Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Desktop Linux: If we build it, will they come?

techworld.com — Only now does the Linux desktop seem to be approaching the tipping point.

Bury

spacebar14 2 years 152 days ago, made popular 2 years 151 days ago

625 diggs
digg it

129 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

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
Bigredman74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ubuntu 6.04, graphical installer, Add/Remove (FREE) programs.
ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Ya, I don't mind adding MO's into slackware. But the ave person wont.
Even if it was like OSX and you just drag and drop a DMG or something..

Sure Apt-get, RPM's ect are fine.. its not a standard.

Linspire is about the best way to go on commercial desktops so far.
I know n00bs knock it, because they think it's "not linux" - however KDE is more linux than any crappy Gnome setup. However thy can never explain "why" they don't like it.. - thus n00bs.
spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I 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"

Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik?
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
verucasalt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2

REPORTED AS WISHFUL THINING
poofyhairguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No universal exe files for Desktop Linux? Both Klik and Autopackage fill that "I must be able to go to a website and get my software there" need.
scottevans, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0i 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.
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
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.
DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ubuntu's Synaptic is THE easy installation method. Easier than what even Windows and Macinstosh currently have if you want my opinion.

With thousands and thousands of packages in the repository, i don't see what the problem is.

FOr the popular applications out there.. that may not be in the repository, or not as uptodate, then Ubuntu's wiki is a great aid.
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.
santaclaws, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0FTFA:
"lack of drivers for plug-and-play functionality related to ... and digital cameras"
Ummm, digikam? plug & play

gotamd:
"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. "

That is a Good Thing. Funnelling apps thru the distro vendors' repositories means no spyware, no adware, etc etc.
homeobocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People need a /reason/ to switch to Linux. And a customizable GUI isn't enough for most people. Also, they need to be assured that they can easily switch back to Windows and that they can do everything they need to on Linux.
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".
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.
TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Desktop 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.
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.
sonthiar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0VMWare, Wine, etc

^_^
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.
TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0(apologise for the dual submission bounce ... that was odd)
bullseye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Optimum Power Thrusting Climaxer
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.
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.
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
gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Being universal does not mean being proprietary...I don't know where that came from.
mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Synaptic is not an answer for easy software installation. If the peice of software you want isn't in any repository, you won't be using Synaptic to install it. Sorry. That's a huge issue.
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.
peterthegreat4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0they need to add easier ways to set up a network/dial up networking. then i think a lot of people would switch. better hardware capability would help too.
acidzebra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0With stuff like Novell's XGL/Compiz and Amarok on linux, its becoming more and more of a desktop OS you WANT to use, rather than a shiny place to open a shell. OpenOffice is also coming along nicely, although in an Enterprise environment (lots of spreadsheets with macros and word docs with weird formatting) it would still be too big a step back to migrate. Likewise with Evolution, it's not as stable and full featured as it should be.

But its getting there. Slowly but surely.
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.
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.
Jozer99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If "they" built it, I would come.
But "they" won't build it, so I won't.

Instead, "they" will claim to build it, add one easy to use tool, then release "it" with almost no changes from a regular version of Linux, still hard to install programs on, still requiring me to mount drives manually, "su" every 30 seconds, and recompile the kernel when I want to buy a new mouse.
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.
BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"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."

Synaptic comes standard on Ubuntu. It doesn't get any easier than point and click.
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.
Milo_Hoffman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0

Hey retards...... Installshield run on Linux too... its not that its hard to install stuff, just that few commerical software uses it on Linux.

My experience with commercial software on Linux is just like Windows... Click "RUNME" or something and the little gui pop's up asking you for the install directory, you click next, watch the little progress bar, and then click Finish.

It's not like thats not possible on Linux...its just no free software team is going to spend the sevearl thousand dollars to purchase a license for Instalshield.
eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If 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.
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.
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.
DCUK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik?"

That's the whole problem, people haven't heard about them.
Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1tried linux recently and it's still a pos
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.
stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0keen: ignore that wiki, ubuntu has a retarded firefox implementation. You do NOT need to integrate it, firefox has its own auto-update. Simply extract the tar to any directory and run it, just like on Windows.

Linux will probably never reach tipping point. My dad is a prime example why, he is an 'average' user (a retarded *****), he used Windows at work, all his other 'average' friends use Windows. Windows in his mind is better than everything else, better for servers than Linux, better desktop than OS X. He has not used any other operating system, but he beleives it to be true because how else would Microsoft be so big.
albrad84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1People are arguing over .exe installers versus synaptic-like repository installers, but the fact of the matter is that synaptic would have to be a complement to windows-like .exe installers because if someone goes to a website and sees a cool program, they shouldn't have to go find it in synaptic (if it is there at all, which it will often not be). They should be able to download it right there, double-click it, and install it.
capajc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll switch the day I can be 100% confident of being able to purchase a PC game and run it in Linux with 100% compatibility at the full capability of my video card with absolutely zero slowdown due to any emulation issues. e.g., if my Windows PC can give me 45fps in a particular game, I'd want Linux to do the same. 44fps wouldn't be good enough for me.
rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Ever heard of Synaptic? Or Klik?"

No - and I think that's the point ;)
EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People keep talking about how choice is a good thing. For geeks like me and you that is true. For the rest of the world it's not. They want the same exact operating system as everybody else. When they go over to use their brothers computer they want it to be the same as when they use their bosses computer. When they call up their friend for help they don't want the instructions not to work because they're using a different distro.

Many people seem to think that Linux's problems are easy to solve. The problem is the problems are directly related to its strengths. Linux will not become more popular until it becomes more consistent--and that probably won't make a lot of the very people who are pushing for Linux adoption happy.
gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree in most of the points he raised...

E X C E P T T H I S O N E :

"...the user interface is still immature compared to Mac OS or Windows."

There's nothing more immature than to say that.
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?
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
JamPony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If we're talking about business uptake, there need not be any concern about ease of software installation: only a few people in the organization have to know how to do it; the rest will have standardized install images. And they'll be practically immune from most of the malware and other hassles. Patching will be centralized, etc..

There really aren't many technical obstacles in the way of business use. The real issues will be things like: PHB's won't get behind it until it's proved by others doing it and realizing advantages; spreadsheet macros still don't migrate well; some specialized apps aren't available for Linux; shortage of well-qualified administrators in the market.
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Desktop Linux: If we build it, will they come?

Login or register to add a comment