So how long do you think it will be until linux becomes a REAL alternative?

[Electrode]

Linux will never be an alternative to windows for the idiots. It is fundamentally impossible. To make it a viable consumer-level OS, commercial interests will have to be involved. They will want their improvements to be proprietary and closed-source, but the Linux community won't let them do that. Geeks can't make an OS for non-geeks, since they want perfection, and a perfect OS is inherantly beyond the comprehensive capacity of the average moron who still thinks that AOL is the Internet.

BSD, on the other hand, can be and IS a viable alternative. Mac OS X (BSD based) is easy to use, has M$ Office, and has all the power a geek needs. Once it gets ported to the x86 architecture (this is being done as we speak, you can already download a working copy from Apple's site) Windows will be crushed.

For the record, I use Linux. So what if I'm on a train headed nowhere, the food is good.

 

[Nothinman]

BSD, on the other hand, can be and IS a viable alternative. Mac OS X (BSD based) is easy to use, has M$ Office, and has all the power a geek needs

Just to be pendantic, but it uses the Mach kernel with FreeBSD user-space.

Once it gets ported to the x86 architecture (this is being done as we speak, you can already download a working copy from Apple's site) Windows will be crushed.

The problem is they're not porting the GUI, which is the only thing setting it apart from an Intel FreeBSD box.

 

[DaHitman]

One very LARGE missing item in the Unix world, for home desktop users anyway, is a universal, standard installer.

You mean like INSTALLSHIELD? The most popular Windows installer?

News flash... its available for Linux... http://installshield.com/imp/

From their web site:

Supports Caldera, RedHat 6.2, RedHat 7.1 and RedHat 7.2, SuSe 6.2/6.4, Turbo 6.0
Install RPM packages
Products are registered with the RPM database
Binary, native support for Linux install operations
Native Linux JVM resolution and launching
And much more?

... but don't expect to see any open source projects cough up the money to use it... If you install Borland Delphi expect it... but not if you install a 20k open source program.

 

[pm]

In the scientific, server, and workstation world, Linux is more than a viable alternative. It is rapidly gaining widespread acceptance and is starting to replace other Unix's such as AIX and HP-UX.

My prediction is that Linux will gradually take over the high-end computing arena and then start to make inroads into embedded applications as well (although this isn't look so hot right now, in the long run I think Linux will do well in embedded and portable apps). Once it's there it will gradually consolidate. But MS won't be standing still and I think that the home computing market may take a long time, if it ever switches over at all.

We'll see. But certainly in the high-end arena, Linux is making substantial headway. It's definitely no longer a hobby OS - with IBM and HP pushing towards moving to a common Linux platform.

Personally, I think Linux in the home market is currently stopped by MS's licensing restrictions on allowing OEM's to install multiple OS's, and consumer ignorance over what it is. I don't think usability is the major stumbling block any more, and applications, while there is still a ways to go, are solidifying. But the question is, even if my mother could figure out how to use Linux (she could, she used it when she came over for a visit and thought that I was simply running some version of Windows that she hadn't seen), the question is whether or not she would ask for it on a computer she was buying. She simply didn't know what it is, and still doesn't really know. Whether or not customers could effectively use Linux and how pretty it is becomes less relevant when they don't even know it exists and MS's stops their OEM's from installing it as an option.

BeOS is a beautiful OS that is very easy to use, and looks very nice, but it was stopped primarily by a lack of applications, customer ignorance, and MS's licensing tactics. Even giving it away for free, Be had no major takers installing it on their boxes. Linux is rapidly gaining the apps, the usability and becoming prettier but I think that ignorance will continue to be the major stumbling block.

 

[ultimatebob]

Good points there, Hitman, but there are still a few problems with Linux in the corporate environment:

- Linux still doesn't have an Office suite on par with Microsoft Office. Although OpenOffice and KOffice are half-decent, they still can't compare with MS Office's feature set.

- There also aren't any good groupware packages for Linux. Although Outlook and Lotus Notes can be run in Linux under WINE, it can still cause a whole host of other compatibility problems with customized applications designed to run within the program.

