Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Why Linux Is Still Not Ready For The Desktop"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    To the apple environment except expensive locked down hardware and availability of some proprietary software I dont see big differences between gnome and the ui of macosx. the current version of macosx is even more or less a gnome 3 ripoff.
    Apple computer are not locked down at all. You are free to install Windows or Linux on any intel based Mac (i.e. all of them since 2006). It is the Mac OSX operating system that is locked down, and will not install on non-Apple hardware. There is a big difference between these two concepts, and it sounds like you've confused them.

    Comment


    • Myths and Justifications

      Like the Hummer owner who claims his vehicle cannot possibly contribute to global warming, Farrell justifies his shortcomings with a tired falsehood. Many of us have been using Linux on the desktop for serious work for over a decade. What Farrell is actually saying is, "I don't want to learn anything new." Time to retire, Nick, and let those more capable take over.

      Comment


      • Probably lots of people block Disqus

        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        Do you perchance have Disqus entirely blocked?
        I have found that when using Noscript and Ghostery set to block by default, Disqus is blocked by default. I have never once enabled them and do not intend to, as they are so widely used it would be possible for them to build a surfing history of users containing all sites that use them for comments. I keep them blocked just like I do things like Google analytics and for the same reason.

        Comment


        • Despite the heroic efforts of Poettering&Co, Linux will never catch up with the rate at which the masses are getting dumber. Ergo, Linux will never be ready for the masses.

          And it's probably a good thing.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
            Despite the heroic efforts of Poettering&Co, Linux will never catch up with the rate at which the masses are getting dumber. Ergo, Linux will never be ready for the masses.

            And it's probably a good thing.
            100% agree. I also see no real benefit linux has more users if that only brings us more proprietary applications under linux the value is at least 0 if not negative.

            there is one exception, gaming. thats for most dualbooters or people with seperate gaming windows machines matters. and with that gpu drivers. then there is tablet driver support. If some marketing asholes get a photoshop alternative or poor users are willing to get tortured by ms or libre office go ahead.

            btw I found it funny that users that buy stuff from cheap cloth companies and eat meat and other stuff in bad quality focus so much on "quality" either he is rich (even if you get a cheap windows version) office is extremly expensive. yes for companies that maybe does not matter but we are at least also talk here about private users.

            Also this costfree alternative is something like bio. or maybe more like vegan. but if somebody dont see any positive aspect in eating vegan, you cant say vegan livestyle should be more like eating meat.

            I mean there are simulated meat alternatives like their is wine but of course it will never be better than a good version of the original. but maybe you get more healty eating that and maybe you have advantages in 10 years when you want to eat your old office files, while you maybe can only very difficult read old ms office files...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rambo Tribble View Post
              What Farrell is actually saying is, "I don't want to learn anything new."
              But this is exactly the attitude of your average user. The truth is that people who don't know Linux usually don't know Windows either - really, they don't know anything beyond booting up the system and double-clicking to open documents. They might know a thing or two about Word, Excel or whatever software they use at work but the OS is pure magic to them. On their own they'll never figure out how to pin shortcuts to the taskbar even though Win7 comes with several pre-pinned items.

              And that's why the adoption rate will never get any higher. The 2% who use Linux today are IT specialists, programmers, hobbyists and other enthusiasts. They know that Linux has certain advantages but those advantages lay miles deeper than most people will ever dive.

              Comment


              • This may interest some of you.

                Logan's Linux Log: The First Few Days With Linux

                Comment


                • Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                  But this is exactly the attitude of your average user. The truth is that people who don't know Linux usually don't know Windows either - really, they don't know anything beyond booting up the system and double-clicking to open documents. They might know a thing or two about Word, Excel or whatever software they use at work but the OS is pure magic to them. On their own they'll never figure out how to pin shortcuts to the taskbar even though Win7 comes with several pre-pinned items.

                  And that's why the adoption rate will never get any higher. The 2% who use Linux today are IT specialists, programmers, hobbyists and other enthusiasts. They know that Linux has certain advantages but those advantages lay miles deeper than most people will ever dive.
                  I dont agree to that. people you are talking about have either somebody that supports them or buy systems with preinstalled os, for both of this groups if linux would be even 1000 times better would not matter. I switched my dad to fedora, after he used a while ubuntu, he had some time a second windows pc because he is adicted to some apps he thinks he needs.

