MG-Cloud Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Hi, There's been a lot of news and discussion posted recently regarding Linux as a competitor with Microsoft in the mainstream desktop market. While I think we all agree that this is not going to happen in the immediate future, Linus himself just recently said that he sees this happening within 5 to 10 years. Personally, I agree with him ;) Just as a little point before I begin the main body of my post ... I am *NOT* intending this thread to be a debate between the MS fanboys and the linux zealots... rather, I am hoping that those who have used Linux can contribute points about the linux desktop that can potentially further our knowledge about linux and the software packages available for its desktop. So please, if you're planning on saying something like, "I'll never use Linux - Windows is always going to be *the* monopoly on the market", please just don't even bother :D I'm going to separate my post into different areas of the linux desktop - Eye candy - I use GNOME. I love its appearance - it's simple, clean, sleek, and professional, yet it can also be very visually appealing. It supports theming, both window borders and window decorations. Also, font smoothing is a "good thing" - all my fonts look very nice and smooth. Granted, these features are both present in Windows XP, but GNOME theming is easier to use than Windows XP for "n00b" computer users - my brother can't figure out how to patch uxtheme.dll, but on my computer he decided he'd change my theme to Gorilla ;-) I also think the QT look is nice, but it's just not for me. Motif, however, is just *fugly* :D Of course, there is also a much larger theming community for XP than there is for GNOME... I've recently been toying (read: the idea occurred to me a couple of nights ago but I've been overwhelmed with homework) with the idea of coding/scripting something that will convert .msstyle files to GTK/MetaCity themes - if something like this already exists or if its impossible/very difficult to do, then please let me know before I start ;-) . A drawback of Linux eye candy as opposed to windows is of course its lack of true transparency... but I kinda like my wallpaper (that's why I have it set as my background, of course), and I think I might actually prefer having my terminal have my wallpaper as its background as opposed to being able to see windows (and text) underneath. Ease of installing programs - I'm using Gentoo, which is supposed to be difficult to use, but I'm finding it almost too easy to install. I no longer need to even go to software sites and download files, then install... it's all done for me. As long as I know what I'm looking for, I just type 'emerge programname', and it downloads and installs for me. Of course the obvious drawback here is the need to compile, but there are binary only distros and binaries available on the internet. Ease of use - this is not really a clear issue here.. as I said before, the installation of new software is extremely easy. A lot of the newer GUI apps are insanely easy to use - in fact, in many ways, I find OOo easier to use than MSOffice. Unfortunately though, I'm having this extremely annoying problem with bullets that I can't seem to find a solution for. Doh ! ;) Uniformity of appearance: (name blatantly stolen from osnews.com's linux article) Big issue here: GTK and QT. They look totally different. However, there's been efforts recently for the KDE desktop to be able to apply the QT theme to GTK apps, which is pretty good :) If, however, a user uses DE-specific applications, then the look will be very uniform - even moreso than windows, which still has apps (eg. CLI) that are unthemeable by XP Visual Styles. Hardware Support: This is a big area that Linux needs to work on, even though the library of Linux drivers is increasing literally nearly every hour of the day. It's not really even Linux's fault that they don't ahve the hardware support that windows does though - it's really mostly up to the vendors unless coders are able to create the drivers from scratch. IMHO this will start to become a non-issue as linux becomes more and more accepted - especially by governments (Israel as a notable example) and major corporations. Vendors won't want to lose this market, so they will most likely create drivers for Linux as well. However, I do think that mount /mnt/digicam is *much* quicker and more efficient than using Windows digital camera software. And I love the GIMP. Software - I've found that in many areas, Linux software meets or exceeds Windows software, and in many areas where it doesn't, Wine will run the Windows counterpart. However, this is an area that needs work. Performance - Linux performance tends to be pretty good, especially under heavy load (under the same conditions w/ Windows, music would skip, etc). However, application loading time really needs to be improved IMO. I tried prelink, but it did not provide a noticable increase in performance. Any suggestions? :) What are your guys' thoughts? Anything I missed? Sorry I was nowhere near as complete as I wanted to be - I thoguht I had a lot of time to write this but I really didn't ;) Anyway, I hope this sparks an interesting discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeWolf324 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 this is a miracle! i was JUST about to make a thread like this. yea i agree linux will not likely go mainstream in the immediate future but there are reasons of course. the biggest being third party support. the reason being people want to be able to go to Fry's or Best buy or compusa and buy something and have it work the second they put it in. because the masses are stupid and they need automation. Linux itself is a powerhouse for those who are willing to learn it. but for average joe user, it has a long way to go. KDE i find to be a beautiful desktop, but thats my opinion i constantly hear about how slow and crappy it is..but i have never seen the slow nor crappiness in my use. This thread i second, should NOT BECOME A FLAMEWAR. because i know certain users who will turn this into that. please keep this thread respectible because i agree this is something that needs to be addressed. in conclusion, i think its true that nothing will make linux go mainstream more than third party support. once one party starts the rest will follow, when they see the travel in such a great OS. but then again...no one will want to invest in a free OS which means...maybe it may be a good idea for linux to perhaps cost money...but that would go against open source...but these are sacrifices we must all consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 It would be nicer if only I could mount my digital camera device as a USB Mass Storage Device or get my Logitech QuickCam Pro USB working, but I am almost 100% satisfied with Linux. Setting up FTP was tricky for a while, but I find operating