Linux in the Workplace 274
| Linux in the Workplace: How to use Linux in Your Office | |
| author | (Group), SSC Publishers of Linux Journal |
| pages | 300 pages |
| publisher | No Starch Press |
| rating | 3 Stars |
| reviewer | Robert Nagle |
| ISBN | 1886411867 |
| summary | A gentle introduction to KDE |
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems. Not only is partitioning and dual booting a little tricky, the OS CD that comes with a new PC is usually just a system restore, making it difficult to configure a dual-boot environment without messing up factory settings and file systems. Learning Linux has become an all-or-nothing proposition; in many cases the new user has to wipe Windows off his system for good or rely on a second machine just to get started.
The irony is that Linux has never been more user friendly, and the latest KDE desktop on my gentoo box is slicker, faster and easier to use than XP. It is becoming easier to be productive on Linux, and while university students have already discovered this, corporate IT departments who support a large number of Windows-only commercial applications tend to view open source solutions as a time burden (these are the same IT departments whose days are consumed with applying Windows patches or verifying license compliance).
The book Linux in the Workplace shows the ordinary user who has never laid eyes on Linux how to perform everyday office tasks. The book assumes that the user has a machine with Linux already installed and successfully configured. This book (which is more of an introduction to the KDE desktop than Linux itself) is easy and fun to read, and has lots of screenshots. Slashdotters might find this book a bit too basic, but it's the kind of book that a technophobe spouse or child or parent might love (and could very well appear under Christmas trees right beside the new Linux PC).
This book devotes a chapter each to talking about Open Office, Gimp, Konqueror, personal information managers, and various KDE office and email applications. Most of them are part of the KDE window manager or installed by default. This book walks a thin line between being too superficial for daily use and dwelling too much on the technical details. There are better books on The GIMP or OpenOffice, for example, but still it is nice to have introductory chapters in a single book. I found a few useful tidbits on controlling file associations, xscanimage, screen capturing and ark archiver. The book is not without a sense of humor. In a useful section on creating a GPG key, the book says "your passphrase should be rude or embarrassing ... using a naughty passphrase will remind you not to type it where others can see."
This book began with the mission to bring a simplified approach to Linux. By definition, it must exclude certain topics, either by design or because an application was not yet mature when the book was being written. The book scrupulously avoids a discussion of server applications like apache (which makes a certain sense), but it would have been nice to have a section on Evolution or mplayer (yes, a media player is an indispensable application for the bored employee) or ssh, cd burning programs, browser plugins, mozilla, crossover, irc or ftp clients.
Surprisingly, the book contains almost nothing about printing or how to install or upgrade applications. Because the book is intended for a newbie user, not a sys admin, it recommends talking to your network administrator about that. Cop out? Perhaps. But even the unskilled non-root user will have to install apps once in a while; the book would have been much better with a section on rpm managers and compiling programs from scratch.
From a sys admin's point of view, I would have liked to see a case study of an office that had actually made the switch. What problems did it encounter? How did the switch change business processes? What applications required the most time and energy for support? How did a Linux-only office manage domain authentication or interoperability? What system management tools made administration easier in a heterogenous environment?
The book raises an epistemological question about the best way to learn a new technology. Will a user who has never really performed tasks as root be able to leverage the freedom and power offered by open source? Will a user truly be comfortable with an operating system without first having experienced the agony of a bad install or frantically scouring the newsgroups for help ? This book presumes that a learner needs to be able to use normal applications before being ready to handle the admin stuff. The problem with that approach is that it depends on IT staff being near and ready to do some hand-holding. But Linux may emerge in the workplace not as a result of IT's enthusiasm but because of ordinary workers' exasperation with uniform proprietary solutions imposed by these IT departments.
In summary: A useful and friendly KDE-centric introduction to Linux for nongeeks. The lack of system administration material makes it probably too basic for slashdotters.
Also recommended:
RUTE Users' Tutorial and Exposition
A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux 8 by Mark G. Sobell (not yet published)
Robert Nagle is a technical writer, trainer and Linux aficionado in Houston, Texas. You can purchase Linux in the Workplace from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Linux is great for server duties (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux is great for server duties (Score:2)
However, as a desktop operating system it's not quite there yet. Windows--because it has standardized on the WIN32 API--has much wider hardware support for graphics cards and sound cards, things necessary for multimedia application such as high-end games (Neverwinter Nights, Unreal Tournament 2003, Max Payne, and the upcoming Doom III). Linux needs the equivalent of Microsoft's DirectX API's, not to mention (I know I will be modded way down for this =) ) a single, unified graphical interface which substantially eases progarmming issues. Linux also needs the equivalent of Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) for true automated configuration of new hardware, especially "hot docked" external devices through the USB 2.0 and IEEE-1394 interfaces.
Re:Linux is great for server duties (Score:2)
Working on it (Score:2)
As for things like DirectX and user interface, I'll let others argue about whether SDL/OpenGL is a good DirectX equivalent, or whether KDE 3 and GNOME 2 are better than the Windows XP interface. It really depends on exactly how you use your system. For my needs, Linux is far better, but I'm sure you can come up with areas where it's lacking.
Re:Linux is great for server duties (Score:2)
We Need More Like This (Score:3, Interesting)
We definitely need a whole lot more books like this to encourage office users to adopt Linux. We don't need those complicated details. But I expect Star Office or other office-related things be explained in greater depth. At least on par with those MSOffice ones.
Genius (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be a book that creates its own market. As more people buy the book, more people run Linux in the workplace, thus making demand for the book rise.
I would make a 3.Profit! joke here, but I think an evil laugh is more on order. [evil_laugh]Muahahaha[/evil_laugh]
Ahem (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, I quit reading after that comment, I was laughing too hard.
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
Righto, mate.
Free (Score:2)
printing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:printing (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever used CUPS [cups.org]? It is the easiest Linux print system I have ever set up. No more messing with
Close... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux on the desktop sucks for one reason: fragmentation.
If there wasn't a bunch of if distribution == x && graphical environment == y in the HOWTOs, we'd be much further along right now.
Even with all that cruft, the one itel holding Linux back is the file system requirements. Every mainstream consumer desktop sold these days has a hard drive installed with a 100% NTFS partition. People don't want to screw with boot managers and people don't want to screw with repartitioning.
If someone created a *free* distribution that could be installed *through* Windows on the local NTFS partition (with appropriate *free* boot manager), then we'd have a much larger installed base. Developers could start coding on Linux and distributing it with their applications.
But then there is the GPL/binary module hassle. it will never work. I'm waiting for Apple to port over to x86. I predict 2004.
Re:Close... (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux on the desktop sucks for one reason: fragmentation. If there wasn't a bunch of if distribution == x && graphical environment == y in the HOWTOs, we'd be much further along right now.
I keep hearing this argument,and I think it's overblown. The key apps on Linux (Mozilla, OpenOffice, Evolution, etc) will work with either KDE or GNOME. There might be some apps that are written specifically for one environment or the other that are "crufty", but overall, if I want to run a KDE app on GNOME, it's no problem.
If you're waiting for Apple to port OS X to x86, you could be waiting...forever. Apple's business model is dependant on selling you a complete package, not just the software. Like Sun Microsystems, they refuse to change to concentrate on software.
I agree that the dual boot with an NTFS partition is a problem. I would have liked to have dual booted Win 2k with RH 7.2 on my laptop, and pretty much discovered what the trouble was when using FIPS. No can do. At least, not without resizing the NTFS partition. I think the next best thing to getting people to use Linux is getting them to use the Win32 ports of Mozilla, OpenOffice, and other apps as alternatives to expensive or vulnerable Windoze apps. If users become familiar with those, then it might not be too much of a leap to Linux.
