Daily News: Why Linux will succeed on the Desktop..
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Yes apple MACs are stable and virus free as well.
Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture) http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
I think the biggest obstacle for any "Free" software for the masses is support. Anyone that opts for free software probably will not want to pay for support...and can we really count on volunteer support??? and lets face it, even the people contributing to open source / free projects have to make a living somehow...so if they aren't paid for programing where would they get the $$$ to put food on the table and a roof over their head? Steve
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
First, we all know about OEMs not shipping alternative OSs due to Microsoft's predatory business practices. It's been proven and only recently fought (and reluctantly so) by said OEMs. Now, let's get down to the real reasons Linux hasn't been able to gain much ground on the desktop. (By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.) Installation and Configuration - Sure, Linux has become much easier to install than it used to be. I would say it's as easy as installing XP, and almost as easy as installing Vista. However, to make Linux usable (by Windows user standards), it requires a desire on the part of the user to hunt down drivers, fonts, codecs, and the list goes on. Add to this the occasional use of the commandline, and today's Windows users cerebral activity simply shuts down in defiance. Applications - Granted, most computer users would be happy with a web browser and email. Gadget junkies would insist on something like iTunes so they can do whatever iTunes users do, and some of the distros actually install a couple of these apps. Those that don't install them immediately have them available through package managers, but the user has to know what he's looking forinorder to download/install them. For people that actually do work on their systems, there is an office-like suite of apps usually installed, but the level of compatibility changes every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office. Games - Let's face it. The games available for Linux either suck, or require the user to install crap proprietary video card drivers that may or may not hose their system, at which point they'll wish they'd installed Windows instead. What Linux needs is a common package manager that provides a simple way to gather all the stuff together to make Linux look as good as Windows without once ever having to step onto the command line. Another problem with Linux is their zealots who claim they don't want to bring Windows users into the Linux fold. These guys would rather ridicule Windows and its users than make Linux easier for Windows users to migrate to. They have a strongly developed sense of self-importance and elitism that blinds them to the fact that their little hobby OS needs users if they want it to grow, and they need a standard install and package manager to make it easier on joe-six-pack to use. THAT is why Linux hasn't gained any ground.
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it.
Do they? Does the average person care what OS their computer runs, over which applications their computer runs. Give somebody with little computer experience a tidy Linux setup with Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office (which is all the vast majority of average computer users would want) and they'd be perfectly happy. If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows, I'm sure all the blonde gossip magazine buying punters would be asking for it too, even though they had no idea of what it means.
-- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it.
Do they? Does the average person care what OS their computer runs, over which applications their computer runs. Give somebody with little computer experience a tidy Linux setup with Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office (which is all the vast majority of average computer users would want) and they'd be perfectly happy. If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows, I'm sure all the blonde gossip magazine buying punters would be asking for it too, even though they had no idea of what it means.
-- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
benjymous wrote:
If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows
Actually, all "celebs" I've seen using a computer, were using a Mac. Not sure why, but probably because it's "cool".
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
First, we all know about OEMs not shipping alternative OSs due to Microsoft's predatory business practices. It's been proven and only recently fought (and reluctantly so) by said OEMs. Now, let's get down to the real reasons Linux hasn't been able to gain much ground on the desktop. (By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.) Installation and Configuration - Sure, Linux has become much easier to install than it used to be. I would say it's as easy as installing XP, and almost as easy as installing Vista. However, to make Linux usable (by Windows user standards), it requires a desire on the part of the user to hunt down drivers, fonts, codecs, and the list goes on. Add to this the occasional use of the commandline, and today's Windows users cerebral activity simply shuts down in defiance. Applications - Granted, most computer users would be happy with a web browser and email. Gadget junkies would insist on something like iTunes so they can do whatever iTunes users do, and some of the distros actually install a couple of these apps. Those that don't install them immediately have them available through package managers, but the user has to know what he's looking forinorder to download/install them. For people that actually do work on their systems, there is an office-like suite of apps usually installed, but the level of compatibility changes every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office. Games - Let's face it. The games available for Linux either suck, or require the user to install crap proprietary video card drivers that may or may not hose their system, at which point they'll wish they'd installed Windows instead. What Linux needs is a common package manager that provides a simple way to gather all the stuff together to make Linux look as good as Windows without once ever having to step onto the command line. Another problem with Linux is their zealots who claim they don't want to bring Windows users into the Linux fold. These guys would rather ridicule Windows and its users than make Linux easier for Windows users to migrate to. They have a strongly developed sense of self-importance and elitism that blinds them to the fact that their little hobby OS needs users if they want it to grow, and they need a standard install and package manager to make it easier on joe-six-pack to use. THAT is why Linux hasn't gained any ground.
