StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do you think Desktop Linux will ever come up a big player in the desktop arena or not? If you can please explain.

If someone can make it user friendly enough, sure. It's free or cheap (depending who you get it from), way stabler than windows, etc. Except its difficult to install programs (average user cannot use terminal) or configure stuff. If someone can make "wizards" that do everything like in Windows, and make it more user friendly, sure.

Until then, Mac OS X is the closest thing (FreeBSD kernel + user friendly interface and Apple tech).

Tech^salvager wrote:Do you think Desktop Linux will ever come up a big player in the desktop arena or not? If you can please explain.

Desktop linux from a functional view is ready to be a big player, and in the reletive sense, it is, as the 2nd or 3rd place competitor out of what? 4-5 OS's?

Its main problem is UI, which is uninitiutive to a windows user transfering, and user friendlyness, as Praxis said, the average user can't figure out how to install stuff, far less configure anything.

For example, there is tons of information how to do reletivly useless shit, like sub configuring files and UI settings, but precious few guides to actully setting up a functioning internet capable linux installation.

The whole KDE and GNOME thing is also annoying. Two competing UIs does not a good desktop experiencem make.

It can win on the desktop and great strides are being made but it still doesn't have the polish of Windows or OS X.

phongn wrote:The whole KDE and GNOME thing is also annoying. Two competing UIs does not a good desktop experiencem make.

It can win on the desktop and great strides are being made but it still doesn't have the polish of Windows or OS X.

I beg to differ on the polish aspect. Have you ever tried a corporate distro like suse?

Well my POV is there is too many software choices that usually comes with a distro. They need a better way of install software. other stuff to. But in all odds I don't see Linux getting alot of the desktop market. MO

I've used SuSE and Fedora.

I see at the rate things are going, Linux making a dent into the desktop market at the very least. However there are a few things that must be done, mostly a decent installer. While the make/make install/install works great for the techie, to a person who needs to be told to press the send button to send an email repeatedly, that doesn't make sense. Also, programs for linux should work on ANY linux distro. Often I find that a program will work flawlessly on Fedora, but on Mandrake will not run without hours of hard menial labor. The latter is being worked upon but the first, I'm not sure.

And a large helping of /software/ outside of office/server apps. I'm a Windows user out of need, becuase I don't want to have to fuck with emulators to play my precious games, not because I'd rather use it over Linux. I go where my software goes, and until and unless a decent portion of the software is Linux-only or cross-platform, I ain't switching. MAYBE dual-booting, but that's a huge hassle, and I'd end up just using Windows because that's where my games are. Annoying. I /might/ set up my net box as Linux to toy around, but until I get that working to my satisfaction, I'm without a net gateway for the gaming rig, which is Bad.

oh yeah most people are used to windows directory structure. So they would have to relearn that. Even I like it over Linuxes one. Then there's the open source problem you have.

Tech^salvager wrote:oh yeah most people are used to windows directory structure. So they would have to relearn that. Even I like it over Linuxes one. Then there's the open source problem you have.

Eh, open source is a benefit, not a problem. Also I like Linux's directory structure better than Windows'. It takes longer to understand, but once you do it's benefits are more clear.



But yeah, where the programs and ease-of-use are, I'll tend to go to. Still use Windows mainly.

Shinova wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:oh yeah most people are used to windows directory structure. So they would have to relearn that. Even I like it over Linuxes one. Then there's the open source problem you have.

Eh, open source is a benefit, not a problem. Also I like Linux's directory structure better than Windows'. It takes longer to understand, but once you do it's benefits are more clear.



But yeah, where the programs and ease-of-use are, I'll tend to go to. Still use Windows mainly.

That's why I'm slowly switching to Mac OS X (first the laptops, next the desktops).

Windows has the ease of use and programs, Linux has open source + stability. OS X has both. The only problem is that the lower-middle end Mac desktops (iMac somewhat and eMac seriously) are overpriced.

Open Source is a great thing, but the problem is that the major companies don't support it (though Apple does, yay). No Adobe, Macromedia, 3ds Max, or any other major products for Linux, for example. There are open source alternatives, but for these high end programs it is hard to find equivilants, especially ones that have the same interface and don't require huge adjustment periods (can't stand The Gimp for example, after using Photoshop for so long). The other problem is, for example, KDE vs Gnome...or how often, you might not have all the required dependencies to install a program. This is why I like OS X. It has all the open source goodness of Linux (core is FreeBSD and Darwin, it's all UNIX-based, and has X11, and you can even install KDE...), but the support of major companies (Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, even Microsuck makes MS Office and Messenger!).

I'm just waiting for an OS X native version of OpenOffice for Mac. The current one needs to be run in X11 (gah!) and looks out of place.

For reference: My PC desktop is dual booted Mandrake Linux 10 and Windows XP- I primarily use Windows for the exact same reasons as White Haven, but Linux is useful for maintenence if Windows ever gets screwed up or for some testing. My laptop is an Apple PowerBook G4, 12", running OS X Panther.

