Can Linux go mainstream?
Tuesday, January 13, 2004 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Linux will never make it mainstream on the desktop unless Microsoft does something incredibly stupid.
I fought in the trenches of the OS Wars back in the 1990s. During the height of the Microsoft-IBM battle for the desktop with Windows 3.1 vs. OS/2, myself and Dave Barnes from IBM went on the road together demoing OS/2 and OS/2 + Object Desktop to HP, Gateway, Dell, Compaq, and the rest in an effort to get OS/2 pre-loaded.
At the time, OS/2 was remarkably better. There was no debate about that. Windows 3.1 was a 16bit shell on DOS that could barely multitask, crashed constantly and had a primitive shell. By contrast, OS/2 2.1 was a full 32 bit OS with preemptive multitasking, multithreading, an object oriented shell that could even run DOS, Windows as well as OS/2 programs. OS/2 was a far better choice.
And OS/2 still lost. Linux advocates are stuck on the edges nit-picking some piddly issue here and there about Windows. It is very unlikely that ever again an OS will have such a clear and easy to see set of advantages like the kinds OS/2 had over Windows. And if OS/2, backed by IBM, couldn't defeat Microsoft, who in 1994/1995 was much less powerful than they are today, I just don't see what chance Linux has even if they do get their act together.
Which brings up the next issue, Linux advocates. Unlike Mac users who have a good reason to brag about MacOS X (particularly 10.3), Linux, as a desktop OS, is inferior. Its best argument for it is that it's "free". But when you can get a Dell PC with Windows XP on it for $399 (including monitor), such arguments seem kind of weak. Linux, as a desktop, feels taped together. It has so many rough edges. And it delivers no significant benefit over Windows for those rough edges.
That was ultimately what doomed OS/2 - by 1997 when Windows NT 4.0 was available and mature OS/2 wasn't delivering anything significant over Windows NT in exchange for the host of minor annoynces OS/2 had. That new piece of hardware that either didn't work under OS/2 or required some weird tweaking. That program you wanted to try out that just didn't quite work under emulation in OS/2 for some reason. That web page that didn't display quite how it was supposed to because it was using ActiveX or some new version of Shockwave or whatever got old too.
OSes can get away with such announces if they provide something blatantly concrete in return. I just don't see what Linux delivers in exchange for the pains it requires of its users. Linux advocates on the net tend to fall into the old "OS/2 hard luck syndrome" (as we used to call it). Where for whatever reason, every possible problem one could have with Windows seemed to happen to Linux (or OS/2) advocates such as system crashing, lost data, fires, you name it. Such arguments are never compelling to normal users who found Windows ME (ack) "good enough" and Windows XP to be a panacea of stability. The same is true of arguments that boil down to "I don't need that feature." which regularly comes up when discussing software that isn't available or features missing in a "equivlanet" piece of software.
For these reasons, I think Linux will always be a hobbiest OS on the desktop and a good server OS for those either on a budget or who need to a very custom solution.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:20 PM
Linux is for people who want to control their pc."
What the heck does that mean?
Reply #3 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:44 PM
I like being able to change something if i dont like it. Don' you?
And now with XP SP2, reportedly having nag screens every few mins telling you to reboot...fuck that, I'll stick with Gentoo and XP SP1 for gaming
Reply #4 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:59 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:07 PM
I respect you guys coz you've done a brilliant job making windows better to use - but if you hadn't made things like WB/IP etc then Windows wud be the boring os it is. All the programs stardock does changes the appreance of windows, not the OS itself.
Don't know about you but i like being able to put things like \Program Files onto another HD instead of my main HD. To mount things using text instead of using silly menus.
It's all about choice. I'm not a fan of big clunky icons that hog up valuable space!
Reply #6 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:40 PM
Sorry but you are just plain wrong about chagning the way the OS works.
Try DesktopX for instance, we can customize pretty deeply into the OS.
But it's not just that, Windows, in general, is quite customzieable. It's pretty arrogant for someone to argue that people who choose Windows want their OS to control them. It's more than a bit arrogant to say that on an actual customization site full of people who know better.
The Linux dribble about Windows users beeing a bunch of "n00bs" might work fine on Usenet but you're on a site full of users who are expert level. I don't like Linux because I find it to be inferior as a desktop OS. And I base my opinion on having a decades of experience with computer operating systems of various kinds.
Linux advocates don't help their case when they patronize others for their choices. Particularly when their patronizing is so patently unwarranted.
Reply #7 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:26 PM
But i don't think your "decades" of experience with OS's is proven out from your brief and rather shallow opinion of linux, which you are more than free to throw around. I run both linux and microsoft products, in business and for home use, and find that they both have their positives and negatives. I do find it rather curious though that "skinners, modders, geeks or whatever term we like to use for ourselves for the day", don't look at linux with more than a raised eyebrow because it is so customizable. You can make it look and feel however you want and not have to pay more duckets for products to do it for it. TRY IT, YOU MIGHT LIKE IT. If not, no big, it's all about choices.
