Linux needs to unify to compete

[d-kam]

Right, I am a newbie to linux and at the moment intend to explore it as much as possible as an alternative to the depressingly oppresive alternative that Microsoft has to offer. I want to give Microsoft up but I have some fundamental issues with Linux that I feel should be addressed. To begine with, Linux is complex. Yes, I know that a lot of you guys enjot the feeling of setting up a linux box, going into the terminal to configure stuff, and come with a box that can 'do the stuff' that windows does, but what about when Grandma's pc, who u set up, see's the 'update your system CRITICAL' button and pushes, and it then conflicts with her kernel and causes the x server to crash, and only a command line is available. "Gran, look at the help files" isn't gonna help, because the help files assume you are a major in computer science. So for me, the newbie level protection element of linux is lacking. I wouldn't put linux on any of my families pc's for example, because it has no real protection when user created problems arise, and is generally more difficult to set-up. Longhorn, even though it will most likely be ****, will implement a 'user account' type of approach so that one has to be root to do anything, this is the foundation of linux security and it's main security feature, so if linux is to compete it needs to go beyond the secure element (which it has) and look to the future. 3D desktop environments, widget implemention, easy configuration of desktop, and most importantly, a unified structure for OS operation. "Oh, so you use linux? oh, right, u use KDE, how do you change the desktop because I use Gnome?" is pathetic, we need one desktop environment, which is fast, reliable and unified. People would be mightely annoyed if XP had 10 different desktop environments which ran different applications as would they be if OSX did the same. Linux has a serious problem with this, and needs to ditch one of the main desktop environments: KDE or Gnome. As a newbie, I will not give a preference based on serious computer knowledge, but Gnome does get my vote after using 3 different distributions and having used KDE for two of them. Gnome does seem to have limitations compared to KDE when it comes to implementing drop shadows and widgets, but it seems faster and more responsive thn KDE in direct comparison by myself. And i like the general look (what's with the stupid dragon at log-off in KDE? seriously, drop-it!). Anyway, I think my main point, AS A NEWBIE TO LINUX, is that although it offers awesome configuration and absolute power, it lacks in grace compared to OSX. The next version of windows will most likely try and compete with OSX in tewrms of looks so if linux, which is currently focusing on how compatible it is with a P1 133, is to keep up, it needs to embrace the future of technology and make a unified desktop environment that is on a par with OSX at least (but hopefully better). The Looking Glass project looks intresting, but it will no doubt be a closed sources project. We need the **** that Windows is gonna have in a years time, now! Linux is an amazing idea, and I will always have my interest in it, but the next wave of OS will not be as pathetic as XP, so it needs to grow up and unify - NOW. Just my humble opinion. Please prove me wrong.

Dan

[d-kam]

BTW, I do love Linux! I just want it to compete with future OS. I appreciate that it is an open source project and as such unification is a a difficult thing to make happen. I think however, that Linux is maturing at a steady rate, and as such, need only apply individual coding skills to unified projects with a serious overview to overthrowing the depressing monopoly that microsoft has. I would rather OSX for Intel Proccessors overtook Microsoft as an OS ('tis a dream I know) than Longhorn, but hey Linux is a steady grower and I would prefer that even more. I use Fedora Core 4 as an OS and find it to be an reasonable replacement. It cannot do everything though, application support wise. Linux is great though.

Dan

[hard candy]

The strength of linux is that it is not unified. That is what has enabled it to grow, the efforts of a lot of diferent groups.
Linux does not need to compete with Windows XP, Linux is for people who want something different. I used to think Linux could take over the world but Linux just needs to be an alternative.
Microsoft has a 95% desktop market share in North America because it is easy, it works, and the cost is not too painful. Linux will never be able to overcome that entrenchment in the next few decades. And it looks like Apple has revived itself and OSX will become more of a player in the next few years, especially if the hardware base becomes more widespread.
If Linux becomes like Windows XP, what will it have gained? Some distros like Ubuntu are trying to become easy and for the newbies but I find that after a while, I prefer Slackware or Debian where I can build whatever I want instread of having a preconcieved desktop shoved down my throat.
WinXP costs $100 but then I do not have to worry about 99% of the software working with with it. If I use Ubuntu, then I have to spend several hours trying to get it to play and/or record dvd's. With WinXP, I buy another program or download something like DVD shrink for free and it takes 5 minutes to start recording dvd's.
And you can tweak KDE to get rid of any "dragons', it is completely customizable.

