Linux - Why It Fails As A Desktop Operating System?

[osknockout 0]

It is, isn't it... Hope nobody took offence. (Do I need to add a little :snigger; here?)

Depends. How much do you want to be flamed?

 

Do "we", as linux users, really want Linux to become mainstream? Dell are starting to release computers with Ubuntu preinstalled, but my first reaction was not good. Is is really a good thing that Ubuntu is on it's way to commercialism? Even if the Ubuntu devs don't seem to have much to do with it...

 

Fails? Linux does not fail as a desktop operating system. My computer runs it. Technically it's not a desktop, but my mum's computer runs it. Nothing has "failed".

 

All fault lies with the user. And I won't stand corrected on that one.

I don't think that 'we' really want Linux to become mainstream right now. Maybe later when we have an intelligent and self-aware computer public that won't go crazy over having to go through a few lines of code, but we're a while away from that. Eh... commercialism's always a mixed blessing (Christmas! yay! ... pardon me, I've come straight out of testing, can't think straight)

We'll have yet to see if Ubuntu really is "commercializing" that much and the results of it.

 

Fine, I won't argue that point because I agree on its validity. (And how uber KDE is.)

But - when compared to ease of use in comparison to Windows and Macintosh it's not at the top.

Agreed, some of the desktop schematics are just so that the average elephant can understand them, and linux assumes that the user has a brain.

But still, we can't say that the desktop is one lf Linux's best points. The community? Sure. Our kernel? Definetly. But our desktop? Umm... when KDE and GNOME merge.

 

"All fault lies with the user." Heh. Your point's valid, but the egocentric user won't believe that. Besides, who's everything made for?

Yes, we develop for ourselves, but I'm sure gcc's used by more than the gcc people. There are people who use it and will never know the internals of that code.

I prefer to call them users. And what do we do when we have a bug with it? Do we work around it using some crazy manipulation or do we just patch it away?

So far development's edged on the latter. All fault does lie with the user, but given enough users making the same mistake, it's time to make some edit to at least save time.

 

Well, isn't it? You call it soccer, so football must be european? No, wait, you have the football where you pick it up all the time. At least, I assume that you were being international when you called football football (appreciated!) ?

--Digression--

Ah digression, the god of everything interesting. I'm from outside this nation. I call football football and have been doing so since the age of two.

I don't get the whole "soccer" thing really. The type of football played around the world came from the styles of Great Britain, hence it's "European" in descent if not in current nature.

Urgh... Chelsea should have recieved that penalty. (Just came back from seeing the game against Arsenal, anyway...)

Also, if any mods are reading this, I think a digression tag's in order. DON'T EAT ME.

--Digression over--

 

So you're saying that Linux should be made easier, simpler... etc, just because the people who have spent two days with some random distro can't spend a couple weeks getting into it? That just doesn't figure.

Good God no. That's not my argument. There's a Linux for Dummies series and I think it fits its niche quite perfectly.

Sounds like you've made a strawman argument from what I've said, but eh, I'm getting back to my point.

Going back to my little philosophy, when enough people complain about the rock on the road, it's time to remove it instead of making everyone go around it.

I'm saying if we have to, post a copy of The Linux Newbie Administration Guide in a standard iso so

that the n00bs don't have to go posting on forums. Saves our time, prevents their frustration, and we get more self-relying n00bs.

I don't know what it takes, maybe a "newbiux" distribution even. All I'm saying is that if intelligent people are getting frustrated with a change to linux,

there's something fixable. Why not at least give it an attempt?

As for the people who spend maybe days on a distro and go on and complain, well, there's not much we can really do for that. But I do understand

how not being able to even ask for help (e.g. not being able to connect to the internet to ask for the help on how to connect...) can be frustrating.

I have no exact mechanism for this idea, and I don't think anyone really does. But what I'm asking is that we try to make Linux more OPEN in their eyes.

NOT easy. OPEN. Let them see a little of what it's all about before they give up on this new random os they try out. After all, isn't the openness what it's all about?