Re:Close... (Score:2)
On the looks front, the same can certainly be said about KDE, and to a lesser extent Gnome. In fact, on the looks front, KDE and Gnome both win out over OSX and XP because you can make them LOOK however you want.
But time and time again when using either of them I realize it's the "FEEL" aspect that destroys it. Hovering over gadgets (or widgets if you prefer) with the button pressed, pressing, hovering off and then releaseing, dragging and dropping, scrolling, windowing, cutting and pasting, and just about any other UI function that has existed forever FEELS sloppy.
Windows nor OS X are perfect. The Windows UI is so highly configurable though (in terms of disabling/removing buttons, etc) that it's easy to make it comfortable. Mac OS X is refined, and love it or hate it, it's very intuitive. In fact, Mac OS X is so intuitive that a friend of mine while taking a computer proficiency assesment test scored perfect on the MAC section without ever having seen one in person.
What we need, and people get pissed off every time I say this, is a whole new desktop for Unix. XWindows has it's uses. Unfortunately, getting Unix into the hands of the masses is certainly NOT one of obviously.
An opened source, ground up desktop implimentation that is integrated, standardized, attractive, functional, and totally free (BSD style) would come a long way towards not only making Linux and FreeBSD more popular, but it would also make them a more viable option for OEMs looking to break away from Microsoft.
There are many potential pitfalls with a new project of this magnitude, and I realize that's why it hasn't happened. I do honestly believe that it is what's needed to take Linux/BSD/Unix(insert your deity here) where everybody wants it to go. Maybe if people would stop flaming anyone who suggests this, and start brainstorming on how to do it, Unix could start creeping onto the desktop.
Re:Close... (Score:2)
Re:Close... (Score:2)
So you are saying that the biggest thing holding back Linux on the desktop is that Microsoft uses their legal monopoly position to prevent OEMs from dual booting?
I'm waiting for Apple to port over to x86. I predict 2004.You won't pay $1500 for a Mac with a PowerPC chip in it, but you would for a Mac with an x86 chip in it? Why? Don't tell me it's just because the clock speed is faster.
-BrentRe:Close... (Score:2)
Re:Close... (Score:2)
So you *wouldn't* buy a Mac if it was an x86 model?
-BrentFree & Open = Inconsistency = hard to learn (Score:2)
The masses like to be dicatated to as long as it makes things easy. Also once they learn something they don't want to learn something new unless they have to. To switch to Linux has a learning curve most aren't interested in going through. The cost of the occasional Windows upgrade is cheap compared to inconvinece of having to learn some thing new. Sure there are some willing to spend the time for assorted reasons, but I'm talking the masses.
Now you also have a catch 22 to deal with. Corporate America is interest in Linux to save licensing fees, but know the time and cost of having to train new employees can exceed licensing fees. Right now you can walk out on any sidewalk and grab people who know Windows and MS Office, no training required. At same timemasses aren't going to learn Linux and Linux app's until more corporations are using it and its a hiring opportunity. Another part of this catch 22 is what Linux window manager to learn, what OSS office suites and other app's to learn.
Linux's freedom is its own enemy at getting deployed in corporate America. Outside Ameriaca is another story.
Re:Close... (Score:2)
* 1 distribution
* 1 GUI
* could be installed through Windows
* on a local Windows drive
The reason why Linux on the desktop hasn't taken off is the same reason why BeOS never took off- because Microsoft won't PC distributors install it.
Re:Close... (Score:2)
You're pretty right about that. And isn't it really ironic that RedHat was so widely criticized for screwing with their KDE/GNOME environments making them look the same and such.
I recognized that RedHat is trying to tie things together as much as possible even before I installed RedHat 8.0 for the first time just a few days ago. Open Source's diversity is a great asset but it's also a great detriment when it serves to keep things fragmented with people fighting over which direction unification should move.
I think RedHat's approach, which is simply to ignore the critics and to push forward into a direction of their choice is mature, brave and commendable. I hope it continues the way it is and maybe some of the people interested in RedHat will help shape the direction of other open source projects to feed into it. "Right" or "Wrong" fragmentation is going to present itself as such a deterrent to those who would implement Linux in the workplace that it may not happen... OSX/86 will be more likely to get adopted before Linux.
Re:Close... (Score:2)
At first I thought you meant filesystem fragmentation, but I won't go there
Anyway. This 'fragmentation' you speak of is what we call 'choice'. Something most MS lackeys/lifers/confidants/spooks can't handle.
If I don't like KDE/Gnome, poof. Off my system it goes. This is choice.
Now, I *DO* have a problem with people writing apps that only work in one environment, say, KDE as an example. Then when I have switched off of KDE, I can't run said app beause it natively doesn't support X11.
Even with all that cruft, the one itel holding Linux back is the file system requirements. Every mainstream consumer desktop sold these days has a hard drive installed with a 100% NTFS partition. People don't want to screw with boot managers and people don't want to screw with repartitioning.
I don't see that as true, as I don't see the supposed other install time difficulties as an issue. Call me an elitist asshole bastard (please, I like it), if you can't figure out how to partition and set up a filesystem, stick with another OS. To use Linux or any other *nix you are going to have to actually learn instead of have your hand held like a bitch.
Re:One man's fragmentation is another's variety . (Score:2)
Re:Close... (Score:2)
Yeppers. Makes about as much sense as installing one OS to run/emulate the apps of the one you just replaced.
Oops, did I just say the same thing? No, couldn't be...
bootstrapping problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The real challenge, is getting people to that point. One approach is to have lots of stories published in the mass media that talk about how easy/efficient Linux is. The challenge there is not to raise expectations too high. If someone expects to be able to sit down in front of their computer, put a Linux CD in, click "ok" a few times, and be up and running, doing everything they had been able to do in Win, they'll be disappointed, and are likely to give up. Non-geeks aren't motivated to hack around for a while. They want to use their new tool.
People need appropriate motivation. As an example, speech recognition software is more likely to be successful when the user has a strong motivation to work through the early hassles. People with RSIs or other physical constraints are more likely to become successful speech reco users than are ablebodied people.
So, the challenge is to motivate people to try it without raising expectations too high. I'm not sure what the answers are, but although this type of book is a good step, more needs to be done.
Re:bootstrapping problem (Score:2)
This is why I love Knoppix linux. Literally a new user can hit enter twice and be in a full blown KDE or GNOME desktop w/ the standard linux apps in 2 minutes. Experienced users can type "knx-hdinstall" in a root window and have a Debian sid install in 20 minutes.
I've burned quite a few copies and have been handing them out to colleagues and the like to try linux. Even if they don't like it, they can at least be more educated on linux instead of taking the typical "Linux can't do $you_name_it" comment as truth from the MCSE at work.
Doesn't have to do with ease of use... (Score:2)
Home users: These users buy computers from stores or online (Dell, etc.) that already have Windows preinstalled. Where is the incentive to use a different operating system? I think that penetration in this market has to come from oem's making the extra cost of Windows perfectly clear (add Windows = +$$$). The lack of software is still sort of the problem, but I think this mainly comes down to games (we need companies to start doing real dual releases... still pissed that I bought NWN and it's still not available for Linux). Home users don't need all the features of MS Office (StarOffice would be fine).
Business users: What businesses run is basically dictated by management. I think that Linux is actually making progress in this market because management essentially cares about the bottom line above all else. Linux is simply cheaper. Again, it has nothing to do with ease of use/applications with the big exception of groupware (although I read the the german government was commissioning work on this). People will claim that they need MS Office, but in reality if the whole company switches than there really is no need. Maybe one or 2 copies for interoperability with outside sources, but StarOffice seems to open most MS documents fine.
