What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
128 Comments
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I think the article missed one huge point: Linux lacks an installation system that comes close to anything in Windows for ease of use. Normal users don't want to screw around trying to compile junk (and trying to find out why it isn't working). They want to download a file, double click it, and then see a shiny new icon to the application placed in their "Start" menu. Linux is getting there, and there are a few things that come close, but nothing as universal as the .exe
- Phaid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So this is different from...
Desktop Linux: The Final Hurdles in 2004?
or this article from 2003?
or Linux: Ready for Prime Time from 2002?
or Linux Falters on the Desktop as one of CNET's Big Stories of 2001?
I love Linux, I use it for all sorts of production servers and for embedded boxes like my MythTV system. But as long as "the linux desktop" continues to be a collection of 80% finished teenagerware, it will never reach "the tipping point". - dharm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Linux is getting there, and there are a few things that come close, but nothing as universal as the .exe"
as everyone else has said, there are package managers. people find it simpler to use a package manager than go hunting executables on the internet...
and there are self extracting binaries for linux - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Before I comment, let me show you my cards...
First... I run Linux and only Linux... except at work. (Unix and Windows)
Second... I run Ubuntu on my desktops, and SuSE on my server.
Now my comment...
Let's be honest here. Linux has some serious "install" issues. It doesn't matter if you hate Windows or Linux. Let's just tell it like it is. Linux needs a standard setup file. This deb, rpm, tar.gz, package, ./configure, make install, klick, bla bla bla, no standards crap is not for the everyday user and will not make it to the tipping point as it stands. I have to find deb files for my Ubuntu, and rpm files for my SuSE and if I am using YaST or Synaptic, I have a repository that may need to be configured to add any non-free packages that may or may not be illegal in my country (USA) just to play a dvd or listen to a purchased mp3. Why not have a standard package extension that just works for every Linux distro and is on every developers website? Why do I end up having to compile a bunch of crap or looking for repositories everytime I find a new program that I want to try that isn't listed in apt-get? Don't get me started about dependency files... We should just be able to download the file and click on it... done. No more "Is this file packaged for my distro of Linux? Do I have the right file? What dependencies are needed? After all it is still Linux... isn't it?" No more sudo tar xvfz whatever_program-linux-1.2.3.tar.gz -C /opt and ./configure, make, make install... It's about time for download, click, and we are done. That will be the tipping point for Linux. I love Linux, but I am a minority. I know that I am on dangerous ground, but let's stick to the truth. - tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik? "
See, this is the problem. Average users don't lurk in Linux geek forums to know about ***** like this. If it isn't simple, easy, and intuitive out of the box, or requires the user to think about more than choosing a password, it will never reach critical mass. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3""but nothing as universal as the .exe"
Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik?""
Err, the fact you listed two alternatives, and someone else has mentioned others, doesn't really do much for it's univeral-ality..
Some linux distrubtations will eventualy get to a standardized level, where stuff just works, but it's no where near there yet..
- Ben - shrapnull, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is bound to be flame war simply because those of us that actually use Linux (or Unix as in my case) know our systems as intimately as those that use Windows. If Windows works for you, don't change. If it pisses you off a little too much for whatever reason or if you're a 'hacker' at heart and really want to know how things work, you should consider something that requires a brain and a willingness to learn new things.
And the .exe argument is stupid. Apple has had self executing folders with all of the dll's included since the first incarnation of OS X. Try dragging an EXE to the trash to uninstall a full application like Office. It doesn't work. In OS X you drag the app to the trash and all that's left is harmless pref files. Dependency hell in Linux has been corrected too, so once xgl/compiz becomes mainstream there will be virtually no difference between desktop functionality.
Installation has been similarly easy in every OS now for sometime. Most reviews don't even mention it anymore, it's so easy.
So you go to your website and download your software by clicking and prodding away, and I'll keep my "pkg_add -r "...others will use Synaptic, or Red Carpet, or Emerge, the point is if you use it and learn it, you'll see they're really only simple to what proportion of time you spend learning and using them.
I'll be just as happy if the "average users" stuck to Windows and Apple. They don't contribute anything to the cause anyways, and bitch that they opened some executable attachment that wiped out their home folder. Microsoft and AOL can keep you guys, we don't want you. - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Desktop Linux? Which desktop linux? The Gnome one? The KDE one? One of the over 100 seperate distros over at distrowatch.com?
