Which Desktop Distro Will Die First? 574
Over at NewsForge, Roblimo asks the musical question of which of the several recently released "desktop oriented" Linux distributions won't survive the coming year. It's nice to see user-centric distributions at all, but it really is a niche market for now. Apropos that,
psykocrime writes "The fine folks at UnitedLinux have issued a Press Release announcing UnitedLinux 1.0.
Should be interesting to see whether this sinks or swims, considering the general ambivalence (at best) or even outright hostility (at worst) that most of the talk about United Linux has met, from the Linux community.
Questions about GPL compliance, per-set licensing terms, etc... is this the future or Linux or just another albatross?" And J. J. Ramsey writes "BeyondUnreal reviews not only Xandros Desktop's installation, but also shows what this distro's $99 price tag actually gets you. Read more here. LinuxPlanet also has an in-depth review of its own."
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy answer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Informative)
They already did and lost [com.com]so far, what more as a result the name Windows as a trademark for MS' OS might not be protected [internetnews.com]. Lindows might be doing us all a favor.
Re:Easy answer (Score:3)
They already did and lost
Did they acutally lose the case or just their request for injunctive relief?
Been there (Score:2)
That didn't work so well the last time they tried it [vnunet.com]...
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else notice that Lindows is trying to get around the "free" idea of the GPL by citing the section that states:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
And then proceding to charge you the entire retail cost for the product (that you would normally have to pay in order to get the full package with support and everything)? Everytime you end up at some FAQ or help portion of their site talking about the GPL, they always refer you to the page that sells the "Insider" version of Lindows for a $299 membership fee. Unless there is someplace buried further down in their site where you can download Lindows, I see them as ruining the idea of having the software freely available. I can't hardly imagine that it costs them $299 for the bandwidth you use to download Lindows, or the $129 at the regular retail subscription page.
Where is the page to order and download a $5 version in order to pay their bandwidth and server upkeep costs? I don't see it. Where is the page to order just the CDs for $10/$15? I don't see it.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Informative)
Where is the page to order and download a $5 version in order to pay their bandwidth and server upkeep costs? I don't see it. Where is the page to order just the CDs for $10/$15? I don't see it.
The GPL doesn't require them to provide it. They're perfectly fine under the GPL only selling it for $299.
What they can't do is stop you from giving away (or selling for $5) the copy you bought from them for $299. The GPL doesn't say anything about you having to give away your software, or about charging only what it costs to physically transfer the copy. It just says that you cannot then place any restrictions on further distribution of that GPLed software.
-Rob
Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL (Score:3, Informative)
You are right and I am wrong.
Not only does the fsf gpl faq address this, but section 3 of the GPL makes it clear.
You must either
- Include source code
- Accompany with written offer to ANY third party
- Accompany with written offer received from someone else -- but this option available only if YOU are a NON-commercial distributor, and yourself received the second option above.
It's the ANY third party that I was hung up over. So yes, Lindows, must either include source on the CD's or include downloadable source to anyone, not just their customers.Of course, they don't have to make it easy to find.
This written offer good for anyone who visits our web site between 2:00 and 3:00 AM CST on the 2nd Tuesday of the month.
The one that gets the fewest votes... (Score:5, Insightful)
What kills Linux distros (Score:5, Informative)
2. Onerous licensing not in keeping with Linux's mission.
3. Just plain bad distros.
4. Unprofessional behavior.
The latter will kill a company that deals in Linux very quickly, I've found, since the Linux community is very aware of a company's behavior, far more so than most other communities. If company X with distro Y is seen as "in bed with the enemy," they're going to get shunned faster than a sweet potato that's been up Rush Limbaugh's butt for safekeeping during the winter.
Maybe this is why small companies like Slackware are still around: they cater to a specific need, they do it well, and they don't try to shoot themselves in the foot with pretentious We Need To Grow Our Business jargon/corporate newspeak.
Re:What kills Linux distros (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What kills Linux distros (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What kills Linux distros (Score:5, Funny)
they're going to get shunned faster than a sweet potato that's been up Rush Limbaugh's butt for safekeeping during the winter.
Ok, that just ruined my day.
Re:What kills Linux distros (Score:3, Interesting)
That all depends on whom you ask. You must not have ever met any jumping, cheering fans (shills?) who give applause on command. They would say that, on the contrary, this makes it even sweeter.
This would MAKE their day. Such a potato would be rare indeed, and valued due to limited supply.
Re:What kills Linux distros (Score:2)
Linux's "mission" is irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux's "mission" and it's traditional community are irrelevant with respect to a desktop distro. IMHO a desktop distro is not for the traditional community it is for bringing new users to Linux. All that really matters is how well such a distro functions as a newbie desktop, how well the user gets along without Windows or Office. Linux's desktop future will be determined by people who don't give a rats ass about the GPL.