- You'll also have accountants bitching about the lack of polished accounting and financing packages for Linux. Graphic designers will complain about having to use The GIMP instead of Photoshop. Marketing people will complain about having to reformat their Powerpoint presentations. The list goes on, and on, and on....

- Speaking of PowerPoint, there are still issues with converting Office file formats like Word and Excel to other platforms. This can cause problems with having to reformat old documents for use in Linux, and can make document sharing with other companies difficult.

- Many businesses have invested a LOT of money in customized software that was designed WITH Windows FOR Windows. Some of it might be easily ported to Linux, but much of it will not. Again, there are still problems with WINE, so it can't be trusted for a 100% solution.

- Finally, the most important of all. Most employees already know Windows from home use or college, and are comfortable with it. Switching to a Linux desktop platform will require a lot of training for end users, and you shouldn't expect them to switch without a fight. Users WILL get ticked off because they'll lose their ability to easily install their favorite software on their systems. Sure, you can say that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do that, but that will just make them bitch all the louder.

It's reasons like THIS that are keeping Linux from taking over the corporate desktop. Even the largest Linux supporting companies (like IBM, HP/Compaq, and Intel) still have no interest in supporting Linux on the desktop platform, because they feel that Linux just isn't ready for personal use. That's why you'll see the big companies promoting their Linux-powered databases or application servers running on their servers or mainframes, but you'll almost never see a big company bragging about shipping their laptops or desktops with Linux pre-installed. They know that they just won't sell, so why bother!

Originally posted by: DaHitman
Linus is already a REAL alternative for the corporate desktop... most of the arguments you made are just not important in the corporate desktop.

You will see Linux make large inroads in the corporate desktop long before its in the home market... look how long it too Windows NT to enter the home market... most of a decade.. from NT 3.1->NT4->W2K->finnaly XP Home... NT 4.0 Workstation is still by a large margin THE MOST used desktop in business use.

Linux is ready for the same market that NT 4 is ready for... just about every critisim that people make against Linux these days is a MOOT POINT in the corporate environment..

- Linux doesnt have good games or gaming... Gaming is not needed for the corporate desktop. Heck.. NT 4 doesnt even support DirectX...

- Linux is hard for the average user to manage. In the corporate world, there are professionals that build installations, and tweak all the drivers for the type of hardware in use by the company etc.. The systems are locked down, and the end users usually dont even have the rights to change the screensaver. Professional people do things like choose the hardware based on how their software supports it (no hardware support problems if you carefully pick your hardware up front), and built repeatable installs, usually IMAGES of golden system installs that are then just replicated after everything is certified to work correctly... no users have to worry about any hardware or software compatability issues, other people take care of that.


I think you will see some people start to use Linux at the corporate desktop level for replacing a huge number of PC's that are only used for Web,Email, Light Office WP/Spreadsheet etc.. Companies can save millions every year by not sending it to Redmond for software subscription fees that is over-or Marge in Human Recources.


So, I think Linux will become widespread on the corporate desktop first.... who cares if billy can't play the latest shoot-em-up on it, or its too hard for mommy to send a copy of her meatloaf recipe to aunt june... that stuff can come much later, let them use Windows.

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: ElectrodeBSD, on the other hand, can be and IS a viable alternative. Mac OS X (BSD based) is easy to use, has M$ Office, and has all the power a geek needs. Once it gets ported to the x86 architecture (this is being done as we speak, you can already download a working copy from Apple's site) Windows will be crushed.

Really? Is Apple aware of this? Do you have a link to said download, or are you referring to Darwin? Darwin ~= MacOSX.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Mac OS X (BSD based) is easy to use, has M$ Office, and has all the power a geek needs. Once it gets ported to the x86 architecture (this is being done as we speak, you can already download a working copy from Apple's site)

Well, I must certainly say you have piqued(sp?) my interest here...Can you show us a link to where you found this?

 

[Electrode]

Darwin (Mac OS X) download page @ apple.com

Sivar (and all others who replied in the same way): The only difference between packages called 'Darwin' and packages called 'Mac OS X' is that the latter contain the Aqua UI, which you don't need anyway. Install XDarwin and your favorite Mac OS-like desktop environment (both GNOME and KDE can mimic Aqua to the finest detail) and you're all set.