Re:Games through Wine and emulation (Score:2)
The true cost of linux. (Score:2)
Re:The true cost of linux. (Score:2)
Also figure that you're going to be paying that money anyway, because of employee turnover and forced upgrades. In the next decade, you're going to have to provide computer training at least once for every position which uses a computer. You may do it formally, on budget, or informally, off budget, but you will pay for it, whatever platform you choose.
Do you want to add license fees and license compliance costs onto those training costs?
Do you want to have to do that retraining at Microsoft's whim, rather than when it suits you?
Do you want to remove the option to move legacy applications to new hardware/software platforms?
If you can answer a resounding ``YES!'' to all those questions, then you can safely choose proprietary solutions. All others should avoid them where possible.
Linux's next big hurdle (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I've seen a few geek friends try out Linux then walk away disgusted (possibly forever) is hardware support. Sure, with modern distros almost all common hardware available is supported, but in a lot of cases it requires a kernel recompile, some config file changes, sometimes even low-level stuff like probing around to find out an IRQ setting.
Compare this to Windows. Not only does almost every piece of hardware come with a driver, most people are comfortable with the driver install process (and the ones that aren't usually have a family member or friend that is willing to do it).
Too bad Linux kernel & distro developers can't create a kernel standard for common release, and just put a stake in the ground and say "Here's Linux 2003. Any certified standard common pre-compiled driver module dated 2003 or older will work with this years Linux." No recompiling the damn kernel. Then of course there'd have to be a very standard common driver installation program... And the rest of us who want to recompile our kernels can still do it if we want.
Eh, but what do I know. I run BeOS and a driver is typically one file that I drop into a folder and usually begins running immediately.
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
In the future, I think it will work the other way; you'll recompile your kernel pretty frequently. However, it will be done in a few seconds and entirely automated by the distro's system management program. If you decide you want a new device, you turn it on, which changes your kernel configuration (configuring the kernel is now done with a library that can be linked to by the distro's program) and builds and installs the module. No binary compatibility problems, and it takes a few seconds. For that matter, if you hotplug a USB device that you haven't built support for,
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the best way to proselytize is to give a non-geek friend a copy of a CD with some open-source Windows apps on it:
- The Open CD [theopencd.org]
- GNUWin [gnuwin.epfl.ch]
Advocating open-source apps also has the advantage that it might really damage MS. Linux has failed to take away more than 0.5% of MS's desktop OS market, which means it's not even really a factor for MS to consider. OTOH, MS makes a lot of money from apps, and they're really vulnerable to competition. A lot of home users are not happy with paying $300 for a whole computer, and then having MS expect them to pay another $300 for apps.Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
AMEN BROTHER! I have been using computers since the mid-early 80's and last week, when I finished building my newest PC and installing Windows XP, I decided what the hell, I'll put Linux on it. Picked up Mandrake from Best Buy, came home and spent the better part of an evening getting it up, running, and configured.
Except for my modem. My WINmodem. Ok, I know it's a software issue. So I write in to Mandrake 'experts' on the website, and after explaining I knew where the problem was likely coming from, and that there were solutions, I just needed to be pointed in the right direction, the response I got back was along the lines of: "If it's a winmodem it won't work I think." Clap, clap, clap.
Screw it, I buy a 3com 56K compatible for linux, have to fix the IRQ and symbolic links myself, add them to the startup config file. Fine, it works a day later. I know the common user would never know what to do, and most of my 'geek' friends would have struggled as much as I did.
XP on the other hand grabbed everything either online from its updates, or I had the CD physically in my hand with the XP driver. Not one hardware issue.
I'm still dual booting and fiddling around with Linux, but I have yet to see one thing that's going to make me delete my Windows partition in the near future. It's certainly a good OS, and one that has many good features, but it's still a little rough around the edges in some areas that matter a lot to the average person. (i.e., putting in a CD and fire-and-forgetting installs)
PS--I am looking forward to exploring Linux more--I'm not knocking it in that regard--I just need to spend some time getting acquainted. It just hasn't 'knocked my socks off' yet.
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
I'm not trying to troll here, but for the short time I used Mandrake, it was THE buggiest, sloppiest, SLOWEST distro of Linux I have ever used. Hell, even the english was bad ("now are time of partition?" and similar).
Now, I'm not a big fan of Red Hat or any other 'commercial' distro, but consider others. If mandrake had been my first Linux attempt, I would have never come back.
Good luck!
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
A major part of this problem is 'hard'ware manufacturers making a lot of soft-hardware such as winmodems. I can live with that, the point at which I get annoyed is when PC manufacturers install them. Then someone is curious about linux, and then they are doing fine, up until modem config time. Talk about a big turn off.
And who to blame? NOT Linux or its developers. That's for damn sure. But the thought will enter their head "damn Linux has shitty hardware support". When the fact is really "damn $hardwaremfctr has shitty PC support".
Shitty. Just another example of the unfortunate drawbacks of cowtowing to MS.
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
It's proprietary and not well supported hardware as well.. Take my Linux box -- I have a Haupaugue TV capture card that works under linux but under every distro requires a manual kernel config and recompile. My Kodak webcam works, but after finding the obscure USB driver that needed to be added to the kernel. My ESS soundcard that came with the Compaq needed manual module config. My Canon scanner currently has absolutely no open-source driver for it.
Problem is most hardware manufacturers aren't going to hire extra developers to release a driver for an OS with such a small desktop market-share. And releasing proprietary info to the public isn't just a matter of utting a pdf on the web -- there's legal & intellectual property issues that company has to consider (otherwise their stockholders could put management's balls in a vice).
I'd go so far as to say the old piece of shit stuff has a better chance of being supported, since it's been around longer, and most likely the korean company is using generic off-the-shelf chipsets for their products -- it's just a matter of finding out which one and applying the correct driver (which brings us back to the common user not wanting or being able to do it).
Re:Linux's next big hurdle (Score:2)
No, but why? To boot and run every piece of hardware in the system (video capture cards, usb devices, etc..)? I don't think that's a typical common user desire.
Hard to take seriously (Score:2)
- Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
Um . .Sorry, but even if all our computers were dual-boot Windows and _______ Linux (which distribution, BTW?) it would not matter. Windows has the mindshare of users. I can't even go back to DOS applications with the younger employees--all they know is Windows.
Back to the Zaurus: this presents a great opportunity to substitute Linux for monopoly-ware, precisely because it is a fresh, new platform that doesn't have a deeply-entrenched user base. Even though its PIM features aren't as refined (or useful) as the Palm's and the Word/Excel manipulations aren't as refined (or useful) as the PokeyPC's, there are many more people who have not yet experienced the Palm or PocketPC platform who would love the Zaurus. And, for vertical applications, the Zaurus offers a tremendous benefit over any other platform. It's open, flexible, fast and capable. Can you SSH into a PokeyPC? Didn't think so. I know you can run Terminal Services' client on the PokeyPC, but on the Zaurus I run VNC Server to provide remote demonstrations over the Internet. Run Apache with PHP, mod_perl and MySQL on the PokeyPC? I do on the Z. Moreover, the browser on the Z is Opera 5 and it beats the heck out of PokeyIE in terms of speed, compliance and features (I'm playing with betas of Opera 6 which is even better). And, the Z costs less than an iPaq. Did I mention the pull-out thumb board?
PDAs are new and market penetration is light enough that the current "leaders" are still small players when considering the total potential marketspace. The desktop is old hat. Concentrate on the new space and win there. People are having to adapt, so Linux has a fighting chance.
[I know people have problems comparing the Z to Palm or PocketPC, but most people aren't Graffiti experts, etc. Remember, I'm looking at the Z for a vertical application, not as a PIM].
