Linux on the (consumer) Desktop(people.gnome.org)
people.gnome.org
Linux on the (consumer) Desktop
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2012-09-10-desktop-linux.html
77 comments
+1 I don't think there is a proposition as powerful as the entire Microsoft ecosystem on the business desktop.
There is also support, training, excellent literature and documentation, large quantities of staff, functional software at a reasonable price and as you mention: Active directory (which is awesome if you actually understand it).
If you've seen some of the shit I've seen wired up to Office in the last few years, you'll get it. It's just awesome. Entire businesses hang of it. It might not be clean and squeaky but it's functional and does the job. Google Docs + iWork + LibreOffice are precisely zero competition.
(I have to add this to each of these posts to avoid the shill downvotes: I am primarily a Linux user which suits me but I don't think it'd suit most people).
There is also support, training, excellent literature and documentation, large quantities of staff, functional software at a reasonable price and as you mention: Active directory (which is awesome if you actually understand it).
If you've seen some of the shit I've seen wired up to Office in the last few years, you'll get it. It's just awesome. Entire businesses hang of it. It might not be clean and squeaky but it's functional and does the job. Google Docs + iWork + LibreOffice are precisely zero competition.
(I have to add this to each of these posts to avoid the shill downvotes: I am primarily a Linux user which suits me but I don't think it'd suit most people).
You make some valid points, but you try to push your thesis too far.
>the consumer space is the only possible bet
Below is a link to a discussion we had here 2 weeks ago about Ubuntu at Google. Although engineers at Google can choose a different one, Ubuntu is the desktop OS with the most support from Google's "IT department". In contrast, Windows is the only choice that requires some sort of approval from management.
Also, although it is a paying customer for Canonical's Ubuntu Advantage support program, Google is not even Canonical's largest business desktop customer.
As long as we do not have unrealistic aspirations of completely replacing Windows in the enterprise, why not try to expand on the presence desktop Linux already has there?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4452005
>the consumer space is the only possible bet
Below is a link to a discussion we had here 2 weeks ago about Ubuntu at Google. Although engineers at Google can choose a different one, Ubuntu is the desktop OS with the most support from Google's "IT department". In contrast, Windows is the only choice that requires some sort of approval from management.
Also, although it is a paying customer for Canonical's Ubuntu Advantage support program, Google is not even Canonical's largest business desktop customer.
As long as we do not have unrealistic aspirations of completely replacing Windows in the enterprise, why not try to expand on the presence desktop Linux already has there?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4452005
> Linux is light years away from having anything resembling Active Directory in quality.
I'm assuming you've setup OpenLDAP and one of open Kerberos implementations (e.g. MIT) and have found them lacking in some way compared with AD. If so, could you expand on where they were lacking in quality? I have used both and find open alternatives much easier to extend, and not any harder to setup.
Here's an interesting read that argues the opposite of your point: ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/LDAP/Adam-Eval1-0.pdf
I'm assuming you've setup OpenLDAP and one of open Kerberos implementations (e.g. MIT) and have found them lacking in some way compared with AD. If so, could you expand on where they were lacking in quality? I have used both and find open alternatives much easier to extend, and not any harder to setup.
Here's an interesting read that argues the opposite of your point: ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/LDAP/Adam-Eval1-0.pdf
I think all of this is close to be pointless, when there is an abundant and sickening Windows bundling problem which persists until present day. End users don't care about any ISVs, ABIs and other such matters, and some even don't have a clue about OS names. They buy a computer with an OS preinstalled. And guess what that OS is? That's the problem which needs to be solved first. The rest as the author admits, will be solved under the market pressure.
Have you considered that windows is good enough for the end users and represents good value?
People don't want to make a choice or have to care about what they buy. The ISVs are quite happy to ship windows as they have reusable experience and it's just plugging things together.
The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.
consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.
I'm a Linux user (heavy with 15 years' experience) but i don't have a problem with the current situation.
People don't want to make a choice or have to care about what they buy. The ISVs are quite happy to ship windows as they have reusable experience and it's just plugging things together.
The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.
consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.
I'm a Linux user (heavy with 15 years' experience) but i don't have a problem with the current situation.
Have you considered that windows is good enough for the end users and represents good value?
Same as Linux in this day and age (if user has such option).
The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.
With this logic any kind of monopoly can be justified, but it doesn't make monopoly good per se. Artificial lack of competition is bad.
consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.
Network effect is part of the problem, but the bundling issue is just a method to feed it. So one way to break it - is to remove the bundling blocker to allow fair competition.
Same as Linux in this day and age (if user has such option).
The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.
With this logic any kind of monopoly can be justified, but it doesn't make monopoly good per se. Artificial lack of competition is bad.
consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.
Network effect is part of the problem, but the bundling issue is just a method to feed it. So one way to break it - is to remove the bundling blocker to allow fair competition.
Firstly, reinforcing my position before I say something good about Microsoft: I am a Linux user and have been for 15 years. Before that, it was Solaris and HP/UX. I do a fair bit of work with Windows, particularly .Net at the moment. I'm pretty much neutral. It's a box that does a job.