Yes I agree totally. I've used more Unix flavours than I can remember and Linux is just that Unix and not a particularly good one at that. Before anyone starts I'm a trained SunOS admin and trained AIX admin and used Linux in commerical enviroments running everything from firewalls to dbservers so I know what I'm talking about
Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture) http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Not because Microsoft Windows is too good or too ubiquitous or too well supported but because Linux is still just too damn technical to install, to use, to upgrade and to augment. When knowledge of the existence of something called "16 bit color" and what a "root" is and what you'd want a "console" for is no longer needed and phrases like "apt-get", "grep for it", "alien", "is it an RPM?", "Modular Kernel" etc, etc are no longer considered standard english by those distributing and support it Linux will succeed on the desktop where there is but one rule which *n?x heads just cannot get their enlarged brains around. "Users don't want to understand the software, they just want to get their work done!" Yes, we all know that the users are wrong and they'd be far more productive, happy, satified, useful and well rounded people if they did understand just a little bit about software but they don't care, they don't want to care and that isn't going to change. I recently installed Ubuntu 7 and it's a major improvement over the last Linux I got working, Mandrake 9, 4 years ago but in 4 years the gap between where it is and where it needs to be has barely halved. At this rate it will be at least another 5 years before Linux on every desktop is reasonable and by then MS Windows will have been completely rewritten and pretty much all the Linux advantages, other than price, may have evaporated.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it.
Do they? Does the average person care what OS their computer runs, over which applications their computer runs. Give somebody with little computer experience a tidy Linux setup with Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office (which is all the vast majority of average computer users would want) and they'd be perfectly happy. If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows, I'm sure all the blonde gossip magazine buying punters would be asking for it too, even though they had no idea of what it means.
-- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
benjymous wrote:
Give somebody with little computer experience a tidy Linux setup with Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office (which is all the vast majority of average computer users would want) and they'd be perfectly happy.
Yeah, until they went to the store and picked up that little software package and found that nothing worked. Face it, most people are too stupid to have a computer in the first place. But, they get them because someone else says they should or family wants to communicate via email. After a while they want to do all this other cool stuff like digital photos, movies, mp3, etc.. Linux is not the place to be for someone without computer knowledge, or even for many with knowledge ;)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
People seem to forget that it's an operating system, and that on its own Operating Systems don't do much. What people care about is the applications they can use on it. If you look at computer take up, you see that business use accounts for the vast majority of desktop computer usage and companies want applications they are familiar with and which serve a purpose that they need. To a large extent, this translates into Microsoft Office. There are alternatives, but for most companies they represent too much hassle to move into.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
benjymous wrote:
If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows
Actually, all "celebs" I've seen using a computer, were using a Mac. Not sure why, but probably because it's "cool".
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
Actually it's because they're too damn stupid to use a two-button mouse.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
First, we all know about OEMs not shipping alternative OSs due to Microsoft's predatory business practices. It's been proven and only recently fought (and reluctantly so) by said OEMs. Now, let's get down to the real reasons Linux hasn't been able to gain much ground on the desktop. (By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.) Installation and Configuration - Sure, Linux has become much easier to install than it used to be. I would say it's as easy as installing XP, and almost as easy as installing Vista. However, to make Linux usable (by Windows user standards), it requires a desire on the part of the user to hunt down drivers, fonts, codecs, and the list goes on. Add to this the occasional use of the commandline, and today's Windows users cerebral activity simply shuts down in defiance. Applications - Granted, most computer users would be happy with a web browser and email. Gadget junkies would insist on something like iTunes so they can do whatever iTunes users do, and some of the distros actually install a couple of these apps. Those that don't install them immediately have them available through package managers, but the user has to know what he's looking forinorder to download/install them. For people that actually do work on their systems, there is an office-like suite of apps usually installed, but the level of compatibility changes every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office. Games - Let's face it. The games available for Linux either suck, or require the user to install crap proprietary video card drivers that may or may not hose their system, at which point they'll wish they'd installed Windows instead. What Linux needs is a common package manager that provides a simple way to gather all the stuff together to make Linux look as good as Windows without once ever having to step onto the command line. Another problem with Linux is their zealots who claim they don't want to bring Windows users into the Linux fold. These guys would rather ridicule Windows and its users than make Linux easier for Windows users to migrate to. They have a strongly developed sense of self-importance and elitism that blinds them to the fact that their little hobby OS needs users if they want it to grow, and they need a standard install and package manager to make it easier on joe-six-pack to use. THAT is why Linux hasn't gained any ground.
