[techtalk] Desktop OS?

[Caitlyn M. Martin]

Hi, Michelle, and everyone else,

> >   OK, I had to download some drivers and recompile the
> >kernel to make the PCMCIA floppy work on the two Librettos I have, but
> > even that wasn't hard with the tools and instructions Red Hat kindly
> > provides.
>
> Please listen at what you just said. For most people on this list (me
> included) doing that is a cakewalk, or close to it. For how many
> people is this true?

Point taken.  However, those Librettos are older technology.  Many of the 
major manufacturers (IBM, Sony, HP, Compaq, Dell, and Toshiba at least) now 
certify at least some of their desktop and/or laptop models as 100% Linux 
compatible.  In some cases you have to add manufacturer-supplied drivers, but 
that applies to Winodws as well.
>
> This is not to say that I think Windows is *better*. Far from it. But
> you have to admit, that for just about everything, windows is
> *easier*. 

I disagree, and I'll get to why as I address your other points.  The only 
thing that is easier about Windows is that people are used to it already, and 
don't have to learn a different way of doing things than what they know.  
That, more than anything else, will hold Linux back if the big corporations 
don't make a switch.

> That's the kicker. And if you buy a new model of laptop, or
> new hardware, you have to wait around a bit before all of the drivers
> you might need are available.  Is this Linux's fault? Of course not,
> it's because the hardware manufacturers generally don't release Linux
> drivers, and you have to wait for some driver-hacker to
> reverse-engineer the hardware first.

See my comments above.  The main difference between buying a Windows-ready 
laptop and a Linux-ready laptop is that 1) Windows is preinstalled.  This is 
*huge*, and 2) You actually have to do a little reseach and choose a 
Linux-ready one.  Any laptop (except a Mac) will work with Windows.  

To me, the big issue that holds Linux back is product placement, not ease of 
use.  Finally, though, a crack in the Microsoft armor!  Guess what I saw at 
CompUSA?  A tiny version of the Sony Vaio, preconfigured as dual boot:  
Windows ME and Red Hat Linux 7.0.  Very cool!  If preconfigured Linux systems 
get into the mainstream stores then it really *does* have a chance to catch 
on.  The question is:  is that a good thing?  How will the mainstreaming of 
Linux change it? 
>
> Well, from what I've read about the winmodem issue, the percentage of
> winmodems that are supported are a small minority. Yes, it's a
> growing minority, but at this point it's still quite small.

Point taken.  I just wanted to point out that "it doesn't work" wasn't a 
given.  Once again, someone who isn't technical and who wants a Linux system 
really has to shop for one with Linux in mind in the first place, and that is 
a big barrier right now.
>
> KOffice is impressive? From what perspective? My experience of
> KOffice is that it sucks rocks. It doesn't have that many features,
> some features are pretty strangely implemented, it crashes at the
> drop of the hat (I've tried this with a couple of different distros,
> so it wasn't the installation), and it can't deal with MS files,
> which for most people is essential, since they share files with folks
> who use MS office.

I should have said "impressive for such a young product".  Which version did 
you try?  That describes the version that came with KDE 1.9x and 2.0.  The 
version with 2.1.1 does have MS Office filters, though they need work, 
doesn't crash, and has a feature list that is rapidly improving.
>
> I have to say, that as much as I don't like M$, and I think Access is
> the database from hell that should have been killed off years ago,
> and Word is a bloated excuse for a word processor,  Excel is a damn
> good program, as is PowerPoint. Although I like the spreadsheet and
> presentation packages that go with StarOffice, it's pretty hard to
> beat those two in quality.

I still prefer Lotus 1-2-3 to Excel, but that's personal preference and 
neither run natively on Linux.  I really think Gnumeric is getting close to 
if not at Excel's quality level.  What it is lacking are the collaborative 
features and version tracking.  The Excel filter in it works extremely well.  
I just hope the rest of the Gnome Office package becomes as good as Gnumeric.
>
> To say that there are "five office suites to choose from" is beside
> the point if they aren't near as good.

I'd say that StarOffice is "nearly" as good, and the next version, from what 
I understand, won't be written in Java, which is why it's so awfully slow.  
I'd say that KOffice has the potential to be as good in the not to distant 
future.  
>
> See I think that this is part of the problem. It passes the Mom, or
> Grandma test *if we set it up*  and they never have to install or
> upgrade anything. (In fact, windows has a harder time passing this
> test because it's so much less stable) It passes the geek test,
> obviously. Is there any other test it passes, *honestly*? Can
> semi-savvy non-geeks deal?

I'm going to tackle this from two angles:  First, 90% of computer users can't 
install *any* operating system.  They buy their system with the OS 
preinstalled.  This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so 
critical.  IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS 
are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital.

OTOH, to answer your question more directly, I honestly believe the answer is 
"yes".  Try something if you have the time.  Install either current version 
of Windows (2000 or ME) and get it to work properly with everything in your 
system.  Next wipe the system and do it again, this time with either 
Linux-Mandrake 8.0 or Caldera OpenLinux eDesktop 3.1 (yes, the beta is fine 
for this test).  Tell me which is easier?  If Mandrake or Caldera correctly 
find the hardware (and the new versions are really good at detecting hardware 
correctly) Linux is actually easier.  No, that isn't true of all distros.  
The two I chose are the best for newbies, IMHO.
>
> It's about an honest assessment of its weaknesses, so that
> it *can* end up managing to make it on the desktop. I figure that if
> I am getting frustrated enough with it, and spending more time
> futzing with my installation (which I happen to enjoy), than getting
> work done, how are people who are already pretty sold on Windows
> going to look at it?

Chances are, if they have to install their own OS, *most* of them won't 
bother, and a high percentage of those that do won't be happy at all.  Try a 
week as a "Mandrake Expert" and you'll know just how lost the newbies are.  
When you try to help them with something that seems like second nature, i.e.: 
"open a terminal window and type in this command", you are likely to get no 
response, or worse, something like "What is a terminal window?"  

To me, this is why preloads and corporate acceptance are what are going to 
determine whether or not Linux makes it on the desktop.  It has nothing to do 
with technical superiority since most users won't understand the issues 
involved.  It has nothing to do with how easy the installation is, since the 
vast majority of users can't handle even the simplest installation.  It has 
nothing to do with ease of use, since both KDE and Gnome have already made it 
user friendly.  It has to be prechewed, put in friendly packaging, and sold 
by kids at superstores who don't know anything at all and are paid minimum 
wage.

The really sad thing is that if Linux does make it as a desktop OS, most of 
us on the list will hate the result.  Most users won't use Linux the way we 
do, and most distros will adjust to the new user base.  I dare say the kind 
of young hackers who built Linux in the first place will be into other 
things, as in maybe BSD or Hurd or something that isn't even on the horizon 
yet.

Anyway, it's all opinion, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it :)  Oh, 
and I think we agree on most all the facts.  We just draw different 
conclusions from them.

All the best,
Caity