Linux supporters point and laugh at MS when it is leaked that there will be 8 different version of Vista released ... but forget that it will be the same interface, with the same method of installing applications, and that if you know one version, you will know them all.
The freedom Linux allows is also the reason it wont take off as a mainstream desktop replacement. Sure, in the server world, where Linux IS Linux, and not Linux + [insert variation on GUI flavour of month] is has great traction, but that is not a desktop environment. - eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Unless you use Linux on a day to day basis, you won't really understand why package repositories are so much better than exectuable installers in Windows. Here are the main reasons:
1) Everything is in one place. apt-get install firefox. apt-get install beagle. apt-get install openoffice.org2. If you do a fresh install of Windows, you'll probably spend at least a couple hours hunting down all the favorite software you like and installing it -- in almost any Linux distro, it would only take a matter of minutes to select all the software you want, and then ten-fifteen minutes for it to download and install itself, automatically.
2) RPM and .deb formats DON'T EXECUTE ANY BINARY CODE TO INSTALL PACKAGES. Almost all of the time it's a simple matter of unpacking an archive to somewhere on your system. They don't mess with a registry, they can't run a keylogger, they can't mess up your system. Only very complex pieces of software are any more complicated, and they just run simple bash scripts that are easy to look through if you wish.
3) You don't get crapware installed on your system. Stuff isn't going to show up on your desktop, you don't have a registry to worry about, you won't get crap in your system tray, etc.
4) It's possible to *REALLY* uninstall software. Since the packages are packaged by your distribution, they can guarantee that things actually uninstall themselves. Plus since there is (once again) no registry or hidden startup programs you don't have to worry about that stuff.
5) There is a logical, coherent package manager on your system that actually keeps track of dependencies and what software you have installed. If you install software to a nonstandard place, this isn't a problem. On Windows, there is no coherent system.
How long did it take you to become proficient in Windows? Honestly, Windows is *not* more intuitive, .exe is not a superior format -- you've just been conditioned for years. Don't knock Linux until you've actually used it. After 100 hours or so of using Linux, you'll never want to use a Windows computer again. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The fact that all of you are pointing to two different systems as examples of "universal" installers shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course I know of Synaptic...and a lot more. I'm just saying that in Windows, any program you want is always going to be packaged as an exe. That's not true in Linux. There are tons of programs that don't come in an easily-installable, universal format. The reason is that there is no universal format.
That said, I use Linux as a secondary desktop so don't assume I'm just some noob who has no idea what he's talking about. Installing and uninstalling stuff in Windows is just easier. Admit it. - gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love my linux and I'm selfish, I dont want it to be mainstream. So bash on, I really could care less, as I'm too busy enjoying it. Stick with what you have and die with it.
- visability, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"i still don't understand how the digg algorithms work. This was submitted over a day ago, and made it to the front page with 25 diggs."
You see, it goes to the front page automatically if it contains Linux, Web 2.0, AJAX, Google, or Apple in the title. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, what happens when my supervisor in Atlanta sends me a macro laden excel file that I most absolutely must make changes or additions to and send out to a distrobutuion list of about 25 people?
What happens when Suse pushes a dependency update out that breaks half the stuff I use? Yeah the kernel, KDE, or Gnome still work for me, but now I'm getting this goofy error when I try to run GnuCash...
Oh yeah, GnuCash.. just moved frm GTK to GTK2 and the beta is so unstable that they even say only to use it as a test ground, yet MS is trashed for releasing a public beta of IE7 that works pretty darn good. Plus GnuCash still cannot handle online bank transactions in the US.. So it's basically useless.
How bout video authoring? The ONLY desent package out there for Linux distro's costs about $160.00 all the OSS Free stuff out there blows compared to Elements, or Studio Pro. I won't even mention the excellent MAC products.
Closes thing to picture management is f-spot or digikam(sp) and they don't even compare to Picasa2, let alone the 200 other products out there for MAC or MS.
I cannot even argue server side items anymore, as MS is really maturing in their server/enterprise products...
Fonts?
Audio can still in 2006 be a hassle.