The Zaurus explains linux's shortcomings (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got a Zaurus. I like the fact that I can write custom mobile GUI applications in Python. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's uses for extremely niche applications. I've found the thing useful, so I'm not completely biased.
But unfortunately, the Zaurus UI is VERY badly designed. It's not just lack of "polish", it's stuff that any decent UI person would tell you you *never* do, especially on a mobile device with a ridiculously tiny screen.
Why is the Zaurus so very unusable?
Linux's success, which is success on the server, has come about because linux developers/users had cultural beliefs and abilities that lent themselves well to the creation of things like Apache and the Linux Kernel. Unfortunately, they had cultural beliefs (HCI is BS, RTFM, text better than graphical) that were detrimental to the making of usable software. You have to have a developer culture that values ease-of-use in order to make usable software. They were also lacking in many of the necessary skills (thinking graphically instead of textually, user-interaction design etc.) needed to do this, as well.
Let's look at the Palm as a case study. The Palm user interaction was designed before the code for the OS was ever written and before the first injection mold tool was cast. The creator of the Palm, Jeff Hawkins, could often be seen walking around the company with a wooden mockup of the device, taking it with him to meetings and taking down imaginary notes with the stylus he had created (whittled down from a chopstick!). He thought long and hard about how to minimize the number of taps to do things (which the TrollTech has not). In short, he did what was needed to be done to have a successful, usable product.
If Jeff Hawkins was a linux developer, he would have said "I'll just tack on the GUI once I've finished all the technical stuff. Modularity and all". If someone with any UI design experience would try to save the day and tell him he needed to design the UI before anything else, he'd tell them they were being ridiculous. If someone complained that things were too hard to do, he would tell them to stop whining about what they're getting for free. He would then release the stuff he created to many of the geeky linux folks as early adopters, believing that usage would start with them and proceed to trickle down to normal folks. All the while refusing to understand that linux geeks tend to have very high tolerances for badly designed and inefficient user interfaces and will yell "Stop spreading Microsoft FUD about linux being hard to use!" at the first person who points out an ususable Open Source UI.Assuming that the Alternate Linux Universe Jeff Hawkins was receptive to user feedback regarding the bad design, he wouldn't be getting any because the majority of users would be telling him that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.The poster in an earlier thread who in jest pointed out that the guy who said KDE was easy enough for anyone to use was actually running it on Gentoo couldn't have been more right.
Palm was successful because they did things the right way, not because they were familiar to windows users. WinCE did things the wrong way because it was familiar to windows users (some Palm executives once said that competing with PocketPC "was like shooting fish in a barrel").
Linux getting to the desktop will require both the linux developer community and current user community to put down their Neale Stephenson essays and change their attitudes and the way they do things. Until this happens, the greatest roadblock to Linux on the desktop will be the linux community itself.
Re:The Zaurus explains linux's shortcomings (Score:2)
I use it, and while the initial install is a serious pain, once it's over it is EXTREMELY trivial to install software which is in the portage tree. And I have only run into two or three small apps that were not.
If I don't even have xf86 on my box, and I want the latest kde:
emerge kde
And it will figure out ALL dependancies, all of their dependancies, download all of them, compile and install all of them in the right order. Not only that, but with only the support for libs/etc i want, and with the exact CFLAGS i want. Takes a while, but it's that easy.
My point is that Gentoo's reputation for being difficult is unfounded at anything but install time.
Ice Cream Lovers Refuse To Switch To Gnu Cream (Score:5, Funny)
The stuff I make is really cold, as cold as proprietary corporate ice cream, but I haven't figured out how to add flavoring unless I buy closed source vanilla or chocolate, so I've been eating it without flavor so far. But, at least, I'm not beholden to corporate America for my frozen treats. (If anyone else knows how to make open, non-proprietary chocolate, let me know, OK?)
I don't understand why everyone doesn't do the same thing.
Re:Ice Cream Lovers Refuse To Switch To Gnu Cream (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ice Cream Lovers Refuse To Switch To Gnu Cream (Score:2)
Re:Ice Cream Lovers Refuse To Switch To Gnu Cream (Score:2)
For flavor I suggest you find a vanilla bean, and soak it in Burbon for a week. You wouldn't go back to store bought vanilla after that that. Even better if your brew your own burbon.
Re:Ice Cream Lovers Refuse To Switch To Gnu Cream (Score:2)
Nice!
Normal friends (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be. It sounds to me like you have a normal and well rounded set of friends. Good for you.
Quoteth.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Linus himself had something to say on the very subject in a recording of an interview I have, I think from Cebit 2001:
(I've put the whole interview [pyxidis.org] up if you wanna hear the rest.)
Bitrate / filesize suggestion (Score:2)
Consider ~24 kbps / 22KHz, after all its just voice. Us dial up users would really appreciate it, and so would that server.
Cheers.
Some issues (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I can't recommed Linux as a solution to a small to medium sized company or to individuals, except in very limited circumstances.
DESKTOP: For desktop use, it lacks support for hardware and software and I certainly am not going to support my less technical friends and clients over the phone when they need to update their kernel or install true type fonts. Also, when it comes to software, if an application exists, it probably exists for Windows. You can't say that about Linux, which requires emulators and the like. Fine for me, but not for my mother. As for hardware, I personally would like to upgrade my laptop, but there's no driver for my wireless network card. A commercial operating system is cheaper than a new card....
SERVERS: For server use, I can't recommend it for small companies, since there would be no local expert able to add a user or other simple task without my intervention. Your average joe can pick up a Windows book and do regular maintenance or add printers, etc. That can't be said for Linux.
Things that have nothing to do with it:
1. COST. Only in large companies does the TCO issues begin to play, and then, it's still not clear. As for the desktop, most computers come OEM with Windows (the cost being hidden) and users either already own Windows applications or expect to buy them with the new computer.
2. RELIGION/POLITICS. Most people don't hate Microsoft -- they're ambivalent. It's like the number of people who boycotted Exxon after the Valdez disaster in Alaska. Most aren't going to put up much fight, especially when it involves an inconvenience. Driving across town to a gas station is MUCH easier than learning the command line or a new GUI. They're unlikely to do either.
3. RELIABILITY. Windows XP on the desktop is reliable. Period. If yours is crashing regularly, you've done something wrong or installed some 3rd party application incorrectly. I get the impression from reading here and my Linux certification materials that most Linux users are mostly familiar with the godawful Windows 9.x operating systems. Things have changed in the last few years (Windows 2000 and XP).
4. SECURITY. Windows XP/2000 is known to have security issues. I recommend installing a personal firewall and not using IE (I like Opera). This solves most security problems. Most people don't really care about these issues and will spend the $30 to add software to fix the problems. The Linux way seems to be security through obscurity. If there were a dominant Linux mail client, like Ximian, then there would be viruses written to attack it. Outlook is a big target.
I'd Mod you up if I had any Karma left. (Score:2)
Over the years I've repeated that experience, with Slackware 3, Redhat 4,5 and 7.3, (FreeBSD), and a few others that I don't remember. I always get Linux installed, fight my system like mad to get X working, and always find myself at the same point at the end: "Okay, now what?"
And I look around and don't see a compelling reason to keep Linux on my system. There is almost nothing I can do with Linux that I can't already do with my Windows system, and there are a lot of things I can't do with Linux that I can with Windows. And some things that both systems can do are so hard to do on Linux that it is simply not worth my time to figure out haw to do them.
But there are other factors that limit Linux in my opinion, and in the opinions of others who already use Windows:
1: Inconsistant UI. Sure, KDE and GNOME are internally consistant, but any program that doesn't use one of those managers is a total crapshoot as far as UI goes.