I don't get these arguments: the user has the option. In the UK, there are magazines on every shelf in every newsagent pushing Linux and in every PC related stored they are pretty much giving Ubuntu away (yes they even had a box at the checkout in PC World with free CDs - completely untouched). You can buy PC's with it preinstalled and buy PCs with no operating system so you can install it.
I know MANY "normal" non enthusiast and non power users from social housing unemployed to professionals who have used Linux distributions and just end up back with Windows. Everyone knows what Linux is or has heard of it.
I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly - they just work pretty well on the desktop for most users (well they did until Windows 8 but I'm not going there in this discussion ;-). The competition is there but it's not really competition in mindshare as people are comfortable.
If you forcibly removed the bundling, you are going to get nowhere i.e. people saying "Can I just have it with Windows on it". Also, at the sales desk, the salesperson is going to make a few extra readies for selling Windows with a PC so you're going to lose anyway.
Take a look at where IBM is now compared to the late 1980's. They monopolised and beat their competition to death and they didn't survive in that market. Microsoft's time will come if they fuck up or piss off a lot of people, but at the moment they do what people want for a price that people want to pay.
The idealisms of "Microsoft sucks" and is a "monopoly" remind me of Slashdot circa 2001 onwards where OSX and Linux were going to take over the world and destroy Microsoft.
Sorry it ain't going to happen and I'm not really that bothered myself.
I don't get these arguments: the user has the option. In the UK, there are magazines on every shelf in every newsagent pushing Linux and in every PC related stored they are pretty much giving Ubuntu away (yes they even had a box at the checkout in PC World with free CDs - completely untouched). You can buy PC's with it preinstalled and buy PCs with no operating system so you can install it.
I know MANY "normal" non enthusiast and non power users from social housing unemployed to professionals who have used Linux distributions and just end up back with Windows. Everyone knows what Linux is or has heard of it.
I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly - they just work pretty well on the desktop for most users (well they did until Windows 8 but I'm not going there in this discussion ;-). The competition is there but it's not really competition in mindshare as people are comfortable.
If you forcibly removed the bundling, you are going to get nowhere i.e. people saying "Can I just have it with Windows on it". Also, at the sales desk, the salesperson is going to make a few extra readies for selling Windows with a PC so you're going to lose anyway.
Take a look at where IBM is now compared to the late 1980's. They monopolised and beat their competition to death and they didn't survive in that market. Microsoft's time will come if they fuck up or piss off a lot of people, but at the moment they do what people want for a price that people want to pay.
The idealisms of "Microsoft sucks" and is a "monopoly" remind me of Slashdot circa 2001 onwards where OSX and Linux were going to take over the world and destroy Microsoft.
Sorry it ain't going to happen and I'm not really that bothered myself.
> In the UK, there are magazines on every shelf in every newsagent pushing Linux and in every PC related stored they are pretty much giving Ubuntu away (yes they even had a box at the checkout in PC World with free CDs - completely untouched). You can buy PC's with it preinstalled and buy PCs with no operating system so you can install it.
Is this the same UK I live in? The newsagents I see might have one Linux magazine lurking behind the iPad magazines. And you really have to go looking for computers that come with Linux preinstalled or no OS. Dell stopped offering them online, and I haven't seen a Linux PC in a retail store since the brief wave of Linux netbooks. I found a small business that sold me a computer with my choice of distro on, but they didn't really promote the option at all.
> If you forcibly removed the bundling, you are going to get nowhere i.e. people saying "Can I just have it with Windows on it"
"Sure, that will be £20 extra" (a complete guess at the OEM Windows price)
Obviously preinstalled Linux systems aren't going to topple Windows overnight - there's a lot of network effects and familiarity there. But at the same time, it would definitely benefit Linux adoption if consumers regularly saw an option to use Ubuntu, say, with known-good hardware and without having to install it themselves. Not many would take it at first, but a few people would go home and look it up.
> Everyone knows what Linux is or has heard of it.
Many people have heard of it, certainly, but they often have some vague idea that it's a command-line interface for ultra nerdy experts. That's why Android and Ubuntu both avoid using the word 'Linux' in their public branding.
Is this the same UK I live in? The newsagents I see might have one Linux magazine lurking behind the iPad magazines. And you really have to go looking for computers that come with Linux preinstalled or no OS. Dell stopped offering them online, and I haven't seen a Linux PC in a retail store since the brief wave of Linux netbooks. I found a small business that sold me a computer with my choice of distro on, but they didn't really promote the option at all.
> If you forcibly removed the bundling, you are going to get nowhere i.e. people saying "Can I just have it with Windows on it"
"Sure, that will be £20 extra" (a complete guess at the OEM Windows price)
Obviously preinstalled Linux systems aren't going to topple Windows overnight - there's a lot of network effects and familiarity there. But at the same time, it would definitely benefit Linux adoption if consumers regularly saw an option to use Ubuntu, say, with known-good hardware and without having to install it themselves. Not many would take it at first, but a few people would go home and look it up.
> Everyone knows what Linux is or has heard of it.