ATI drivers anyone? Follow opensuse.org's Suse10 ATI driver install to the letter and run fglrxinfo and see what you get. I would wager 8-10 times the driver doesn't take, or the module doesn't load etc... with no clue as to why...
Copy/Paste - Still an issue in many distros.
Multimedia? Ubuntu and Suse have been the best out of the box so far for me, but I still have little glitches here and there.
Another poster put it best. Until big business's (ie. Adobe, Quicken, Nero) etc.. get behind the OSS movement full swing, most things in Linux will be teenagerware crap that is 80% half finished. - Bigredman74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ubuntu 6.04, graphical installer, Add/Remove (FREE) programs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Seriously, if they don't want to upgrade to Linux, they dont have to. Linux will survive fine without them.
If it doesn't do what you want, maybe Linux doesn't want you."
This kind of thinking is what keeps us from having retail drivers for new hardware and legal DVD/MP3 software for available for Linux. Believe it or not, for Linux to have drivers available for hardware when it releases as opposed to months or years later, (pcmcia WAN cards and 3D video cards for example) we need "them". Developers could be adding to Linux instead of wasting their time reverse engineering hardware that was never supported by manufacturers. This is what will put Linux on top, instead of dragging months to years behind Windows because we are too proud or stubborn to take constructive criticism. - bugninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Get rid of dependencies when installing apps and you have a chance. To install something very simple, I have to go to 10 websites and download libraries, etc, and still I have trouble. And what about right now is the tipping point? That is a very narrow worldview.
- octurian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Will 2006 be the year of the Linux desktop?
How many times did I see this exact line, with 2005 rather than 2006....
Every year is the year of the linux desktop to the /. priesthood and their disciples - QettoE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are no "better" distros and that's what most of us like about Linux. The best distro is the one you feel more comfortable with, the one that you know best and fits your need best. One does better when it comes to multimedia and one does better for serving.
Someone said something about installation... how many time have your install shield failed and screwed up your Windows? How many time have you seen programs you could not uninstall? And how many time did you have to reinstall your Windows because of corrupt registry? Don't say never if you're not a lier.
As a Linux noob, I installed Kubuntu on my computer a few months ago. I was othe ne who had never used Linux for more than a few hours before removing it, but when I decided to really give it a shot I never had to reinstall it due to my lack of knowledge. None of my wrong packages or commands ever destroyed anything that I could not fix with a simple search, and now after a few months I'm still using the very first installation and it runs just fine.
Stop being scared... I'm pretty sure those of you who bitch about Linux never used DOS. I still remember how frustrated I was when I was first introduced to computers and DOS. Learning Linux is not like learning Windows, any idiot can run Windows and install programs but can you maintain it? If you like the challenge and enjoy to learn new things then Linux is for you, if not then Windows is just fine. I'm not bashing Windows, I'm just feeling "in control" with Linux and I'll stick to it.
One of the best things that Linux gave me was freedom. I've been quite tired of pirating and looking up for serials and cracks every day. Since I switched to Linux I did not have to search for one, because for every program that runs on Windows there are a few open source that run on Linux. It feels really good to have whatever you wish for with a few clicks.
Give it a SERIOUS try before you reject it. After you opened your package manager and noticed over 10,000 different software that you can download and install for FREE with a single click then come back here and bash Linux. - jadacyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with all the current thinking about Linux as a desktop is everyone keeps comparing it to Windows. The best thing about LInux is that it's nothing like Windows. Stop trying to say that Linux needs a universal format for installing packages. What you're going to end up with is something proprietary like Windows, which in the end is just going backwards. THe best thing about linux is that you have choices, in windows there are no choices. Its bills way or the highway. Linux is a completely different operating system for christ sakes stop trying to bring it down by comparing it to something that in my opinion is much less advanced. And BTW, I use Linux exclusively on all of my computers, I can play all of my video games I used to on windows and I can do even more than I ever coulda dreamed of on WIndows.
- keen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you want Firefox 1.5 in Ubuntu you have three options:
1) Try to understand the Ubuntu release philosophy, and understand that new versions come out every six months -- it's not that long."
Sure, that's fine for newbies who don't care what version of Firefox they're running. I'm not a newbie, so waiting 6 months for software that I can easily install and run on Windows is not really an option.