 

And it's not as easy as you might think. Educating n00bs isnt' the most fun thing in the world and they might actually stumble across something it'd take

advanced users a while to handle. I remember a time when I was just trying out my first distro (Slackware) and I was trying to configure XFree86.

It got so confusing I just gave up. I knew C/C++, had just got into x86 assembly, and kind of knew the console and bash scripting pretty well,

but that thing was so frustrating I just decided to give it up and go to the autodetect distros (turns out it was a serious bug in the ol' Slacky Free86 build)

Now I know what went wrong. - But it took me about two years to figure it out. If a normal Linux user can be frustrated with a system, how much

more can a total newbie be frustrated with it? - He (or she, mind ye politically correct) doesn't know a thing about it.

 

Sure, we want people to change when they come to linux, learn to adjust and become part of the community, and granted that will happen.

But the community is changing a little and we have to accept that we're getting a lot more of total n00bs asking about this than before.

It's worth a try to help them learn what exactly they're getting into at the least.

[insaneinnovations 0]

Drivers. Drivers are difficult in any distro. Some devices can't be installed, even if you're a Sudo master *chuckle*. That's my main abjection with Linux.

[fslog 0]

Linux needs to have some sort of standardisation among the various distributions. One big problem that many of my friends face in linux is installing applications/ packages. There are too many ways to install a application. There is the debian way, RPM, Gentoo, and the good old source compile. Most of these confuse first time users as they are more accustomed to the next - next - next - finish kind of installation. In windows all a user need is get a CD or search the internet for an application, double click the setup.exe and install it, though some of the windows users still find it hard to do that.First there has got to be a common packaging system. I personally prefer the debian way. On my Ubuntu, all I have to do is goto synaptic and saarch for the necessary package and check that and install. All dependencies are automatically handled.Second is the user interface. Mac OS X is also based on Unix system. But look at the user interface. It just rocks. Everything is very easy to do on a Mac. Also their way of packaging is super cool for a newbie. All he has to do is drap and drop the application into the applications folder and it is ready to run. Linux still has a long way to go in terms of UI. Ubuntu is doing great on that part with really pretty interface. SuSE and Mandriva are also equally good. But since Ubuntu I haven't switched over to anything else. One thing that I like about Ubuntu is the viral marketing done by Canonical by providing free CDs. Come on, who wouldn't want a bunch of CDs shipped to them. Ubuntu is doing a lot of cool improvements in terms of usability. In those days the installation was a nightmare. Now you can put the CD in your drive and try out the OS before you install it. These are just a few important things to be sorted out before Linux even get a decent marketshare.

[elrohir 0]

osknockout, I think we are about in agreement, even if priorities lie in other drections. Must be the first time...

 

insaneinnovations, I can't comment about that, since I have never really had any problems with drivers (closest being installing firmware for my ipw2200 wireless card, which took three completely standard commands).

 

and now, fslog

 

 

I think that you have not realised an important thing about the Linux "marketing scheme". It's not made to be noo-friendly. Sure, some distros try to, the same way some try to be a windows look-alike, most distros are targeted at the people in this world who have some knowledge, and require usaility rather than have a distro that noobs can use without a learning curve. Take Synaptic, for example. It's a lok easier to go

sudo -sapt-get install *program*

Than it is to navigate through the menus, open synaptic, enter password, search for application, mark it for installation, accept dependancies and finally install it. The keyboard will always be superior to the mouse, the same way the terminal is superior to most GUIs for most tasks. I'm not saming I use the terminal for everything, just that for most things it's easier and quicker. So, not having a fluffed-up GUI by default is derived from the fact that most people don't need one - and of course they can install one themselves if they want. It's all about choice.