Reply #8 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:37 PM
Listen to yourself. You are Comparing the Abilities of Operating Systems on one hand and the lack of abilities of the other.To change
an icon or to change the Theme is NOT Changing the fact that you still
have to use windows the way Gates says you have to.
Have you tried to use software such as StarOffice, Lotus Suites, Heck
even the supposed shared Tech of the QuickTime JUNK. Windows does Less and Less Each Version.Have you Seen the LONGHORN yet? Talk about chicken $#!%.
Force me to use and or keep IE, Windows Media Player, WordPad,NotePad. Can you take these out without causing a major Crash?
NOT!!!
You Can Make Windows Pretty and even a little fun But you cannot Change The Kernel without MAJOR REPERCUTIONS!!! I Love the Stuff on this site. I Use XP Pro. BUTTTTT I still think that it sucks because I
can't Share programs that my Linux, unix, OS/X friends use and vise-Versa.
We ALL Should be fighting to Make All OS's Compatible, Not Just At the Software end But also the Hardware end.
At Least the Other OS's Are trying to get along, and GATES Don't want
to Play. Just Thought you should see what you sound Like.
Have a good one
Reply #9 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:37 PM
Reply #10 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:47 PM
Star - what actual usages of linux would you use? Let's be real, most linux distributions work hard at being a pale immitation of Windows which in itself as a pale immitation of OS/2 and Mac.
If you think that the programs here can only dress up Windows then I feel sorry for you for not having spent any real time seeing just how fundamentally you can alter the actual way the OS works.
Talking about compiling your kernel (and please let us know what "feature" you would add to the kernel while you were compiling it) that Linux users would add.
The typical Linux user I've dealt with is a classic wannabe. They think they're experts on software and computers but in actuality they're just arrogant newbies who choose Linux because they think it makes them "l33t".
Obviously you can potentially customize linux more so than windows because you have the source code. But as a practical matter, I've yet to see a single Linux uesr who has done anything near the kind of customization that Object Desktop users regularly are able to do themselves to Windows.
I don't use Object Desktop to make Windows look pretty. I was an OS/2 user, I don't realy care that much about look. I care about being able to make the computer work the way I want it to. I realize that Linux can potentially do this too since it's so open. But every kind of real world functional customization I might want to do I can do easier with Windows.
I'm still waiting for a Linux "advocate" to post a specific type of customization that they use that anyone outside a miniscule minority of computer users would be interested in.
After all, it's not Windows users running around making assanine claims like "Windows controls the user." I'd like to see, just once, a Linux user put up or shut up on their claims about Linux. Frankly, I'm getting rather sick of some wet behind the ears college "n00b" trying to claim that the rest of us who have already spent serious time evaluating Linux at various stages in its development and found it wanting are dumb or afraid of trying anything other than Windows.
I put my money where my mouth was. I spent millions of dollars making OS/2 software. I've done the laternative OS bit. I'm not using Windows because I'm some sort of lemming. I use Windows because there isn't a viable PC alternative. Hell, Linux is only now getting universal clipboard and they still have nothing like OLE or COM built in that is system wide.
As a server, linux is nice. But as a desktop OS, Linux is a fine 1996 level OS.
Reply #11 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:59 PM
Shallow has nothing to do with your opinion. That you can freely have and share. I used the term in reference to what i viewed as your understanding of linux. Star Rider makes valid point, rather loudly
, of the separation of OS and application which linux does provide and windows can't. Windows survives for one reason, businesses are chained to the Microsoft Office cow, namely Outlook. Office pays and slaves their Bills (pun there, lol), not the OS. I have sat in corp. meetings when the discussion of moving off Windows comes up and it chokes on Office and Outlook because our users can't live without it. (mainly Outlook.) No OS can survive without application support, not mom and pop wizware, but business apps. Linux has made and will continue to make strides in that arena. Just go to sourceforge.net and see some of the cool stuff there. My world is about choices as is yours. Peace
Reply #12 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:16 AM
I've not met a casual linux user. They tend to be the types that love to tweak every single aspect of their environment, and Linux is absolutely the perfect thing for that. Unfortunately, it tends to require that you tweak every single aspect of your environment. Even with a nice RedHat install, I still found so many of the included programs in the developers version to be completely non-interactive with each other. Audio server? Tweaking mini-apps to simply get objects inserted into an imitation Word file? Sure, it comes bundled with a tremendous amount of stuff, but I couldn't get half of it to work without investing hours and hours. Lost productivity.