"2) Change your repositories to the newest development version (in this case Dapper, which is actually very stable) and have the newest software all the time, including Firefox 1.5 and whatever else you want. This step involves changing about half a dozen lines in a text file (I think you can even do it from Synaptic), so it's not that hard."
It's not hard, but is it really necessary?
"3) Try to install it from the source, or go through all the hoops that were laid out in the wiki. Obviously this is not a very good solution, which is why no one actually recommends you do it this way. Understand the package manager, and what it's used for, and then decide whether you want software that is stable or new, and then adjust your repositories accordingly."
Look, all I want to do is USE my computer - I don't want to spend my time reading wikis, searching forums, editing configuration files, fixing dependences for software not in Synaptic, ect. My understanding is by using a package manager, I should be able to avoid doing these things. I wouldn't have so many complaints if there was simply a choice in Synaptic to choose between new and stable software. Having to research the way to access new software should be unnecessary in my mind. - thecwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just for those saying that EXE is the universal Windows installer format. It doesn't look standard and they rely on you running untrusted code as administrator to install a program to the entire system. Many Linux package managers will install the program to the whole system without executing any untrusted code, and many even have protections in place so that it can't mess around with particular files or home directories.
This is not a good thing nor a wise thing, it's a very bad design problem... and note that many installers exist in MSI format, which is better but still not good when compared to many of the Linux package formats. - eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.exe is not an answer for easy software installation. If the piece of software you want isn't in a .exe format, you won't be using InstallShield to install it. Sorry. That's a huge issue.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It amazes me how many people on here seem to forget that there was a time when windows wasn't that easy to install either...
Linux is just playing catch up - thechao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gotamd--
You keep saying "Linux" this and "Linux" that. I seriously doubt most users even /care/ if they have Linux installed (Linux is a kernel, GNU/Linux is a base operating system). However, the problem you seem to be addressing is that multiple OSes--Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, OpenSuse--don't share the same installation format! Okay? Who cares? Apple & MSFT don't share the same installation format but you're not bitching about them! In addition, on both of my computers I was unable to install WinXP Pro (it could not find the drivers); as a result I was forced to switch to an alternate OS ... and let me say that the vast majority of them were *much* easier to install than any of the Windows installers I used. - ovidius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Come on! We *nix geeks can't even agree on which distro of Linux (or BSD for that matter) is "best"... We can't even unify our GUI. Mac OS X = 1 major distro, 1 GUI; Windows = 2-3 major distros (unless you count the "old" stuff), 1 GUI. If Linux was 1 distro and 1 GUI we might have a chance. But then again, would it still be the Linux we love? Choice is great, but too many choices are too confusing for most end users. I get the feeling that if Linux held 70% of the desktop OS market, OS X held 5%, and Windows 25%, we'd would still find that no single distro held a majority!
I'm starting to think it's time to buy an Intel Mac. I'm a 2 OS user right now (Debian, Win) but I really miss my old G4 iBook and OS X. But with Apple dumping open source Darwin I'm having 2nd thoughts... - replica, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Linux's share has fluctuated between .2 and .3 percent of the desktop market with no substantial growth for the last 8 years, despite extensive hype.
- leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There seems to be about a dozen different ways to install software in Linux, and at least 2 or 3 different ways for each different distribution. For example... As a Red Hat user, I'm used to using rpm, apt-get, and InstallShield for installing and updating applications, and up2date for installing security updates. If I'm using SuSe, I'll be using YaST instead. And, if decided use Ubuntu, it looks I'd have to learn a few MORE software update/install programs. Not to mention the apps out there that still don't have installation programs, and need to be compiled manually.
For Windows, there are only 2 major software installation methods to worry about... .EXE setup installers, and Windows Update for security updates. It doesn't matter if I'm using Windows 98 or Windows Server 2003... software installation and updates work the same damn way. Now, you tell me... which OS is easier to maintain for non-technicial people? - keen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really would love to switch over to Ubuntu from Windows, but crap like this is stoping me: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirefoxNewVersion
Every time I attempt to switch over, I always end up doing things like the above link. No way I'm going to stick with old software on Ubuntu when I can easily install the latest on Windows. Synaptic is good, but there's A LOT of stuff not in there and software with massive dependencies that kill my poor dial-up connection. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A package manager doesn't help if the software you want isn't in there. Is the latest Firefox in there? Nope. Is Flash player in there? Nope. Is REAL Java in there? Nope. Are codecs in there? Maybe, if you edit the sources list file, but why would someone even know to look there. My first instinct is to type codecs in my google search bar, not question if there is some obscure method at adding more repositories that I never heard of. And even if the software is in there, good luck finding it, it is probably named something like gblah30x86, and you have no idea what it does. Is the l33t software I create in my programming class going to be in that package manager? nope. Will it be if I ask them in IRC and prove that its better than the other 3 similar programs in there, probably not.