 

So you think that windows installation methods are superior to those of Linux? That's pretty sad. Mac, I can't comment on, since I have never really done anything like that with it, but since it's Unix-based, it pretty much has to be awesome, doesn't it? I still maintain that using the keyboard is more efficient than a gui, though. A perfect example of this would be bash scripting and the ease of creating a routine series of programs using only commands that are available on the system anyways. I understand that not all computer users are capable of understanding something as simple as a bash script, but Linux is made and largely maintained for those who can.

I would agree that Ubuntu is doing a lot for Linux, most of that in terms of popularisation, but it is aimed at people who come into Linux through the window, and I would consequently consider it more of a "gateway OS", if you like, that gives the user a good introduction to the linux world and the experience they need to try other OSes and make an educated choice based on the aquired experience - even if that means stayin with Ubuntu, which I have to say is a very solid OS. It also happens to be the only Linux OS in which the GUI "just works", which is why I still use it quite a bit. That, and the fact that you don't have to go through the hassle of installing a good theme to make it look decent. (see: gentoo) Ubuntu is good in that you don't immediately have to do anything complex, but you can if you want to, once you have the know-how and desire to. it's all about choice

[dastrophy 0]

I would agree with much of that: linux is not going to overtake windows for a standard desktop operating system, because the ease of expanding and compatibility can never compare: It's main advantage would be in the business sector with a group of experienced staff who would be able to preside over it: with several thousand computers, with no game playing: but rather all office applications like word processing or databases or spreadsheets! The cost is far less and easier to maintain, whilst the security is far improved: however the lack of teaching about linux as people grow up has always being the thing that held this back. Since your standard network administrator only has qualifications in Windows and other microsoft products, whilst the user has probably never seen linux in their life: even for just simple things like word processing, where open office can be an adequate replacement whic works identicallt to Word, it is the problem of using something different from "the Norm" which causes the large companies which hold the sway over Microsoft to turn away from using the alternativesLinux needs to have more compatibility "out of the box" as it is called for the home user: the "click and install" attitude would be so much better and easier to use: I believe Suse tried to implement it. If you need for example a graphics program, you just put in the dvd, type in your search term: so graphics, and click INSTALL next to the Gimp. Easy to use and no seperate installing. This combined with the interbet downloading of programs clearly works better then compiling out of source code: the easy to use setup.exe of windows is perhaps its strongest point, hence why people will still use windows 98 over linux: not because of the GUI. To have a chance getting into the home user market, a linux brand like Suse needs to come forward and convince computer manufacturers that ordinary, non-geeky users will be able to turn on the computer and understand what to do: otherwise people will get windows installed as standard and never consider anything else.Alongside all of this, nobody would consider using linux if their old printer doesn't work with it, or even their new printer: linux is very far behind on offering support to extra hardware: part of the tight and vicious circle: if they can convince people that linux is the way to go, it would also force companies to offer support and drivers for their products straight off the cd, as opposed to finding some hacked together driver off the internet which only provides limited support: if linux can get itself established in this market, then it stands a much better chance of being widely accepted and perhaps as a result, find its way into the world of standard destktop operating systems

[osknockout 0]

@elrohir: Good to hear. Lol, there's a first time for everything, isn't there?@insaneinnovations: The way I see it, drivers are a pain for every operating system. Creating a driver isn't something people like to do at a tea party; low-level programming in general fits into the maybe-another-day category. The thing is that corporations such as Microsoft and the whole Macintosh series have support from vendors by default because 1) they're the default user operating systems as of present day 2) we have intercorporate support 3) it makes good business to have ready-made drivers for the mass of peoples that do not know how to operate computers efficiently. Linux however... a good number of things have to be hacked up. We have had only one driver for an entire hardware trademark family at times, and trial-and-error has solved a good number of the problems. It's not a pretty sight, but given our current context, it's the best case in a disadvantaged situation.@dastrophy: Packages out-of-the-box... I suggest you look up Sabayon. Back in May they were considering placing a major programming effort into that idea. I don't know if they've tried it out yet, but it was in the blogs.Also, I think it's less of linux has to be accepted into the market and more of the market has to accept linux. Linux changes for the users - NOT for the corporations that want to maximize profit out of it. Sure, some of them are heavy users. However, they do not form the contributing majority.