I predict that Debian will die first (Score:5, Funny)
The package quality is too high
It seems to have files in sane locations
You can upgrade to the latest version far too easily
It supports far too many archs
The swirl logo has lost its hypnotic appeal...
Re:I predict that Debian will die first (Score:2)
I do hate that swirl. And the name "Debian" is just stupid to me. But other than that this distro keeps me happy.
I'm afraid Xandros might be the first to fall next year. I'm completely uninformed, but Xandros is trying to make money and is not well known AFAIK. Too bad, because from what I hear this is exactly what a lot of newbies would want: some of the proprietary media add-ins included.
OK, so what editor should we kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
- sed
- ex
- nedit
- pico
- emacs
- vim
- elvis
- notepad.exe
Our insanely expensive consultants report says that the minor editors will be driven out of the market by Microsoft's better integrated offering that will support
Xix.
Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? (Score:5, Funny)
ReiserFS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ReiserFS (Score:2, Informative)
Dumb... (Score:2, Insightful)
#1) A linux distro doesn't die or disappear. I'll get flamed to hell for this but look at slackware. Its percentage of installed user's has dwindled and so has its development. However, the users it has are very dedicated (and vocal) and it is a good system. I'd imagine the same may spring up for any one of these "desktop" distros.
#2) Why don't they all merge? They all are obviously trying to take on Microsoft. They all are remarkably similiar. Basically a slicked up kde system and a $99 price tag. I would think it would be in their best interest if Lindows, Lycoris and whatever that other one (Xandros or something) is if they all pulled their resources and competed with MS alone (not each other).
#3) What the hell is wrong with Mandrake? I use Mandrake for everything (mostly cooker) and it rocks. While its not really fair to compare it to WinXP, I'd say if you compare it to WinMe it kicks the living crap out of it. Automatic hardware detection, easy network setup, kde 3.1 (mandrake 9.1... I'm using it now), etc... Walmart should focus on one of these distros and it should be Mandrake.
#4) United Linux is crap. "We want to make a new standard/certifying brand for linux... send us money". We have Red Hat distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc) and we have the LSB (Mandrake, probably some others... debian?). Ransom Love screwed up in the Unix world, now hes out looking for money off of linux. As previously stated, United Linux is crap.
*Huff*
Re:Dumb... (Score:5, Informative)
Completely free distros do not disappear, but those that require pay-per-seat because they have proprietary components are at much greater risk of disappearing. If the company loses interest, the distro goes away, as distributing it without their permission is not legal.
This is one of the things that puts Lindows at risk.
Re:Dumb... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe that they should merge. If they did I would have to put up w/the tons of shit from Mandrake and RedHat while all I want is Debian.
What's wrong w/Mandrake? What isn't? That's my opinion and that's yours... That's why I don't want Linux distributions to merge.
Why is UL crap? b/c they are trying to band against what they believe is an attempt by one distribution to gain too much power.
I don't think that UL will gain much ground but that doesn't mean it's crap.
Re:Dumb... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're [internetnews.com] not?
RedHat does it's own thing just like every other distribution. Unfortunatly they are more powerful commercially than the other distributions b/c of their name and their "backing".
By pulling their collective resources and talent I'd say they have a better chance of taking on Microsoft (not fighting for contracts from Walmart amoungst themselves).
If I were you, I would think about what UL is trying to accomplish. They are banding together to make a standard to compete...against RedHat, against MS, against X.
Umm, ok, so we used to have Slackware. The reason I switched from Slackware to RH back in the day was for the simple fact that I was having more and more difficult of a time running newer programs (gtk, libc6). So say one distribution gains more power and forces OLD libs to stay around... That stifles what we are trying to achieve.
Re:Dumb... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb... (Score:2)
Regarding nr 2; One of the best things about Linux is diversity. There are various distros with various characteristics ranging from how hard it is to install, how hard it is to maintain, update, etc. I personally much prefer the Slackware or Debian way of dealing with installing and managing, but other people would prefer a graphical install enviroment. Some would prefer automatic installs, others manual installs, etcetera. Some machine might require bootdisks with a specially compiled kernel just to start the installation. So many different ways as how things can be handled and I'm only talking about installing Linux...
Re:Dumb... (Score:2)
Why don't they all merge?
Duh, of course it's a troll. Oh well, I'll make my point anyway because it relates to many Slashdot discussions about Linux in business and/or competition w/MS Windows.
There are different distributions for different reasons. Debian is very political, Lindows looks like it's out for easy money, Knoppix is from a guy who scratched an itch, etc.