 

[Sunner]

Bu then, if you don't get Aqua/Quartz, why not just install Free/Open/Net BSD and run KDE/Gnome on those?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

there are so many arguments i could start in this thread, its almost sickening

darwin is not OSX. just running darwin with X on top is no easier than running linux or BSD with X on top, in fact it'd be much harder.

linux is hard. there are many major issues with linux that unless changed, will probably hold back mainstream adoption. application installation/removal, application integration, drivers, changing the fricking X refresh rate without restarting X (jesus is this that big of a deal? i find the highest refresh i can do and leave it, why don't you guys?)...the list goes on and on.

the general public is not going to become any more computer literate. the only option is to make the computer cater to the user more. my mom is not going to read the cd burning howto. she is not going to compile a kernel. she is not going to edit /etc/modules. she just ISNT. either make it easier, or people wont use it. its that simple.

people arent stupid for not being computer literate. i can use a linux system with a fair amount of proficiency, i can code somewhat in a couple different languages, i understand the inner workings of computer hardware and software exponentially more than "normal" people, but if you ask me how to build an engine, can i do it? no. can i fix plumbing? no. can i play chess well? no. it's not about intelligence or anything close to it. its about prioriites. for some people, dealing with computers is high on their priority list (like..me ), for some, its not really even ON the list. nor should it be. different strokes for different folks.

the whole "when will linux go mainstream?" question is tired and annoying IMO. windows users sit around bickering about how windows sucks. one out of a thousand will then install mandrake. they will probably be baffled, get annoyed, and go back to windows. the more persistant ones realize that linux is not bad, its just not so easy to use, without alot of reading and learning. either way, these are the people who will continue to complain about the so-called problems with linux, and wonder when they will be "fixed". meanwhile we have thousands of dedicated, intelligent, hard working GEEKS writing the software. they are writing it for fun, and to help create a superior computing environment. these people deserve tons of credit, more than they usually get, yet the windows users usually dont even realize that this is the case. they thought mandrake made linux. so basically the little open source nerd subculture continues on, and keeps developing things with itself in mind, while the disgruntled windows users just complain that linux is hard and of course do nothing but complain about it. people need to realize that open source software is DIFFERENT from the commercial situation you're used to. they dont owe you anything. you didnt pay them, and usually they're not worried about luring you into using linux because....they dont care. they dont have a vested interest in it. they code for fun, and to contribute to the community. you're not a customer, and they dont have to cater to you! so stop expecting it!

linux is great for what i do, and on a political/idealistic level, it's great too. i love my OS

not sure what else to say.

edit: sorry if i sound bitter or hostile or anything of that nature, it's this thread's fault, i swear

 

[LNXman]

Nice read BBWF. . . Kudos.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Darwin (Mac OSX) @ apple

Quote from x86 installation notes:

Known not to be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems.

D'oh.. ,leaves me out x86-wise.


Thanx for the link though electrode

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
-- There also aren't any good groupware packages for Linux. Although Outlook and Lotus Notes can be run in Linux under WINE, it can still cause a whole host of other compatibility problems with customized applications designed to run within the program.

IMHO, as a current victim of lotus notes, "Groupware" is the biggest waste of time/effort/money since powerpoint. Aside from that, it really annoys me that I have to expend large amounts of money/memory/cpu running VMware just so I can check my mail

- Speaking of PowerPoint, there are still issues with converting Office file formats like Word and Excel to other platforms. This can cause problems with having to reformat old documents for use in Linux, and can make document sharing with other companies difficult.

I agree. Out of all the BS & arguments in the Microsoft antitrust cases, this is the most important & most neglected issue. If MS file formats were open, the whole computing world would open up. File formats & networking interfaces.

As for the rest of the thread ... shrug ... Linux is my home & office desktop and workstation. The real question in my field (Astrodynamics, modeling & simulation) is when will Windows be a viable alternative to Unix/Linux? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[MrPG]

Here is my take on this...

There aren't many choices for pc OS'.. and that?s where we get the arguments and debates..

Most people like options, with gen pc OS there is only 2 really.. Linux vs. windows

On 1 hand you have you basic desktop home users? office/games/internet casual use and on the other you have you tweak geeks/tech hobbyist crowd/curios cats, then the professional level with your developers/corporate users.