[Tetraca 0]

Linux is becoming such a craze nowadays that not even a single day passes without one or other distribution releasing a new version. But why is it failing so miserably in the desktop arena. The answer lies in three reasons.1. The plethora of distributions - Redhat,Debian,Ubuntu,Suse,Gentoo,Knoppix - everbody and his uncle is coming out with new ones.

You can take any distrobution - they're going to end up running the same applications and such - they're built from the same original kernel, though there are tweaks here and there that will force you to recompile sometimes.

2. The lack of backward compatibility - I had Redhat 7.3 running. I upgraded to Redhat 9. Many applications had to be recompiled. You ask my mom to recompile applications - She will throw out Linux and take Windows anyday. She is not concerned more about usability than about security. Security is required but not at the expense of usability for most users.

The only people that need to use old applications are those on mainframes. You don't need backwards compatibility for the most part as new versions of most Linux applications are always coming out. You just need to download the latest package. I've never had a problem with Linux in terms of recompiling when I've used it, especially with the Debian based distros which just require you to download a package - no recompiling or compiling required. Plus, there's an easy to use interface provided caled Synaptec if you are physically incapable of reading a manual.

3. To add a new hardware or install a new software, you need to be a geek. In most cases, to configure new hardware such as adsl modems, you have to edit configuration files manually. Not what home users want to do. Even the people who come and install the stuff are no aware about Linux. Infact once I had to educate the tech support fellow on how to configure something in Linux. OK the tech support was not good. Still it speaks a lot about Linux.

As I've said, if you use the Debian based distrobutions, you just need to click on the package you want from Synaptec and it will automatically install. Even without the GUI it doesn't take a brain to install something like the gimp. Just run in the command line:

sudo apt-get install gimp

That's in the manual, and help file, which people apparantly are incapable of reading. Plus the proper code would be listed on the software's website. You can remove them easily as well.
Even if you don't use the debian based distrobutions you have the Red Hat distrobutions, and those have RPMs which are also point and click install.

As for hardware Ubuntu at least automatically configures it without problems. Slackware uses hotplug to automatically detect and install most hardware. For other distrobutions it's as easy as reading the manual, which won't be hard to do unless your illiterate, and in that case you probably wouldn't be using a computer anyway. I've also tried to configure hardware using Linux. After reading the proper manual pages I have found only two types of hardware are a royal pain to install using Linux:
1. 16:9 Widescreen Monitors (They work, just not in 16:9 if your distro doesn't auto-configure).
2. Wireless network adapters. I swear you need to be an IT expert to figure out how to configure those things.
Other than that sound is as easy as running alsaconf, graphics is as easy as running Xconfig or Xsetup, and networks are configured at the setup. Things like more memory are unneeded of configuration by the OS. Drives are automatically recognized when checking for drives to mount. Et cetera.

I believe there are three real reasons why Linux isn't going to gain much into the market:
1. It is obscure to the general population, who only know of "PCs" and "Macs", though it's like a comparision between "People" and "Caucasions" - They're the same thing hardware-wise.
2. The general population has been scared into not installing Linux by Microsoft's scare and FUD tactics.
3. Reading manuals is an apparent venial sin, and so the consumer will not install Linux because they don't want to read on how to use a computer, even though not reading that Toaster manual when trying to repair a problem ended up costing him more at a repair shop than if he just read the troubleshooting section.
Edited July 8, 2007 by Tetraca (see edit history)

[JohnM 0]

Some major companies still don't develop for the Linux platform too which can be a pain when your looking for the software you used on Windows. Configuring can be a pain too (especially anything network related).

