Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What linux needs?
Carol Haynes:
It is really up to developers (inc. Linus) to decide whether they want to create an OS and Desktop environment that is usable by a large audience - or whether they are totally committed to geekdom. If the latter what is the point apart from academic interest and server software?
As things stand at the moment Linux is never going to be a prime time OS for the masses - in which case unless Apple open up their OS to non-Apple hardware we are permanently stuck with MS as the dominant force - which is to no ones' advantage (IMHO)!
Armando:
I don't feel that today’s Linux trend is characterized by a commitment to “geekdom”.
I might not be able to throw in fancy developers arguments in the discussion, but has anybody tried the last PCLinuxOS or the last Ubuntu on "normal" hardware (not the latest hotest thing)... and then connected with wifi, browsed the web with firefox, opened media files, used OpenOffice, print something, scanned something, entered some contacts in evolution, etc.... All fairly normal stuff (and some more… all for free)? I mean, I've been able to install PCLinuxOS without touching anything on 4 different machines (2 laptops, 2 Desktops). The most I had to do was to look for binaries for an ATI (X1400) card. Experiences will vary, of course., but that was not much worse than installing windows.
As for everyday normal and non geeky use, my father who’s not exactly a geek, uses Ubuntu. He writes, browses, receives emails, etc. He updates his system when the little “tool tip” tells him to do it, etc. He’s not a geek, he doesn’t use anything else. That’s real life true experience. N=1, sure, but at least, it’s first hand experience.
“Linux” (let’s say Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS) is NOT perfect, far from it. I couldn’t use it everyday. But I can see myself using it one day... if-when I can use my windows apps or even convert to different apps without loosing too much in the process, and if I don’t have to sacrifice an exaggerate “amount” of hardware compatibility. Linux has gone a long way since 1998 (1997??), when I first tried it. A long long way. Isn't that obvious? The fact that people have been saying for ever “this year is Linux year”, “Linux is ready for the desktop”, etc. means nothing. People just dream. But one fact is there: Linux is getting better and the distance between its usability and Windows usability is shrinking.
What does Linux need? IMO: time, patience, work, more big corporations’ commitment (e.g. : Novel, IBM) and also countries-governments’ involvement (Turkey, China, India, France… you name it : http://www.news.com/French-parliament-picks-Ubuntu-for-Linux-switch/2100-7344_3-6166347.html?tag=item ). Seems obvious, maybe, but I don’t see how better drivers, better software, etc. ALONE can really make any difference… they now have to be backed by strong leadership (important and influential figures), big money and big populations. Yes, Michael Shuttleworth is in it for the money, So is Novel and Sun, and since they’ve been involved with Linux, it has progressed more quickly.
[edit : corrected the link]
Carol Haynes:
I might not be able to throw in fancy developers arguments in the discussion, but has anybody tried the last PCLinuxOS or the last Ubuntu on "normal" hardware (not the latest hotest thing)... and then connected with wifi, browsed the web with firefox, opened media files, used OpenOffice, print something, scanned something, entered some contacts in evolution, etc.... All fairly normal stuff (and some more… all for free)? I mean, I've been able to install PCLinuxOS without touching anything on 4 different machines (2 laptops, 2 Desktops). The most I had to do was to look for binaries for an ATI (X1400) card. Experiences will vary, of course., but that's not much worse than installing windows.
--- End quote ---
I am not talking about bleeding edge hardware - I have GeForce 7300 cards, Soundblaster Audigy 2, Canon pixma ip5000 printer, Canon 3200F scanner. I have yet to find a single version of Linux that can install fully operational drivers for any of that hardware. My printer is 2-3 years old (and now obsolete), likewise the scanner, Audigy 2 is old hat and GeForce 7300 is hardly cutting edge!!
WiFi seems to be a pretty universal problem unless you specifically downgrade to a few ancient adpaters that linux can cope with (and you would probably have to scour eBay to find one).
While I am on about this (yet again) I have had about 5 printers over the last few years and CUPs has signally failed to do a good job with any of them - and I have used various HP, Canon and Lexmark printers during attempts to get Linux working - non 'cutting edge' and all pretty main stream. About the best I could achieve with any of them was to specify a non-native print resolution, select a paper size (but still get it poorly aligned). Photo printing was very poor even on my best printer.
