Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

Chman · 2006-11-03 08:38:58

soniX wrote:

but windows is not ready for "the internet", and that is where more and more of the "dektop" is heading anyway.

Awesome statement, couldn't agree more.

Pajaro · 2006-11-03 10:15:35

I saw a study that said that 30% of users will switch to Linux instead of Vista. The major part said that would stay on XP. Only a few part said that would switch to Vista. A part almost the size of Vista would switch to Mac.

stavrosg · 2006-11-03 12:16:12

Pajaro wrote:

I saw a study that said that 30% of users will switch to Linux instead of Vista. The major part said that would stay on XP. Only a few part said that would switch to Vista. A part almost the size of Vista would switch to Mac.

That was a casual poll, not a real study (if we saw the same), and thus, completely meaningless.
I believe it will take a couple of years, but most win2000/XP users will eventually switch to vista, when they buy a new PC or an application they depend upon starts demanding vista to run.

chrismortimore · 2006-11-03 14:23:01

SleepyDog wrote:

What the heck is the "desktop" anyway?

The way I see it is a desktop sits on my desk, my laptop sits on my lap, and my server sits in a cupboard and I have very little to do with it.

I'm glad people are advertising that Linux isn't ready for desktops. The second it is widely advertised in press that many people have been using Linux for a desktop environment for years, the world will end. Telling you, it'd be a sign of the apocalypse.

MillTek · 2006-11-03 16:50:23

Well, if Linux isn't ready for the 'desktop', then no version of MS Windows has been ready either. I've used Linux for the last three years and it has never crashed or blue-screened. Any 'issues' I've had were caused by me.

Most of the population don't see their PC as having an operating system. They just know that their apps run on it. MS recognized this and pushed developers to produce apps that required Windows to run. That's how they generate a lot of OS sales. I imagine it's what they'll do with Vista. It's all part of the MS smoke-n-mirrors game.

twiistedkaos · 2006-11-03 16:57:01

MillTek wrote:

Well, if Linux isn't ready for the 'desktop', then no version of MS Windows has been ready either. I've used Linux for the last three years and it has never crashed or blue-screened. Any 'issues' I've had were caused by me.
Most of the population don't see their PC as having an operating system. They just know that their apps run on it. MS recognized this and pushed developers to produce apps that required Windows to run. That's how they generate a lot of OS sales. I imagine it's what they'll do with Vista. It's all part of the MS smoke-n-mirrors game.

Agreed, Linux has never crashed on it's own for me like windows does when ever it seems to feel fit. I've crashed my own Linux box by pissing around with configs and compiling things wrong, but that is my own honest mistake and not Linuxs'

Pajaro · 2006-11-03 18:14:04

Linux works well. When I am for some weeks without using it I always forget that in windows you have to give it its time... If you open 3 folders, browser, mail, text editor, remote desktop, and... what? ops, i did all clicks in the first seconds... it's time to go and have a coffee: too much stuff at the same time for windows.

chrismortimore · 2006-11-04 18:58:29

Guess I've been unlucky, once I updated LVM and it munched my logical volumes. That was the day I started my backups. I've never had Windows fail quite so completely, but in terms of little "harmless" crashes, never had one in Linux.

sarah31 · 2006-11-04 21:36:41

Hmm there seems to be alot of linux on the desktop so .... I have never got this comment. It will likely never be mainstream but who cares.

Pajaro · 2006-11-04 22:03:35

sarah31 wrote:

Hmm there seems to be alot of linux on the desktop so .... I have never got this comment. It will likely never be mainstream but who cares.

I can't understand what you mean (i'm not native english)

byte · 2006-11-05 12:37:01

I'm currently reading In the Beginning...was the Command Line from Neal Stephenson, really fits this topic.

deficite · 2006-11-05 22:09:20

Wow, I'm surprised that sarah31 posted and her entire fan club didn't post "sarah31 ur liek teh awesome n stuff n liek u r 707411y liek teh c00l357 evar!!!!!!!!!!!"

sarah31 · 2006-11-06 18:01:00

deficite wrote:

Wow, I'm surprised that sarah31 posted and her entire fan club didn't post "sarah31 ur liek teh awesome n stuff n liek u r 707411y liek teh c00l357 evar!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well it is a very obvious statement. Any one throwing opraise for a comment like that need to do a gut check.

sarah31 · 2006-11-06 18:05:32

Pajaro wrote:

sarah31 wrote:
Hmm there seems to be alot of linux on the desktop so .... I have never got this comment. It will likely never be mainstream but who cares.
I can't understand what you mean (i'm not native english)

Well what mean is that I don't understand when people say linux is not ready for the desktop especially when many people around the world use it ever day. Like someone said earlier and a gazillion people have said before it is definitely not ready for the mainstream and likely it never will because I cannot see Linux ever being dumbed down enough to be user friendly enough for the masses.