Many people have heard of it, certainly, but they often have some vague idea that it's a command-line interface for ultra nerdy experts. That's why Android and Ubuntu both avoid using the word 'Linux' in their public branding.
>Many people have heard of it, certainly, but they often have some vague idea that it's a command-line interface for ultra nerdy experts. That's why Android and Ubuntu both avoid using the word 'Linux' in their public branding.
That actually is a lack of gratitude and failure to improve Linux image on their part. But I agree with the rest of the above. Removing the bundling won't magically solve all issues, but it's a huge blocker which prevents any kind of solutions from reaching the broader audience.
That actually is a lack of gratitude and failure to improve Linux image on their part. But I agree with the rest of the above. Removing the bundling won't magically solve all issues, but it's a huge blocker which prevents any kind of solutions from reaching the broader audience.
> [Avoiding the word Linux] actually is a lack of gratitude and failure to improve Linux image on their part
I don't see it quite like that. Firstly, I'm not sure that the people working on Linux (the kernel) particularly want to be a popular brand - it would mean a deluge of naive questions, apart from anything else.
Secondly, Ubuntu benefits from Linux, GNU tools, X, Gnome, Debian, and many other projects. In techie circles, they readily acknowledge that it wouldn't be possible without the work done in those upstream projects. But trying to fit them into the public branding would confuse users.
I don't see it quite like that. Firstly, I'm not sure that the people working on Linux (the kernel) particularly want to be a popular brand - it would mean a deluge of naive questions, apart from anything else.
Secondly, Ubuntu benefits from Linux, GNU tools, X, Gnome, Debian, and many other projects. In techie circles, they readily acknowledge that it wouldn't be possible without the work done in those upstream projects. But trying to fit them into the public branding would confuse users.
For general population, Linux became the name of the whole stack of related technologies rather than the kernel name, so not using it (by Ubuntu at least) is a disservice to everyone involved. I'm OK with Android not using it, since they are too far apart from the rest of the Linux world anyway and aren't benefiting global Linux community much. Just my 2 cents.
> You can buy PC's with it preinstalled and buy PCs with no operating system so you can install it.
This sounds like a fairy tale, given how many problems people have with claiming the Windows refund alone, let alone getting alternative OSes preinstalled. And no OS option? Virtually non existent, except may be for corporate customers and servers.
> I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly
They formally avoid antitrust regulations by delegating the refund to OEMs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund), but it doesn't change the factual situation - Windows is bundled practically by all major OEMs, and you hardly can find an option of Linux preisntalled or no OS for those OEMs. Getting a refund for Windows is a burden which one has to fight through, do you think it's not an artificial restriction on the competition? I think it is, and it needs to be broken.
This sounds like a fairy tale, given how many problems people have with claiming the Windows refund alone, let alone getting alternative OSes preinstalled. And no OS option? Virtually non existent, except may be for corporate customers and servers.
> I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly
They formally avoid antitrust regulations by delegating the refund to OEMs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund), but it doesn't change the factual situation - Windows is bundled practically by all major OEMs, and you hardly can find an option of Linux preisntalled or no OS for those OEMs. Getting a refund for Windows is a burden which one has to fight through, do you think it's not an artificial restriction on the competition? I think it is, and it needs to be broken.
Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costumers wants" might not be as complex as power users might imagine, it is not something so easily swept under the rug as "no big deal."
And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but because of either deals with MS (i.e. reduced Windows price), or because of lack of demand (i.e. the same "network effect"). But demand is hard to build if such option doesn't even exist as an option for an unaware customer. So it's a vicious cycle, which is of course well fed by MS to persist.
"what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs"
Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.
Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.
Arguably, the majority of PC users don't care about heavy gaming. While gamers are an important factor, they aren't the blocker for any OEM to provide an option of Linux preinstalled. There are lot's of people who use their computers merely for browsing, reading e-mails and some minimal document editing and multimedia like audio/video. Many don't even use desktop office applications, using some web services for that. And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. The age of immature office options on the Linux desktop is gone.
Outlook is a rather heavy monstrosity. There are better e-mail clients out there, including those on Linux.
Outlook is a rather heavy monstrosity. There are better e-mail clients out there, including those on Linux.
Having tried to use Open/Libre Office as a MS Office replacement I can say it's definitely not on par with MS Office (sadly). So many little things that you take for granted on MS Office either aren't implemented or are incompatible with others who are using MS Office. For collaborative documents in an academic setting, using track changes, extensive bibliographies, stupidly large wordcounts etc., it's far, far easier to just use MS Office. I'd love to move these people on to google docs or something but old habits die hard in academia - emailed word documents is still where it's at.
As for Outlook - while I've set up my home computer to not use it, for most it's just easier to use it. Convenience has a lot going for it. For non-tech-savvy people it's also a lot easier, since then calls to tech support at work will actually get you help. :)
As for Outlook - while I've set up my home computer to not use it, for most it's just easier to use it. Convenience has a lot going for it. For non-tech-savvy people it's also a lot easier, since then calls to tech support at work will actually get you help. :)
> And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well.
I use Linux machines for what they do well, and pretty much all my machines sans the "main" Laptop are Linux-driven.