2: Amatuere hour software. You know, the utilities that were written to fix the authors problem and then released into the world. Too bad the UI is crap and the documentation assumes you already know how to use the program.
3: Having to edit text based
Linux has made great strides, and it is easier and more uniform than it has ever been. But one of Linux's great strengths in the geek comunity, the freedom to tweak it any way you want, is its biggest weakness in the general consumer market. The lack of a single, unified UI (sorry, but KDE or Gnome has to die and leave the other in charge) and file structure kills Linux in the mind of the Average Joe.
Missing the point (Score:2)
Warmed-over Linux advocacy from the late '90s notwithstanding, current Windows versions are stable and as fast and no more bloated than recent GNOME or KDE. And, realistically, almost all users have already paid for it and won't save money by switching to Linux.
Personally, I don't touch Windows unless I have to, spending nearly all my time in MacOS, Linux and remote Solaris sessions. I could explain why I prefer those options to Windows -- and it goes far beyond, "I can browse the web! I can read email! I can use an office suite, well, sort of!" Windows users can already do that aren't going to be impressed that you can also do it in Linux.
Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I like XP as my gui, and Linux as my server and extension to my workstation. I use my linux box as resources for my windows box. Mount shares, Run services, shell with command line tools, keep tasks running in the background while I play video games on my windose box. (Keep IRC open in a shell with irssi)
I really dont understand why people dont use the best of each platform. Have the best of both worlds, the power of applications (and GNU utils/commands) on a *nix box(bsd or linux) and the anti-aliased fonts/games/apps of windows. (Sounds like OSX, doesnt it...)
But if you only have 1 Box, XP+Cygwin seems a better option for now. KDE/Gnome/Openbox are still lacking in areas, and windows programs wont run native. Repeat, im not bad mouthing linux, linux is a great OS. The Gui KDE, and Back end Xserver is missing features, 3D features, Anti-aliasing, advanced hardware features. But the command line gnu tools, and opensource applications are great. I'm sure with time, linux will be the better choice for a full time os, but gui and applications support needs to be there.
-Brook
-
Blackbox 4 windows [sourceforge.net] an alternative to litestep.
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
That is the worst website I have seen in a long time. There is no information about it, there is no information about where to download, how to install. The home page is a news stream and a chatterbox.
I'm going to go kick a small dog.
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
What is it missing? I have anti-aliased fonts, I bet my 3D card is better than yours, granted I'm running with closed source drivers. X has many more features than XP, esp when it comes to multi-monitor support. I use Gnome as my GUI, but use the arts sound server because it just works with ALSA without any patches. I have a shitload of quality fonts, which admitedly didn't ship with Mandrake, but I imported them with their GUI tool. Plus, I have great programs like DVD:Rip and mplayer which let me watch two movies on a battery rather than one, with better sound than that crappy WinDVD thing I paid for but didn't get any support for when it stopped working.
I do run some programs under wine, specifically with the CrossOver version for office apps and the Transmeta version for games, which is annoying. But then they I'm always surprised when they run better than the same app on a Microsoft windows implementation. I don't understand the mindless move to XP either, I got a call the other day about a program I wrote for theatrical performance a while back. It was running half as fast as it used to. I ask the simple questions, same hardware, same supporting apps, same computer, etc. All yes, so I ask "What has changed?" "We upgraded to Windows XP" "Umm, do you run any other apps on this computer?" "No" "Go back to Windows 2000" "But XP is better!"
I think perhaps my frustration with XP is akin to yours with Gnome/KDE, I had to use Linux on my desktop for some applications a few years ago, now I'm comfortable with it, I know how to do all the things I do with it. Doing anything in XP is like trying to drive my uncle's Yugo on the interstate, but he'd prolly have the same problems driving my BMW, the quick steering alone could send him off the highway in a hurry. (2000, is like driving my old bicycle with the loose handlebars, I'll get there, I know it's quirks, but sometimes I'd prefer walking.)
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
I can tell you my gfx card, ati 9700 pro, multimonitor runs great. No problems, card is fast and stable. Plus Anti-alias works much better on XP. But I think XFT/Freetype will have this fixed by next year on most apps/x managers.
But onto XP.
I wouldnt blame XP, XPs requirements are more hefty compared to 98/NT/2K. Yes its bigger, it needs more, but that doesnt mean its not a good OS. My gaming PC/workstation is upgraded quite a bit more than my linux box. If I run KDE, I will want a faster video card, if blackbox, 4 meg pci video card works fine.
X Managers/desktops are getting close to XP/OSX quality. But the supporting libraries and programs still need work. And the developers are working hard, the KDE roadmap shows how much progress and thought of users needs have been planned.
So, I will use XP as my desktop for now. Things change so fast, i might even be running OSX next. (-;
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
Sure, at least in the distributions. If you really want aliasing there are some patches for XFT, and you can recompile Freetype with the font compiler...
I wouldnt blame XP, XPs requirements are more hefty compared to 98/NT/2K. Yes its bigger, it needs more, but that doesnt mean its not a good OS. My gaming PC/workstation is upgraded quite a bit more than my linux box. If I run KDE, I will want a faster video card, if blackbox, 4 meg pci video card works fine.
I'm not really blaming XP, any change of OS could have affected performance. In their case they were using a Quadro4 with some kind of dual Xeon system with 512 Meg of ram. Way overkill for my little program. I think it is probably some problem in the scheduler screewing up thread synchronization, but I didn't spend any time on it, it's a one off app so it's more than silly for me to port it to another OS when Win 2000 is still being supported.
PS I run BlackBox on my playstation.
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
For simple things Cygwin is great. But not for serious work, at least on XP.
1. If you try to work with a directory with 5000 files under Cygwin forget it. We're talking coffee-break time if you do ls -l with a wildcard. A heavy-duty script that might run in a couple of minutes on Linux can take hours.
2. Sometimes Windows XP will "lock" a file or directory randomly for no apparent reason, such that if an attempt to delete/rename the file or is made from the Windows Explorer, the error message "Cannot rename/delete xxx - access is denied. Make sure the disk is not full or write-protected." This has been discussed endlessly in newsgroups with no apparent solution except to reboot. And Cygwin is not immune - just today for no reason at all I got "./subproc3.sh: cannot create 7.tmp: permission denied", causing the rest of the script to screw up. After rebooting and spending an hour cleaning up the damage, the identical script ran perfectly.
3. updatedb (as well as the related "find" on large directory trees) seems to occasionally skip directories, usually at the end or the last directory. It is not repeatable. So you can't trust it. It seems to be yet another weird XP file system flakiness.
In short: XP (and/or Cygwin, but I suspect the former) is not reliable for typical heavy-duty Linux-type tasks. And there's something seriously wrong with the disk-scheduling/file system of XP when, randomly, the disk thrashes for 2-3 minutes when all you do is click on a folder in Windows Explorer to see its contents, before displaying said contents. I haven't seen XP crash with a BSOD but now and then it just becomes completely unresponsive and/or apps start acting bizarre, requiring a reboot. And even if it doesn't crash it just seems to just get slower and slower and s-l-o-w-e-r after several days of very heavy Cygwin script use until finally I reboot in frustration.
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
I sympathize 100% whenever I'm forced to go over to Win2k to do development. Fortunately, 90% of my job is development on linux, and I wouldn't change that for anything, and I just scoff at the people who tell me that XP with Cygwin is better than Linux.
Re:Dont mix Linux in with KDE/Gnome. (Score:2)
I think a good option if didnt play games, and could afford it, 2ghz cpu, 1 gig ram, fast ide and run linux with vmware underneath. Vmware is pretty fast, but on my laptop with 256 megs ram, cheesy ide, im stuck with 1 os, so xp+cygwin.
