[techtalk] Desktop OS?

[Martin.Caitlyn at epamail.epa.gov]

Hi yet again Michelle :)

This has been a really good running dialogue, hasn't it?

> I have to disagree on this one, being a pretty constant user of all
> three major OSes. Linux is by far the hardest of the 3 to setup,
> configure and deal with on a day to day basis, I think.

This, IMHO varies dramatically by distribution and by version of each
distro.  TurboLinux, for example, has much poorer tools than Caldera or Red
Hat for doing basic system configuration.  I specifically mean graphical,
plain English, user friendly tools.  I can edit all my configuration files
myself at the command line, especially since that level of knowledge is
part of my job requirements.  Most users, even moderately knowledgeable
ones, can't, at least not without doing some research.  Also, take a look
at harddrake in Mandrake 7.0 and look again in 8.0.  The difference is day
and night.  Ditto COAS in Caldera.  Linux now, in the latest versions of
the friendly distros, isn't hard any more.  Let's put it this way:  I can
walk my Mom through things like changing her default screen resolution.  Of
course, she didn't know that was what she wanted.  She just wanted
everything "bigger". :)

> But
> when I have to deal with a linux glitch or setup of some sort, it's
> often (but not always) a much more major time suck, and more
> challenging, than dealing with the same issues in either windows or
> mac.

My experience vis a vis Windows is just the opposite.  I don't know how
many times I've seen our very experienced NT admins at work throw their
hands in the air and either remove and reinstall an app or even the entire
OS.  You just don't have to do that in Linux.  There's no registry to get
corrupted, for example.

> Case in point: Do you think that pointing at an icon, clicking the
> "Next" button a few times, perhaps reading a little instructions is
> harder (or anywhere near as hard) than the following scenario that I
> have been through lots:

> tar -xzf some_new_software.tar.gz
> less INSTALL/README
> ./configure --with who knows how many options
> oops, forgot to set some environment variables
> ./configure --with options
> make
> make install

> Or:
> rpm -i new_software.rpm
> oops, dependency problem - go to rpmfind.com
> rpm -i dependent_software.rpm
> rpm -i the_other_dependency.rpm
> oops missing package - go back to rpmfind.com
> rpm -i final_package.rpm
> rpm -i new_software.rpm

Nope, but that (for many if not most ordinary users) is the past, not the
present.  In Mandrake 8 I can preconfigure all the FTP sites I need into
the software manager.  Now, when I download one package in the example
above the procedure is:

Open Konqueror
Click on icon for app I just downloaded
Software manager opens up, finds anything I'm missing from my sources, and
installs the lot
Done

That really is every bit as easy as Windows.  Again, it passes the Mom test
quite nicely.  Mandrake's shrink wrapped Power Pack edition includes 7 CDs
by the way, some commercial apps, and about 2,300 open source ones.  Unless
you need some specific commercial app, t'ain't a whole lot of downloading
(except for upgrades) left for most folks.  SuSe is great that way, too.
What is SuSe up to?  About 10 CDs in whatever they call their deluxe
edition, isn't it?

I've heard this one a lot:
Joe user: "I tried Linux and gave up on it.  It's too hard to use."
Me: "Oh, when was that?  Do you know which kind of Linux you tried?"
Joe user: "A few years ago.  It was Red Hat, maybe 5 or something?"
Me: "It's completely changed since then."

When Linux first hit the press it *was* hard to use, and got a really bad
rap with some people, which is now undeserved, IMHO.

> Star Office, which is a huge program but has a nice GUI install was
> FAR easier to install than most little packages via rpm if you run
> into an (almost inevitable eventually) dependecy problem.

See above.  If the dependency problem is automagically resolved, most users
won't even know it existed.  Oh, and no, it doesn't work 100% of the time.
Just 95% or so at this point.  It needs to get better yet.  The thing is, I
think by the time Linux does make it as a desktop OS, it will be so close
to 100% that it will be good enough, and not just in Mandrake or Progeny
Debian, but in all the major distros.

> I agree that KOffice has huge *potential*. It's just unrealized at
> this point. I've used the earlier versions, mostly. However, the most
> recent version I tried didn't do so well with an (admittedly complex)
> Word document.

KOffice isn't alone.  Even StarOffice, which has the best MS Word filter I
have ever seen, breaks down on really complex documents.  The key is to
migrate people off Microsoft everything and to get them to use something
like HTML to save and send their documents to Windows users.  Unless we
break Microsoft's stranglehold not only on the desktop but on some apps as
well, nothing will matter.

> OK, I'll be upfront and say I have yet to try installing
> Linux-Mandrake 8.0, or the new Caldera OpenLinux. Some distros, like
> Linux-Mandrake can, in fact be easy to install, but that doesn't help
> if your hardware isn't compatible, which happens far more often in
> the Linux world than the windows one. I agree wholeheartedly that
> pre-installed systems are going to make a huge difference.

Exactly!  If readily available preinstalled systems are not available for
Linux where the public can see them it likely will not make it as a desktop
OS.  That is why I was so thrilled with actually seeing a preinstalled
Linux/Windows ME system in the store.  The problem is, it was only one
rather expensive mini laptop.  Preloaded systems have to be available in
every price range and in a variety of both desktop and laptop
configurations.

> I think that if *all*
> of the apps are substitutes for the ones most folks use everyday,
> it's not going to happen. But if you can get quicken, photoshop,
> dreamweaver, filemaker, etc. on Linux, many, many people will decide
> they can do with an alternative office suite. As much as I love the
> GIMP, and as close as it gets (pretty damn) to being as good as
> Photoshop, it *isn't*  Photoshop, because it doesn't have the name
> recognition. It's not going to draw long time photoshop users to
> Linux. Only Photoshop itself will.

Look at what you are saying.  You're not saying GIMP is in any way inferior
to Photoshop.  You're saying it isn't marketed well (or at all).  I agree.
Many of the "subsititute" apps are truly excellent, and GIMP is a wonderful
example.  Konqueror and Mozilla are excellent alternatives to Internet
Explorer, but how many people know about them?  The thing we, the Linux
community, needs to do if we want Linux to become mainstream is to educate
the public and to teach them that they shouldn't have to pay for
applications, period.  We need to convince them that they are throwing
their money away.  That is key.  The thing is, do we, the Linux community,
ever want it to truly go mainstream?  Can we fight it if companies like IBM
($1 billion invested in Linux this year alone) decide that they should take
it to the mainstream desktop?  Food for thought.

> You got it. If it happens, in a couple of years, lots of us will be
> on hurdchix :-)

Isn't it sad that if we make Linux successful we inevitably destroy it for
ourselves?  That is ironic, IMHO.

All the best,
Caity