That said: This statement cannot be refuted enough.
Libre Office and its forks are merely bad imitations of previous versions of MS Office while offering few to no benefits once you exclude cost. They are not "decent" alternatives. They are free, but noticeably sub-par alternatives. They are in no way drop-in replacements.
If I want to take the cost of working with a low-end Office-suite which covers the bare basics and sticks to a late 90s design-paradigm, I'll go with Google's online-offering because it actually provides some benefits to weigh up for the cost.
And sometimes I do just that. But you'll never find me meddling with the desktop Linux office-suites. They're simply not worth it.
I use Linux machines for what they do well, and pretty much all my machines sans the "main" Laptop are Linux-driven.
That said: This statement cannot be refuted enough.
Libre Office and its forks are merely bad imitations of previous versions of MS Office while offering few to no benefits once you exclude cost. They are not "decent" alternatives. They are free, but noticeably sub-par alternatives. They are in no way drop-in replacements.
If I want to take the cost of working with a low-end Office-suite which covers the bare basics and sticks to a late 90s design-paradigm, I'll go with Google's online-offering because it actually provides some benefits to weigh up for the cost.
And sometimes I do just that. But you'll never find me meddling with the desktop Linux office-suites. They're simply not worth it.
How many users use 100% of functionality of MS Office? And what part of functionality most users use? We were not talking about drop in replacements, were were talking about satisfying enough needs of a common user. There always can be cases of some functionality lacking. But for common needs - Libre Office is way more than enough already. Google's options are way too limited comparing to desktop applications, but they work well for some use cases. I find Libre Office more than satisfactory for above average complexity document editing. And while it can lack some obscure functions of MS office, I just probably never needed them in the first place.
You'll have to read my comment as me talking, as a reasonably capable user, which normally merely access around 5% of what I know MS Office can do.
Just basic things like creating sections, chapters, tables, footers, headers and making it all look good and consistent, quickly and easily.
MS Office, since the move to the ribbon-system have really excelled at exposing the functionality required to do this. It's always there in your face, just one click away, when you need it and then it gets out of your way. It's fantastic.
Libre Office and its forks are still stuck in the last generation of UIs where you have a million toolbars, all just mediocrely capable and insufficient to your full needs, none adapted to your current context and always there taking up space and cluttering the UI wheter you need them or not.
There's just no comparison between the user experiences here. MS Office is in a league of its own.
Just basic things like creating sections, chapters, tables, footers, headers and making it all look good and consistent, quickly and easily.
MS Office, since the move to the ribbon-system have really excelled at exposing the functionality required to do this. It's always there in your face, just one click away, when you need it and then it gets out of your way. It's fantastic.
Libre Office and its forks are still stuck in the last generation of UIs where you have a million toolbars, all just mediocrely capable and insufficient to your full needs, none adapted to your current context and always there taking up space and cluttering the UI wheter you need them or not.
There's just no comparison between the user experiences here. MS Office is in a league of its own.
UI unfamiliarity is not equal to the lack of functionality in the program itself. Comfortable feeling about UI is also a subjective matter to a degree, so what works well for some is irritating for others.
Sure. That is a factor.
But the reason Microsoft moved from the safe (familiar) UI to the new one was because they realized the old UI-model didn't scale well with expanded functionality.
They decided to try to improve the user experience by leaving behind what clearly did not work.
For a company which owes most of its legacy to users preferring familiarity, that's very much not a small thing. But they decided it had to be done.
More than five years later, Libre Office still haven't done anything at all to fundamentally improve UX. To me that sounds like somebody simply not caring.
But the reason Microsoft moved from the safe (familiar) UI to the new one was because they realized the old UI-model didn't scale well with expanded functionality.
They decided to try to improve the user experience by leaving behind what clearly did not work.
For a company which owes most of its legacy to users preferring familiarity, that's very much not a small thing. But they decided it had to be done.
More than five years later, Libre Office still haven't done anything at all to fundamentally improve UX. To me that sounds like somebody simply not caring.
I agree. Making a turn like Office did with the ribbon interface was a bold, commendable move. Sadly (Libre/Open)Office can't follow suit unless they design and develop a good alternative to it, which is not an easy task. And because of patents, they couldn't simply build upon the ribbon UX.
I think they care, but they have their constraints. They'd rather polish and add important functionality first, rather than radically redo the whole design. After the LibreOffice / OpenOffice split it's still probably not at the point of such step. But I'm sure at some point they'll address it.
Options are great but frankly haven't always been there and are not options for everyone. OpenOffice/LO are great options and I have long used them myself but if my 1000 employee business is currently built around MS Office then I need to buy new computers with Office, end of story. If those employees want full compatibility with their work files and email at home they needed to buy windows.
For a very long time for most things casual users did Windows was a better fit then linux. Want to play games? Windows by a mile. Burn DVDs? Windows. Download music legally? Windows. Download music illegally? Windows. Word Processing? Windows. Spreadsheets? Windows. Use that new camera/scanner/printer/ipod? Windows by a mile. Read your office email? Windows. DTP? Windows. Visit flash websites? Windows.
