[techtalk] Re: [issues] Desktop OS?

[Daniel Manrique]

> > about whether or not Linux will make it as a desktop OS - and that 
> > the lack of good, solid apps (like an office suite) is limiting it's 
> 
> I've actually heard that Solaris' StarOffice for Linux works quite well.

Assuming you have at least 128 MB RAM, yes, it works pretty well.

The way I see it, there are two parts to success in the desktop: putting
the adequate infrastructure in place for the user to work, and providing
tools over that infrastructure.

In plain english, the first part involves actually installing the
operating system and leaving it working properly given the hardware you
have. Linux has made great strides here but it's not quite there yet; as
mentioned, there's still extraneous hardware that requires extra work to
get functioning, work that a lot of people (even seasoned geeks) would
rather not have to do.

I've seen Linux install 100% flawlessly on some hardware (a Compaq desktop
comes to mind). Everything, including audio, video card and networking,
worked right out of the box under Red Hat 7.1, and we ended up with a
system that boots right into KDE, which provides a really nice and
friendly environment. The windows-savvy people that were with me that day
ended up being fairly impressed.

However, I've also seen Linux be practically unable to detect anything but
the PCMCIA NIC on a Laptop. This is the other end of the spectrum; a
laptop contains a lot of weird, or proprietary, or otherwise "difficult"
hardware that Linux has problems with. I consider myself experienced, yet
the hardware that's caused me the most trouble and pain has been laptop
displays. This is admittedly too violent for someone who just wants to get
work done.

Linux is at a disadvantage here because the competing desktop OS's
(Windows and Mac OS) usually come preinstalled, saving the end-user the
hassle. Let's keep in mind that, given the need to reinstall, it's every
bit as hard to reinstall Windows as it is to install Linux. It's just that
usually, Windows comes preinstalled or there's some idiotic "rescue disk"
which just restores the system to the factory default configuration.

Once we get past installing the OS, Linux is again at a disadvantage,
lacking the means to allow end-users to easily install software. It's
nothing like in Windows, where you just double-click an icon, then
endlessly click on a "next" button until it turns into a "finished"
button. Very few Linux applications have something like that. And while
most modern distributions have graphical package-manager frontends, it's
not as simple as double-clicking an RPM file on the CD-ROM. It usually
involves dependency checking and stuff like that, making things cumbersome
and complicated for the newbie.

Progress needs to be done in this field. The applications are there
(StarOffice has been mentioned and it's very useful). But the user needs
to be able to install them in order to work.

In the end, true linuxers don't care if linux ever becomes a mainstream
desktop OS. As long as the apps I need to do my work are available for
Linux (and since most of them are free (speech) there's a high chance
they'll be perpetually available) I really don't need to boot into Windows
for anything; i can do everything I need in Linux, and run that as my
primary desktop OS.

The reason I need a secondary OS (Windows) is because there's still no
decent way to play Starcraft under Linux :)


	- Roadmaster

----------------
*
Save a tree- use E-Mail!			roadmr at entropia.com.mx
*