Being the only 2 choices a lot of casual home users are moving towards trying Linux, either by intro at work or from word of mouth, whatever.


Linux isn't meant to be on desktop OS, it?s a developers OS, comps like Redhat or Mandrake I think are making attempts to bring Linux to you avg home pc user. Most of you beef should be with them.

Seriously? I hear a lot of people say linux is faster than windows? well take a look at what you do.. and that?s the price you pay.. if you want fancy mouse pointers.. fancy menu systems, etc etc.. the machine is gonna be slow.. linux or windows.

I picked up linux a few years back. And in those few years I?ve learned more about networking and computer and the ideas, functions, software and hardware that drives them. Now setting up a full figured linux box isn?t something I look forward to but sometimes that take me a minor amount of time.. within a few hours. I know run my own everything.. yes on a 3 linux servers?.

Inc. firewall/email/dns/web/db/priv irc/ cvs repo all from 3 machines running in my closet at home practically.


If you mainly use the internet, office, and games then linux is a waste of you time and I wouldn?t recommend.

Hearing that you basic/common pc user is what linux needs to satisfy is a joke? linux is free? that?s why its not as user friendly as windows? capitalism drives MS features and userbility. With linux it?s a bunch of dudes dedicated to mastering whatever it is they?re doing.. and pushing purely just to make a truly good product..


For you?re serious/geek/dev/pro whatever users.. linux satisfies all there needs?.

From holly wood to wall street? that?s why you have linux solutions for ever serious application out there.. from maya 3d packages rendering out spider man on linux servers.. to sgi providing irix.. basically linux pro to top end comps in science and tech market. To you avg high end data centers buying linux based servers.. its business, serious business and it isn?t so much userbilitt and ease of user that drives there dicisioin like it is for you avg home pc user.. but raw perfomance and the ability to fit to what ever they guy desires.. with windows its configurable to a certain degree? to go further you need to pray that some company engineer out there thinkss like you do or hire guys to code you stuff for you.

now i'm not downing windows.. not a windows basher i actually vm windows ontop of linux alot.. or run windows raw.. for my i can wine most things as the performance of todays pc allow you to do alotta things with little latency i get good if not exact or better fps on most of the games I wine... yep i'm addicted to shoot em ups... HL CS and FLF.. anywayz..

I work for a pretty huge comp that spans from ireland to the UK to midwest, south and norht east america.. and we rely on lot on vps and have alott of dmz services.. and for all our dmz we use linux hosts.. because off all the security reason.. we keep exchange, IIS and nt servers local.


So when will make it to desktop market, when the avg desktop users is hacking the pentagon or runners servers at home I guess. It'll never be on the level of microsoft unless someones finds a way to profit from it. for companies to to make even port avg software to linux for you avg user.. wont happen.. there isn't a substantial demand to where a vp at some company is gonna say.. hey lets port to unix.. so maybe 3 people will buy it, because it can be done for with free gnu solutions free of cost.

in the home user/non critical world its good that you pay all you software with download bandwith not cash.


heh.. just my take





the end..
page 20002010
published 2002
by blah blah no one is listening or cares press

 

[thornc]

Sure manual trans is a little better than automatic in many senses, but who the hell wants to keep shifting all the time?

Hey, what's this got to do with anything.... Here in Europe almost every car uses manual transmissions and we don't have any
problems with it!!!! In fact most people hate automatic transmissions... semi-automatic it's another story!!!


Back to topic...
Never... it can't be done, because it isn't supposed to be done. Linux the Kernel isn't supposed to be mainstream just look
at the driver architecture and is easy to understand. Xfree86 an implementatition of X Windows isn't going to change either.
The guys behind those important part of a Linux Distro don't care about the commercial part... so no way...

If RedHat, ManDrake, SuSe and others want something better and good to fight off microsoft and better start putting money
where their mouth is... ( well I know SuSe does that, but it hasn't gotten then anywhere )!

The Linux Standard Base is a good start, United Linux might be a good thing... everything else... I don't know!!

What I do know is that Open-Source is an alternative, and this my friends worries Microsoft more than Linux!
Heck, Apache kills IIS every day, PHP beats ASP, Python/Perl or any shell scritp kill's VBS in their sleep... just to mention a few....