Yeah, I agree. There are many factors along with new hardware. Often you pick up that cool digital camera or mp3 place and find it is not supported under Linux and probably will not until some geek decides he wants to use one and writes the driver. Even then, they driver would probably require a ton of documention to install properly and use :) Then, as far as I know, there is no "legal" way to play DVD movies on Linux due to decoding protections. There are players, but for a place that must run legally, I do not know of them. Of course, that goes with other types of DRM that many video on demand places are using locking Linux out yet again.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
(By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.)
Actually, I left off the first four years of Linux existance since it was first released in 1991. Back then though, it had far less of a problem competing with Windows as Windows nor Linux was that much of a system back then. Of course, back even in 1995, much of the Linux world mocked GUI interfaces and thought there will just a passing fad I guess. Their focus was not really on desktop/consumer market. It was more of a Geek OS..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Actually it's because they're too damn stupid to use a two-button mouse.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
Actually it's because they're too damn stupid to use a two-button mouse.
:laugh:
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
benjymous wrote:
If some big celeb stood up and said that they were using Linux instead of Windows
Actually, all "celebs" I've seen using a computer, were using a Mac. Not sure why, but probably because it's "cool".
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
Yeah, Apple is a different entity. The Apple marketing machine is first rate and can make anyone believe anything. Look, they had a computer that failed called the Mac. The kill the OS and brought in a type of Unix since they could not write one and built a pretty decent GUI. Apple fans run out and buy them acting as if nothing had every happened. Then they put out an overpriced MP3 play and the world beats a path to their door, even when there are better machines out there with more features, but it is the Apple marketing machine. Apple's marketing machine managed to get their products throughout Hollywood and most computers you ever see in movies or TV shows are Macs. They know that if light minded people see the product being used on TV, they will gain sales. In the early years, Apple had virtually all the educational market such as schools. Then they let he ball drop and others came in and took over. Apple knows the way to herd the masses...
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Linux won't succeed on the desktop for the same reason that Internet Explorer is still numero uno: ordinary people (who make up the vast majority of computer users) neither know nor care about any of this. What 'normal', for instance, is going to attempt to install Firefox when they already have a browser? Worse, who on earth is going to install Linux over Windows? Do you wnat your relatives/friends driving you nuts every time they run into trouble? It's bad enough now. For better or worse Windows is the de-facto standard for pcs: go ask a sample of non-techy friends if they have a clue about Linux or FireFox or setting up the PC or installing any software without a whole lot of hand-holding. Most people buy a pc and just switch it on and use it. Maybe if Apple wasn't so up their own arse it would have been different. But Linux? Not until it looks, feels and handles like Windows to a 'normal' user.
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Buy card. Install driver. Doesn't install. Gibber like a rabid baboon. Discover you have to rebuild the kernel so tyou can build the driver which needs to reference the kernel object modules. Figure out where to put the
.kofile. Finally use the card. :^)Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
First, we all know about OEMs not shipping alternative OSs due to Microsoft's predatory business practices. It's been proven and only recently fought (and reluctantly so) by said OEMs. Now, let's get down to the real reasons Linux hasn't been able to gain much ground on the desktop. (By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.) Installation and Configuration - Sure, Linux has become much easier to install than it used to be. I would say it's as easy as installing XP, and almost as easy as installing Vista. However, to make Linux usable (by Windows user standards), it requires a desire on the part of the user to hunt down drivers, fonts, codecs, and the list goes on. Add to this the occasional use of the commandline, and today's Windows users cerebral activity simply shuts down in defiance. Applications - Granted, most computer users would be happy with a web browser and email. Gadget junkies would insist on something like iTunes so they can do whatever iTunes users do, and some of the distros actually install a couple of these apps. Those that don't install them immediately have them available through package managers, but the user has to know what he's looking forinorder to download/install them. For people that actually do work on their systems, there is an office-like suite of apps usually installed, but the level of compatibility changes every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office. Games - Let's face it. The games available for Linux either suck, or require the user to install crap proprietary video card drivers that may or may not hose their system, at which point they'll wish they'd installed Windows instead. What Linux needs is a common package manager that provides a simple way to gather all the stuff together to make Linux look as good as Windows without once ever having to step onto the command line. Another problem with Linux is their zealots who claim they don't want to bring Windows users into the Linux fold. These guys would rather ridicule Windows and its users than make Linux easier for Windows users to migrate to. They have a strongly developed sense of self-importance and elitism that blinds them to the fact that their little hobby OS needs users if they want it to grow, and they need a standard install and package manager to make it easier on joe-six-pack to use. THAT is why Linux hasn't gained any ground.