[iGuest 3]

If I may have the liberty of reminding you people of the following:1) Sudo, su and ls -l functions in Linux. Normally I can understand privileges and pids BUT, when I have to undertake various commands to force the kernel to recognize and verify a file, thats a problem. Whats the purpose of even giving Linux a gui? Why are there no instructions to automate this process? Where is the configurability? I should be able to double click on an icon and the kernel carries out those commands FOR me. Correct me if I am wrong but, the kernel is to work for the user not the user for the kernel. You turn a wrench to tighten a bolt the wrench does not turn you. Consider the tripwire analogy. An IDS program calculates and stores hashes of files with the intention of comparing them later on. The user does not manually calculate said hashes, the software does! 2) Proprietary drivers and general incompatibility. Case in point would be Vmware and many distros. When organized groups of coders celebrate, the least an end user could expect is a stable product. Why are there still experimental (see restricted) versions of Vmware drivers? Good luck compiling those, I had to repeat the process 10 times over.3) Kernels between distros are similar to a varying degree. The purpose of compatibility script seems to have been forgotten. There is no standard! A kernel for one distro is different than another. 4) As generally seen, listed software does not include all installable software! 5) Root kits are a cross platform hazard! A rooted remote box is even better. VM with dependent snapshots is a different story all together.6) Man in the middle attack > SSH connection. TLS via SOCKS4a on the other hand.. Even better try generating and using a SSH v2 key pair thats 4096 bits or greater. Slow is an understatement. A remote box is not going to protect you either. 7) Virtualization via Xen is vulnerable to hyper vector injection.8) Try making application level firewall rules, good luck using iptables heh Maybe apparmor can save you, maybe not. Hell, Zonealarm program control vs apparmor, you be the judge.9) Where is the WPA compatibility? Even if natively using it in Windows have another encryption protocol (NOT SSL) ready. Enough sniffed packets = full key. Then the cracking begins.10) DRM, a pain in the *bottom* for all kernels. 11) Try using OpenGL to substitute direcx 9 and later. Even better, try using a direct emulator. Psychedelic colors and textures man! Wwwooooo.12) Vmware, tor, winice are examples of low level programming because they are on Windows? Take a course in a variety of programming languages before you make such judgments.

[osknockout 0]

Ah, Mr. Anonymous Guest, due to your virile nature and your amazing clerical ability to ressurect the dead, we meet again.

1)

Whats the purpose of even giving Linux a gui? Why are there no instructions to automate this process? Where is the configurability? I should be able to double click on an icon and the kernel carries out those commands FOR me. Correct me if I am wrong but, the kernel is to work for the user not the user for the kernel.

a - because guis are pretty. don't hate on the pretty.b - instructions to automate this process? Yo, try messing with the live cds - I think that's the closest to get to that. The configurability is in the bash and perl programs that allow you to write scripts so you can make the automation any way you want.
c - it started as MADE by developers FOR developers. So, yes I will claim that the user is for the kernel. For every bug reported about the kernel, it becomes better. You cannot stop the kernel. The kernel will live on. In all seriousness here, The kernel's for the system. If the user wants to mess with the kernel - something which it should be able to understand thoroughly anyway, then that's the user's own business.

2)Thank god for bochs, right? It is a sad state, to be honest.

3)Problem with that argument is that a lot of distros. come with multiple kernels, so the similarities start to set in. some even come with *shudder* kernels that are completely configurable. Oh what's this? Gentoo?

4)I dare anyone (this includes RMS, Torvalds, Tux and the last PDP-7 user) to try and list at any given one moment every possible installable package at any one time. Gonna go with not possible. To be pragmatic however, that's a problem fixable by a quick email to the distro lords with "PLEEEASE give me a list of packages on your site!!!!" Get enough people to email and it'll be a standard. To this end I suggest giving free pizza to all root's you know as bribery.

5)An even better story is the how we still trust VM to do stuff securely at this end.

6)

Slow is an understatement.

Get this man some distcc. Stat.
7)Again, why we DON'T use Xen.

8)Ok, very good point. But I don't mess with iptables anyway, so I'll try not to get whacked on the head here.