The distributions that are running on money and hoping for sales revenue are the ones on thin ice but are also potentially greatly rewarding to the Open Source/Free Software community. Example: Red Hat's Cygwin. The distributions made for personal reasons or political causes will be around as long as the reason or cause is around.
Re:Dumb... (Score:2, Funny)
I could kick the crap out of WinME blindfolded, drunk and barefoot with a broken toe. I'd switch OS's if I wasn't in the middle of some video capture and other projects. I cant stand WinME.
Soapbox Ejected.
Of course Slackware's development has slowed. (Score:4, Funny)
(Many thanks, Patrick.)
Re:Dumb... (Score:2)
Interesting, that. Lindows actually licensed [nwfusion.com] its code from Xandros anyway, and both trace their heritage to Corel.
Darwinism and Desktop distros (Score:2, Insightful)
I know I'm preaching to the (mostly) converted here, but:
Open Source does so well because people can do what they want with it. If a program is buggy, unstable, or too expensive, people will either fix it, fork it or dump it and write their own...
Think of Open Source as a gigantic Darwinian "survival of the fittest". You may end up with a dominant species (eg. Red Hat), but that doesn't instantly mean all the others will become extinct.
Having lots of desktop distributions helps to speed their evolution as they all compete for 'resources' in their respective niches.
Re:Dumb... (Score:2, Interesting)
Never Die (Score:2, Informative)
IMHO it's hard to sell any distro without giving some kind of 'sample' (i.e. ISOs online.) I can see that distros will not be a success as they don't really make any money at the moment. It is my belief that RedHat is not successful because of their desktop distro but because of their server distros and services they provide.
I'm sure we'll go through tons of forgotton distros but as time progresses, so will these distros progress, and eventually we'll have a distro with the true stability of Linux along with the smoothness of something like OS X/Windows/[insert favorite desktop OS here]
The small will die (Score:5, Interesting)
Redhat (possibly et. al.) have the best chance of success in the business world because the have:
a) Industry credibility
b) A half decent support organisation
No serious business customer is going to invest any money without those...
Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean think about it: here in the USA when people know about Linux they definitely know about Red Hat Software. And Red Hat Linux is the commercial distro that is by far the most used in the corporate world. Even IBM's well-funded Linux research uses a variant of Red Hat Linux.
Slackware may be better for the highly-experienced user, and Mandrake may be great for newbies, but for the corporate crowd Red Hat Linux is pretty much it.
Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
bought RedHat. The numbers work: at 862M
market cap, RHAT is 10% of Sun's market
cap. Plus, Sun has 5B+ of cash in the bank.
It may be worth it, just for the transient
effect of having all of the hardware vendors
who partner with Redhat scurry to find a new
Linux vendor. That's six months of FUD, during
which Sun can launch their new Linux hardware
as a safe choice against Dell and IBM and HP.
The long-term value of RedHat is an extra.
Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
If Sun bought Red Hat one half of the company would implode. It would be like Compaq/DEC. The culture is just too different: if the surviving corporate culture were Sun's, the whole free software world would be in trouble, because we all rely hugely on free software developers that are on Red Hat's payroll, and I can't imagine McNealy keeping that investment going. He wants to kill competitors, not subsidize them, and it would gall him too much to see UnitedLinux, Mandrake etc. essentially repackage Red Hat stuff.
It would do about as well as Caldera trying to bring together SCO and Linux, that is, it wouldn't.
Who will succeed: Lindows (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen Michael Robertson, CEO of Lindows.com, speak (at Debconf 2) - and I can tell you that I am certain that Lindows.com will not be yet another dropout of the Desktop Linux business.
How am I sure?
Michael's a salesman, pure and simple. He speaks with passion and he makes you love him and his company - and I've heard that he succeeded in convincing a lot of people who attended Debconf. You should be aware this is coming from a group of people who are probably a lot less friendly to corporate (particularly proprietary corporate) involvement in the free software world.
Michael's ability to make the connections, to sell his company and his vision - that's what's going to make the difference. I've interviewed for a job at Xandros, and I'm sure they've got good people technically (I'm saying this sight unseen), but there's one thing Lycoris, Xandros and all the rest don't have - Michael Robertson. He will make Lindows.com succeed, I guarantee you.
(Of course, this is discounting the huge war chest of money he got from the sale of mp3.com. I'll bet he could fund Lindows.com for a lot of years even if he never sold a single product.)
