3 ms·

Most folks don't realize, but desktop Linux has surpassed Windows and OSX in convenience, features and usability. Sure it still lacks some critical desktop appl

by tx 18y ago

Most folks don't realize, but desktop Linux has surpassed Windows and OSX in convenience, features and usability. Sure it still lacks some critical desktop applications and high quality UI design to truly shine. I've been alternating between Ubuntu and OSX for quite some time now, and dumbness of OSX (and it's visual polish) amaze me to this day: brand-new "naked" Leopard needs quite a few add-ons (sometimes commercial) to get on par with even (!) Gnome. Lets face it: conquering consumer market is impossible without millions spent on "Mac vs PC" commercials and I wouldn't expect Linux to ever get there, unless PC manufacturers start paying for it. Linux gets a nice chance to be a major player whenever DELL/HP/whoever develops a nice line of Linux-only machines with a catchy name and distinguished set of applications, accompanied by a massive PR-campaign, kind of like Eee PC on steroids.

syntaxfree 18y ago
I have better things to do than invest time in trying Linux again. Gnome may have features that Leopard doesn't have, but my subjective probability that Ubuntu just-works like my Mac does is very low, and I'm a geeky user. This isn't about commercials. Millions were spent in server-space commercials and Linux still came out winner because it was a cheap good-enough solution. Large companies have given desktop Linux many opportunities to catch on because it's economically more profitable. The crummy QA of desktop distributions (server distributions also have crummy QA, it's just that the geeks who run them are able to surf through it) made desktop Linux fail.
- muhfuhkuh 18y ago
  The EEEPC (and other linux-based low-cost PCs) success is a positive indicator that Linux can make it. Sure, some "geeks" will install XP on EEEPC, but for the most part, people are using Linux on it. I bet you haven't used any Linux in years. It's changed... alot.
Zev 18y ago
With the exception of a few distro's (Ubuntu and Sabayon are the only ones that spring to mind), how many ship with Fusion enabled? Let alone working graphics drivers needed for Fusion to run? It's great that one or two distro's can do this, but I thought the strength (and bane) of Linux was supposed to be that there's so much choice and ability to customize things. That you're not locked into a single distro; yet if you want things to work right away, you're still locked into a limited number of choices. You mention that linux needs a "…catchy name and distinguished set of applications…" before it can gain popularity or widespread usage. How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?
- tx 18y ago
  I would like to have a healthy discussion here but your post seems to be a set of randomly collected issues without a core point holding them together. I could respond with a similarly random bag of rants regarding OSX or Windows or anything else, really. But I won't. The original statement was that "Desktop Linux Failed". I objected and offered a way to "Succeed": IBM/Lenovo could have taken their existing ThinkPad line with its 100% hardware compatibility, put a prettier face on a hundred or so selected Gnome apps, give it a cool name and spend $50 million promoting them on TV, exactly what Apple did to BSD.
  - Zev 18y ago
    Ah, sorry about that. Didn't mean to be randomly collected, it was more of a spur of the moment post. It's not worded in the best way possible, but there is a core point in there. The basic point of the first part of my post was supposed to be that very few distros contain all the features that make the distro equal to OS X or even Windows. Because of this, it's inaccurate to say that Linux as a whole is equal. The second part of my post was a reply to a statement you said. It makes a lot more sense if read separately instead of part of the same post. To reply to what you said in response to me (Pretend this is the start of a separate post for more coherence if you like): What reason is there for IBM/Lenovo to do such a thing? Apple had a clear reason for buying Next; the failure of Copland. But how would taking Linux, developing a new UI, and rebranding everything else help IBM/Lenovo?
- astine 18y ago
  "With the exception of a few distro's (Ubuntu and Sabayon are the only ones that spring to mind), how many ship with Fusion enabled?" How many people really need Fusion? The vast majority of distros are niche designed to showcase a particular innovation or for a particular application, which may have nothing to do with general desktop use. Many others are designed for 'enterprise' applications and also have no need of Fusion. Yet more are designed for power users, who may or may not want Fusion, and certainly know how to install it if they do. only a few distros are targeted at casual users and of them, only a couple think that Fusion is the proper solution.As you must understand, linux about flexibility and just because a particular distribution doesn't pack the features that you think it should have doesn't mean that it doesn't suit its target audience very well. "How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?" Different target market.

by tx 18y ago

syntaxfree 18y ago

I have better things to do than invest time in trying Linux again. Gnome may have features that Leopard doesn't have, but my subjective probability that Ubuntu just-works like my Mac does is very low, and I'm a geeky user. This isn't about commercials. Millions were spent in server-space commercials and Linux still came out winner because it was a cheap good-enough solution. Large companies have given desktop Linux many opportunities to catch on because it's economically more profitable. The crummy QA of desktop distributions (server distributions also have crummy QA, it's just that the geeks who run them are able to surf through it) made desktop Linux fail.

muhfuhkuh 18y ago
The EEEPC (and other linux-based low-cost PCs) success is a positive indicator that Linux can make it. Sure, some "geeks" will install XP on EEEPC, but for the most part, people are using Linux on it. I bet you haven't used any Linux in years. It's changed... alot.

Zev 18y ago

With the exception of a few distro's (Ubuntu and Sabayon are the only ones that spring to mind), how many ship with Fusion enabled? Let alone working graphics drivers needed for Fusion to run? It's great that one or two distro's can do this, but I thought the strength (and bane) of Linux was supposed to be that there's so much choice and ability to customize things. That you're not locked into a single distro; yet if you want things to work right away, you're still locked into a limited number of choices. You mention that linux needs a "…catchy name and distinguished set of applications…" before it can gain popularity or widespread usage. How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?

tx 18y ago
I would like to have a healthy discussion here but your post seems to be a set of randomly collected issues without a core point holding them together. I could respond with a similarly random bag of rants regarding OSX or Windows or anything else, really. But I won't. The original statement was that "Desktop Linux Failed". I objected and offered a way to "Succeed": IBM/Lenovo could have taken their existing ThinkPad line with its 100% hardware compatibility, put a prettier face on a hundred or so selected Gnome apps, give it a cool name and spend $50 million promoting them on TV, exactly what Apple did to BSD.
- Zev 18y ago
  Ah, sorry about that. Didn't mean to be randomly collected, it was more of a spur of the moment post. It's not worded in the best way possible, but there is a core point in there. The basic point of the first part of my post was supposed to be that very few distros contain all the features that make the distro equal to OS X or even Windows. Because of this, it's inaccurate to say that Linux as a whole is equal. The second part of my post was a reply to a statement you said. It makes a lot more sense if read separately instead of part of the same post. To reply to what you said in response to me (Pretend this is the start of a separate post for more coherence if you like): What reason is there for IBM/Lenovo to do such a thing? Apple had a clear reason for buying Next; the failure of Copland. But how would taking Linux, developing a new UI, and rebranding everything else help IBM/Lenovo?
astine 18y ago
"With the exception of a few distro's (Ubuntu and Sabayon are the only ones that spring to mind), how many ship with Fusion enabled?" How many people really need Fusion? The vast majority of distros are niche designed to showcase a particular innovation or for a particular application, which may have nothing to do with general desktop use. Many others are designed for 'enterprise' applications and also have no need of Fusion. Yet more are designed for power users, who may or may not want Fusion, and certainly know how to install it if they do. only a few distros are targeted at casual users and of them, only a couple think that Fusion is the proper solution.As you must understand, linux about flexibility and just because a particular distribution doesn't pack the features that you think it should have doesn't mean that it doesn't suit its target audience very well. "How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?" Different target market.