Also, I wouldnt say the only way to make XP useful is to install cygwin. I have too many visio/office/windows only programs. And to tell the truth, I use putty(ssh), and extemely like it. Cutting and pasting from ssh into textpad makes it easy to past into trouble tickets. (Ya, I'm in the last tier for support, paperwork, exchange email, trouble tickets, ssh'ing into unix boxes, telneting into switches, etc...)
Ok, back to installing the new beta Redhat.
Personal Experience Anecdote (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this because I ran a small shop where people brought in machines for repair, surfed the internet, etc. The house machines were all Linux (Mandrake), except for one dual-boot machine. When they were finished I asked them "How was it", and they said "Whatdya mean?" You were using Linux, I replied. "What's that?" My point? They didn't care or even realize they were using Linux, but when we started to compare Linux v. Microsoft, they almost always went home and installed it. Sure, they came back with lots of questions, but they were the same questions Windows users ask me, typically "Where do I change the colors/screen resolution/is that the left mouse button or the right, which side of the CD goes in, etc."
I believe the reason Linux is not caught on more yet has nothing to do with the features/software or useability, it's due to Microsoft.
Patching and license compliance is NOT hard. (Score:2)
Patching and license compliance are only a problem in companies with shitty managers who do not have their infrastructure built to handle such issues. Windows 2000 made that stuff pretty damned easy.
1- Steps to distributing Windows patches in an Active Directory network:
I. Get the
II. Administrator tells domain controller to install
III. Done.
Steps to ensure licensing compliance in Active Directory network:
I. Ensure that ordinary users cannot install software without administrative help, which they should not be doing anyway!
II. Have all installs handled automatically by the Active Directory Domain Controllers. Set it to only install what is already paid for.
Linux zealots need to stop attacking Microsoft and commercial software companies over things that are non-issues at a company with a well-managed IT department. Sell Linux on its own strengths, not on percieved weaknesses of others.
Re:Patching and license compliance is NOT hard. (Score:2)
You are assuming most MS-based IT infrastructure is built around Windows 2000 and Active Directory. AFAIK, however, most MS-based IT infrastructure is still built on Windows NT 4.0, because
- the upgrade to Active Directory is a pain
- Active Directory cannot be fully deployed in heterogenous environments (which is what the majority if large IT shops are)
So the problems faced by Windows-bound IT workers are still very real...
Re:Patching and license compliance is NOT hard. (Score:2)
What do the problems of old, heterogenous environments have to do with up-to-date, easier to manage ones? I was pointing out that managing a cutting-edge Linux desktop network with free software isn't really any harder than managing a Windows 2000 network, and that Windows networks can be managed rather easily by companies with a decent staff. Organizations still built around NT are doing it because they have bad mangers who haven't managed to upgrade in THREE YEARS. Windows 2000/AD is NOT cutting edge technology! Linux is NOT a solution when the real problem is management that cannot move to a better option in three years!
Linux is a great kernel, and some of the distros are great operating systems. But as long as Linux zealots try to promote Linux with cheap shots at Windows, the Linux zealots will get the same response Microsoft gets out of all the silly TCO statistics they pay third party groups to generate in favor of Windows.
Mandatory upgrade every three years? Bah! (Score:2)
Either you are a spoiled rich brat with money to burn or you have been brainwashed to believe that such short forced upgrade cycles are supposed to be the norm. Large business investments in a particular software technology have historically been, and are generally supposed to have 7 to 10 year lifecycles, with incremental upgrades that build upon the base product... not complete replacement of the base product. Pouring repeated large volumes of money into a vendor's pocket for "it's a totally _new product_, not an upgrade" is what constitutes bad management. My employer is also suffering from this endless upgrade gravy-train and we simply cannot afford to replace our NOS licenses every two to three years just to satisfy the vendor's greed, and our management also refuses to lease their licenses too. I've been an NT network manager since version 3.5 of the product and am sick of the game too. I've been waiting a long time to have a pure unix server backend once again and thanks to Linux, we're finally able to begin doing it.
Re:Mandatory upgrade every three years? Bah! (Score:2)
Neither of the above. But I have worked with NT and 2000 enough to know that NT is a pile of crap, and that Windows 2000 is so much better only a madman should still be running it. While it is not cheap or easy, Active Directory really does have enough advantages to make it worth upgrading from Windows NT. As for your 7-10 year lifecycle, are you smoking crack? Those numbers might sound nice in MBA classes, but would you really want to run an enterprise using 7-10 year old technology?
Ahh... but you're assuming.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux is looking even better and better for us, and I wish we could migrate completely off of MS and go to Linux, starting yesterday, but the cold hard reality is that we have too many mission critical apps that are Win32-only.
two main reasons (Score:2)
Linux must run MS Office to sell to the masses (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing how few people have switched to Mac's even with this capability. I bought a new iMac just for grins, and with 10.2 and the Cisco VPN client, I can dial up my office and fire up Outlook to the Exchange server no problem, as well as have CRUD access to the docs on the network.
Gotta get Office on Linux without any adapters, emulators or dual-boots. The average user, (who is keeping the lights on in Redmond), isn't as fast as this community.
How I use Linux at work (Score:4, Interesting)
I can make a shell script in about 10 minutes that will do, in a matter of seconds, something that a human would take hours to do with their favorite GUI app. I rarely run Linux X apps. I do run X apps exported off unix servers on occasion, but the real power of Linux is what I mentioned above. Plus, I don't need to worry about, or even have, an X display driver. We have New Fangled windows-based systems that simply have no way of doing these rudimentary, STANDARD functions (outside of purchasing $$$ or building $$$ specialized apps).
I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:4, Insightful)
All of my servers are Linux, and they do great. In fact, I'll turn 1 year uptime on them next week. However, I don't think Linux is ready to be on my desk at work.
Every once in a while, I get this urge to try to dump Windows altogether. I've tried it several times now, but I keep coming back to Windows because of apps like Photoshop and Trillian, and the solid UI. There are X equivalents of most apps, yes, but they just aren't the same, and I'm not as productive with these as I am with the Windows products.
Most Linux desktop apps have not been very stable for me either, and what's worse, they don't FEEL stable. MS Windows has a very solid, polished feel to it. They've dumped tons of money and hours into useability, and they have alot to show for it. I think Linux will get there (its come a LONG way already), but for me, its not there yet.
Last time I ran a Linux desktop, someone asked "why are you running Linux instead of Windows?". I really couldn't come up with a valid answer for him, other than "I just want to!" or "I hate Microsoft!".
The bottomline is, right now I'm the most productive when working from an SSH session on my Windows desktop.
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
In this case your company paid for it and that's great, you can use it at work. For most people that's not the case. They have to steal it to use it at home or they have to part with hundreds of dollars.
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Yet they get yelled at by some of the best usability folks on the planet for stupid stuff like multi-row tabs and window-in-window MDI, and it literally takes them years to remove these awful designs from Windows.
Microsoft has no monopoly on usability (no pun intended). They're actually quite stupid in that field. But they look good when compared to linux because many linux developers have done things even more stupid, confusing, and ambiguous than Microsoft has.
I disagree with the assumptions made about Microsoft, but the conclusion about the Windows user experience being less bad than linux is correct.
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
Wow. Just in time to turn them off before the Internet is cleaned on New Year's Eve.
Why BlueCurve is stupid. (Score:2)
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Re:I've tried Linux at work but... (Score:2)
I don't really like any of the Linux mail clients (I've used Calypso for years now).
Handling MS documents (I have to deal with alot of them, although I despise the format) is clunky and time consuming. The just viewers don't have enough support for features my coworkers choose to use in their Word documents, etc. This makes Linux quite useless and annoying for me to have on my desk.