Re:Who will succeed: Lindows (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael's a salesman, pure and simple. He speaks with passion and he makes you love him and his company
Please excuse my cynicism and pessimism, but that's what startup CEOs do. They have to get excitement going or they never get the venture capital and/or people to work at reduced rates in return for stock options. I've worked for two startup companies in the past two years. One went out of business and shorted all the employees out of their last paychecks, and the other, a co-lo facility, closed or sold off all of its locations outside the founding city. Both companies had very charismatic CEOs and very loyal and enthusiastic employees.
Of course at these types of companies "everyone's a salesperson" so I went to some Chamber of Commerce meetings to network and sell. Sadly eveyone else there is also trying to network and sell, too. All sellers and no buyers, but a lot of startup companies with excited employees with big dreams and stock options.
The CEO's sales pitch is just that: a sales pitch. The product and market (and in some cases the government) ultimately determine which for-profit companies succeed and which fail.
Have you used it? (Score:3, Informative)
From both the perspective of a linux user and a windows user. It failed at everything. It was tough to use, the menus were cluttered with software you didn't have but you could pay for. It was slow, it couldn't run windows programs the way it advertised.
I can't believe wal-mart would have agreed to let them ship it on their systems.
Re:Who will succeed: Lindows (Score:3, Interesting)
OT - What will arrive the coming year... (Score:3, Interesting)
There *is* a Linux based version called Blue-Eyed OS (YALD - yet another Linux distro), but I think that the speedy and efficient OpenBeos will make some waves, especially in the "Digital Hub" arena.
If you haven't tried it, you should see what I'm talking about. There is a free download at Bebits.com (in my sig) - Personal, Max and Max Lite distros are available.
Ain't enough 'O's in smooth to describe Beos.
Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux makes a decent server OS and a passable desktop OS. The problem is that Linux's desktop design is anything but unified, and has a lot of 15-year-old cruft in it. While there are ways of band-aiding things, such as what RedHat has done with their 8.0 release, the Linux desktop experience is still not as unified and as fast as it would be on any other OS. For example, inconsistant cut-and-paste; each application has its own "file save" dialog, many of which do not have ability to create a new directory to put the saved file in; slower-than-ideal performance; poor Unicode support; and so on.
This is why MacOS X uses a BSD kernel but doesn't uses X windows as the desktop.
This is not to downplay the heroic efforts of the KDE and Gnome teams to try to make a usable desktop for Linux while still supporting all of the cruft; nor is this being done to downplay the heroic efforts of the Mozilla team to port their browser to Linux, creating yet another X toolkit in the process.
If OpenBeOS becomes a usable desktop OS I can get at cheapbytes for $2, I may very well replace my current Linux + KDE 3.0 with it for my desktop machine. My only problem with BeOS was that it was not open-source.
- Sam
Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those two things are related. As soon as you get a real rush of programmers and popularity, you can kiss [apple.com] your [real.com] consitency [microsoft.com] goodbye [winamp.com]. You're always at the mercy of some idiot who thinks that his "revolutionary new idea" (bitmapped buttons / custom window frame / dark grey on black text) is worth throwing own consitency and ease of use. You [lightwave3d.com] just [roxio.com] can't [gamespyarcade.com] win [netscape.com], they [windowblinds.net] outnumber [readplease.com] you [ibm.com]. Enjoy it while you can.
Wont Survive vs Wont Thrive (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and if someone DOES go out of business?
GASP! The result of a market with competition!
Got an opinion? (Score:2, Flamebait)
http://www.fuckedcompany.com [fuckedcompany.com]
There are 17 HOF-fucks already for Linux companies, and with the economy, I expect a lot more:
http://comments.fuckedcompany.com/fc/phparchives/
My picks? Lindows and SuSe, and quite possibly Slackware. Lindows because it's iillegal, and SuSe and Slackware due to general lack of popularity, corporate backing, and maintenance.
Re:Got an opinion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi, my name is Mephisto and I am a Slackaholic.
Re:Got an opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)
So many Americans say this about SuSE: well, I've got news for you. It is the number one distro in Germany, the largest Linux market in Europe. Ditto, Denmark, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, etc.
It is used in very many corporations, and has MUCH better support than RedHat or Mandrake in my experience (having contacted all three in the last month.
There is a larger world outside the US...
Okay.... (Score:5, Interesting)
No one will pay for desktop linux. Why? Because people who pay for OSs are generally businesses, and businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps. If you're going to pay, you may as well pay for what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. And that's Windows.
I am not anti-Linux, at all. I cringe at Windows-based servers, and I fully realize Unix-based server power and flexibility, and encourage my clients to consider it. One of my clients moved to Red Hat and they pay RH some nominal fee for every RH server they ship out. Not even for that RH Network thing. They just pay some ammount to ensure that RH continues its development.
