Posted on 11/08/2010 8:24:37 AM PST by ShadowAce
Linux will never take off in the consumer world so long as they desire to chase Windows. Linux has a real chance if it would stay real simple and work well. Windows got too complex as the kitchen sink got added.
This sorta feels like being told by Obama we voted against his agenda because we're too stupid to grasp it. I agree that hardware manufacturers should be more open to Linux users, but that's the way it is for now. My OS works for me, not the other way around.
ping
There have been a few things I like and a few things I don’t. BulletproofX is pretty cool, though it threw me for a loop when I first found the xorg.conf missing. I really prefer the old init.d to the newer thing that kind of hides the scripts from you.
Gnome has gone in some directions that I don’t care for like the Indicator Applet. I was excited to hear that Ubuntu is creating their own replacement for Gnome.
I think we’re all just resistant to the changing of things that we’ve used for years and are very familiar with. I know I am anyway.
Configuration and compatability are the 2 things holding Linux down. When people can put a program disc in written for Windows and install it as easily the masses will come but not a day before. Don’t get me wrong I like Linux. Suse is my pick. With all the programs that are written to run on Mac and Windows this shouldn’t be the hurdle it is and if I owned Mac I would see helping Linux as a win for myself. Apple has a chance with Linux to correct the mistake they made when battling IBM all those years ago.
Agreed. The biggest problem I see is not really the complexity of an OS, but the forced inclusion of that complexity into every install. That's why I really like Linux. You can install only what you want. You can choose the version that you want that includes the tools you are looking for.
Keep all those different distros--they're designed for a specific purpose. Keep the GP distros--they're designed for general desktop use.
Windows? You basically get one version. They're starting to split off into Enterprise and personal versions, but they're the ones making the decision as to what goes into "Enterprise" Windows vs. "Home" Windows.
I want to make that decision. It's my computer.
If my linux distribution stops working, I would switch to another distribution (hear that, ubuntu?), not to ms windows (pretty sure that's the "proprietary desktop" they're talking about). That's because windows costs too much, pure and simple.
Linux does not have a Registry. Linux has a totally different file system and executable philosophy. Different commands. Different security.
OTOH, I do run Windows programs "just by inserting the disc" into my Linux laptop. WINE has come far in the past few years.
Linux wil never be a desktop competitor until two things happen:
1 - Linus Torvalds and the leadership of the Linux community unite around a common accepted list of parts for the operating system. One kernel, one window manager, one desktop. I don’t mean a weasel statement like “we prefer X or Y”, but “A, B, and C are the official components of the officially recognized and supported complete Linux OS”. They can of course allow others to use whatever desktop, window manager, etc, that they prefer, but Linux.org has to officially support only one standard.
2 - If they do that, then the second thing Linux needs will happen: commercial desktop software support. HP, Corel, etc, is not going to start writing commercial desktop software if they have to contend with 3 window managers, a dozen desktops, and God knows how many kernel configurations.
The window manager has zero effect on how programs run.
The window manager has zero effect on the kernel or its configuration.
The window manager is, actually, just another application that is running on the OS.
Any corporation can take the preferred kernel version and create a corporate-standard desktop. There are plenty of commercially available software--a lot of which is actually more expensive than Windows software. However, they are highly specialized, and most users wouldn't know how to use them anyway.
That is definately one thing MS could do better: Allow users to select the features that are loaded. I don’t need, for instance, and entire subsystem for text recognition of speech recognition. Get rid of that overhead. As it si now I have to turn it off but it is still there.
I haven’t looked at an Apple/Mac in over 20 years but I’d guess the programming is still based on Unix? I see programs that will run on Mac and Windows all the time so I would think that being based on Unix as well Linux would have an easy time with Mac apps? I also should have pointed out that I was referring to home users not business. I can use Wine too but I don’t see my mother using Linux or Wine but I will take a look at the new stuff. Passion and Linux seem to go hand in hand I think sometimes Linux fans forget the market decides.
“That’s because windows costs too much, pure and simple.”
LMAO the only reason I have XP is I got it for 20 bucks on Ebay.
For me, at least, part of the explanation is that the old things work, and the new things often don't.
For instance, Debian switched its default init system to dependency-based. That caused X to fail to start, when the nVidia driver is used.
Fortunately, Debian leaves options available, and I promptly switched back to the traditional SysV numeric-based init style. Works fine.
I can see that. My kids (younger than 10 at the time) both learned Linux/WINE without any assistance from me at all. My 9-yo installed it while I was out of town. They now go back and forth without any issues.
Passion and Linux seem to go hand in hand I think sometimes Linux fans forget the market decides.
True. To be honest, I don't care if Linux ever catches on in the market place. That's not my goal with it. I use it because I like it.
A big problem in adopting Linux is what do businesses do? Between the changing Linux environment and the immense cost of purchasing compatible software and switching data over, few businesses can afford it unless they launch with Linux in the beginning.
Not wanting to speak out of ignorance, perhaps I can be enlightened. Here’s our situation: We have fifteen desktops running XP SP3, and two servers running 2003 Server Enterprise, one with Exchange. We have a domain/client environment with static IPs using two domain controllers and full security rules implementation.
We regularly use ACT, Quickbooks, Microsoft Office (primarily Outlook, Word and Excel), Acrobat (the write version, not the reader), and Photoshop. These are used every day. QB and ACT databases are on one server and accessed by workstations.
I understand the email, spreadsheet and word processor programs are easily transferred with few problems and we can open documents created in the MS office suite. However, the licenses for our business programs would cost tens opf thousands of dollars to replace not to mention the time spent importing data.
Am I incorrect? Is such a move possible without breaking the bank?
Almost forgot. We also use Acronis Server/Workstation backup, software which cost us about 4,000.00 to implement. Backs up all workstations and servers every night to both on-site and off-site locations.
I understand that QB will not run under Linux at this time. The conversion to another package would probably be prohibitively expensive, depending on how you are using it, of course.
The other software functionality would be fine, I think. No software licenses would be required to convert. Same with the backup solution. Backup with Linux is usually free, and some can restore from bare metal at that price point (I think--am not certain).
Your biggest cost would be the labor for converting the data.
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.