Until these issues are taken seriously Linux is not fit for purpose for the majority of people with the majority of hardware. There is growing pressure to supply computers without an OS so that Linux can be installed - almost by definition any PC purchased off the counter today will not work properly with Linux.
Finally while any operating system requires users to go into console mode with very limited documentation and tinker with cryptic commands - each with hundreds of switches, using utilities that are scattered to the four winds by competing distros it really can only be described as a geek's heaven.
My big issue is that Linus is largely written by geeks, for geeks and they want it to stay that way - it certainly isn't aimed at people who find it difficult to format a hard disk and install Windows (which is by far the majority of users).
What does Linux need? IMO: time, patience, work, more big corporations’ commitment (e.g. : Novel, IBM) and also countries-governments’ involvement (Turkey, China, India, France… you name it : http://www.news.com/Frenc...66347.html?tag=st.ref.goo ). Seems obvious, maybe, but I don’t see how better drivers, better software, etc. ALONE can really make any difference… they now have to be backed by strong leadership (important and influential figures), big money and big populations. Yes, Michael Shuttleworth is in it for the money, So is Novel and Sun, and since they’ve been involved with Linux, it has progressed more quickly.
--- End quote ---
Without better drivers and software availability how are these goals going to be achieved? You certainly won't get a big user population - which has a negative effect on company commitment. Novel and Sun have an axe to grind - they are both out to shaft Microsoft at almost any cost (mostly because they feel they have been shafted in the past).
Armando:
I just lost my post — refreshed the screen by mistake!!!! Damn!!! I hate that soooooo much.
So… qickly, some clarifications : when I said I didn’t encounter many hardware problems with Linux, I was specifically thinking about the actual computers (the box ad the screen), not all the possible peripherals (printers, scanners, cameras, Ipods...). But I should’ve been more specific, and shouldn’t have used the term “normal” hardware. That was misleading.
In fact I just don’t think we should expect Linux to be compatible with everything. Why should we? Mac (almost by definition…) isn’t. A few brands and models should be enough. And why not making sure the hardware is compatible with Linux before trying it (and expecting it will just work)?
Anyway… of course, you're right, there are tons if unsupported hardware, and I obviously had more luck than you did. And, ok, let’s say it was luck. A few examples: I only fiddled with my Samsung ML-2010 printer (my only printer, and it works) and my ATI (x1400 — works well too). My wireless (intel 3945ABG), scanner (canon lide 60), etc. worked well. My dad has an old Lexmark Optra E+ (works), + an old Mustek scanner I think (works too). Oh well...
Of course I won’t say that Linux is generally comparable to Windows (and when I said that it’s “not much worse than installing windows”, I was talking about my experience — it wasn’t clear). I’d use it if that was the case. I just said it got much better and that the usability difference shrank A LOT in the last 10 years.
If you have NO potential market, why spend more resources on drivers, software, etc. ? There could be good reasons... but I'm raising the question because I believe that when we’ll see more events like the “French parliament picks Ubuntu” I’m sure it’ll create more pressure/incentive on hardware/software manufacturers. But both go hand in hand. Again, I didn’t say we didn’t need more drivers, fancy software, etc.,. We do. But IMO these alone are not enough, and we always focus on them. It’s a question of synergy between individuals with strong visions, potential/active user pools, specific socio-political situations and dynamics, economy, etc. (And BTW, the fact that Sun and Novel have an axe to grind is a good thing. :) )
Sorry, my English is awkward and I know it. :-[
MrCrispy:
Here's the thing - when you go up against the dominant market force, its not enough to be as good or even slightly better. You have to be much better. This is the same problem facing competitors of the iPod.
What's Linux's value proposition? I don't care 2 hoots about it being free or OSS - every single pc I buy will come with a valid Windows. Windows has as much freeware as Linux for nearly everything. The big apps cost money but people who base their OS on their apps usually need them - like graphic pros, developers etc. Enhanced security and stability is one argument I'll buy.
But I want to repeat something that has a lot of truth -
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" - Jamie Zawinski, author of Netscape.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version