And yet, these guys use Windows on the desktops in the office. They are all Unix professionals. But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat.
Re:Okay.... (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG. More and more businesses (and government agencies, and schools) are switching to Linux, precisely BECAUSE it gives them more bang for their buck. Yes, even on the desktop.
Besides, I bought Slackware, after I'd already downloaded and burned the ISO, because I appreciate that Patrick et al have done and I want to support them.
Re:Okay.... (Score:3, Interesting)
i'm in the Air Force, and arround the non-classified network, they use primarily NT for the reasons you mentioned. on the cassified side of things (air walled from the world), they use linux, bsd, solaris, and irix (and yes irix CAN be locked down...).
on a more interesting note...the USMC has a large investment in *nix systems. most of the systems they use on a daly basis (at least here) are *nix based. most of the regular office workers use xterms for god's sake! when i "shipped" (went through a processing station to leave the local area and go to basic), the people there all had xterms as their desktops.
*nix systems have plenty of software out there, and when in doubt...write your own. most big companies write their own propriatary software to handle their needs anyway (on both winblowz and *nix systems). hell, i've run in to many small companies that write their own stuff (or modify the open source solution) because it doesn't *quite* meet their needs. but then again...that's just my experiance...by no means am i saying that it's always that way...
as i said...there are plenty of people using *nix solutions and have no problem with it. for example, i had a friend (a total computer newbie) that was surfing the web on my box (debian/unstable with kde3). they were able to chat, surf the web, and work in open office all without me having to tell them how to do anything. what is my point? this person kept telling me that they didn't know if they could ever work on anything but windows...(yes, they were so clueless that they had no idea they were on a linux system).
at this point, even a newbie can work on a working *nix desktop. put a windows user in front of OSX and they can do their job...click on an icon, use dropdown menus, etc. the look and feel is different, yes...but the basic concept is the same, and thus it isn't as hard to re-train people as one might think...
-frozen
Re:Okay.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I guess its a good thing Linux and most of the GPL apps are free then.
"But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat."
You said it. It depends entirely on what your doing.
For example take Redhat 8.0. If you just need Web,Email, and an Office Suite it fits the bill nicely. I never used to say that about linux but now it couldn't be more true.
Contrary to your bleak outlook the linux desktop its experiencing huge growth. Sure it may only go from the current 2% to 4% within the next 2-3 years, but that's an insane growth rate that makes even Microsoft jealous. Microsoft can no longer dream of that. Its even more impressive considering that overall all of the linux companies don't even advertise in any measurable amount.
Think about it. Sooner rather than later Linux will have the same size market as Apple and most likely will surpass Apple and gain even more market share.
Whichever one dies first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Start with education. Before someone can use Linux, people have to get beyond relying on Microsoft to take care of everything and actually learn some of the ins and outs of their machine. That way, when it comes to actually installing Linux, they're not as lost as they would be when it tells them "Hey, your modem isn't compatable."
After they are educated, start them on something that doesn't require a leap of faith (i.e. repartitioning their hard drive, etc). Knoppix is perfect for that. It runs off of a CD and doesn't require any extensive knowledge, reformatting or repartitioning. This will help them get used to Linux's differences from Windows at a pace they can understand. They can click around, see what's where, etc.
Once they're familiar, at least in part, with Linux as an OS, then they might be ready for a distro like Mandrake, Debian, or one that doesn't require them to do any Kernel work. Another reason for starting with something like Mdk or Deb (or even RH), is that software installation after the initial OS load is fairly simple thanks to packages. The only conceivable snag in that plan is dependancies. Make the machine dual boot with the default OS in LILO (or whatever boot manager you pick) pointing at Windows. That way, they don't have to leave Windows right away.
From there, it's all up to software companies. But, of course, they won't be too quick to jump on. While Joe and Jane Consumer won't really care about modifying and redistributing source code, major software vendors aren't too keen on the Open Source/GPL way of doing things. They're only concerned about money. Since MS likes to keep their source closed, they feel a whole heck of alot more secure about things. They can charge for their software, in other words. It's getting them to embrace the Linux platform that is going to determine the fate of Linux on the Desktop in the end.
And all this is probably just wishfull thinking on my part, since we all know how MS works...
Tin Foil Hat Linux (Score:2)
What OS was on those computers that we found over in Afganistan anyway? Anyone know?
What constitutes a desktop distro? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, what is Xandros? It seems like nothing more than a little windowdressing on top of KDE, then add Wine in somewhere to simulate the Windows applications that the recent Linux convert can't live without. How is this special? It almost seems like a racket.
I'm really not trying to troll here but I've never used one of these distros; I'm seriously curious to know how they (Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, etc) can get away with charging so much for what seems (to me) for so little.
