Speculation thread: What must linux do to become more competitive in the home desktop

[Scott_Arm]

Although, IMHO, Nextstep was the first OS to use it. Damn good OS too - much more to my liking that OS X.
On another note Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is out today

Didn't MacOS9 and under have an apps folder? I seem to remember just dragging the app into the apps folder to get it to install. And there was one for extensions as well, or something like that. I hadn't actually touched a Mac between around 1997 and 2006, so my memory of the older versions is pretty blurry.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Applications - with all their resources, icon, libraries, etc. are in a single directory with sub directories. The topmost directory is given a .app extension. In the GUI this directory no longer appears as a directory but as an application and the .app extension disappears (though ls -l in a terminal will still show it is a directory). No resource are located elsewhere.

I really like how applications are distributed as a disc image. Then you load the image and that little installer window pops up that says, "Drag the application icon into the applications folder" and it shows you the icon with a little arrow pointing to an apps folder shortcut. Then you drag the icon and you're done. At least that's how it worked for some of the simple apps I installed. Very slick and as straight forward as humanly possible.

 

[Mize]

Didn't MacOS9 and under have an apps folder? I seem to remember just dragging the app into the apps folder to get it to install. And there was one for extensions as well, or something like that. I hadn't actually touched a Mac between around 1997 and 2006, so my memory of the older versions is pretty blurry.

I believe the Mac always had independent apps. Whether there was an underlying directory structure in OS 9...I don't think so. I remember having to use some sort of resource editor to modify application messages or icons whereas today you can simply dive into the app directory for that app and modify stuff.

But anyway, you install a Mac app (OS X at least) simply by copying it to your hard drive. You can put it anywhere, double-click and it runs...it doesn't have to run to a centralized database to get it's settings (their in its .app directory) or a lib directory for resources (also in its directory other than default OS libs), etc.

 

[suryad]

My suggestion would be more apps for Linux that people would use. I mean an OS is one thing but its ecosystem is very important for the popularity and its presence in the market. I mean if there were Linux flavored apps for all the apps that you all use day to day dont you think it would be a no brainer (almost) to run Linux? I know I would jump immediately though I am having a great experience with XP x64.

On another note I think the reason why Apple is getting popular is because people just want a change and also usabilitywise it could be better but then again I dont know since I didnt try it out I am happy with XP and its Start button. But I think then a lot of people who are considering Mac OS X would switch to the Linux OS right away because of the valid impression that people who use Macs are snobs...that is if Linux had all the apps that one wants to run work on it. I mean theres no Photoshop for Linux. Sure GIMP is great but its no PS.

 

[Mize]

Gimp is a great app, but lacks the user-friendliness of Photoshop. I don't think there is really anything Photoshop can do that The Gimp cannot - it's just more work and more "low level" in the Gimp (and there fore more steps). I'd rather see stuff like Dreamweaver or Illustrator or the mid-range CAD (unigraphics is linux but quite pricey).

 

[webarchitect]

Linux is a great OS. But Windows just has the upper-hand because it has been in the market for awhile and has acquired a lot of support from different industries. Many software development companies, just like my bro's, they all utilize varying OS for different tasks.

All in all, I could say that every OS has its own advantages and disadvantages. It will probably just take awhile for Linux to surpass the advantages rooted by Microsoft

 

[I.S.T.]

Linux is a great OS. But Windows just has the upper-hand because it has been in the market for awhile and has acquired a lot of support from different industries. Many software development companies, just like my bro's, they all utilize varying OS for different tasks.

All in all, I could say that every OS has its own advantages and disadvantages. It will probably just take awhile for Linux to surpass the advantages rooted by Microsoft

The problem is Linux regularly shoots itself in the foot. Windows does too, but not like Linux does.

The worst screw-up Microsoft has done recently is, IMO, Vista Ultimate.

Now, compare that to the OSS4 debacle, which I linked to earlier in the thread.

 

[Vadi]

...

 

[Vadi]

Applications - with all their resources, icon, libraries, etc. are in a single directory with sub directories. The topmost directory is given a .app extension. In the GUI this directory no longer appears as a directory but as an application and the .app extension disappears (though ls -l in a terminal will still show it is a directory). No resource are located elsewhere.

For Linux there is Zeroinstall. I find it convenient not having to use some installer (DOS ). I think Gobolinux has similar goals (I found it while searching for a distro which uses Zeroinstall.
I like IRIX and its great filer and btw the ROX-Desktop is great.

 

[Saem]

If it can handle Office documents, and tax software.

 

[Mize]

If it can handle Office documents, and tax software.