In the end really who care if it is or isn't ready for mainstream? If you like Linux use Linux and who the hell cares what other people think.

revertex · 2006-11-06 22:32:47

i'm very satisfield using a system that is not ready for desktop.
Seems very stable and featured.
Can someone please tell me when linux will be ready?
Is there another OS ready for desktop out there, will Vista be?

Romashka · 2006-11-08 22:42:45

Don Kihote wrote:

Linux is not as easy as Windows or Mac to run.

What "run" means?
Not as easy to install and setup for the first time? - maybe.
Not as easy to update - not true. Updating software on Windows is not easy most time. Moving users settings between versions/installs/machines is PITA there.

Don Kihote wrote:

Ask most PC users if they know how to reformat their hard drive and they will look at you and ask "who is that?"

Many users are not able to install Windows or Mac OS X by themselves. Installing Linux will be not harder for them.
Anyway Windows requires to do partitioning during install. Where it's different from Linux? Most Linux distros (even Arch!) have auto-partitioning feature.

Don Kihote wrote:

Another thing to add is that installing new hard ware on a Windows machine is MUCH easier.

Really? I work with hardware every day and have to say that installing hardware on a Windows machine is sometimes such a PITA, especially when there are outdated and/or broken drivers.
Linux has most drivers included and its hardware autodetection is much better. I don't have to install chipset driver, soundcard driver, network card driver, RAID controller driver etc. Everything simply works when I boot my machine.
And there is very good "feature" in Linux: you can move your HDD into new PC, boot it and it will simply work! (You may just adjust some Xorg settings if needed).
Try this with Windows.

Don Kihote wrote:

That, and almost all bleeding-edge hard ware is supported by Windows. Though you can blame that on the companies that produce the drivers, it's still a sad fact. I have a ATI 9800, an old card by todays standards, and I still feel like it isn't fully supported in Linux.

This is not Linux's fault if some hardware are not supported.
BTW, do you know that history remembers many times where some hardware was first supported on Linux than on Windows. I even have an URL somewhere in my bookmarks (hard to find it now in >5000 of them ).

Don Kihote wrote:

Installing programs is also easier on Windows. Just click the install executable and it basically installs itself.

pacman -S package
Seriously, there are tens of different installation wizards with their own bugs. Many system software requires reboot. Uninstalling something will almost always lead to leaving some sh*t in registry or Documents and SettingsApplication Data or Windows or WindowsSystem32 or ...

Don Kihote wrote:

No compiling, no downloading dependencies, no having to edit config files to get it to work.

Yeah, 600K sh*t requires 7M VB6 + 5M .OCX or 20M .NET Framework to run.
BTW, that's why most software for Windows is so big - they don't share functionality.

Don Kihote wrote:

Also, it installs almost all programs to one folder, Program Files. In Linux, there is sometimes no telling where your programs are headed. The configs for the programs are found in their respective folders, simplifying things also.

Not always true. Program FilesSuperProgram/config.ini, Documents and SettingsApplication DataSuperProgramtons_of_files, Registry, Windowssomereallybadstuff.ini

BTW, have you tried GoboLinux?

Don Kihote wrote:

The list goes on and on, so many small grievances such as playing video or even some flash in firefox on Linux does not work sometimes.

I had never seen a flash that works in Windows but not in Linux. :?
About video - it's easier to install xine or mplayer and forget about video codecs. On Windows you have to use K-Lite Mega Codec Pack or else you will have problems with playing different video files, especially music clips (which tend to be encoded with every codec available on Earth).

Don Kihote wrote:

To larger grievances such as little support outside of the community, lack of video games etc.

Quake, Doom, Neverwinters Night, Return To Castle Wolfenstein, etc. have native versions for Linux. Most other good games can be run under Wine/Cedega/etc.

And I know what you forget. Right, viruses, worms, trojans, spyware etc.

Don Kihote wrote:

Overall, I like both systems for what they are. I've tried untold numbers of Linux distributions, and Arch stands out as one of the best I believe.

Sorry if I'm too offensive. I'm just sick of Windows for last years.
I still have to use it on one of my work, and admin about 40 Windows machines on my second work (had to replace big security hole on firewall machine named "Windows 2003 Server" with Arch to secure them and make LAN file sharing responsive). It's a PITA! :evil:

Many people just used to use Windows and had never seen Linux at all. Others symply scare Linux "because it's hard", or don't wan't to use it because it will be harder for them to play games etc.