The first to die? (Score:2, Funny)
I think this Christmas my family should take bets on which "different" relative goes bankrupt and get herpes.
Go ahead, beat me up, steal my lunch money for making comments like this. I'm just calling it like I see it.
WTF? NONE of them will ever die!! (Score:4, Insightful)
And how will we know if a distro is "dead" anyway? Is there a way to verify that not one single person on the planet is running a machine with that distro? I think not.
On /. you don't have to think about the answer (Score:4, Funny)
mine (Score:2, Funny)
Niche Market? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is interesting because it's obviously right, and probably wrong. Yes, desktop Linux is a niche market in comparison to both desktop Windows and server Linux, but in terms of boxed product shipped it's hard to imagine that server Linux offerings generate more revenue than desktop Linux offerings. Most desktop Linux distros push out new versions at an incredible pace and no doubt many people buy version after version in order to get the latest KDE, Gnome, etc. With a server (or 3 dozen for that matter), why would I bother upgrading from RedHat 7.2 to RedHat 8.0? The only time I'd need to upgrade would be if RedHat stops patching that version. For a single desktop system though, I would be quite likely to purchase a new boxed set every 6 months in order to get the latest and greatest desktop software.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Desktop Distro Will Die First? (Score:3, Funny)
I think unfortunately none will survive. (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux has less chance for competing in desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
There are just way too many inconsistency in its functions, plus there are too many Linux distributions, and this confuses people. If the scenario were different, i.e:
1) There's only 1 Linux
2) Only 1 desktop/windows manager
3) A more stable X-Window where it doesn't crash the whole operating system
4) Consistent look and feel (btw, Bluecurve is a joke)
5) More complete manual
6) More drivers for hardware
I believe if these criteria is met, computer vendors would be more than happy to install Linux by default. The cost to support an operating system that has many inconsistency is just too much. I've been both a developer and a tech support, and I couldn't imagine myself trying to support different distro with many inconsistencies everywhere.
I have produced a few free Linux software since 1999 and I was a member of Gnome foundation, but now I erased all my Linux partition and just use Windows entirely. Moreover, I need money. I can't make money from developing Linux software. Nobody in the past has hired me solely based on my ability to develop high quality C++ and C software in Linux.
--
My $0.02 + 7% Canadian GST tax + 8% provincial tax
Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
I am personally sick of looking around for various config files//installation paths which I'm used to having in certain places, whenever I try out a new distro. For the second one I've just given up, I'm sticking with Debian and doing most things completely with package managers. The result is that I have lots of dependencies installed for no reason. Yeah, I'm lazy and not the most savvy user. The point is it annoys me. If distros can't keep required files in the same place, the least they can do is have a standard-formatted database of where it is keeping the files, and keep that database in a certain place. Even a little thing like the difference between
We dont need 1 Window manager, we need consistent features between them, so that programs dont mis-assume something and try to, for example, place themselves where they used to be when the window manager has already done that, resulting in it being placed in an entirely different place every time.
We dont only need a more stable X, but a more recoverable one, and one with more on-the-fly reconfiguration ability. Linux users seem to focus so much on uptime- not having to re-boot -that they dont seem to notice that in order to get many things done you have to close down all the programs you use to work. Hell, we need screen for X. I just started using screen, that thing kicks some ass. We need to be able to get back to the console even if X crashes and is no longer accepting input. We need ways to keep working not just keep our "uptime" high. Who the hell cares about uptime? How long has it been since you had to re-start X? That number matters more. Your working uptime.
Not everybody likes the same look and feel. Some people like their start-menu, some people dont. The ability to have a consistent look and feel is important. If you want your system to look a certain way, you should be able to make it look and work that way without much work, and you should be able to switch back and forth like that so that whoever was using it before you can pick up where they left off- Linux is a multi-user system. It should stay that way.
Not just a more complete manual is needed, but a rehashing of what we already have. Sure, open-everything is nice, but a lot of the resources out there are just plain messy we need an editor.
We've got lots of driver support, but not enough, it's true. It also doesnt help that most of the time "installing a driver" involves compiling one. Linux wont get anywhere as a widespread desktop unless it can work well for idiots. That's the real problem: Many people are idiots. Linux users seem to have gotten the idea that computers shouldnt be made for idiots. The truth is: Macs are easy to use, and many people _should_ be using Macs. I like Linux. I like Open Software. But we wont get anywhere until it works well for utter morons. [ Does this count as flamebait because of the obvious troll responces?
Yeah, free software does have that problem of not easy to make a living off of. No solution there, but even though it sucks, we've come pretty far. Maybe we'll be good some day
Which desktop-based distribution won't survive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it won't survive in my business anyway.