 

[Chaotic42]

Why must linux be the alternative? Linux has things that it does very well. Better than Windows NT. It's a good server OS, it's good for embedding, it's good for the guy who wants a Unix-like system at home.

Linux based systems are getting easier to use everyday, but why not use MacOS if you want a Windows alternative for grandma? I've never used KDE, so I can't comment on it, but I really don't see why Linux should be made to be Windows. Everyone says they want a Windows alternative, yet they complain that Linux isn't like Windows.

It's time for Linux to fade away, and let the HURD take over.

Linux isn't Windows and Windows isn't Linux. Trying to make one like the other is kind of stupid.

Now, who wants to help me nuke slashdot?

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: DaHitman

One very LARGE missing item in the Unix world, for home desktop users anyway, is a universal, standard installer.

You mean like INSTALLSHIELD? The most popular Windows installer?

News flash... its available for Linux... http://installshield.com/imp/

Problem is that it is incompatible with Linux. Not in that it will not work or in that it will be difficult to use, but in that it is not open source under the GPL. Linux needs an installer as functional or moreso than Installshield which is also licensed under the GPL, else it will never reach the Linux "mainstream." The greatest product in the world may as well not exist if nobody uses it. <shrug>

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: DaHitman

One very LARGE missing item in the Unix world, for home desktop users anyway, is a universal, standard installer.

You mean like INSTALLSHIELD? The most popular Windows installer?

News flash... its available for Linux... http://installshield.com/imp/

Problem is that it is incompatible with Linux. Not in that it will not work or in that it will be difficult to use, but in that it is not open source under the GPL. Linux needs an installer as functional or moreso than Installshield which is also licensed under the GPL, else it will never reach the Linux "mainstream." The greatest product in the world may as well not exist if nobody uses it. <shrug>

 

[Chooco]

one of the crap things about Linux is how stuff installs all over the place and doesn't tell you where it went. some GOOD programs install to just one directory and run from there such as Apache (it makes some files elseware but only a few), Half-Life Dedicated Server for Linux, Opera, Mozilla...

there's also the problem of stuff just not working even when you follow the manual to a tee.

 

[Nothinman]

one of the crap things about Linux is how stuff installs all over the place and doesn't tell you where it went. some GOOD programs install to just one directory and run from there such as Apache (it makes some files elseware but only a few), Half-Life Dedicated Server for Linux, Opera, Mozilla...

Don't install stuff from source, and if you do use the configure options to force it under a certain directory.

If you install packages you can find out where all the files are with the package manager and uninstallation is simple.

here's also the problem of stuff just not working even when you follow the manual to a tee.

If you can install MS Services for Unix 2.0 on Win2K and get it to do UID mappping so you can mount NFS drives as non-guest, then you can complain about things not working if you follow the manuals to a tee. And on top if it all, SFU you pay for, most Linux programs you don't.

 

[Chooco]

but you at least have to expect stuff to work, and how are you supposed to avoid installing from gzipped tar files? at least 90% of all Linux programs comein that form....such as Apache, Mozilla, Opera, 2 of the FTP programs i have tried, PHP, Perl. they ALL come in source form. i understand what you are saying by forcing into a file BUT some of the programs actualy need to put crap all over the place in order to work such as an FTP server i tried, it installed a file with the same name in 3 directories in var and 1 in usr......it doesn't work unless that crap is all in those places, otherwise it doesn't know where to find its files.

 

[Nothinman]

There are 485 packages containing the words apache, perl, mozilla or ftp in Debian (and I check this on my Alpha, which has less packages available than x86). And Opera supplies .debs or .rpms for you to install.

On my boxes I can count the number of packages I've installed that weren't packaged for Debian on one hand. I almost never have to resort to compiling source and installing manually.

 

[Sunner]

Funny, I haven't compiled a single program from source on my box, and I have like 5 programs that tar.gz form(Citrix ICA Client and Acrobat reader that I can remember right now), and yet I have Opera, Ncftp, PHP and Perl installed, and they all came in .deb packages.

And I seriously doubt they don't come in RPM format as well.
Actually I know they come in RPM format.