For a very long time for most things casual users did Windows was a better fit then linux. Want to play games? Windows by a mile. Burn DVDs? Windows. Download music legally? Windows. Download music illegally? Windows. Word Processing? Windows. Spreadsheets? Windows. Use that new camera/scanner/printer/ipod? Windows by a mile. Read your office email? Windows. DTP? Windows. Visit flash websites? Windows.
Honestly, besides gaming (which becomes better with maturing Wine) I don't see how Linux lacks in any functions you mentioned i.e. DVD burning, legal music downloads (one can use Banshee with Amazon for example) and etc. and etc. The only issue can be that of unfamiliarity, but it's not a functional issue. Any decent digital player can work with Linux (and I don't consider iPod to be decent one ;).
Personally I think a greater factor in the prevalence of Windows is the way children in school grow up using it and other MS branded software. Add to that the reputation that Windows has in the corporate enviroment and the inertia of over fifteen years as the status quo and that probably accounts for the majority of why Microsoft dominates these markets.
I won't go much into the issue other than say that I find it somewhat sad that we are essentially hooking up these children and ultimately our future on the products of a private entity. Even if they are the better option out there, there is still an issue of unnecessarily power being granted to a private entity.
You might also want to checkout what kind of deals your local government/municipality made with MS.
I won't go much into the issue other than say that I find it somewhat sad that we are essentially hooking up these children and ultimately our future on the products of a private entity. Even if they are the better option out there, there is still an issue of unnecessarily power being granted to a private entity.
You might also want to checkout what kind of deals your local government/municipality made with MS.
Yes, MS tries to hook schools early on. But no one stops teachers and school stuff from rejecting MS offers and going with Linux. And it does happen in different places.
I'm betting long on ElementaryOS[1]. It's a distro that wants to be top-notch in UX, design, developer APIs and system frameworks. They even have a Human Interfaces Guideline. Still a work in progress, but I used their previous release for a while and it was just a breeze of fresh air after Gnome/Unity, and surprisingly stable.
Two things are real blockers for Linux desktop adoption: the Adobe suite (or alt) for professionals, and gaming for casual users. One of these is about to be solved :)
[1] http://elementaryos.org/
Two things are real blockers for Linux desktop adoption: the Adobe suite (or alt) for professionals, and gaming for casual users. One of these is about to be solved :)
[1] http://elementaryos.org/
This looks very interesting indeed. Initially it looks like a darkly themed Gnome-desktop with a new launcher, but looking around it seems like this is something different.
Unfortunately I cannot seem to find any details on the what's backing this distro. Maybe that's the point and that you shouldn't have to care, but I'm still curious.
Do you have any more details on what's actually running here?
Unfortunately I cannot seem to find any details on the what's backing this distro. Maybe that's the point and that you shouldn't have to care, but I'm still curious.
Do you have any more details on what's actually running here?
It's an Ubuntu. As windowmanager they developed gala which is also using mutter. They're using many components of the Gnome Environment.
From the screenshot it looks like an OSX clone to the point. It seems like the UI designer switched to 2d-dock, inverted the colors, replaced the apple with an 'e' and called it a day.
Not that this is bad per se though.
Edit: They even pretty much copied the icons for browser, address book and dictionary.
Not that this is bad per se though.
Edit: They even pretty much copied the icons for browser, address book and dictionary.
Check their blog. It's more descriptive than their website.
http://elementaryos.org/journal/when-its-ready
http://elementaryos.org/journal/when-its-ready
The browser icon has changed since: http://elementaryos.org/journal/new-midori-icon-elementary
Oh so instead copying Safari's logo they now copy Firefox? http://elementaryos.org/sites/default/files/user/5/midori.pn...
Elementary might have something going on for them but originality is not it apparently.
Elementary might have something going on for them but originality is not it apparently.
The new icon solves the problem of being yet another thing people will point at and say they were just copying Apple. It might not be totally original, but that's okay, everyone borrows from everyone, and I don't think they will get any flak just because it somewhat resembles Firefox.
The problem arises when you can trace so many ideas back to a single source that it makes it look like you're just making a cheap copy, which sadly is what is happening with elementary.
The problem arises when you can trace so many ideas back to a single source that it makes it look like you're just making a cheap copy, which sadly is what is happening with elementary.
Yes, it is clearly inspired by OSX, yet you wouldn't mistake the two. If you look at the details (shading, borders, highlights, buttons) it has a different set of standards, some things are closer to KDE's Plasma than Aqua.
Part of me is happy that there is a member of the Gnome community that is speaking the language of business. The truth is for the longest time Linux geeks have been speaking the parlance of technology. In this article I see things like this.
""" a better ISV story """
""" Channel issues """
This is the first step towards actually making inroads. That right there is BS and its the language of the corporate sales cycle. Linux will need advocates who are fluent in the language of the corporation to make the partnerships and sales deals that will be required to get Linux onto the corporate desktop. We are not there yet where we can walk into a sales room and compete on a corporate sales cycle with the professional sales guys who pitch solutions based on Microsoft, but at that point that's the battle that needs to be fought.
