patches, etc...

Does anyone know if any Linux distros supply an equivalent to Windows SUS / WSUS?

Because if there isn't that kind of functionality, surely total cost of ownership goes through the roof compared to Windows...?

by tlea

Our company has an Enterprise Agreement with MS for our desktop and server OS's. The desktop agreement basically states that for any desktop system that is brought into our company that is not specifically for a line-of-business or specialty application, we have to purchase a desktop license for it. So even if we wanted to consider an alternative OS for our destop users, we still would have to purchase MS EA desktop licenses for those machine until the end of the agreement.

The reason I point this out is that any descent size company that uses MS products will probably have this type of agreement, which really prevents a company from even pursuing other options for an OS. You may ask yourself why anyone would sign such an agreement? Because the OS, MS Office apps, and server CALs are dirt cheap.

I think any OS vendor is going to have a serious uphill battle (in the US anyway) when it comes to convincing mid-size and large companies to switch platforms. Small business may be the inroad, as most of them would not be eligable for an EA with MS, and they could save a few bucks going with an open source solution.

Actually, if Apple decides to become an OS vendor with their new Intel version of OS X, I see this having a better chance of making in-roads than a Linux distro. I don't know how many people I have heard say, "I like Apple, but they're just too expensive." Plus MS makes Office for the Apple OS.

In the end I think a distro with an advertising budget (lets not forget IBM for the server market) might help, but there are many other factors that a new desktop vendor will have to overcome to make an inroad with todays mid to large sized businesses.

by simpatico

We are a good sized company and the EA prices are not dirt cheap. They are about what you can find as street prices. The only good news is you always load the latest version during you agreement period. I agree it will be a tough sell but not impossible.

by wdewey

I don't think the Google name is enough to push Linux into households. What is needed is better software support from third party vendors (Many of the bargin software companies). Open source software is great, but the minute that a home user has to compile an appliation from source code is when Linux becomes too much of a headache. RPM's are great if they are built for your kernel, distro, and configuration but not every possibility is covered.

Case in point: I spend 2 hours installing CUPS and Xprint for my Solaris machine just to be able to install a network printer. I had to use the command line and follow a page of instructions to complete the operation and it didn't completely work following the instructions. I had to determine what was missing and why, go though the config file and uncomment a configuration line. It still doesn't print in color (Haven't had time to look into it yet). I can't see someone like my wife doing this. It took five minutes on my Windows machine using the HP disk and everything worked great the first time.

Bill Dewey

by jaqui

isn't linux, it's sun's own version of unix for the pc.

a unique os, all on it's own.

by eric.p

MS is far too entrenched for any other OS to make any significant inroads into either business or home computers. Businesses have far too much invested in MS-compatible software, and most people are going to want to have an OS at home that is compatible with the one at the office.
I used to think it would be nice for Linux to eventually take over from Windows, but Windows is getting better, and if Linux were made so that it could do all that Windows can, it would suffer with many of the same problems.
Still, it's good to have some credible competing OS's out there to keep the pressure on MS. You guys who are disconnected enough from the vast majority of computing environments to be able to use Linux as a complete solution just go ahead and keep it up. You're helping to make Windows better for those of us who really have no other choice.

by lastchip

But Windows is getting so much better, a virus had been written within a week of Vista's beta launch!

Linux would undoubtedly suffer some problems, but they would be unlikely to compare to Windows. The architecture is very different.

Personally, I wouldn't underestimate the power of a huge effective marketing campaign. But in any case, it's all speculative.

by amsmota

I think that Google will be a really MS menace when (when - not if...) they lauch a web-based, ligth-weight, features-on-demand, no local storage needed, office components, mostly a Word processor and a Spreadsheet-like component. More, they have now all the technology to do it, so i guess it's more a matter of strategy then of time until they do it...

by vetch_101

Makes sense - why rely on getting installed on a machine when you can thin-client everything...

On the other hand, Google's remit is to enable people to access information in the easiest way possible...
A Google Search based Linux OS fits in with that, but does a Google Office client?

by vetch_101

Microsoft has just announced a major reorganisation in their hierarchy in order to better serve their future plans. These plans include providing services such as email, active directory, etc over the internet.

Interestingly enough, apparently back in 2001 they started work on an online office that they were going to market to small businesses, that failed to materialise...

I suspect rather than a Googled linux, we are more likely to see them increasing their levels of service provision online. Essentially offering all the needs of a desktop machine through a browser thin client...

by brandon.aiken

Linux will not be a viable desktop OS until it is significantly *easier* or *cheaper* for a user to switch to Linux and learn a new OS than it is to continue to use Windows.