I simply don't have the time to administer technically-inferior products distributed by illegal monopolies.
The Linux distro that survives... (Score:2, Insightful)
Eventually, there will be a completely community oriented desktop-specific distro that exists to scratch the itch of the developers and community surrounding it. Maybe it even exists somewhere (Mandrake or Redhat?), but until it does, expect these fly-by-night, dotbomb leftovers to be up and down all the time.
i will keep track (Score:4, Funny)
in the interest of answering the question, i will keep track of the various distros under deathwatch on my amiga work station.
i will enter their information on my OS/2 database.
everyone can view the results, as they are tabulated, on my minix server.
again, this is a good question and a very important one! we shall watch the distros die! and i will give the winner, the one who predicts the order of death, a genuine TRS-80 Color Computer [zeppelin.tzo.cc]!
(note the details for the '12th Annual "Last" Chicago COCO Fest May 17-18th, 2003' on the link... wtf?! a TRS-80 Color Computer fest in 2003?! WOW! i started this post as a flippant jaded joke and i find myself in dumbfounded amazement
usable OS's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:usable OS's (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy to install? The last few versions of Red Hat I've installed (6.2 and 7.2) were significantly easier than my last few installs of Win2K. Do I have the right drivers? How many times will I need to reboot to get working drivers installed? Anyone who has ever installed Windows 2000 has all of the skill necessary to install Red Hat 8.0.
Usable? Well, after installing Windows 2000 out of the box, I have an email client, a web browser, a few games, a nearly useless stripped down word processor (Write), and not much else. Without purchasing additional software, Windows 2000 isn't terribly useful for much other that basic internet access. With Red Hat 8, I get a word processor, spreadsheet, photo editor, and bunch of other useful, usable software. The various productivity packages that ship with Red Hat may not be perfect, but they're good enough for 95% of users and come with the operating system.
Good? That's in the eye of the beholder. I am certainly much happier with Red Hat than Windows. Sounds good to me.
Good job guys (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds alot like us Windows guys talkin about whether or not XP was gonna suck ass.....we only had one choice though.....
***********
This post is probably a troll. Mod as such.
Xandros doesn't look too bad.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on what 'dead' is. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, here's my list.
'Business' Linuxes:
Perched for massive growth: RedHat, SuSE.
May die from bad business planning: Mandrake.
'Eternal' Linuxes:
Slack, Debian. These will be around long after all the trendy little skript kiddiez are dead and buried. When business has left Linux, and it will, grizzled veterans will still be playing with source and debs. I'd dare to say these two distributions aren't so much distributions as they are religions.
'On the Verge of Apotheosis' Linux: Gentoo. Total customization? This is fast becoming the 'l33t' of the 'l33t'.
'Dead, Dying, Wounded, Peasants' Linuxes:
Turbolinux, all those other ones a fraction of the population has heard of, but never seen. But who knows - miracle recoveries can happen.
Now, to cut off the flaming Mandrake users - Shut up. Asking for money is no model for a business. I'd like to see Mandrake succeed as much as the next person (Linux needs a good freaking desktop!), but you can't question that Mandrake doesn't have the corporate staying power of RedHat and SuSE.
Re:Depends on what 'dead' is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, hands up how many Gentoo users had to look that word up to decide if they needed to get defensive about their distro...
(I did [reference.com])
Yggdrasil (Score:3, Funny)
Red Hat will be the desktop Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Where can I download "UnitedLinux" (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I insane here? (ok bad question) Am I out of line here?
UnitedLinux an Albatross? (Score:3, Funny)
I actually have very little faith in United Linux, mostly because I don't approve of Caldera's business practices (their main source of revenue has seemed to be lawsuits).
SuSE and Mandrake (Score:3, Informative)
My prediction: Linux should devise a method of device support that lives outside the kernal and can be changed on the fly without rebooting.
The easiest distro will survive (Score:3, Interesting)
Examples:
Any distro that can remove some of these confusing things and make it super easy for ANYONE, not just us geeks, will have the ultimate success on the desktop or anywhere else for that matter. Even some IT people don't want to have to struggle to do things that should be simple. The fact is that easy things should be easy...maybe most users don't need 700 ways to do the same thing. Linux has how many text editors and I still can't find one that I like. Yes, I take pride in the fact that I can hack the crap out of a linux box and make it do what I want and even put it to use in critical business applications, but most people couldn't give a rat's ass about that.
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait to see how this one turns out... if saying that Slack and Gentoo are for newbies doesn't pull people out of the woodwork, nothing will.
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:3, Funny)
You are joking, right? Pretty Debian? Mandrake for seasoned hackers? Gentoo for newbies?