""" a better ISV story """
""" Channel issues """
This is the first step towards actually making inroads. That right there is BS and its the language of the corporate sales cycle. Linux will need advocates who are fluent in the language of the corporation to make the partnerships and sales deals that will be required to get Linux onto the corporate desktop. We are not there yet where we can walk into a sales room and compete on a corporate sales cycle with the professional sales guys who pitch solutions based on Microsoft, but at that point that's the battle that needs to be fought.
The biggest surprise for me from this years google io was how much I like and use the chromebox. Chrome os is the best linux desktop distro I've used by far. A fast, stripped down kernel and intuitive, minimal ui and seamless auto updating.
It isn't cable of running a local dev server or compiling code, which are things I still need from my computer (I'm hoping for a chrome os pro supporting guest vms) but everything else is so easy I see the os gaining serious ground and think it is silly to leave it out of a discussion of desktop linux.
It isn't cable of running a local dev server or compiling code, which are things I still need from my computer (I'm hoping for a chrome os pro supporting guest vms) but everything else is so easy I see the os gaining serious ground and think it is silly to leave it out of a discussion of desktop linux.
Call me silly, but the series of blogposts that this is a continuation of seem to have widely different definitions of "Desktop". One minute it seems to be gnome and other "Desktop Systems", another minute linux in general. Be good to have a little more clarity on just what they all seem so keen on achieving.
Persoinally, I'm not so sure Linux needs to aim to be used by everyone under the sun... People have different needs and pluralism in operating systems (yes, including MS) can be a good thing....
Persoinally, I'm not so sure Linux needs to aim to be used by everyone under the sun... People have different needs and pluralism in operating systems (yes, including MS) can be a good thing....
I still think it's going to be Android PC that's the next big (Linux) desktop OS. It has openness and it has the big support of Google.
Android is not suddenly going to be a desktop thing. It'll happen over time as Android devices become more and more important than desktops. An Android PC will serve to extend that Eco-system on the same level as iOS & OSX (but better since it's still fun).
Android is not suddenly going to be a desktop thing. It'll happen over time as Android devices become more and more important than desktops. An Android PC will serve to extend that Eco-system on the same level as iOS & OSX (but better since it's still fun).
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Google (a large corporation driven by advertising profits) owning the desktop too.
> It has openness and it has the big support of Google.
Google did not open up Android 3.0 when it did not suit them to do so (commercially). I've never heard of Redhat or Canonical doing something similar with one of their Linux releases.
> It has openness and it has the big support of Google.
Google did not open up Android 3.0 when it did not suit them to do so (commercially). I've never heard of Redhat or Canonical doing something similar with one of their Linux releases.
If you saw 3.0 you know why - it was a giant fake hack which was not ready for phones. Opening it up would have destroyed confidence in the platform.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Google either, but I'm far less comfortable with Apple & M$.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Google either, but I'm far less comfortable with Apple & M$.
As much as I love all these new touch UIs, I can't see myself using them on a desktop PC. The WIMP paradigm has way too many advantages on desktop to just be dropped.
Although if someone took Android and modified the application framework, windowing system, etc. to be a traditional WIMP desktop OS, I think that would definitely interest me.
Although if someone took Android and modified the application framework, windowing system, etc. to be a traditional WIMP desktop OS, I think that would definitely interest me.
After using a desktop linux box for about 15 years, I have moved on. Not because the desktop experience was bad, in fact I think it was one of the best out there. Sure, there are rough edges but the user experience of regular desktop activities (launching apps, browsing files) worked for me better than redmond or cupertino -flavored desktops.
No, I moved on because I realized that I don't like the desktop paradigm. The best thing I ever did to my computer was changing to tiling windowing and a keyboard oriented user experience. It's definitely not for everyone, but I don't miss the desktop.
No, I moved on because I realized that I don't like the desktop paradigm. The best thing I ever did to my computer was changing to tiling windowing and a keyboard oriented user experience. It's definitely not for everyone, but I don't miss the desktop.
If you've still got a desk computer which runs linux, regardless the WM you've still got a desktop linux box. "Linux on the desktop" doesn't use "desktop" in the sense by which we refer to the place that contains "My Computer" and "Recycle Bin". No, "desktop" refers to "on the top of your desk".
> If you've still got a desk computer which runs linux, regardless the WM you've still got a desktop linux box.
Semantics. I prefer to call it a personal unix workstation :) I have a similar software setup on my laptop, which you can't call a "desktop". We can call it a portable unix workstation then.
Semantics. I prefer to call it a personal unix workstation :) I have a similar software setup on my laptop, which you can't call a "desktop". We can call it a portable unix workstation then.
>I have a similar software setup on my laptop, which you can't call a "desktop".
According to the standard terminology used by most writers in the computer industry last 5 years, yes you can (when applied to software).
In contrast, if you say, "After using a desktop linux box for about 15 years, I have moved on," most readers are going to be misled into concluding that you've switched to OS X or Windows. (We only got what you actually meant because we were paying sufficient attention and because you went on to talk of tiling windowing and a keyboard oriented user experience, which are not really an option on OS X and Windows.)
