Linux Desktop Needs Major Vendor Support: Article
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
The two main things holding consumers back are really little support for games and the idea that it's hard. For people reasonably new to PC's, the games are probably the only thing.
And with China and others heavily into Linux, we could expect games for it as soon as the producers figure out how to have those millions of players pay for those. No US/EU rates, of course, but 10 bucks apiece and millions of buyers is no money to sneeze at, especially as the manufacturing and distribution costs can be near zero.
And with China and others heavily into Linux, we could expect games for it as soon as the producers figure out how to have those millions of players pay for those. No US/EU rates, of course, but 10 bucks apiece and millions of buyers is no money to sneeze at, especially as the manufacturing and distribution costs can be near zero.
I would say it's only about games. Games made the Windows platform what it is. Linux will have to offer a competitive alternative to game on to take its place.
So, we see that DirectX is Microsoft's megaton warhead to keep Linux at bay. Of course, some of you will choose to see this differently.
So, we see that DirectX is Microsoft's megaton warhead to keep Linux at bay. Of course, some of you will choose to see this differently.
Yes, that's why it's interesting that Microsoft and others really want the same things to happen that would make downloadable Linux games possible. Which is why there is that much fuss about unavoidable hardware DRM.
Then again, they did make some serious enemies by now, who will happily gobble up all that market share. Expect a large choice of Linux boxes powered by Cell for home entertainment by Sony and Philips in the store within six months. Together with PS3, that might make quite a dent in the Wintel Multimedia Center roadmap to total domination.
;-)
Then again, they did make some serious enemies by now, who will happily gobble up all that market share. Expect a large choice of Linux boxes powered by Cell for home entertainment by Sony and Philips in the store within six months. Together with PS3, that might make quite a dent in the Wintel Multimedia Center roadmap to total domination.
;-)
I got a large rant from a friend who is a Novell/Windows admin. About not being able to use Active Directory to configure Linux computers. And not being able to get a mailserver running on a Linux box (which has exim installed and configured), or in that case not being able to find the button that is marked "Manage Exch^h^h^h^h mailserver". Or that IIS was a real PITA, but that it was MUCH better than Apache, as he didn't know what to do with that.
But what he really wanted most, was to be able to use Remote Desktop Connection to be able to actually manage the things.
Strange, isn't it? In a Unix/Linux network, you might use programs each day, that just seem to run like every other program, in their own window next to the others and all that, but that actually run on some remote server somewhere. No *nix admin would think twice about that.
Then again, to configure such a network, PuTTY (terminal windows) rules. Why would you want to take over the graphical desktop of every computer (server) you want to manage? What would be the point? But try that with a Windows network!
Btw, it was really hard to convince him that he could actually run a "Windows" domain with AD (LDAP) without using Windows servers. Or just route everything through his Linux server, instead of the stand-alone router, which is also a simple Linux box in the first place.
But what he really wanted most, was to be able to use Remote Desktop Connection to be able to actually manage the things.
Strange, isn't it? In a Unix/Linux network, you might use programs each day, that just seem to run like every other program, in their own window next to the others and all that, but that actually run on some remote server somewhere. No *nix admin would think twice about that.
Then again, to configure such a network, PuTTY (terminal windows) rules. Why would you want to take over the graphical desktop of every computer (server) you want to manage? What would be the point? But try that with a Windows network!
Btw, it was really hard to convince him that he could actually run a "Windows" domain with AD (LDAP) without using Windows servers. Or just route everything through his Linux server, instead of the stand-alone router, which is also a simple Linux box in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
A. You've never used Gnome, have you?MipMap said:
B. Linux needs DirectX or a viable competitor. Same with Macs, although since that is not the primary market for Macs, it's not nearly as important.
The Baron said:
QFT. Especially sound management is severely lacking compared to other OSses.
ALSA is a step in the right direction, but it's still a long way to go - and a complete Media Framework would still be better in this case IMO.