You'll note this is the reason Linux is popular on the server end.

by sbassi

They should put it in their machine, so they take charge of managment and you could use it from anyplace, a la VNC or WTS.

by jeffusa

PC-BSD is much more advanced than what Linux is...in my opinion in 20 years Linux as we know it today will be a distant memory...

check out PC-BSD at www.pcbsd.org

by cgbullock

I work in a shop where we are trying to go 100% linux. Seems like everytime we take a step forward we get knocked back 2 steps. Problem is that most commercial software will only run on Windows. Most good accounting software, HR software, marketing software, etc. runs on windows. Yes there are alternatives but most of them are crap. I run a HealthCare network and it seems that what we used to have a great stable Unix programs and now tring to port their product to Windows. We even had one vendor move from SunOS to Windows XP embedded.
I feel that until there is more commercial software that will run on Linux, Linux will remain in the hands of home users and geeks.

by raven2

Home users choose M$ because they feel they can add an app without resorting to calling the local tech and spending more money. Folks want two things: 1) basic services without a lot of add ons. 2) Sense of security and control of their computer.

by charliespencer

Home users don't choose an OS. They choose a computer, usually based on the sale price at the big box retailer, and take whatever OS is pre-loaded on it. That's almost always Windows XP Home, unless their kid is majoring in Graphic Arts and his instructors say he needs a Mac. Since that same big box is also where they buy their apps, and 95% of the inventory at that big box is Windows-compatible, the user can add an app without calling a tech. We're back to Marketing 101 again.

by just_chilin

Apple clearly has the best UI and Marketing of all Unix clones but does it pose a threat to Microsoft?

by keith

With the proclivity of Google to support adware and spyware, I'm not convinced I would want this product if they are producing it.
Keith Hoffman

by dpatillo

I wonder if one's prior knowledge and experience (or lack there of) would slant one's opinion in this matter?

by underground_in_tn

Like your favorite email or word processing program, it's what you first get used to and learn that is the standard by which you judge everything else.

In Windows, I already know how to do simple tasks like set up my network configuration, install programs, view a file in hex. On a Mac, (and especially in Linux) I'm lost, and as illogical as that feeling may be, I resent having to search for something that would be obvious (to me) in DOS or Windows. Nothing is obvious nor intuitive on any OS if you're not used to it, and especially if you're used to something else.

by dean

If this is true, you will now see the percentage of linux users skyrocket. (quickly enrolls in LPI certification). More linux LANS, tech's will need to get linux savvy. At least over here in New Zealand, Where microsoft is in every school, business.etc , clogging up the LAN with viruses, security holes, and just being a dam annoying OS to use in general. I hope these rumors are true.

by gary.woodman

Google doesn't care about the OS any more than my mum. A customised browser, a customised GNU/Linux OS, maybe even custom hardware, would be a leading information appliance. Not a general-purpose desktop OS.

Gary

by cq_west

Okay, Google has aims to be the next Microsoft... I can see it. In 30 years we'll be screaming, hey, what happened to that company Microsoft and why can't we get away from Google OS!?

by johns_revelation

Yes it is true that Microsoft has excellent marketing. It is also true that they have and excellent operating systems not just on the desktop but also for servers.

I think HP greatly enhanced MS position on the desktop when they decided to ship some of there Notebooks with Suse 9.1 or whatever it was pre-installed. I feel sorry for the poor slobs that actually went for that piece of Linux hype.

Linux basically sucks as a desktop OS face the facts. It's slow it has pitiful HW support it crashes it doesn't have the software developer support. X windows is basically the same that is was 10 years ago when people were abandoning it by the droves. Ok so now it's running in an X86 environment. It sucked then it sucks now. The only people that are even talking about it are Linux Zealots

by lastchip

Whether MS has a great operating system is open to debate and of course, you are entitled to your opinion; that's why we are all here.

But there are certain facts in my view that you have misrepresented.

Linux is slow; It is true to say Linux probably on average takes longer to load initially than Windows, all though this is open to debate, as I will explain presently. However, my view is once running, Linux out performs Windows by a good margin in speed. To return to the loading situation, once Linux is completely loaded, that is it; it's ready to go. If you watch XP for example, the desktop loads and it gives you the impression you can start, but in reality, its still loading code in the background. Watch the hard drive LED and you'll see what I mean.

It crashes; where in the world did you get that from? I have never ever managed to crash the Linux Kernel. Yes, from time to time applications do crash, the same as they do in Windows, but that's not down to the operating system, it's more likely to be the application system itself. Crash for crash, I am convinced who the market leader is and it's not Linux!