9)In wpa_supplicant. (jk...) Yes, we've all seen aircrack-ng demos cracking wireless in 5 min. (or should immediately google and see them. Do it. NOW.)
Can't be helped there. Unless almighty Anonymous Guest is a master of cryptography, in which case I suggest it starts dev'ing.

10) this topic is to be avoided at all costs so that Sony*'s HQ won't be burned down.
*- Sony really meaning any DRM-using company.

11) Again, hating the pretty. Stop doing that! You're right there. But I blame the people who program in direct x anyway. Such a bad API...

12) Umm, I've programmed in x86 and Z80 assembly and had a good run in C (low middle ages anyone?) - so I'll assume you're joking with the examples.

[Galahad 0]

I have finally switched to Ubuntu 7.10... And I love it...Everything I need to do, I can do, sometimes even quicker than I did in Wintendo... GUI is rather nice, compiz runs fast as hell, rotating the cube, while 4 movies run on 4 desktops... Ubuntu even wants to run my monitor in it's native resolution 1440x900, where Wintendo said I need a new GFX card, because this one can't display that resolution... Yeah, right....Network runs fine, without any configurations (I use ADSL)... I even configured iptables to some extent (not that I need it )... Successfully installed SSH... Installed several more applications... Ubuntu sees my webcam... The only thing I have to configure some more is my TV card (that I don't use so often)...So... For me... Linux doesn't fail as a desktop system, it excells greatly... I love it...

[rayzoredge 2]

Linux doesn't fail as an operating system. It's simply due to the fact that it doesn't draw the attention nor the desire of the consumer mass.It STILL has the stigma that geeks use it and might not exactly be "user-friendly..." and what I mean by this:I just recently jumped into Ubuntu 7.10 and I suppose that it's pretty darn good. Most devices were detected flawlessly and most everything worked without a pinch. Now, take into account your typical, "want-this-to-work-out-of-box" person. Let's say that a certain device wasn't clicking with the OS. In Windows, most of the time you can rely on Windows Update to provide you with the correct driver. (It's not perfect, so this doesn't always happen.) In Linux, if it isn't detected right off the back after repository updates and whatnot, you have to jump through major hoops, code, and change system files to get something to work. I know this for a fact because I installed Ubuntu 7.10 onto my tablet PC and the stylus would not work correctly. I had to go online, swim and wade through tons of forums to look for possible answers, then finally found a solution that worked, involving adding lines of code to a file that of course, you would have to have existing knowledge of SUDO (or access to root) to edit. It really wasn't a hard thing to do, but for any other Joe Schmoe out there that has NO clue what to do in the first place (and of course, he'll most likely be computer-illiterate or maybe not comfortable), it would make for a rather frustrating experience. That's one thing. I would post more but I have to go to work now.

[rvalkass 5]

The only thing I have to configure some more is my TV card (that I don't use so often)...

Make sure to check out MythTV to get into scheduling recodings and all other sorts of cool stuff. Just look for the package in Synaptic or Adept.

I just recently jumped into Ubuntu 7.10 and I suppose that it's pretty darn good. Most devices were detected flawlessly and most everything worked without a pinch. Now, take into account your typical, "want-this-to-work-out-of-box" person. Let's say that a certain device wasn't clicking with the OS. In Windows, most of the time you can rely on Windows Update to provide you with the correct driver. (It's not perfect, so this doesn't always happen.) In Linux, if it isn't detected right off the back after repository updates and whatnot, you have to jump through major hoops, code, and change system files to get something to work. I know this for a fact because I installed Ubuntu 7.10 onto my tablet PC and the stylus would not work correctly. I had to go online, swim and wade through tons of forums to look for possible answers, then finally found a solution that worked, involving adding lines of code to a file that of course, you would have to have existing knowledge of SUDO (or access to root) to edit. It really wasn't a hard thing to do, but for any other Joe Schmoe out there that has NO clue what to do in the first place (and of course, he'll most likely be computer-illiterate or maybe not comfortable), it would make for a rather frustrating experience.