As this goes against common *nix philosophy (keep it simple (capabilitywise), right tool for the right job etc.), I somehow doubt it will happen soon...
the main thing holding me back from switching all of my boxes from windows to linux (other than games) isn't the dificulty of learning a single distro or interface, it's the dificulty of learning a plethora of them so i can find the one that's right for me. somewhat related to that, finding linux help can be annoying at times. you can usualy find good information with a bit of serching, but if you need to ask a question sometimes the community can be quite elitest. to me, that's like finding an awsome bar with great drinks, but after you've had a few and you need to find the men's room, everyone you ask treats you like shit for not knowing where it is.
Just pick a good one, with good support, and stick with it for a while. When you get to know how things work, switching becomes a lot easier. I would suggest Debian or a derivate. Consistent, good on-line support, and apt-get is sublime.see colon said:
Oh, and install a good text editor. I recommend jed, it's by far the easiest when you come from Windows.
The Baron said:
Gnome is improving, and it's organized fairly well now. But on an application level, Linux isn't anywhere close to the usability of Mac. A lot of Linux applications are extremely powerful, but also extremely complicated for the average person to use. I can use it, no problems. But if you asked my mom and dad to use it, there's no way in hell they'd be comfortable with it. Even my brother can put around in Windows and Mac and get things done, but in Linux it would be another story.
Then again, for the every day things most people do with it, MSN, browsing, e-mail and watching media, it's just as good as Windows. Only games are lacking in that respect.Scott_Arm said:
And if you want some specific applications, you're probably going to spend enough time with them to learn how to use them properly. They're not much (if any) harder when you're not used to a different one in the first place. Change is hard, learning something fresh is different.
GNOME is good, but it's not quite as easy as the Mac (yes it's improving, but it's still behind IMO).
Linux still isn't plug-and-play with many devices (try setting up an arbitrary USB 802.11g wireless network dongle on Linux for example... some work, many don't). It's getting better, but it's not there yet.
The other desktop killer app which MicroSoft have of course is Office. OpenOffice etc. are good, but they're not perfectly cross-compatible with MS Office.
Thing is, if you're talking about a desktop which is built from the ground up to run Linux, with carefully chosen hardware and carefully configured user expectations, then Linux is fine. If the user of the PC wants to interact with other people (eg. swap Word documents, play WMV files, etc.) or plug in randomly chosen hardware, there are enough mines out there in the minefield to cause problems for most normal users.
Linux still isn't plug-and-play with many devices (try setting up an arbitrary USB 802.11g wireless network dongle on Linux for example... some work, many don't). It's getting better, but it's not there yet.
The other desktop killer app which MicroSoft have of course is Office. OpenOffice etc. are good, but they're not perfectly cross-compatible with MS Office.
Thing is, if you're talking about a desktop which is built from the ground up to run Linux, with carefully chosen hardware and carefully configured user expectations, then Linux is fine. If the user of the PC wants to interact with other people (eg. swap Word documents, play WMV files, etc.) or plug in randomly chosen hardware, there are enough mines out there in the minefield to cause problems for most normal users.
Good point. Especially because most normal users can barely use a Windows PC in that respect.nutball said:
Then again, it might be like FF/Opera: while about 80% of all the users use IE, about a third of all pages are accessed with FF/Opera. The power users might be the target market for Linux, not the noobs. Which can actually be a pretty good thing.
DiGuru said:
I definitely do not agree about the media player aspect. I tried the latest Ubuntu and I had to find repositories to download and install a lot of codecs that were not included with Linux. Then I had to find a media player that would actually play all of those file types.
If you're using GNOME apps, then media playback is a joke, there is a significant lack of consistency, but that's because the GNOME framework has a long way to go.
In my case, I just installed kaffine, dled the codec from a third party repo and I can play anything I've come across.
In my case, I just installed kaffine, dled the codec from a third party repo and I can play anything I've come across.