I'd actually rather have stuff like 3D and other such graphics programs be the way they are since that way they have the income to take their programs to the lengths of quality and capability they've been taken. Yeah, an open source program could potentially reach the same potential, but less likely, imo.


There's competition in the market for these programs so we don't have to worry too much about one company monopolizing like we do with Windows and the OS market.

Shinova wrote:Eh, open source is a benefit, not a problem. Also I like Linux's directory structure better than Windows'. It takes longer to understand, but once you do it's benefits are more clear.

Its both a problem and benefit.
And what exactly are the benefits of a *nix directory structure

Tech^salvager wrote: Its both a problem and benefit.
And what exactly are the benefits of a *nix directory structure

The most obvious one is the lack of drive letters. Drive letters limit the number of devices to theoretically 26. There are workarounds, sort of, in Windows but my philosophy (and probably a lot of people's) is that you shouldn't be forced to make that workaround in the first place.

Since Linux uses drive names, not letters, a Linux system can have potentially as many drives or devices as it wants (examples: /mnt/windows, or /mnt/floppy, or mnt/some_miscellaneous_harddrive_name, etc). Of course, this'll be more prevalent in something like a server.

Second, you can partition off different Linux directories. Have / as one partition, but have the /usr directory of that / be its own partition. /home is also usually its own partition. Other subdirectories of / can be put into its own separate partitions.

Another one I can recall is that it's easier to type "/" than ""



There's probably more, but I'm not a Linux guru.


EDIT: Another benefit of Linux overall is that it uses a page partition, not a page file. Inherently more stable virtual memory, as a result.

The lack of drive names is a limit by windows not by the directory structure I believe.

Tech^salvager wrote:The lack of drive names is a limit by windows not by the directory structure I believe.

I guess you never used DOS. It also labelled drives A, B, C, D, etc, etc.

Windows >= 2K does not require you mount a partition as a drive letter. You may mount it as a directory or directly access it using some UNIX-esque path. Drive letters exist for legacy reasons.

Praxis wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:The lack of drive names is a limit by windows not by the directory structure I believe.

I guess you never used DOS. It also labelled drives A, B, C, D, etc, etc.

I have but the was a reaon for using drive letters in those days. Now these days there can be no limit it just depends on how the directory strucure is coded

Alot of the percieved problem comes from the two most promenient methods of installing software. RPM and Build From Source. Both rely on manual dependancy management and as such can be daunting. If Apt-Get and other systems that manage dependancies for you would gain promenance then people would find using linux to be alot easier...

darthdavid wrote:Alot of the percieved problem comes from the two most promenient methods of installing software. RPM and Build From Source. Both rely on manual dependancy management and as such can be daunting. If Apt-Get and other systems that manage dependancies for you would gain promenance then people would find using linux to be alot easier...

apt-get may be powerful but who wants to type that to install something all the time? Instead clicky clicky on the mouse to install.

Tech^salvager wrote:

darthdavid wrote:Alot of the percieved problem comes from the two most promenient methods of installing software. RPM and Build From Source. Both rely on manual dependancy management and as such can be daunting. If Apt-Get and other systems that manage dependancies for you would gain promenance then people would find using linux to be alot easier...

apt-get may be powerful but who wants to type that to install something all the time? Instead clicky clicky on the mouse to install.

Look, just use a good distribution. I know that Fedora has a GUI for this, as well as a command line utility (yum, similar to apt-get). Hell, even Gentoo, not famed for its user-friendliness, has automatic dependency management.

And a simple GUI would be easy to write. I could make one in a few hours, so I'm guessing that it's been done already many times.

Thats a another thing about linux its dependency hell. Btw my fav linux distro is SuSe

Tech^salvager wrote:

darthdavid wrote:Alot of the percieved problem comes from the two most promenient methods of installing software. RPM and Build From Source. Both rely on manual dependancy management and as such can be daunting. If Apt-Get and other systems that manage dependancies for you would gain promenance then people would find using linux to be alot easier...

apt-get may be powerful but who wants to type that to install something all the time? Instead clicky clicky on the mouse to install.

Have you ever seen aptitude? Not exactly a GUI but might as well be...

darthdavid wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:

darthdavid wrote:Alot of the percieved problem comes from the two most promenient methods of installing software. RPM and Build From Source. Both rely on manual dependancy management and as such can be daunting. If Apt-Get and other systems that manage dependancies for you would gain promenance then people would find using linux to be alot easier...

apt-get may be powerful but who wants to type that to install something all the time? Instead clicky clicky on the mouse to install.

Have you ever seen aptitude? Not exactly a GUI but might as well be...

Nope, but I will check it out. Now if you still have to install it via apt-get then its still not the cliky cliky. Sorry apt-get to me is like going back to the old days of dos