This is actually a fault with the manufacturer of the tablet. They make the stylus/touchscreen system appear as a USB mouse (usually) and write special drivers, run on Windows, to interpret this mouse. Of course, with Ubuntu, it appears as a mouse and it treats it as such. As there are no specialist drivers already installed, and manufacturers refuse to release them, there is not a lot anyone can do. This is why I picked an HP printer - open source, fully supported, Linux drivers!

[rayzoredge 2]

Just to let you know, I have just installed Ubuntu 7.10 on my HP Pavilion zd8000, which I have been reluctant to do BECAUSE of what I noted earlier about unsupported devices/hardware.And frankly, this is very frustrating.As I was saying before, Linux isn't always user-friendly... or should I say, hardware-friendly. Case-in-point: on install, propriatory drivers for my ATI Radeon Mobility X600 video card, my modem card, and my network card do not work. I could care less about the modem and I really shoudn't worry about my video card, but the only reason why I have Internet is because I am using my Ethernet cord coming from the living room (where my router is to give the entire house wireless access) that was meant for my Xbox 360 to connect this computer to the world, since Ubuntu 7.10 doesn't want to allow my network card's firmware to be installed. (It gives me an error stating that bcm44-fwcutter isn't installed.) On trying to install proprietary drivers for my video card, it states that some dependencies are broken, but when I go into Synaptics Package Manager to repair packages, it says that everything's fine and dandy.Ironically enough, the modem driver was the only driver that I could install flawlessly... the one device of the three that I could live without.I'm also using a Logitech MX3200 Laser Wireless Keyboard and Mouse combo. Of course, I'm having problems with it. Off the bat, the keyboard works, but the mouse is unresponsive. Upon removing the USB receiver and then putting it back in, the keyboard now fails to work but the mouse works... to the extent that it doesn't respond to any input every few seconds for a second. (Slightly annoying.) After Googling for a possible solution, I've edited the crap out of xconf.org and I'm surprised that I can still boot into Ubuntu with no problems. Of course, no progress: it's either or with the keyboard and mouse.I'm in the process of downloading a 203MB upgrade at the moment, so hopefully this fixes things. If not, this post/experience is an argument against being user-friendly (as in the convenience of having things "just work").

[osknockout 0]

Yay Ubuntu crowd.

 

As I was saying before, Linux isn't always user-friendly... or should I say, hardware-friendly. Case-in-point: on install, propriatory drivers

STOP.

There's a saying somewhere on the interblag that the linux is user-friendly, just not idiot-friendly. And it's a very good saying.

 

Linux IS hardware friendly. Really. The stuff it is stable with works beautifully. It just isn't proprietary friendly.

It's a variant of the user-friendly rule, with those who develop proprietary drivers on an open system being idiots.

 

Frankly, I'm not happy with the way GPU-video card systems are right now. I can't even access the thing directly. ATI's finally getting open source~ish stuffs around but it's going to take a while. Nouveau (nvidia reverse-engineering) is still in 2D-land. It'll take a while to get out of this.

 

But to get back to the spirit of this topic, if Linux fails in anyway as a desktop system, it's because hardware vendors epic fail their way into oblivion. While OSes like Windows and Macintosh had deals with video card manufacturers for many years Linux started with nothing but a black-and-white screen. History matters. A lot. The console is still the most flexible configuration system on Linux for a good reason - it's really fast and simple. Desktop development has always been seen as a nod towards 'we need more of the pretty' by people like me - and there are a lot of us. If the darn drivers had been open from the start, our graphics developers wouldn't have to waste time trying to figure out how to reverse engineer/hack together/alter opcodes for similar architectures just to get pixels looking right. It's going to take time, but eventually we'll get the open drivers we need, some way or another. This might be 4 or 5 years from now. But I'm sure by then, people will go around on the internet and laugh when they see what we were discussing, because frankly on openness, Linux wins. By a lot. It'll have really amazing desktops by the end of it all.