"The only people that are even talking about it are Linux Zealots". Not so. If you read andrew.barratt@...'s post, Google has talked about the possibility - unbeknown to me when I started this thread. But perhaps you consider the folks at Google, Linux Zealots.

by threv

"It crashes; where in the world did you get that from? I have never ever managed to crash the
Linux Kernel."
What are you Smoking? Wanna Crash the Linux Kernal Run VMWARE on NLD or SUSE 9.1.(and not just emultaing Windows either) I've had to reboot my Linux box as often as I do my XP box!
Operation in my experience is not Faster OMG LOL! Maybe some Transactional stuff or surfing the web is but when I was demoing NLD 9 (Don't tell me about other versions I need indemnification thank you) to my boss as a possible replacement for our Call Agents the first thing he said was.."Is it always that slow?" to which I replied "Only at boot up." then I ran Open Office, Immendio,Firefox.
and a terminal session of Windows on a remote. after all was said and done, he asked me. "Is it always that slow?" what could I say? MS Office on the Terminal session Ran Quicker. (I had not expected him try that). I'll still keep trying to get Linux in here on desktops but the first impression was a lasting impression.

by vetch_101

(When I finally got it up and running) my Mandrake 10.1 P2-300, 128mb Ram laptop outperforms my 2.2GHz, 512mb Windows XP box running Open Office Write compared to Word...

Admittedly, that may be because I'm running about 10 anti-spyware/anti-virus/firewall apps in the background on my XP Box, but still, I feel I have to do that in order to secure the OS - I don't have so many paranoias about my Linux box...

by dfrank_robinson

MS has a grip on hardware vendors. There is not really vendor independent PC hradware anymore, if there ever was. IBM lost control of the box to MS. Hence all equipment must be MS compliant.

I think the key is vendor independent hardware. The box could be sold and you pick the DVD with OS and Apps you want. You plug it in, turn it on and it boots from the DVD. It connects to the net and the OS vendor completes the installation with you over a live connection much like xandros or Linspire almost do. Updates are automatic.

You don't like what you get, you put in another DVD reboot and that vendor installs. You want multiboot, no problem. All linuxes could coexist.

No OS should ever take exclusive control of the HDs. Eveyr machine should have multiboot capability built in the BIOS in my vendor independent PC.

I occasionally boot a Knoppix and store all data on removable media. In my VI/PC the OS will auto backup all data to a DVD as you work or ASAP.

IF a linux standard base is a good idea, so is a standard base PC. I hope Google or somebody takes over the idea of a standard VI/PC. Another thing that annoys me is that add-on hardware should be installable thru a slot without ever opening the box. Want a Media PC? But the DVD and the slot cards needed, plug them in and run.

Mkae the hardware an appliance and let a thousand OSs bloom.

Just a user since the TRS/80 Mod 1. I one thought all of this would have come to pass by now. I once loved MS, but now I avoid XP as much as possible.

by jgaskell

I keep reading comments about how user-friendly Macs are, as if this is a given and a commonly accepted truth. Personally, I find Macs counter-intuitive and extremely difficult to navigate. Now, that is partly because I don't use them as often as Windows, but I don't have the same trouble with something like Gnome or KDE.

It's time to ditch the user-friendly Mac myth, I think.

by threv

Our Dept recently got responsibility for maintaining, upgrading and standardizing the Art Depts Macs. I can tell you first hand that I would not wish that job on anyone. for a "simple operating system and "Standardized" hardware, things are a lot tougher and quirkier than your led to believe. Lets not even go into deployment images and disaster recovery scenarios. I 'll take Windows (Warts and all). Leave the Mac at home or in the studio where it belongs.

by threv

I am professional Geek and the LAST thing I want or have time to do is build from source. Sure if I'm experimenting at home on my own dime then why not. But if I'm on the clock it had better be managed or it won't see the light of day.

by jaqui

red hat and debian, that was the only way to get linux.

they were the first distros with an installer where you didn't need to build from sources.

then red hat came out with rpm, follwed by debian with deb

( which is about when the splintering into different distros began, giving rise to the debian or red hat based distro.
depending on which package management tool is used.

I don't advocate a build from sources for most users, only for those that having a completely standards compliant distro is important.
( and any software development firm should place a priority on standards compliancy in thier os they are using to develop on. )

by vetch_101

Ok - I admit - I've been a Windows user for years - always hated MS, because it's the done thing...
Love open source - it makes sense...
So I took the plunge, and installed linux...

On any flavour of Windows I can get pretty much any set of hardware up and running in a couple of hours max (unless it's NT/95 and the software drivers for new hardware aren't available)...