No more of this or someone may get hurt.
Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:5, Insightful)
True that. But the thing is, XP and OSX are ready for the general population. Linux is not.
Give me an AIM client that doesn't look nasty, a browser that doesn't crawl and swap on a machine that runs MSIE effortlessly, and an Office suite that doesn't look clumsy.
I am a comp sci major with pretty good Linux/Unix experience behind my belt, and still I would be neither happy nor productive if I didn't have windows on my system.
The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.
The general public doesn't care about open source, community effort, MS monopoly, none of that shit. They want features and smooth interfaces. And Linux isn't ready to give them that. Will it ever? May be. Probably. Remarkable strides have been made by RH, for example, to make Linux more usable by "regular people" during the last 3-4 years that I've been paying attention to it. They seem pretty adamant about continuing in the same path.
Oh yeah, another thing Linux needs is the ability to work on all the hardware windows can work on. Whatever's in my computer, windows handles it. If the best linux can do for me is a fuzzing sound card, a modem that drivers don't exist for, and a TV tuner I can't use, then I am not switching. I don't care if this is due to companies keeping their data proprietary. To the end user, it's the same shit: it doesn't work.
And Linux's fabled reliability isn't worth shit if it doesn't support your hardware and you can't do what you need to do.
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:2, Interesting)
1.) if you are a comp sci major (as am i)...how could you possibly like windows (besides the obvious). have you taken a look at the size of the MSDN libs lately?!?!? hello...in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!! never mind the bloat that goes into their APIs.
2.) not evey single person is in your situation. i have never said "i can't do this in linux, i must re-boot to windows". if you are a comp-sci major that is only interested in game development or 3d rendering, i can understand, but even heavy duty rendering is done on *nix systems. very few of the 3d visualization systems i've worked on were windows based...
3.) we DO have features and smooth interfaces...we also have a lack of both. it depends on the disto, packages installed, etc.
4.) my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux. the only time you tend to run into the problem of hardware incompatability is when you are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage, or the company doesn't want to release the info to developers that they need to write open source implamentations of the drivers. if you stick with hardware that is even remotely common you shouldn't have a problem. if so...a great wizzard comp-sci major like you should have a problem looking at either the man page or linuxdocs.org right???
-frozen
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:4, Interesting)
But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment."
Other than some games or having to talk to someone on MSN (not for a few months) I pretty much have this urge finally kicked unless I want to print something...
Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm in Windows, I consistently think about the things I could rather be doing in Linux.
"Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."
"Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."
"Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."
"Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."
"It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"
The list goes on. I only boot to Windows now when I absolutely have to. I don't even use the "oh, I need to play games" excuse any more because I've simply stopped playing windows games. I'll play nethack or Q3 or an emulated SNES game instead.
Sure, it's a choice in the way that I choose to use Linux, but it still means that it passes your test. And yeah, I could run programs like Cygwin in Windows, but that's like saying you can run Windows programs in Linux via Wine, which doesn't cut it.
Once I started learning how to use Linux as Linux, rather than as a bad version of Windows, I became much more reliant on its features. Now I feel frustrated by anything without a bash shell and a copy of vi. It's all in what you learn to accept from your interface, as well how you're willing to work with it.
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I write for a living. I have all the latest toys and I've never had a problem finding drivers or support under Linux. StarOffice is great, Galeon/Mozilla display things fine (except for lazily coded sites designed for "ie") and I'm extremely productive.
Your inability to be productive on linux is not the fault of Linux. It's your own.
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably Most of Them.. (Score:4, Funny)
I have those moments all the time. I'll be sitting at home thinking, geez, I havent had a W32.worm rape my system in months, I'd better boot into Windows.
It isn't about the people at home. (Score:5, Insightful)
The last wave will be the US; other countries have much greater reasons to invest both public and private money to refine Linux to serve their own needs. (Namely that Windows and Mac are both American products and money spent on them has almost no ripple effect on the local economy.)
How much would it really take to make Linux viable, given sufficient corporate resources?
Once companies switch, it isn't much of a step for their employees to do the same...
Switching just to switch is the wrong reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the part Linux zealots don't get: most people want to do work, not make some OS-religious statement. When NORMAL people talk computers, they say something like "I was playing Tomb Raider last night...", not "I was using Windows last night...". It's the app that's important to 99% of the world. You'll probably say somethiing now like "well if more people switched to Linux, more apps would be written" Well man, what do we do in the meantime? Just wait there mutely till whatever app I use gets made? No, I want the apps now, I don't have time to wait. The business serves ME, that's how it works. There's a reason I use a particular Windows app, IT'S THE ONE I LIKE!