"Can't we all just ... get along?"
Posted on 05/18/2008 9:15:42 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Quite a few reviews of new Linux releases these days try to determine if a distribution is "ready for the desktop." I myself have probably been guilty of using that phrase, but I think it's time we officially retire this criterion.
What defines an operating system as being ready for the desktop? Surely everyone has a different opinion on the actual definition. While my search for an official definition or list of guidelines has failed, to me this phrase means that the OS is usable by everyone, meets everyone's needs, and is able to do everything that everyone wants it to do. In that regard, is any operating system truly ready for the desktop?
I'm an IT technician, and clients bring PCs to me for almost any reason, including defective hardware and software not working correctly, among other things. This is regardless of the OS, though Windows XP is among the most common that my clients bring to me for help. This does not mean that Windows XP is a bad OS, it just raises the question that if XP is "ready for the desktop" to the point where it serves as the main comparison point of many Linux reviewers, why am I getting so many machines that run it to fix, and why do I get asked constantly to train people on how to use it or its applications? The fact is, there are just as many people out there who have difficulty using Windows as there are who have trouble using Linux.
I understand that comparing Linux to Windows is a hard situation to avoid, especially considering that Windows is the dominant OS in the market. But I think we should compare them less often, because Linux needs to stand on its own legs rather than in the shadow of its more popular competitor. Each OS has its merits, yet each is separate, caters to different types of users, and has independent strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Windows has a large collection of commercially supported applications, Mac OS X focuses on usability and supported hardware, and Linux focuses on freedom, stability, and scalability. Since each OS caters to a different audience, there will never be "one OS to rule them all."
Another overdone review trend in the IT press these days is getting a person who is not very computer-savvy to sit down in front of a Linux distribution and seeing how well he (or more likely, she) is able to use it, as a way of determining how ready the OS is for the desktop. If one person is not able to be productive in Linux, does that really mean anything to the rest of us? Each of us has grown accustomed to a certain way of doing things, and each of us has our own preferences. I use Linux because it does everything that I want it to do. I like the way Linux does things, but not everyone is going to agree. If a user has difficulty with Linux and a reviewer grades a distro badly because of this, the review doesn't help Linux users to know whether the distribution would make a good switch from our current one, has great features, or contains any severe bugs.
While I don't feel that naming an OS as being ready for the desktop is a fair argument, I do believe that Linux needs to continue to make strides in usability in order to have a wider audience, such as a focus on getting Windows games to work, and less need for the command line. But assuming that Linux needs to cater to the entire PC world is silly. As it is now, Linux is a very viable option on the desktop. While it's not for everyone, Windows and Mac OS X are not a good choice for some people either.
The truth is that no OS is ready for the desktop, and never will be. An OS that was ready for the desktop would put people like me out of business, because it would be theoretically perfect. Since each person uses his computer in different ways, it's impossible for one OS to cater to everyone. Therefore, you shouldn't ask if an OS is ready for the desktop; rather, is the OS ready for your desktop?
Jeremy LaCroix is an IT technician who writes in his free time.
PCLinuxOS. Eight months solid use, and I have yet to do a command line.
Did you hear that? I HAVE NOT USED THE COMMAND LINE FOR ANYTHING. This is PCLinuxOS 2007 I'm talking about. Not Ubuntu, or Ubuntu, or Ubuntu. Linux does not = Ubuntu. PCLinuxOS 2007 is new-Linux-user friendly, easy to install new programs from the repository, easy to keep updated. The single hardest thing about ANY linux is learning all the stupid words, acronyms, program titles etc. that are used. I can install PCLinuxOS 2007 in 15 minutes and be ready to use it. XP takes an hour, nearly. Windows 2000 took me about NINE hours to download all the drivers, system updates, system updates round two, and round three.
PCLinuxOS is my desktop. It's ready for the average user. I sold a system to a complete computer newbie, put PCLOS upon it. He's good to go. Tell me more about "ease of use!"
Lucky you!
The e-mail client was OK but Safari was not Firefox, or even IE.
I prefer Safari, but Firefox is available for Mac.
Upgrading it to Leopard was fun but I didn't really get into it until I discovered I could get to the command interpreter. There's a real operating system in there!
Linux users can operate in a familiar environment with the Mac OS X Unix terminal. I use it all the time, but most users will never need to touch it.
Something I have been saying for many years. With the presence of cheap computing hardware (and also the virtualization software) it’s no longer either/or, but picking the right tool for the right job.
I can’t (easily) run Quicken on linux so I do so on Windows XP. At work there are a number of proprietary apps that run only on Windows. Software development, while possible in a Windows environment, is something that I have always done in unix/linux. Same goes for many of the server processes that I like to run in linux like apache, samba, sshd etc. High performance gaming is a mostly Windows phenomenon.
I don’t use Macs but obviously many swear by them. I bet movie editing on macs is superior to the other platforms.
There is no perfect platform, but there are many to choose from, and for a given tasks or set of tasks, there is probably one that makes the most sense.
It should be about getting stuff done, not about religious wars.
"Can't we all just ... get along?"
$ ./configure
$ make depend && make
$ sudo make install
No. Mainstream people do not want to go to a command line to compile and install stuff. We want to click on a happy little icon, hit next three or four times, then hit finished.
Your complaint is sort of a moot point. It seems that you decided to install an application using source code. Had you decided to do the same thing on a Windows box, you'd first have to buy and then install the compliers. Then you could install the app. There are many Linux apps that install just fine through the desktop, and all you need to do is select them, as well as selecting OK for any dependencies and supplying the password.
You've obviously never had to install a database application and configure the ODBC drivers under Windows.
Now I've been in the command line world. I know how to do it, I've done it before. There is no reason for it any longer with today's computers. Linux has GUI available, but still gotta go to the command line to install it or run it, then gotta go to the command line to install anything onto the GUI, then gotta go to the command line to remove anything, etc etc.
Until Linux gets away from requiring the command line it will never ever be mainstream.
Do you really think that you can manage a windows box, let alone a windows server, without using the command line?
Mark
Holy smokes, talk about outdated knowledge. Try again grandpa, this time with a distro released in the past couple of years. Programs are installed from depositories with package management apps these days. The last use for a command line I had was deleting a series of files from a directory because I was too lazy to ctrl-click them individually.
Sure, you might be able to find a program or two that isn't available in particular distro's repositories and is only available via source, but using them rules, I could find programs that are pains to install on other OS'. [shrug] Meanwhile, I haven't had to compile a program I wanted or needed in Linux in years. The repositories are usually well equipped, and prepared packages too common.
So no, that is not the uphill struggle an OS other than Windows faces. The obstacle is the existing infrastructure in the PC industry that installs Windows as a matter of course, simply due to Windows' momentum. Windows is what people used when they learned how to use a computer, so they expect it on a system they buy. Manufacturers would be foolish to disregard this fact of life. Modern day Linux has no steeper learning curve than Windows to new computer users, but the existing base that is used to Windows is formidable. MS knows this and that is why they are taking the competitive threat of Linux much more seriously in developing nations like China than they do here in the states.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Yes, the ISO OSI model. Now the ITU OSI model. Sorry, old school.
In all honesty I miss the days when 4341s ran DOS/VSE and were networked under SNA using VTAM (or TCAM if you prefer “OSI”). :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.