-
That was in the CP Daily News on the 4th. The subject has the note: (I think i've this song for the last 10 years). When I read that, it made me think for a minute. Linux has tried to take over the Windows now for about 10 years (Red Hat started in 1995). Over that time there has been a push by some, even more so in the last five yeras to take over the desktop. It is amazing that a so called "Free" OS has not been able to make a dent in the Windows desktop. Yes, I know that many people receive thier OS with their computer, but it is on their computer in the first place because people want it. Too many people poo-poo Microsoft Windows, but it appears they still have no real competition..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Who wants Linux to succeed? I've written commercial software for a living since I had to build S100 crates and reconfigure CP/M for them. I thank Gates that all my potential clients have the same OS.
Dave Cross
-
First, we all know about OEMs not shipping alternative OSs due to Microsoft's predatory business practices. It's been proven and only recently fought (and reluctantly so) by said OEMs. Now, let's get down to the real reasons Linux hasn't been able to gain much ground on the desktop. (By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.) Installation and Configuration - Sure, Linux has become much easier to install than it used to be. I would say it's as easy as installing XP, and almost as easy as installing Vista. However, to make Linux usable (by Windows user standards), it requires a desire on the part of the user to hunt down drivers, fonts, codecs, and the list goes on. Add to this the occasional use of the commandline, and today's Windows users cerebral activity simply shuts down in defiance. Applications - Granted, most computer users would be happy with a web browser and email. Gadget junkies would insist on something like iTunes so they can do whatever iTunes users do, and some of the distros actually install a couple of these apps. Those that don't install them immediately have them available through package managers, but the user has to know what he's looking forinorder to download/install them. For people that actually do work on their systems, there is an office-like suite of apps usually installed, but the level of compatibility changes every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office. Games - Let's face it. The games available for Linux either suck, or require the user to install crap proprietary video card drivers that may or may not hose their system, at which point they'll wish they'd installed Windows instead. What Linux needs is a common package manager that provides a simple way to gather all the stuff together to make Linux look as good as Windows without once ever having to step onto the command line. Another problem with Linux is their zealots who claim they don't want to bring Windows users into the Linux fold. These guys would rather ridicule Windows and its users than make Linux easier for Windows users to migrate to. They have a strongly developed sense of self-importance and elitism that blinds them to the fact that their little hobby OS needs users if they want it to grow, and they need a standard install and package manager to make it easier on joe-six-pack to use. THAT is why Linux hasn't gained any ground.
So true. I've tried dozens of distros on vmware, vpc and lately on PS3. They are all a royal pain, due to the majority of their "supported apps" not being supported by the platform.:sigh:
"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..." "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
-
Yeah, I agree. There are many factors along with new hardware. Often you pick up that cool digital camera or mp3 place and find it is not supported under Linux and probably will not until some geek decides he wants to use one and writes the driver. Even then, they driver would probably require a ton of documention to install properly and use :) Then, as far as I know, there is no "legal" way to play DVD movies on Linux due to decoding protections. There are players, but for a place that must run legally, I do not know of them. Of course, that goes with other types of DRM that many video on demand places are using locking Linux out yet again.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
(By the way, you can't really count the first five years of Linux development as "trying to take over". It simply wasn't mature enough, and everyone knew it.)
Actually, I left off the first four years of Linux existance since it was first released in 1991. Back then though, it had far less of a problem competing with Windows as Windows nor Linux was that much of a system back then. Of course, back even in 1995, much of the Linux world mocked GUI interfaces and thought there will just a passing fad I guess. Their focus was not really on desktop/consumer market. It was more of a Geek OS..
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ - Disconnected-Attach, no change tracking fix.. Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
Rocky Moore wrote:
Then, as far as I know, there is no "legal" way to play DVD movies on Linux due to decoding protections. There are players, but for a place that must run legally, I do not know of them. Of course, that goes with other types of DRM that many video on demand places are using locking Linux out yet again.
IIRC at least one company is selling a legal DVD player for linux. But commercial software is anathema to linux users, and it's unlikely to have sold more than a dozen copies. :doh:
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