On Mandrake 10.1 - supposedly one of the most user friendly of the distros - it took me three days of frustration to get my pcmcia network card to work...
In the end, it turned out that hotplugd was not switched on by the installer, even though it recognised I had a pcmcia card.
Even when I tried to use hotplug, it didn't tell me that the process wasn't running.
Even when I realised what was causing the issue, I couldn't find adequate documentation to tell me how to switch it on in during boot, so I ended up reinstalling (again)...

Now, this probably shows me up to being totally clueless with Linux... But then, I am...
The difference is that with every Windows OS I've ever used, I have intuitively understood it - with linux I've had to work every step of the way...

by vetch_101

It's true that the 90% of users use 5% of Word/Excel, but at the same time, in a study I heard cited recently (no evidence or source, I'm afraid) - it was found that the most pervasive database in small businesses is - that's right - Excel...

People build up spreadsheets and they grow organically into poorly designed, poorly thought out databases...

Could you get away with that in Open Office?

by melar

If people want it, someone will provide it. If there's a buck to make, or some cred to grab, there's always someone willing.

I've come across quite a few of these excel nightmares in my time (which is relativly short compared to most (which makes it all the more scary)). I'm of the opinion that the world would be a better place without them. Sometimes you can make an application too easy to use, and too scalable, to the point where you don't know that you've reached its limits untill the whole thing falls on its arse at the worst possible time.

by lastchip

Certainly, my Xandros distro has exactly the same capability for auto updates as XP for example.

The danger I guess in a corporate environment is you would want to test those patches first, before company wide deployment. Whether that can be done, I don't know, as no company that I have been involved with to date, "has taken the plunge"!

Keep in mind an often overlooked bonus with Linux, is it can generally be installed on very low spec. machines by today's standards. So the best way to get answers to a lot of these questions, is to install the distro(s) you would consider on an old machine and see if what you want can be achieved. I would have thought something like Novel/SUSE or Redhat would have that well covered. Although I have to say, in my limited experience, I don't rate Redhat at all.

by vetch_101

Thanks for this...

You're right - in general, you want to test the patches before you roll them out... Plus not all of our machines have access to the internet, so I'd be looking for some kind of internal distributing server that sends the patches out to the desktop machines...

As you say though, it costs very little to test out a distro, so...

by vetch_101

The number of times I've read that Macs are more user friendly in these sort of newsgroups...

It's like it's given knowledge...

But every time I've tried out Macs, I've detested the interface...
What's with the concept of just one mouse button?
That's just ridiculous...
The more control you have at your fingertips, the better, surely... I was recently playing with an intelli-mouse on a windows system that had forward and backwards internet navigation buttons, and it made life a lot easier...
That's just one point - not to mention the obvious power of a right click context menu...

by andeanderson

I spent 2 months trying to install and set-up a Linux Web Server. I tried 3 different Distros and ended up with Debian Sarge.

Even that took me four tries before it would install and boot-up. The default GRUB was a nightmare so I switched to LILO and it worked. The default Gnome GUI installation was NOT User Friendly and to get rid of it I had to do a complete re-install of Debian, making sure I selected NO GUI installation.

After that I spent a month trying to get Apache2 up and running. The documentation everyone kept telling me to use was on the Apache Website and was two years behind the current Apache2 build.

A friend finally answered the question all of the Forums and Support groups kept mis-directing me on. The answer was so simple, but NOT documented anywhere. Linux and Apache do not automatically load an FTP Server. Once I installed the FTP Server Apache2 started working.

At least with Windows if there is a separate program required to run an application it is either automatically installed or you are told to install it.

Not so with the Linux distros.

by jazzyy

Macs are definitely not more user friendly than wins or even Microsoft. they are so counter-intuitive .. for instance why should u have to drag a CD into the waste basket in order to eject it? and no right mouse clicks sucks!

by mushtaq.malik

I have just started out on Linux. So will not a very competent person to comment on it.

However, I think the concept of Google coming up with its own OS is something that is not away from its thinking pattern. I will not be surprised if it happens. IF it happens I think that wouls the first concrete progress towards beating the Non-LInux fans.

Mushtaq

by richard vickery

when one uses Google, one is already using a Linux computer. That is why google is the best search engine out there, because everyone loves linux. It is not one's fault that we are lied to and cheated by that BIG company.

by vetch_101

When I browse, I browse from either a Windows machine, a linux machine or a Mac OSX machine.
Just because Google uses linux on its servers isn't the same as my computer having linux as its OS. In the same way, if I use a web site that runs ASP and ADO .net with a SQL Server back end, that doesn't mean that all my database applications are using SQL Server.
Besides, not everyone loves linux... There's huge numbers of people out there who haven't even heard of linux, many others who have heard of it, but inherently mistrust it, and others still who want to use it but find it so complicated after using Windows that they give up and stick to what they know...

This discussion is closed to new replies.