It handles Office just fine - until everyone starts using MS's new "open" (yet proprietary and undisclosed) xml format. Leave it to MS to change their formats when the competition gets seamless.

As for tax software...uh...not yet. VMware XP install with Turbo Tax would work or online...

Moneydance, however, is a great Quicken alternative.

 

[Saem]

I think you missed my point. Honestly, when it comes to browsing, emailing, moving pictures and music about, and basic office stuff that a home user wants Linux is there.

The big weaknesses right now are web cam and taxes, as far as user experience goes.

As for getting people to actually use it/learn it, that's a matter of the work place/schools adopting it.

 

[PARANOiA]

Every 12 months or so I reinstall a Linux flavour wondering if this will finally be the one to cause me to make the permanent switch from Windows, but there's always a bunch of fatal flaws which mean I couldn't use it as the core PC in the house.

As an example, getting two monitors running at different resolutions - in this case, my monitor and my HDTV - requires manual editing of the x config file and rebooting. If I make a typo, I'm back to manually trying to edit the file in vi. This is not something anyone "normal" is going to bother learning. Windows does it very well, Macs are getting there (though stuff like dual-monitor setups are still only at the very top end) but this is stuff that Windows handles absolutely painlessly.

I'll be trying again soon, so here's hoping *shrug*

 

[Davros]

and as we all know vi is the teh evil

 

[Kyyla]

and as we all know vi is the teh evil

You want to see your mother try to exit vi? :smile:

 

[PARANOiA]

and as we all know vi is the teh evil

You want to see your mother try to exit vi? :smile:

Exactly. Vi is a great app for the hardcore, Davros, but you can't tell me editing your system configuration files in vi to get back into your windowed GUI is going to win over anything other than a tiny, tiny fraction of the market.

 

[Blazkowicz]

that's why there's nano.
also, you don't do a reboot, killing and restarting gdm is enough (but you lose your graphical session anyway).
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg (or xorg-xserver, I never remember) redoes the xorg.conf .

but I agree setting up a monitor is a total bitch, between the retarded way of doing it and terrible drivers. e. g. I wanted to project movies with a i845G based PC, didn't manage to get the 1280x720 resolution after fucking with it for endless minutes, ended up rebooting under XP and that was one click away.

 

[Fox5]

I like Linux, and I think it's ready for 90% of the market.

I've been using Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS for the past two years and have been having a great time with it. PCLinuxOS, imo, works better out of the box (especially since it's not trying to be commercialish, so it has no qualms about including proprietary, copyrighted, or vendor specific software...having Thinkpad utilities installed by default was nice) but Ubuntu's Debian base (and correspondingly apt-get) is better for the average user...ie, it's very easy to find and install new programs.

In fact, I'd say apt-get blows away Windows update and the entire process of installing software on windows. Within seconds, you can search for software keywords, have it installed, and everything on your computer automatically updates.

I've switched over to OpenOffice and Firefox exclusively, even on my Windows machines. When I send people an openoffice document of any complexity however, I save it as a PDF so I know it won't get corrupted. The GIMP is good too, I used Photoshop in the past and could never figure it out just by playing around. I can figure out the GIMP just by playing around with it. In my eyes, those who say the GIMP is harder to use are just used to photoshop first. Best of all, it's free and not nearly the resource hog that photoshop is.
Dreamweaver is sorely missed though.

When Linux works (at least the two distros I mentioned), it just works, and way better than windows for hardware discovery and application support. When it doesn't work...yeah it's not pretty.
Wine is OK, but even its commercial versions don't seem ready for prime time. Interestingly enough though, Wine runs old windows programs better than current versions of windows. Between DOSBOX and Wine, I can play almost all my old PC games better on Linux than on Windows. Support for modern games however is horrible.

I do however keep a virtualized copy of windows 2000 installed to run some windows apps (dev tools and 3d stuff mainly). Actually, on my laptop I find myself running virtualized 2000 more than staying in ubuntu. I like the "sandbox" I get. Plus, I have a compact flash drive as a hard disk in my laptop (32GB) and even with all the tips I found online it still hangs a bit in linux (though not as bad as when windows hangs). However, playing around with windows registry settings I was able to delay writes pretty much indefinitely, making it use only ram until it has to flush. This makes for an incredibly snappy windows installation (with very long pauses when it finally has to flush things).
Ideally, I'd run virtualized linux in windows to get the best of both worlds, except I don't want the performance penalty that comes with using NTFS over native Linux file systems.

Imo, Linux IS ready for the desktop. It just needs someone to start selling it to people, but an approach could easily be made to the market the same way apple markets its computers. (though probably at the low end rather than high)