Off-topic = Linux on desktop

[Joseph Claeys]

Just an FYI -

"We're focusing on building a complete Linux desktop as an alternative to what you've been using," Novell Vice Chairman Chris Stone told Novell loyalists at the company's BrainShare conference here. "We believe that in the next 12 months, we will see the widespread adoption of Linux on the desktop."

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5177257.html?tag=nefd_top

~joe

[Peter.Greulich]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Maybe some day. But I'm not looking forward to it. Alpha would have to rewrite their program. No thanks.

[Joseph Claeys]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

True. Although it makes the case for using WAS to some extent, since it would be platform independent.

~joe

[AaronBBrown]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

My personal opinion is that Linux, while a great server platform, is no where near ready for the desktop. Even the best desktop environments (KDE, Gnome) are clunky, slow, and have very little commercial software support compared to the Windows desktop. It's too bad, but unfortunately it is true. It's going to be a while before your average home or business user is considering a linux system as their primary desktop.

[Blake]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Anyone with questions about Linux, whether or not it's usable or desktop ready, can gain some pretty quick-and-easy firsthand experiences at these sites:

http://www.knoppix.com/

http://lab.dyne.org/DyneBolic

These are CD-bootable images of Linux. They boot up to a fully-functional OS, complete with network, web browser, e-mail reader, office suite, some games, etc. (If you have DSL you can download the images in about an hour, otherwise you might want to order a CD. :-))

It boots up much faster than a Windows start-up disk, and isn't much slower than a regular Windows boot despite having to detect and install all hardware. Once it's up, it's so much faster than Windows, it's not even funny. (Granted, this is on a machine with a lot of RAM, running an OS out of the RAM, so that's part of it.)

Architecturally, Linux has a clunky graphics system (as Aaron points out) but in practice, it feels like a Mac/Windows hybrid, with a lot of bells and whistles not found in out-of-the-box Windows, like multiple desktops.

Typical of Linux, while Knoppix works on my systems, Dynebolic doesn't (at least, last time I tried it, which was a year or so ago), and Knoppix doesn't recognize all my hardware, particularly my external storage devices.

I used Knoppix a couple of weeks ago on a system where Windows refused to boot, and managed to get it working well enough to salvage a bit of data I hadn't backed up before crashing. I was sorely tempted to keep using it.

For the average joe, running e-mail, browsing the web, and doing some light word processing, Linux would be perfectly serviceable. Wal-Mart has been selling Lindows (a Linux variant that strives to be as easy-to-use and Windows) for over a year now. I don't know how well they're selling, but well enough for Wal-Mart to persist. The difference between a $500 machine with Windows and a $300 machine with Lindows is probably significant to a large number of people.

For us, as developers, we have to look both ways before crossing the street. There's not only the question of whether or not to adopt Linux personally, but also the question of whether our customers (current and future) are going to adopt it.

Being able to develop for Linux can be a HUGE advantage if you want to offer a standalone system. If you wanted to sell a complete package, hardware and software, you can not only knock off the price of the OS (substantial and increasing at an alarming rate) but you can use cheaper hardware (since Linux runs comfortably on a '386).

Linux can even give ol' DOS a run for the money in the dedicated hardware dep't. It makes a good choice for kiosk based stuff, too, because it's rock solid.

That doesn't even address security. You could give 99%+ of all virus warnings a miss if you ran Linux.

And there's much, much more to commend it.

Having said all that, Chris Stone is a fruitcup. :-) We won't be seeing substantial penetration of Linux into the desktop market. Novell, IBM, and all the other big Linux backers are backing it at least partly out of revenge. IBM for OS/2, Novell for their network OS, etc.

So they're enjoying rubbing Bill's nose in the fact that while he crushed them with various legal and illegal commercial tactics, it's much harder to crush something free. Linux dominates the web server biz, and is making in-roads into areas MS thought they had locked down. (Hence, MS's scrambling to get acceptance for .NET and to render the OS irrelevant.)

The Lindows guys may be the ones to watch, or a similar company, if they can provide out-sourced tech support. Maybe if MS themselves came out tomorrow and said "We're abandoning Windows for Linux" it'd still take years, unless Linux got a lot better running existing apps and a lot omre of the major app vendors started supporting it.

[Ryan Ware]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

" (since Linux runs comfortably on a '386)."

Yes without a gui it will, but then so will DOS. A modern Linux gui requires about the same or more horsepower than Windows, and typically feels more clunky, to me at least.

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Blake

Nice analysis. The problem with Linux is general acceptance. Most large companies today have established Mickeysoft as the standard. To change that and move it to another operating system and the related programs would be a serious nightmare. Just changing the standard word processing program can have serious effects. Our company forced all of us using Wordperfect to move to Word over 2 years ago. We are still feeling the fallout as we frequently need to access old documents and templates that were build in Wordperfect.

Jerry

[Jamin Dunivan]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

That depends on the desktop you install. Blackbox or Fluxbox are very minimal menu driven guis. You cant change your desktop in Windows other than the looks.