When I said I'd rather SSH from Windows, I mean that I'd rather keep Linux as a server and nothing more. There are really no apps I care to export from X.
As for "feeling unstable", yes that's exactly how I'd describe it. Things render slower and generally feel clumbsier than they do on Windows. Windows is just more responsive and more productive for me.
Enthuse about Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't laugh when their machine bluescreens - try and help them work out why. Use Linux on your desktop, even if it's slightly more hassle. Make sure that when you've installed a lovely theme, or window manager, you enthuse about it, and get people to see it.
Make sure people know you can play music under Linux. Another common misconception is that it does't have sound support.95% of users simply check email, browse the web, and play games.
Most people that use Windows know it's annoying, and shit, but they don't think there is an alternative.
Just don't bleat on about how crap it is - instead, enthuse about how good Linux is. Show them that you can open PPT files in Open Office fine. Show them that you can connect to Windows terminal servers using RDesktop. Show them a diskless workstation in action.
Motto? Enthuse about Linux. Other people get curious, and try it out.
P.S If I don't get some good mod points for this heartfelt outpouring, I'll feel very hard done by!
Re:Enthuse about Linux (Score:2)
Linux doesn't need rabid people. Be an advocate, not a zealot. There's no need to slate the alternatives - Linux is better, and can stand up based on its merits, and the evidence. Given the right information, a bootable CD, half a chance, and a helpful person in case things go awry, most people will give Linux a try.
Linux and power users (Score:3, Insightful)
At my business, we deploy on PHP 4 + PostgreSQL, so we have Linux database servers and OpenBSD webservers. Our first Linux web server in 18 months just came online, we got sick of security issues.
I currently use a Powerbook w/ OS X for my desktop, I'm extremely happy. When we were playing with Redhat 8 to install the test box, we did one install as a workstation for fun.
It was distinctly less ugly than I remembered Linux desktops, and was pretty equivalent to a Windows desktop (though it can't touch Aqua). However, when I tried to install Phoenix, I ran into dependancy problems because I hadn't installed Mozilla first (I was going to run Phoenix). When I created a "launcher" I couldn't get it to show up on the desktop until relogging in, etc., etc.
If I was a grunt office user, I could be trained to work in there instead of Windows. Someone else would create all my icons, etc. For Sysadmining, I have no problem playing in Linux, its easily to configure, etc. However, as a "power user" I was frustrated, and wanted nothing to do with the box.
I find OS X + Powerbook makes me EXTREMELY productive. Redhat + GNOME + KDE + Blue Curve was too frustrating. It's "looking" better, but it isn't better.
Look, there are plenty of times that I get confused in the Mac GUI because it isn't Windows. I can usually figure it out, and the result tends to make more sense than Microsoft's version.
With my Powerbook, I plug a second monitor in and the dock/menu bar slide over. When I disconnect the monitor, I'm back to one monitor. BBEdit has configuration options for working with two monitors, very nice. With my Windows laptop, I had to shut down to undock b/c of the PCI video card to get the second monitor. How would Linux handle that?
As a result, Apple go the check. Switching was only a few thousand, and I'm more productive. Knock off one extra project and its paid for itself. Give me another two weeks. Linux... sorry, its not there yet.
Alex
dual boot fud (Score:2)
That's not why it's failed to catch on. It's because the average computer user still finds Windows complicated to use... and that's when it comes pre-installed on their computer when they buy it. To the average user Linux is just too complicated with diminishing returns. If you walk into a store and pick up a piece of software chances are it will either run on your Windows or Mac machine. With Linux you have to put some work into it, like actually reading some documentation or finding the site. A scary proposition by itself, let alone trying to install it from ISOs.
Linux still won't be consumer friendly (despite some of the great packages out there) for years to come.
Anyone else who has done Windows support for an organization with 5000+ employees in it can vouch for the reluctance of the user to actually think while using their machine.
On the issue of partitioning... (Score:3, Informative)
So I would like to just remind everyone of Parted [gnu.org], the GNU partition utility. It can create, resize, move, and delete most filesystems. The notable exception is NTFS. If you follow that link there's a nice chart that shows exactly what Parted can do with each filesystem.
So if your Windows is on a FAT partition, parted can resize it such that you don't have to reformat, much like Partition Magic, but it's of course free. And, you don't need a working Linux system to install it, there are bootable floppy images available for download. It's main drawback is the user interface, but if you read the Docs first you should be able to do most simple operations without really understanding the details.
How many users really are curious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you also be disappointed in my lack of curiousity in Microsoft Windows ?? It's come a long way since the bad-old-days of Windows 3.1. That's the time frame when I purchased my first PC and installed Slackware 1.1 (0.99pl14 kernel). Previously, I used a MacLC2 (dual boot, MacOS6 and MacOS7), and I logged into to various unix boxes for "real work". Before that, I had an Apple2, and again, I logged into BBSs and unix boxes for email, newsgroups, and chat.
I kept the Mac for many years and used it for word processing and graphics (bought one of the few monitors at the time which had two video inputs). MS Word 4.0, MacPaint 1.1, SuperPaint 3.0, Canvas 2.1 were getting pretty old, but they still worked great and did everything I needed. My old Mac has a 50 MHz speed-up card, and those old apps ran great. Likewise, I could do almost all unix-oriented tasks on the linux box, including email, usenet news, and later surfing the web. Linux (and related apps) has grown and grown, and the PC hardware has remained cheap (unlike trying to upgrade the mac). A couple years ago, I took the plunge and finally started using the GIMP, which replaced my last major hold-out on the Mac side.
Over the years, there's been 2 win32-only CAD apps I've needed. At times I had dual-boot, but eventually I purchased vmware and I really like the repeatable resume. I can finally not have to fiddle with windows.... I just set it up once and every time I start that virtual machine I get exactly the same working win32 system with my one CAD app installed.
I saw WinXP in the store not long ago. They've certainly made it pretty. It also looks like Win2k and WinXP are real operating systems with compatible apps and drivers (I was quite unimpressed with NT 3.51 and 4.0).
My linux setup works. I know how to use it. I have a set of apps that run great and do just about everything I need. I've got all my special apps in /usr/local and ~/bin, so backup and migrating to newer distros are easy.
I know there's LOTS of neat new apps for Windows that don't exist for Linux. I know the modern versions of Windows have become much better.
But I don't really care. What I have works, and until there's some really compelling reason to consider Microsoft again (that isn't easily solved by a repeatable-resume vmware virtual machine), I just want to leave well enough alone. It's certainly not broken, so why fix it ???
I can identify with your Windows-based friends who are quite happy with their computing paragigms and therefore aren't really curious about Linux. I can't see how yet-another-book is going to "help". If everything is working great and there's no need for anything new, then what is the "problem" that needs to be "solved" ?
It's ALL in the apps. (Score:2)
picture a typical work environment. people who generate media on computers. you have some graphics people - they work on graphics and animation. they will want to use say photoshop, director, premiere, etc. there are some sound people. they use soundforge, logic, cubase, reaktor, absynth, and so on. the programmers will use.. well, whatever suite they want to. there are more (and better) development environments for win32 than there are for linux, though this is a slightly closer call. however gimp and similar linux versions of apps - they are fine for playing around. but they are not near professional grade. and what about the project manager, he will want to use microsoft project. because that's the best program of its kind.
open source is in some ways a detractor here. apps wont be released for linux until companies are safer in the knowledge of market share, and that their market will have the right attitude toward their products. it can't be that hard to port them - how easily were apps ported to Mac OS X?
people will go to a platform with the best apps. you can get all sorts of stuff for free OSes, but it doesn't mean they're good enough for professional use. even non-professional use - tux racer may be cute and stuff, but it oesn't compare to anything good released on pc for the last 3 years.
you, as a slashdotter, may think this doesn't apply to you, because you like configuring your machine, tinkering with settings, and so forth. but you're not a user. you're acting like a system administrator. and the way to get linux into the mainstream is not to make everyone want to administrate their own machines, but to make linux easy enough for someone to use it and not have it get in the way.
whether this is a good thing or not is another question entirely. it may be bad to "dilute" linux to the lowest common denominator, if that affects its power.
fwiw, i would garotte anyone who advised using windows on a server environment, having had more than enough nightmares with that already myself too
fross
Time Burden? (Score:2)
Well, duh! Of course they don't see open source as anything as a time burden. They don't have any free time what with all that Windows patching they need to do.