Recompiling your kernel? For Linux, it's a regular occurrence to incorporate new features. It's also an absolute pain for the regular user to accomplish.
I started Linux with every intention of completely converting, but got just plain frustrated. Much to my chagrin, I was forced to admit Windows was truly a much easier to manage, quickly navigated, and productive environment for myself (definitely not for all).
Of course, I'm not a programmer-user (which I completely believe Linuxers to be). I'm just someone trying to get work done, and found Linux not capable of living up to the goods.
Outlook and Office aren't bad, and I think retraining the business world on a new platform is outright infeasible.
Linux has its place, and I admire those that can use it, but every time I touch it, I can't escape the feeling that it's missing things. I'm glad they continue to develop it, and I genuinely hope it continues to compete. Just makes everybody strive for the best!
Reply #13 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:40 AM
Keep you pants on
The Answer is None, All. Again you reffer toCustom Dressing. Will any of the software at this site remove IE, or the media Player?
Can I Decide what Programs I want to be proprietary, Say NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR? Now I'm not Talkink about making it My Default I'm Talking About ONLY!
Can any of this stuff make windows use a linux Program, or Unix?
As far as ONLY ALTERNATIVE DESKTOP... NOT!!!
AS far as Choice you may be closer to speaking truth. When Gates Stole the OS years ago it was the best thing that ever happend in the Programming world for it did motivate a grip of people to create a choice, and unlike GATES they don't keep thier software(APPS) secret
or in-accessible.
Also they don't go around and theaten people that they will find a way to shut them down if they use any other systems than thiers.
Yeah, the deal went down in the 3.1 ERA. Isn't that when you became
a slave to Almighty MS?
If you worked so hard for so long what happend? Oh Yeah you forgot that a Real OS would Allow you to put anything into it and it would
work, BUTTT again if it ain't MS Chances are you will spend at least
30mins of adjusting this adjusting that. I still to this day cannot
easily FORCE IE to keep the Start(Home)Page I choose, yet all the pop-up, pop-under, dialer(That's another piece of junk) they get to infect, infilltrate, and take over MY IE
Personaly, I am Writting an OS of my own and it will be Better And it Will Be Free And it will accept any sofware YOU CHOOSE, and ANY(most)Hardware.
Why Don't you take all your Knowledge and do Something worthwile or
Do you expect your OS to Figure it out for you? Oh Yeah GATES SAID NOT!!!
I have been Programming since '76 and I can asure you that without all the lies and deceptions GATES Would still be at 3.2
So, You Still think that Windows is so great just think......If Your using Post Win98 You are Using Pirated Programming from APPLE
can you say OS/7, 8, 9, 10?
Reply #14 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:17 AM
~just had to put my two-cents worth in
Reply #15 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:12 AM
It is all C in the end. I just think that with all the rhetorical garbage All this would lead to some REAL-USER interfaces so we all get the best that ALL Worlds can give to each other.You can call your Kernal KFC for all I care, CODE is CODE is CODE!
DARWIN,UNIX,LINUX,BSD, it all starts with C. Without C you CANNOT Have any of the others.Without you you don't have C+, C++, OLE, MFC, C#, .Net etc,etc,etc.
I would like to see someone here Make the Interface to allow OS's to
share the APPS and we would all be better off.....Ya Think?
I do Agree that All OS's Have thier good/bad points. With this(winXP)
I wish I could disable and/or remove Component/APPS of MY CHOOSING!
Hell does anyone remember Norton Command?
I guess we just HAVE to USE Windows LongHorn and get even more virus's and spam and pop-ups, pop-downs, pop-unders, and even more people using my computer than me and my 3 kids everytime it goes online. I guess I'll just make it look pretty and load it as the most expensive game console on the block.
Not!!! Got the MAC in the BACK
Reply #16 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:47 AM
It comes already installed on the machines that they use, and it does what they want it to do. Even the skinning and enhancement community for Windows (which is substantial, just going by the userbase for WC) is still a very minute fraction of the total number of users. Most computer users are not at all like those of us who frequent a customization site (for any platform). Their perception of a computer is pretty much as if it were a toaster that gets email and lets them browse the web.
There is some good chance for Linux to make inroads in the business environment, however. While Office will be difficult to supplant, there are significant cost savings to a business for using Linux (mostly in terms of licensing). Since most business shops have an IS dept that handles PC setup and uniformity, there's no real difference in the overall user experience. The main difference is that since most people who use computers at home use Windows, and that familiarity translates to the working environment, workers will be *initially* more productive on a Windows environment at work, but it's not that hard to train them if the benefits are there. And one very strong point in favor of Linux in a business environment is that you aren't tied to a single vendor for something that is or might be business critical. That doesn't make Windows a bad choice, but it does limit your options if you find yourself in a situation where that single vendor becomes an issue.