[Gertrude]

Needs paragraphs

[GmarAppledude]

d-kam I think you are wrong, Currently you try a distro, if you don't like it you can try a different one, if you don't like KDE try something else, if you don't like Open office try something else. With XP you are forced to use it in certain ways and there are no alternatives beyond going back to Win98 or 2000 etc. Thats why Linux is so popular right now, it offers genuine choice. I used to think it needed to compete with MS but now I realise the point is that it already does in its own way. Sure if there were more users then better manufacturer support would follow and this would be great but this is already start to happen.

Conflicts and incompatibilities do exist but this is a separate issue, every distro is supported by people working really hard to rectify these problems as we speak, often for little or no reward. Its a bit harsh saying that means the public therefore shouldn't be exposed to it, after all every OS has these problems.

Collaberation between distro camps is great, unification though sounds a bit like it would result in a monolithic product to me.

Just my own opinions.

[justbill]

I agree! As much as I paid for my free download of fc4, you would think they would have a desktop switching tool! They could put it at: Desktop > Preferences > More Preferences > Desktop Switching Tool , or at : Desktop > System Settings > More System Settings > Desktop Switching Tool . Or some place like that.
:-)
Its all about the choices !

Justbill

[JSimmons]

It's wholly unfair to compare Linux to Windows, because there's only one Windows, while there are several Linux distros. Still, you have to consider that the vast majority of new Linux users are coming from Windows, and Windows users have certain expectations (right or wrong), and if we want to expand the Linux user base, we have to put much more consideration into the issues faced by Windows users that are considering Linux.

A step in the right dirction is the Linux Standards Base project.

Choices are still available even when adhering to a standard set of guidlines.

[Parcival]

Linux needs to unify to compete

Pretty much every newbie is going through this, so was I back then.

And for those who want an easy Linux, there is always SuSE.

[thedreampolice]

I think package management and driver sets should be unified. But thats it!

[irlandes]

that only computer geeks can USE Linux. There are indeed grandmas, women in their 70's, who are using Linux machines with no problem at all. A couple years ago, some of them posted on desktoplinux how much they loved threir Linux machines, set up by someone else.

Just as with Windows, if someone sets up Linux and has it working, anyone can use it with no special training. And, most Windows users get it preinstalled and when they have problems, they open the window (of their house) and shout, "HELP!!"

OP is strictly speaking from the admitted position of a newbie, who really knows little about Linux. Sorry, but this is true, and is a common view of newbies.

[WayStar]

Nah....

You really want Grandma to use Linux? Get AOL to work with Linux, and get those online game sites to work with Linux. You know the ones I mean, where grannies from around the world gather to play bingo and poppit and slingo while they chat with their online friends.

Unless Grandma has been into computers all along, she's not going to install, configure, or fix her system regardless of what OS she's using. And if she doesn't "need" AOL or the social games, she's not going to care much beyond email, instant messaging and viewing pictures and movies of grandbabies.

-Waylena

[XiaoKJ]

I only know that if people of less probability to understand the innards of computers want to use linux, a live-cd that uses KDE/Gnome is the best way to go. These graphical distros are extremely unified in the way they deal with things, and the users will not need to come and learn updating or something like that.

Most importantly, with distros like ubuntu, MEPIS and knoppix, I can safely say we have aced through that part. even installation looks like a normal program install in MEPIS/Knoppix. Not even windows can rival this.

The true beauty of linux lies in its variety. And who says we are not united? we have things like LSB to standardise things

[WayStar]

I only know that if people of less probability to understand the innards of computers want to use linux, a live-cd that uses KDE/Gnome is the best way to go. These graphical distros are extremely unified in the way they deal with things, and the users will not need to come and learn updating or something like that.

I gave my mom a Knoppix CD and she uses it occasionally to play Frozen Bubble. And then she forgets how to shut it down so she takes the disk out of the drive and reboots the machine with the power button.

I don't live nearby (10 hour drive), or she'd probably use it more and have more experience.

-Waylena

[infiniphunk]

I agree that the variety available with distrobutions is a good thing. There are so many ways of doing things; package management: apt, RPM's, YAST, emerge, tarballs, etc; one has the choice to use what one likes.
The nice thing too is that there are distrobutions for people of varying linux-experience. This way, you can configure your system as you wish.
Also, I don't think that linux needs to compete with windows. Windows is all about marketing; lots of people stick with Windows because its a name brand. These are the same people who can only buy Nike, or Sony or McDonalds. They can't think outside of the box.
And yeah, 95% of North-American's still use windows because that's what came with computer.

[vontez]

People would be mightely annoyed if XP had 10 different desktop environments which ran different applications as would they be if OSX did the same.

Linux is a kernel. It will all make sense in time.