P.S. In all the discussion about tablet computer, you really never noticed any of the thousands of authors using "desktop OS" to refer to the more-traditional kind of OS that runs on both desktop computers and laptop computers?
And you never noticed authors using "desktop" to distinguish a user-facing computer from a server?
According to the standard terminology used by most writers in the computer industry last 5 years, yes you can (when applied to software).
In contrast, if you say, "After using a desktop linux box for about 15 years, I have moved on," most readers are going to be misled into concluding that you've switched to OS X or Windows. (We only got what you actually meant because we were paying sufficient attention and because you went on to talk of tiling windowing and a keyboard oriented user experience, which are not really an option on OS X and Windows.)
P.S. In all the discussion about tablet computer, you really never noticed any of the thousands of authors using "desktop OS" to refer to the more-traditional kind of OS that runs on both desktop computers and laptop computers?
And you never noticed authors using "desktop" to distinguish a user-facing computer from a server?
Actually yes, the phrase 'Linux on the Desktop' does include laptops. 'Linux on the Desktop' sounds like a better rallying cry then 'Everyone using Linux directly'.
[deleted]
Don't call the PEOPLE using your software "consumers", they're people.
While I agree that people are people, they are also consumers. And he's talking about the consumer market, not enthusiasts adding it to their own systems so in this context it makes sense.
It's degrading, because not only tech enthusiasts can use computers for creative activity, becoming producers, rather than consumers.
I'd rather call them users. Consumers doesn't sound so good.
We already have linux on the desktop. It's called OSX.
Seriously, I've been reading about dreams of linux on the desktop for 20 years. Give up. Move on.
Seriously, I've been reading about dreams of linux on the desktop for 20 years. Give up. Move on.
I use OS X a lot. But my home desktop has been Linux for the last 17 years, and it will stay Linux for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will never see mass adoption. Maybe it will. For my part it doesn't matter.
What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my OS X laptop at work that I miss when I use my Linux laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.
What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my OS X laptop at work that I miss when I use my Linux laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.
In my (just as anecdotal) case, you can literally swap OSX and Linux:
I use Linux a lot. But my home laptop has been OSX for the last 6 years, and it will stay OSX for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will never see mass adoption. Maybe it will. For my part it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my Linux workstation that I miss when I use my OSX laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.
I use Linux a lot. But my home laptop has been OSX for the last 6 years, and it will stay OSX for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will never see mass adoption. Maybe it will. For my part it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my Linux workstation that I miss when I use my OSX laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.
People said the same thing about Apple in the 90's when it had 5% market share.
Have you noticed that Linux is taking over the mobile market?
Have you noticed that Linux is taking over the mobile market?
not Linux. Android. It's NOT the same thing. At all.
I have busybox and bash on my android phone, how is it not the same at all? That's why they call it GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, and GNU a set of tools and libraries. Right now Android has the Linux part, and the GNU part is increasingly available.
Not that I disagree, but X11 would be nice.
Damn I miss my N900/N9....
By the way have you heard about the Linux on Android project on Sourceforge? It enables you to run a linux distro on your Android phone via a chroot hack. Seems to be working very well, but I have not tried yet.
If you miss your N900, you can check what is happening with the Open Pandora device, and use your phone to theter your internet connection to it :)
If you miss your N900, you can check what is happening with the Open Pandora device, and use your phone to theter your internet connection to it :)
OS X is indeed a very good desktop Unix, but the kernel is Darwin, not Linux.
Post points out very well how inferior products that charge can beat superior products that are free. It's quite sad that Linux already has the best experience if you care about getting things done.
In order to save the desktop we must kill the desktop.
Stop the madness and get on with life: apt-get install ratpoison
The desktop metaphor is the worst kind of skeuomorphic design. Why should I waste precious screen real estate to show a background image?
The only thing tiling window managers need for better adoption is to ship with better defaults and a reference card for keyboard shortcuts.
In order to save the desktop we must kill the desktop.
Stop the madness and get on with life: apt-get install ratpoison
The desktop metaphor is the worst kind of skeuomorphic design. Why should I waste precious screen real estate to show a background image?
The only thing tiling window managers need for better adoption is to ship with better defaults and a reference card for keyboard shortcuts.
> The only thing tiling window managers need for better adoption is to ship with better defaults and a reference card for keyboard shortcuts.
That works for hackers but for non-techies that aren't willing to put any time and effort into re-learning the basics.
What I hope to see is more tiling windowing features on mainstream user interfaces for the intermediate users.
That works for hackers but for non-techies that aren't willing to put any time and effort into re-learning the basics.
What I hope to see is more tiling windowing features on mainstream user interfaces for the intermediate users.
This is the direction Android will go in. I am pretty sure that in five years most people will have one smart phone that they dock at home to have access to large screens and keyboard/mouse. The laptop as we know it will be replaced by laptop shells with a smart phone dock.
And those phones will run Linux with the Android UI and drivers.
I believe tiling window managers would be fantastic productivity boosters for enterprise use. Less distractions for the worker bees.
And those phones will run Linux with the Android UI and drivers.