Also, I hate the Linux grammar nazis. Anyone talking about installing files via Synaptec vs. Double clicking a file knows "Linux" isn't the operating system. It is just a lot easier to say "Linux", especially when making a general statement about more than one distro. You Know What We Mean So Quit Being Dicks About It. If distros are not compatable with each other, and the questions and arguments we make MUST be targeted towards a particular distro, then I think that is a problem in itself. I just feel, any Linux Distro that calls itself a "Desktop", should be compatable with other Linux Desktops. "Yeah.. you have to have Ubuntu, Synaptec, and Gnome to install my app..." Wrong answer. I want my app to work on all Linux Desktop distros, and I want the install process to be the same, it uses the same kernal, so why the heck not. Things like this are probably holding back the major companies, like Adobe. Do they want to provide different support for 30 different distros, and field questions all day about the other 60 lesser distros that they havn't tried yet? Should the have to try them? Thank god there aren't 90 incompatable branches and desktop environments for Windows XP. - keen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"aarg read my ubuntu firefox reply, just extract to a folder and run it! fricken easy, just like Windows, jebus H christ.
I like ubuntu as much as the next guy but its firefox integration is ***** stupid. Ignore it, just unzip to a directory and run!, autoupdates then work, auto downloading of plugins then work. ***** easy."
How does that solve dependency issues? I actually want to use a package manager, so my system isn't littered with software that I can't update or uninstall easily.
"Someone said something about installation... how many time have your install shield failed and screwed up your Windows? How many time have you seen programs you could not uninstall? And how many time did you have to reinstall your Windows because of corrupt registry? Don't say never if you're not a lier."
I can't *ever* recall Install Shield or any other setup program ever breaking Windows. Can't say I can remeber uninstall programs breaking completely, either. The "worst" they usually do is leave a few preference files around. I would hope most package managers would do the same. I cannot recall ever having the registry corrupt on me.
"Give it a SERIOUS try before you reject it. After you opened your package manager and noticed over 10,000 different software that you can download and install for FREE with a single click then come back here and bash Linux."
While all the software is impressive, it's what's lacking that put me off. Ten thousand programs I don't want won't make up for the software I have to manually download (along with dependencies) and install.
I *really* want to switch away from Windows. I like Gnome, I mostly like Synaptic and the idea of package management, but there's still room for improvement. I'll put up with the flaws in Windows until either Linux on the Desktop is more mature or I have enough money to buy a Mac. - eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@keen
It is true that in Windows this is a non-issue, because it's easy to go to mozilla.com and download the latest Firefox whenever you want.
BUT, this functionality comes at a cost. The main one is that *in general*, it's harder to install software, because you have to google around for it. I guess if you're used to it, this isn't such a big deal, but it still drives me crazy when I use Windows to know that most software can't automatically check for updates, and when software can each program implements it differently, pops up dialogs asking you to update, etc.
The second issue is that there isn't a lot of QA. You have to trust whoever you get your software from, which is normally less than I trust my distribution. With Firefox this isn't a big deal, but we all know there is a lot of dubious Windows software floating around out there on the internet. I remember that recently I was using Windows and I wanted a piece of software that would create .iso images (as in create an image of my "My Documents" folder). I went looking around, and found a bunch of sketchy looking shareware that mostly tried to install other things, and didn't really do what I wanted. If you're using a distribution like Ubuntu, you know that the package maintainers are not going to put any crap in the repositories that will install bad things or take over your computer.
So in summary, in Windows you can always go online and find the latest binaries and install them. But it comes at the cost of a) doing this manually and b) hoping you're not going to get three new tray icons. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dpc5 wrote:
"Things some of you see as problems are true strengths of Bazaar Model."