I also would not necessarily rule out the possibility of Microsoft doing something stupid to lose their hold. It's highly unlikely (especially in the short term), but not impossible.
For the most part, I like what I hear about Longhorn, in terms of user features and some of the underlying improvements, but I'm not sanguine about the potential for invasive levels of Digital Restrictions Management (especially any that are defined by *one* single source, whoever that source may be).
Reply #17 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:23 AM
I tried this fall to switch to Linux--I really did, in earnest. I'd already been running OpenOffice and Mozilla, so there wasn't even a learning curve for me there. I tried several distros--Red Hat, Mandrake, Xandros, Lycoris--nothing did it. I've spent considerable time in Linux land. And it was great fun when I had no family or personal responsibilities--and oodles of time to configure my system. But right now, like most people, I just want something that works well, and without having to spend hours upon hours just setting things up. And Win2K and up does that for me. I've been a Windows user since 3.0, and I cut my teeth on DOS long before that. I'm well aware of Windows' shortcomings...and some of the poor decisions the folks in Redmond make. But for me, Windows works. And the nice thing about OD is that it allows me to change the things about Windows I don't like--the launching system, the fact that I can't get "Search" on my start menu to point to Agent Ransack--little annoyances like that.
If you've cut your teeth on Linux and can get it to go and be productive for you without jumping through hurdles, good for you. Keep at it. Same with MacOS. Me, I've been raised up in the DOS/Windows world and was hacking at my OS long before it was popular to do so. Give me 2 hours, and I can get a Windows OS up and productive--not 100% tweaked, but I can get some work done. That didn't quite happen on Linux for me...AMOF, I never did get productive. But I had fun playing! And if I had more time, I'd probably get it, too.
But I have a wife and 3 kids. And a job. Among other things. My PCs just need to work.
Windows does that fairly well, OOTB.
My 2-cents,
.:elem
Reply #18 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:35 AM
) would stop him. And he is NOT saying that Linux is a BAD operating system. He's saying it's not matured yet. A big difference.I like Linux. I like Windows also. There are things that Windows could (and should) do better. No one has EVER denied that. But I think that Linux has it's pros and cons as well. You can't compare the two side-by-side. Windows has had billions and billions of dollars invested into it's development, from the most talented and "big-time" programmers that money and time can get. Linux has had a hardcore following of ...I dunno...ten, twenty, thirty thousand people working on it either in their spare time or on a small-to-medium corporate setting. (Of course, there are many more users of linux than that, but stay with me...). The point is that windows has had MUCH more development thrown at it. Linux is FINE for what it is --- free, and open to anyone who wants to learn something and contribute to the whole. But it's not ready to take windows on head-to-head. Not in the terms that are being discussed.
COULD Linux ever be ready? I think it COULD be, in ten years (assuming that Windows remains more or less the same -- which it WON'T given that Longhorn is going to blow the doors off of EVERYTHING anyone ever knew or thought about Windows). Linux in ten years MIGHT just be getting to the level WinXP is now. But in the end, Linux will fall by the wayside as a standardized desktop OS. I'm sorry, everyone, but that's the way it WILL be. And I hate saying that, because personally, I think Linux is nice. But it's not Windows XP, and it's definetely NOT Longhorn or OS-10. So I side with Frogboy on this one.
Reply #19 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:16 AM
It's all a matter of opinion..
~What purpose are you using your O/S for~
UNIX is virus free and far superior in the security realm.. makes for a great firewall or server..(currently.. whose to say Microsoft won't fix their security issues)
Windows has some great features and is getting more powerful by the build.. (as long as they keep the registry editable
) as well as being productivity friendly.. Linux bridges the gap between RISC and intel based architectures.. running UNIX on a standard PC.. that's what's appealing to most Linux users I believe.. at least it is for me.
Everyone here has brought some great points up.. and I think the flavor of this whole topic is that Linux certainly has potential to become mainstream... but for the average user... it's going to be a long while before that happens...
Reply #20 Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:27 AM
well, there are plenty of them as window skinning, icon themes, fully custom desktops etc. for which a Windows user has to use third party software. that´s what you´re doing with your company, don´t you
here´s just two exclusive things that i think many users here could be interested:
caption button order and placement is a user dependent setting in Metacity. one could argue that you could use Skinstudio for this, but i doubt there is anybody willing to do this for every single skin.
Gnome can use SVG (vector) icons that look good at just any size. it could do this long before MS was talking about what they are planning for Longhorn. no matter wether users will be interested in that they´ll have to use it, if they choose to use Longhorn when it comes out in three years or so.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:10 PM
Granted, windows is at first ALOT easier to use and has better software, but thats only because Microsoft Force it!
Windows is for people who want to be controlled by their pc.
Linux is for people who want to control their pc.
Somethings never change.