Aganoth · 2006-11-09 01:52:01

Just to say a few things here - Linux is an option, as it has always been. Asking wether linux is ready for a user is a moot point - Is the user ready for linux is the golden question.

The BIGGEST thing against Linux, and Mac, and Solaris, etc... is the complete lack of compatiblity.

i.e-
We consider Jane Sue. She runs a small doctors office. If she makes the switch to linux, which SHE may have the patience to do (With relearning an OS and still making money - Also NOTE: Not just her relearning it, but her company aswell - But this is off topic), is she ready for the lack of compability?
If her good friend Gena Malis gives her a copy of... say... Photoshop, or say QuickBooks Pro... It is true she can use the linux versions, but Gimp does not have ALL the features of Photoshop. And GNU_Money isn't at all like QuickBooks Pro, nor can it import exeisting qbp files. Wine is buggy at best.

I have worked with these people before (For instance, my dad) who just take YEARS to learn Internet Explorer.

Linux is ready like it is: It has always been ready for those who have the abilities to learn computers quickly, who have time to get used to how linux works, etc...

So again, the desktop being ready is moot. Like others have said, Microsoft (While they have released a briliant product) is not ready for me. Linux itself still isn't perfect. I would perfer linux to be MUCH more modulized and SO MUCH MORE organized. And by that I make a reference to pascal - Strict standards. ALL config files, no matter what, in /cfg, all scripts in /sh, all .* /bin, etc... Its all about the risks, because even though opensource is THE way to go, it still sometimes leaves projects behind (As in release dates), no dead lines, no gaurantee. That's ok for you and I, but for Sue Jane there, she needs it to work now and everytime. Windows has poured a ton of money into that - Hardware detection, integration, etc...

By the way... Am I the only one who codes with Jagermeister?

Pajaro · 2006-11-09 01:58:44

My whole family switched to linux while i was living there. Now they are back in windows.

PJ · 2006-11-09 02:20:15

Aganoth wrote:

By the way... Am I the only one who codes with Jagermeister?

Interesting choice of beverage while coding. Never done that, but sometimes I have been drinking Scotch whisky while studying. I guess thats a bit odd too. I prefer Coffee while I am coding.

twiistedkaos · 2006-11-09 05:45:43

craft wrote:

Don Kihote wrote:
2) Users like being idiots, as do vendors and Microsoft. People are afraid to be 'nerds.' But really, today, saying you don't know how to use a computer is like saying you don't know how to brush your own teeth. It's an integral part of our culture now, but people are unwilling to embrace it for whatever taboos they have. Computers will only get more complex and more advanced.. if people don't make an effort towards understanding them now, they're just hurting themselves. In time, they'll be the same guys who said "Yeah, like that telephone thing will ever catch on." It's not hard to do anything on a computer, so long as you're willing to try it yourself.
Actually, I don't like your term of idiots. Most major programmers do that on Windows, now are programmers idiots for using a system that they know almost ALL computers have? No it's smart, sure a fair share of programmers do use linux, I myself am one of them. I for a very long time programmed on windows. I disabled automatic updates the day I got my computer pre-installed with windows. Sure, the average joe computer mainly uses computers for gaming, or browsing the web. I see nothing wrong witht hat, if someone actually has the interest to program, or switch to linux, or do anything they want, including playing games on windows, doesn't mean they are idiots. It means their lifestyle is just different from yours. So take your idiot term and shuve it. This topic wasn't meant to flame windows users.

Arch Linux

#26 2006-11-03 08:38:58

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#27 2006-11-03 10:15:35

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#28 2006-11-03 12:16:12

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#29 2006-11-03 14:23:01

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#30 2006-11-03 16:50:23

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#31 2006-11-03 16:57:01

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#32 2006-11-03 18:14:04

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#33 2006-11-04 18:58:29

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#34 2006-11-04 21:36:41

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#35 2006-11-04 22:03:35

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#36 2006-11-05 12:37:01

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#37 2006-11-05 22:09:20

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#38 2006-11-06 18:01:00

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#39 2006-11-06 18:05:32

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#40 2006-11-06 22:32:47

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#41 2006-11-08 22:42:45

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#42 2006-11-09 01:52:01

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#43 2006-11-09 01:58:44

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#44 2006-11-09 02:20:15

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#45 2006-11-09 05:45:43

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#46 2006-11-09 07:51:33

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#47 2006-11-09 07:58:09

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#48 2006-11-09 09:54:13

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#49 2006-11-09 10:22:32

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

#50 2006-11-09 10:36:52

Re: Linux is not ready for the desktop - Mandriva devs

Board footer