It's Apps Hardware and Licensing (Score:2)
I don't need MS Office. For my needs, Open Office is just fine. I rarely use it. But for a business, Open Office needs to be directly compatible w/ office, and the corporate world needs a genuine MS Office for linux. They need that road to be open to them. Sure, they'll try OO for free. But if they run into compat problems, they could just go buy MSOffice. Problem solved.
I'm trying to 'switch' now. I've got two boxes. My winXP, the original box, is now only turned on to use it's hauppage WinTV mpeg digitizer to catch a show, or to use Photoshop, Thumbs+ or an multimedia file that I just can't play on Linux. The other box, a PIII slapped together from spare parts around is the Linux box, is all I've used for the past few weeks, barring the above. I'm spending time learning gimp. I dearly miss Photoshop and Thumbs+, Homesite too.
The thing is I know people who Linux would be better suited for them. It's safer, they can't delete the wrong files (ie win9x,), no virii problems. But can I guarantee they can print from it? Can they print well? Nope. If they buy a USB MP3 player will it work? Maybe.
Will that same hardware work with Windows? *probably*.
2. There's an odds game there, and windows wins it. It's the device drivers for the hardware. Until manufacturers put out drivers, Linux is always playing catchup. Not that I'm *not* very grateful that there are a lot of people who write these drivers in their own time so that I can use them in an OS that I downloaded for free. Don't get the wrong. But if I buy my kid one of those creative keychain mp3 players - can she use it on a WinXP box? I'd bet on it. Can she use it just as easily if the machine was a Redhat8 machine? Maybe. Dunno. I'd have to search on it, maybe even buy the thing and try it out. Maybe write a few shell/perl scripts or something to make it easy for her to use.
If that's the case, that's too much trouble for people, for Linux to be mainstream use.
Linux needs drivers to products that are fully equivalent in functionality to the same Windows/Mac drivers.
3. Licensing
Microsoft needs to stiffen the licensing and security of it's OS and apps.
Until people cannot 'borrow' a WinXP cdrom from a friend, or from the office, and install it on a computer at home/at a friends/neighbor/parents place, Linux will never become as popular as Windows. Why would people bother? It's free. Unethical, yes. But it didn't cost them anything. Same thing w/ the Office cd's and photoshop et all.
Of all the people that I work with, that I know of, I am the only person who's actually *bought* Photoshop. (yes, the company bought many many licenses) But I know for a fact that they've all got it installed on their pc's at home. (and yes, the argument can be made here that since everyone's using it, when PS 10 comes out everyone will clamor for it, the office buys more upgrade licenses, everyone's using the app, and more sales are just about guaranteed for perpetuity, but that's another topic).
When the day comes, if ever, that people just can't copy or borrow-to-install, you'll see many many people asking to borrow a linux cd set to try it out. It's all about money, and most people only spend it on hardware. To a lesser extent some software ($30 for an antivirus), never a large costly app like MSOffice. And nearly *never* on an operating system.
Re:They *need* photoshop (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They *need* photoshop (Score:2)
Stop trying to promote your business and think for a moment that as an administrator I might just damn well know what I'm talking about, might know the capabilities my users. That, since the software request comes through me first, I might just have evaluated their needs and their experience and decided they did not need photoshop. That if they had a legitimate need, I wouldn't have any need to complain. Jeez.
Folks that don't know the difference between a gif and a jpeg don't *need* photoshop.
Your job is to make it work, that's all. (Score:2)
I make my bosses aware of their options and I advise when they request it, and I try to stear them away from making bad choices (buying Kai Photo Goo instead of Photoshop, for example), but when push comes to shove, they make the puirchasing decisions and I make their purchases work.
Re:They *need* photoshop (Score:2)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's me. I may be a geek, but I like having a life. A computer is just a tool, like a hammer, or saw, and so is all the software on a computer. I use whatever tool works. It was difficult to make the switch to Linux (it had been 10 years since I had been doing serious programming!), but I did it. And Linux, as a tool, works much better than Windows. It's like using a high priced hammer that absorbs some of the impact instead of a hammer that breaks in two several times a day.
In a way I don't care what OS my box runs. If it works and does the job, it's what I want. Unfortunately, I even had problems with Win2k -- which I called Win69, since it went down on me so often (not as often as Win9x, but still way too much).
You make linux out to be some fanatical cult thats the best thing in the world
If you care about an OS that works, that doesn't crash, that isn't full of security holes, that doesn't cost an arm and leg to upgrade, that doesn't act as a platform for an office suite that costs (literally) hundreds of dollars, then it is. A lawyer friend of mine just convinced his wife to go for Linux on her new system. How? She looked at the pricetag and realized by the time she got a system with WinXP, Office (a full or almost-full version), a finance program, and the one or two other things she needed (a total of WinXP plus something like 3-4 products), she would spend $1,000 on SOFTWARE alone! She's using Open Office now.
people don't care about such trivial things
I'm not clear what you're referring to as trivial. (The noun substitute "things" does not have a clear reference.) If it's so trivial, why are you responding? It isn't trivial when companies like Dreamworks, Merril-Lynch, BP, and many other huge companies decide that Windows is costing too much or not doing the job and switch to a system that doesn't crash and doesn't result in large licensing fees being extorted from them on a regular basis.
But each to his own. If you want to pay more and get less (except for pretty bells and whistles), then, as Sirius Cybernetics said, "share and enjoy."
Re:Could it be? (Score:2)
And if his email is more likely to work under one operating system, then he does care which OS he uses.
Windows crashing is almost always due to bad hardware.
Cop-out. I have worked with a number of machines which behaved very poorly under Windows, but very well under Linux.
By the way a lawyer spending $2k isn't that much. They probably make it back on their first case.
And if they don't have to spend that $2k on software, they now have $2k more that they can spend on:
Re:Could it be? (Score:2)
All my clients are lawyers. A number of my friends are lawyers. When I hear or read a comment like that, I know it's from someone who doesn't know many lawyers. While there are some that make megabucks, when I was teaching, I was making close to 75% of what most of the lawyers I know were making. (And I got summers off...)
All jokes aside (about lawyers and teachers), lawyers are rarely poor, but few (at least of the ones I know, which covers a wide variety of specialties) are as obscenely wealthy as you seem to think.
As for Windows almost always crashing due to bad hardware -- I've seen it crash frequently on many different systems. I do hear of some setups that don't crash.
I noticed you addressed price -- not by dealing with the argument, but by attacking someone you didn't even know (a variation of the "ad hominem" intentional fallacy), then you attacked stability by making a claim, which statistics generally don't support (Win2k may be the most stable of the lot, but tests show it does crash regularly), but I noticed you didn't even touch another point: security. Is that because you couldn't think of a flimsy argument to throw out for that? Or is it because you know, like everyone, that M$ has a tendancy to be slow to fix bugs and has a reputation for unsafe code?
Re:How to measure Linux's acceptance? (Score:2)