Sure, infinite configurability can be a significant advantage to those with the necessary time and skill. Problem is, this doesn't describe a whole lot of people, mostly just geeks.
There is a fundamental disconnect between Linux and the average desktop user which cuts right to the very core of computing philosophy. You see, the average user considers the computer to be just another tool, a means to achieve bigger goals, not an end unto itself. The computer is supposed to accomodate the user, not the other way around.
Ideally, the less the user needs to know about the computer, the better. Not only does Linux not offer any significant advance toward this goal, most Linux fans, supporters and developers have yet to recognize or accept that this *is* the goal.
Given the current state of LInux, "build it and they will come" is pure fantasy, just like in the movie. - eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not to beat a dead horse...
But if you *really* don't like the way Linux works, why bitch about it? You're not contributing anything. Lots of people use "desktop Linux." Lots of these people aren't programmers or working in IT. There's a reason that most brand new hardware is unsupported, why a lot of hardware is poorly supported, and why you can't play mp3's out of the box. Linux is about open source software. At the end of the day, this is much more important than usability. If it's a problem for you that some hardware is not completely supported, and might not ever be properly supported, then don't use Linux. If it's a problem for you that you can't play most games on Linux, then just don't use it. And if it really upsets you that you have to use a package manager, then be thankful that you don't realize what you're missing out on and use Windows.
I converted to Linux because I was sick of having to search for cracked software and serials to have a Windows computer with useful software, and ironically because I wanted something that just works. Windows does *not* just work. When I used Windows, I spent tons of time downloading software and finding cracks and serials. I was always worried that the cracked software that I had would also have backdoors or trojans or adware installed. It was a pain in the ass to try to implement the latest WGA workarounds every year or so when Microsoft tries to fix it. I haven't had to deal with any of this since converting.
To the users who think Windows is so much better... how many of you have to do tech support for your friends/family? How many times have you had to clean another person's system from spyware, or clean their system of viruses? How much time and energy have you spent downloading warez and looking for cracks?
Just my two cents, from someone who uses Linux is not a "programmer," a "hacker," or even someone who works with computers for a living, but manages to run Linux just fine. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik?"
No - and I think that's the point ;) - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Games!! We need more native games and easy ways to set up and play.
- zaofreek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Disclaimer: I love Linux. Ubuntu/XFCE is all I run. I don't even have Windows on this computer or any of my computers.
That said, I don't think Linux is approaching the "tipping point" when it comes to the desktop. Consider what I have to go through if I want to play movie trailers on Apple's site. It's a major pain in the ass...and I KNOW what to do. Imagine a complete newbie trying to do the same thing. Firefox's plugin finder isn't going to help any.
Of course, me complaining isn't helping any either. F/OSS software evangelism has its place, but please, be realistic about it. Understand that Linux isn't the right OS for every situation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I converted to Linux because I was sick of having to search for cracked software and serials to have a Windows computer with useful software, and ironically because I wanted something that just works. Windows does *not* just work. When I used Windows, I spent tons of time downloading software and finding cracks and serials. I was always worried that the cracked software that I had would also have backdoors or trojans or adware installed."
I am not a big fan of Windows either, but to say that "Windows does *not* just work" because you couldn't get cracked (illegal) software to download and install easily is foolish! All legal and/or open-source software that I install on Windows "Does Just Work". (In more cases than not) In most cases, legal and/or open-source software does not contain spyware or viruses either, although it's not impossible.
"But if you *really* don't like the way Linux works, why bitch about it? You're not contributing anything."
Actually I am contributing, and it's not bitching... It's called constructive criticism, and as a programmer myself, I do contribute. I also know that if everyone were too scared to give end-user input, our software would be very unstable and/or useless.
"Linux is about open source software. At the end of the day, this is much more important than usability."