                  I even had to install him a windows xp virtual machine in his zacate laptop because a never version of family tree maker did have less features than a older one. now I bought him a thinkpad with docking station (x220) and he hold first on on a second windows machine but now is happy with windows 7 in a vm. He still "needs" quicken and some other stuff but he now let go of windows xp made just no sense and no real fun to keep that forever. it works not so well in a vm anyway. we have now converted at least the database of his family tree data to gramps and in the long run thinks he can adopt.

                  so both can be wrong family tree maker made their newer versions easier like you all suggest but that killed the experience for my dad. if he would need to update either the not so bad free alternatives are good enough or I will make him buy matrica home banking.

                  but my father is a strange person from some apps he needs 1mio detailed features on others he fails at the most simplest tasks like opening email attachments or attach them or delete some files with nautilus (did they hide real delete so bad now)

                  but thats not linux specific its a general thing. Photoshop and ms office was never a big problem. He used libre office when its name was star office.

                  so most real problems can also happen if people switch to a new windows version. Last thing we did was 2nd hand linux ready scanner. because he not needs a dia scanner anymore he could maybe even get more money back from the windows only one.


                  so to make it short, we can try to deliver the basic stuff right like office and web and a usable desktop but we cant deliver 100% clones of the 1mio very special software tools some minorities use, like photoshop and family tree maker and stuff like that.

                  this company will compile linux versions of their programms when enough use linux not the other way around. We cant reverse engineer the hole windows ecosystem. but that is happening right now at the moment mostly games but there is a good chance that others will come with it.

                  linux is no OS its a kernel, Ubuntu (gnu/linux) is a OS it failed. fedora is a OS I think after mass adoption to a proprietary linux system it has some good chances in the long run but it wiss also not make the mass adoption. So we will see if steamos becomeo fast (windows users) desktop ready, I think its likely.

                  And its about pre installed system, dos as far as I understand did exist while ibm already had its os2 guis. still users not switched to it. its close enough and if we get many preinstalled systems like steammachines I think adoption rate can be very high fast.

                  Comment


                  • For those saying OS X is a rip off of Gnome 3, you had it backwards.

                    I use Linux everyday, but everything I want it to do is done in Terminal. That's why now I only use Linux through SSH and haven't used its shitty Desktop interface for a year. And there's nothing I missed.

                    I think the biggest problem with Linux desktop is that they don't even realize that it is inferior to Mac and Windows, or they simply refuse to admit it. Just like this threads shows. I love open source, I wrote a few open source libraries myself, I can't work without open source for my work (involving a large amount time of writing programs). But let's face it, the desktop is not working. Office, GIMP, etc, they are trying to catch up what their Windows/OS X counterpart can do ten years ago. Unity, Gnome, KDE, they are just so hard to use. The designers give no thoughts about UX. Something sounds a good technical idea does not make it a good UX decision.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by woodbird View Post
                      For those saying OS X is a rip off of Gnome 3, you had it backwards.

                      I use Linux everyday, but everything I want it to do is done in Terminal. That's why now I only use Linux through SSH and haven't used its shitty Desktop interface for a year. And there's nothing I missed.

                      I think the biggest problem with Linux desktop is that they don't even realize that it is inferior to Mac and Windows, or they simply refuse to admit it. Just like this threads shows. I love open source, I wrote a few open source libraries myself, I can't work without open source for my work (involving a large amount time of writing programs). But let's face it, the desktop is not working. Office, GIMP, etc, they are trying to catch up what their Windows/OS X counterpart can do ten years ago. Unity, Gnome, KDE, they are just so hard to use. The designers give no thoughts about UX. Something sounds a good technical idea does not make it a good UX decision.
                      My opinion has always been they try to do too much. OSS desktops are trying too hard in my opinion. There are only limited number of things a desktop needs to present to it's user. And them limited number of things need to be configurable. Gnome doesn't do a quarter of what a desktop needs to do and it doesn't let the user configure the little it can accomplish, and then it provides hundreds of "extensions" that only meet the needs of very few people. KDE does too much and is too configurable. Of the two, I think KDE is better.

                      With the exception of how bad xfce4 handles menu entries, I think it's the best one. It's simple and does all a desktop needs and little else. Though I'm not happy with its move to GTK3. I'm just not interested in all the intentional breakage the GTK devs are pushing on people. Personally I think they do it just for the laugh.
                      Last edited by duby229; 03-14-2015, 10:27 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X