It mostly depends on what you are running in the background. Same goes for Windows.

[Ryan Ware]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

True. Though most Windows users will only be comfortable in GNOME or KDE which like power.

[Joseph Claeys]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Excellent points. I've been reading some A4/A5 posts dealing with the costly move to A5 due to hardware (WINXP). Well with a linux setup on the old 486 with a WAS you might get what you want for an unbeatable price.

I remember reading an article a loooong time ago about a businessman in California that was sued by M$ due to licensing issues (too many seats weren't paid for). He admitted to not watching over the licensing as vigilent as he should but as a small businessman he was outraged at the response from M$ (pheasant hunting with a cannon). So he moved to Linux back when it wasn't in fashion. He pointed out that while the transition was tough he was able to customize the computer for each job. So gone was the Solitaire time killer and those that didn't need Internet access had no internet client etc. He made a good case for Linux just based on the flexibility of the OS.

As for me I'm sticking with the 'borg'. As someone that started out on the MAc I know how frustrating it can be to need an application that hasn't been written for my niche OS. But if I were to own a business it would be wise to at least investigate.

~joe

[martinwcole]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Unless I am mistaken about this, if it is factual that an end user using the WAS does not have to have ANY aspect of Alpha installed on their computer, the app would still have to be on a Windows server! But, given that, the end user's OS would be irrelevant, as they are only "surfing the web."

[Blake]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

"(since Linux runs comfortably on a '386).&quot"

Yes without a gui it will, but then so will DOS."

It has a lot more power than DOS, though. For dedicated apps, however, that's not always needed or wanted, so DOS is still king in some areas.

"A modern Linux gui requires about the same or more horsepower than Windows,"

More? Really? I mean, if you took two minimum systems for XP (300mhz CPU, 64MB RAM, 2.1G hard-disk space) and put Linux on one and XP on the other--well, Linux would certainly run--and would have more free disk space. Are you suggesting that XP would run better?

I may have a system that I can test this hypothesis out on, come to think of it.

"and typically feels more clunky, to me at least."

I found Knoppix (which uses KDE) easy as pie, once I got used to the more Mac-style of single-clicking (I guess Windows can be set up that way, too).

Sidebar: I was just having this discussion with an editor friend of mine from the OS/2 days. The thing she hears from people is "Windows is the best OS ever!"

To which her response is, "Really? What other systems have you used?" The usual answer, of course, is none, which is akin to pronouncing McDonald's the "best hamburger" if you've never eaten anywhere else.

We all get conditioned to things; I've tried very hard to work on different OSes (Apples, MVS, DOS, Windows 3.x, OS/2, Windows 9x, Windows NT/2K/XP, Linux, Unix) and in different programming environments (more variations on Basic, Assembler, C/++, Pascal, Smalltalk, PL/I, dBase, Java, etc., than I can recall) and =still= I find myself falling into certain patterns and bristling against things that don't work the way I think they should--i.e., the way I'm used to.

There is "better" and "worse" among these things, to be sure. But most often, there is, "comfortable" and "uncomfortable"--a highly subjective and conditioned response.

Hmmm. Sorry for the rant.

[Blake]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

"Nice analysis."

Thank you. I've been watching Linux like a hawk since IBM killed OS/2.

"The problem with Linux is general acceptance. Most large companies today have established Mickeysoft as the standard."

Microsoft penalizes its customers soundly otherwise.

"To change that and move it to another operating system and the related programs would be a serious nightmare."

Which is one reason we won't see Linux make serious incursions on to the desktop. Companies have and will continue to change over for very telling reasons (MS' strong-arm licensing tactics, poor security) but if there's any big change, it'll be back room.

MS licensing scales more expensively than their products. People dependent on high-powered servers can find their costs going up dramatically enough to make them look at Linux as possibly giving them a budgetary edge.

And, I hope, most IT execs are waking up to the lie that "Windows is easier" for server maintenance. Server maintenance is skilled labor for any system.

"Just changing the standard word processing program can have serious effects. Our company forced all of us using Wordperfect to move to Word over 2 years ago. We are still feeling the fallout as we frequently need to access old documents and templates that were build in Wordperfect."

Yep. I've seen it many times. I have friends in support who push to get standardization on MS office because it makes their job easier. The help desk ends up dictating the tech for the company, rather than the people who have to use it.

[Peter.Greulich]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Martin,

That is a very good point. Of course, the downside is that working over the web can be painfully slow - even w. broadband. Still, I can appreciate that the WAS will make Alpha far more universally available.

Peter

[Blake]

RE: Off-topic = Linux on desktop

Peter,

I discovered something when making Web apps. If the person had a native app to work with, the Web app was considered "slow". If the person didn't, they were fine with a Web app.

The slow-ness of the Web interface should, to some degree, be countered by the potential speed of a Client/Server solution. Right now, if you're using an A5 app over your network, you're doing a lot more traffic on the network than you would if A5 were a genuine C/S setup.

===Blake===