Are you saying that open-source software cannot be as usable as retail software? I believe we can have the best of both worlds and maybe we should set our goals/standards a little bit higher. - miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0everything on my comp installed fine and all the programs with ubuntu worked fine.
problem came to when i wanted to install opera and realplayer. i gave up.
clueless end-user experience is the important bit. that seems to have been overlooked. the fluttery music at start up is not important and presumably turned off by everyone (i.e. its symbolic of linux getting its priorities wrong. ps i know microsoft are into fluttery music and noises too, but at least i can download opera and realplayer easily).
i know linux is worth the learning curve, but presently i have given up. - vishnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok I hardley ever comment but I have to here. Linux is more ready than people think. I've switched to Ubuntu after much reading and playing with Linux and everything works perfectly. EVERYTHING. All my hardware devices all the tasks I used to run on Windows. I find it quicker and better, but hey that's just my opinion. I would never go back to Windows.
Anyway, the main things that piss me off about a lot of people here when the moan about Linux are:
1. People bashing the Windows Managers - THE WINDOWS MANAGERS AREN'T LINUX. Linux is the system itself. Don't get confused
2. "I tried Linux and it didn't work" You must be a ***** user because I know of several people who install it without any problems at all. Maybe if you took the time to actually look into Linux and read up before jumping in uneducated you wouldn't get problems.
3. Installing gripes - Package Managers are soooo much more easier than installing software in Microsoft Windows.
4. Installing the OS - All the distros I've installed are so easy to install my grandmother could do it blinfolded.
Both Windows and Linux are two separate OS that are completely different. Both have pros and cons. For me Linux works better but that's just me. So don't bash what you don't understand. - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@stimpack: Oh really? I'm a "Windows expert" huh? I guess all those years of managing *nix servers and developing Linux apps didn't do anything for me then. And when I say servers I don't mean my home network, I mean mission critical, REAL servers.
Don't be a moronic tool. - mynameisob3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NOT
GOING
TO
HAPPEN
get over it. - QettoE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It would infinitely easier if there were a way to be eased into Linux, rather than jumping in head first. Is there a way to do that?"
Take a look at this article in my forum. See if you can pick a distro otherwise I suggest Ubuntu/Kubuntu or SuSE where you can get real good community support. Both Ubuntu/Kubuntu and SuSE are great packages for those who are familiar with Windows.
http://forum.omnipotents.com/viewtopic.php?t=2499 - QettoE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Games!! We need more native games and easy ways to set up and play."
2nded! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Haha, I am currently writing a research paper about growth of the Linux desktop, and this happened to be one of the sourced I chose to use for writing the paper.
- Anviltongue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ugh, I've always wanted to do the whole Linux thing, but it's the intimidation factor that's got me. I have a better than average understanding of computers (Windows, naturally), but all this stuff sounds WAY over my head (what the hell is a library?!). I don't have a lifetime to devote to learning this stuff, and I don't relish the idea of bugging the more experienced (considering the attitude of some of the nux-heads in this thread, I'm sure they would make me pay for asking noobish questions, anyway).
It would infinitely easier if there were a way to be eased into Linux, rather than jumping in head first. Is there a way to do that? - Eldoo77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Linux on the Server is great... Linux on the Desktop reeks! No Digg!
- ovidius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@QettoE
Well said. - bebopbass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gosh a lot of discussion, why do people care what I run on my system, I like ubuntu, its easy to use, even through gnome, install one program and you kind of know how to do it for life, it's simple. If you run any version of linux and you aren't sure how to do something, do it, you'll learn quick. Of course it's easy to install programs on windows, hence the millions of viruses and Trojans. And I would love it if all my buds ran linux, I wouldn't have to give up half a Sunday cleaning out their systems.
If you like linux run linux, it has incredible power, and nowadays it has ease of use. If you like Windows run windows just keep your install Cd's handy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@gotamd.
rubbish. i've run into plenty of installation problems under the windows platform over the years, you act as if everything always installs on windows without a problem.
install shield is a pain in the arse, all the major distro's have package managment that is far superior to windows.
the only thing prevently large scale adoption is games and the technologies related to them. - earlycj5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@cliffzdude
I installed Windows XP on a computer recently. I also have installed SuSE10 on a computer.
Either one I could have just pointed the cursor and clicked through and had a functioning system.
Not a fan of Windows, I do prefer Linux but Windows does serve it's purpose for me from time to time.
Doesn't seem that one was harder than the other to install or operate. As it's been mentioned Windows isn't intuitive you've been conditioned. I find it hard to use Macs when I use them from time to time because I'm not familiar with the interface same as any other OS or program. -
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is