I believe tiling window managers would be fantastic productivity boosters for enterprise use. Less distractions for the worker bees.
> And those phones will run Linux with the Android UI and drivers.
You seem to assume Android is just another Linux distro with a different windows manager? If so, you are mistaken. An Android system is very different from a Linux distro - they basically only share the kernels and it is quite wrong to classify Android as "Linux" because it creates confusion.
You seem to assume Android is just another Linux distro with a different windows manager? If so, you are mistaken. An Android system is very different from a Linux distro - they basically only share the kernels and it is quite wrong to classify Android as "Linux" because it creates confusion.
The Linux kernel and Android kernel have already become one again, and I suspect that the community will narrow the gap further.
Right now they mainly just share the kernel. If the GNU tool chain is included and you can compile and run linux programs, what is the difference besides some architectural changes?
Right now they mainly just share the kernel. If the GNU tool chain is included and you can compile and run linux programs, what is the difference besides some architectural changes?
> " If the GNU tool chain is included"
That's a very big "if". It is not the case currently so I would not put them under the same umbrella.
That's a very big "if". It is not the case currently so I would not put them under the same umbrella.
Allow me to say, as a regular user of a tiling window manager, that they have more than a few shortcomings. Shortcomings which go beyond defaults and shortcuts.
- Many applications are designed with a floating environment in mind, and as a result simply translate very poorly to a tiling environment.
- If I'm working with more than three or four windows (which is common) I've basically got my active window and a stack of non-active, tiny, non-useable windows. In other words, it becomes difficult to combine even a medium-size set of windows with a usage model wherein I wish to interact with 2-3 medium size windows simultaneously.
- Often in a floating environment, I can overlap windows, maximizing utilized screen space by covering up unimportant parts of a certain window.
There are basically two reasons I keep using a tiling WM. First, it does pretty well with term emulators. Second, the existence of tabbed term emulators. The ability to spawn and destroy tabs on a whim without changing the screen layout really helps with my thought flow. If I was really a purist I'd be using GNU screen for that, but at that point what am I doing in X11 anyway?
- Many applications are designed with a floating environment in mind, and as a result simply translate very poorly to a tiling environment.
- If I'm working with more than three or four windows (which is common) I've basically got my active window and a stack of non-active, tiny, non-useable windows. In other words, it becomes difficult to combine even a medium-size set of windows with a usage model wherein I wish to interact with 2-3 medium size windows simultaneously.
- Often in a floating environment, I can overlap windows, maximizing utilized screen space by covering up unimportant parts of a certain window.
There are basically two reasons I keep using a tiling WM. First, it does pretty well with term emulators. Second, the existence of tabbed term emulators. The ability to spawn and destroy tabs on a whim without changing the screen layout really helps with my thought flow. If I was really a purist I'd be using GNU screen for that, but at that point what am I doing in X11 anyway?
> If I'm working with more than three or four windows (which is common) I've basically got my active window and a stack of non-active, tiny, non-useable windows. In other words, it becomes difficult to combine even a medium-size set of windows with a usage model wherein I wish to interact with 2-3 windows simultaneously.
This is my biggest issue as well. I would like a way to hide these windows and take them out of my next/previous stack. Out of all the tiling WMs out there I feel one has to have this feature but I've been so happy with ratpoison otherwise I haven't looked.
This is my biggest issue as well. I would like a way to hide these windows and take them out of my next/previous stack. Out of all the tiling WMs out there I feel one has to have this feature but I've been so happy with ratpoison otherwise I haven't looked.
I feel like a tiling WM could really benefit from a taskbar-like metaphor. It doesn't have to be precisely a taskbar, but the ability to make this or that application completely invisible without sending it to another virtual desktop is often useful.
Perhaps, to stay in keeping with the ability to do everything from the keyboard, treat the "taskbar" like a second stack, only reduced to names instead of shrunken windows.
Perhaps, to stay in keeping with the ability to do everything from the keyboard, treat the "taskbar" like a second stack, only reduced to names instead of shrunken windows.
Check out i3. It can do what you want (if I get what you're writing).
I never liked tiling window managers using the master-slave paradigm (like xmonad does) precisely because of the problems you both described.
http://i3wm.org/screenshots/ (check the screencast and skip to 2:55 for examples of the different layouts)
I never liked tiling window managers using the master-slave paradigm (like xmonad does) precisely because of the problems you both described.
http://i3wm.org/screenshots/ (check the screencast and skip to 2:55 for examples of the different layouts)
Argh. It looks interesting, but the dependencies are killing me; we use an unusual system for managing libraries, and i3 doesn't have a very intelligent config engine...
Ah too bad, I wasn't aware of that since I just get it through my package manager.
[deleted]
It's probably just about the opposite. Linux is many years away from the level of plug-it-in-and-forget-it integration that Windows has. Linux is light years away from having anything resembling Active Directory in quality. And like it or not, the corporate world lives and dies by Office.
I'd say if you want to make progress, the consumer space is the only possible bet, and it won't be on desktop computers but on tablets and embedded devices which, for the most part, will replace people's keyboard and monitor machines at home.
But not in the office.