Slackware to be fairly easy, even when I rate it as the most difficult of the Linux distributions. And as for now, I can run it without having to go back to Windows seeing how my W2K partition is screwed up right now. As for desktop GUI's, I like both KDE and Gnome, but BlackBox is better because of its slim interface. :) And as for regular Windows users, maybe they should download Knoppix so they can experiment with Linux without having to install it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 in conclusion, i think its true that nothing will make linux go mainstream more than third party support. once one party starts the rest will follow, when they see the travel in such a great OS. but then again...no one will want to invest in a free OS which means...maybe it may be a good idea for linux to perhaps cost money...but that would go against open source...but these are sacrifices we must all consider. Yup. You answered your own question. Linux can't go mainstream because it has no business model. No profit, no R&D, no incentive for anyone to put any time into it since they don't get paid for it, so therefore Linux never goes mainstream. Linux is its own worst Catch-22, and proves once again that the open-source model will never work for a whole OS.MacOS X is a perfect example of what a company could do with a *NIX-based OS. Please feel free to flame me for that, and I'll point you at all the OS X GUI clones that have come out for Linux. How many times do you hear even Linux users say "if OS X ran on Intel, I'd ditch Linux"? Lots. Lots. Lots. I've been hearing that for years. It just proves my point that it's not the OS that's the problem it's how it's presented to the user. OS X hides what Linux parades around - the boot logs. Users don't want to see that. A lot of you don't seem to understand that computer users aren't just kids, but adults as well that don't want to know about command lines, rebuilding kernels, or makefiles. In fact, I'd put money down that any of you that use Linux now won't in 5-10 years. Seriously. Why? Because as you get older you just want things to work. You find that you don't have time to deal with all the extra maintenance that Linux forces upon you, and the lack of third party support just makes it even worse. There was a time when I'd tinker with a computer for hours at a time. I still do, but when you have a social life and a family your time with a computer drops significantly. I guarantee that most people out of college for more than 2-5 years don't tinker as much as they used to, which leads me back to my original point that without incentive (financial or otherwise), there's no reason for Linux development. Linux mainstream in 5-10 years? I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that. Please tell Linux to send me some of what he's smoking. And as for regular Windows users, maybe they should download Knoppix so they can experiment with Linux without having to install it! Maybe, instead, people should check out OS X at their local Apple Store or CompUSA. I'm not saying this to start a flame war, but honest to God, OS X is what Linux should be. It's what I hoped Linux would be when I started playing with it many years ago. If you don't like that fact that Apple hardware is overpriced, buy a used G4 on eBay. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Using Red Hat at work (and Sun Solaris) and Windows XP at home. I work at Sony and everyone here uses Linux or Unix. Personally I'm not too thrilled with Linux. Maybe it is because my Red Hat setup is a Red Hat 7 setup, but damn Linux looks ugly (font smoothing??? well not here... it looks like crap). Also I find that the interface is everything but uniform... sometimes it is a complete mess. Every single application looks different. I think that is a massive issue which just kills the usability for most users. It is stable, really stable, must say that.... but in the end I still prefer Windows XP over my Linux and Solaris workstations at work. About the software... well OpenOffice can be compared with MS Office, but feature wise MS Office is lightyears ahead (just discovered the tight integration between MS Visio and MS Word... simply amazing). MS Office looks better too I think (to me the appearance of an application is still important, especially if I have to look at it the whole day). Gimp is nice, but seriously it can't compare with Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is polished for years, Gimp is a nice tool, but looks like crap, the pallet layout is crap... I can't work with it sorry. Application installation is still a lot easier in Windows, Linux still can't compete in that area (although it is getting easier, but not nearly as easy as in Windows). Still for my personal desktop my vote goes to Windows (XP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaKeY Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Yup. You answered your own question. Linux can't go mainstream because it has no business model. No profit, no R&D, no incentive for anyone to put any time into it since they don't get paid for it, so therefore Linux never goes mainstream. Linux is its own worst Catch-22, and proves once again that the open-source model will never work for a whole OS. lmao http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...116/bs_nf/23005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 lmaohttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...116/bs_nf/23005 HP made a profit from Linux, but did Linux make a profit from Linux? No. That's my point. Did anyone that worked on Linux get a cut of that $25 million? Didn't think so. And look at the very first line: Providing strong evidence that Linux (news - web sites) is a serious contender in the enterprise The topic of this thread is about Linux going mainstream. There's no doubt that Linux has its uses, but my mom's not going to install it just because HP posted a profit. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted January 19, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 19, 2004 I recall a time when those "IBM PCs" were just too complex and unfriendly to be used in homes. The personal computer of choice is the Commodore 64! It is much more suitable for 'mainstream' use. Times change. It's called a paradigm shift. It is happening now in the server market. It is beginning in the embedded market. There is room enough for multiple OSes, but they have to be able to interface together using open standards. Windows continues to try to "de-commodotize" the standards. A study of business will clearly show what happens to companies who do not embrase a paradigm shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 (edited) Linux can't go mainstream because it has no business model. LMAO So what you're saying is a kernel has no business model? The software itself has no business model you're point? Software doesn't have a business model. How does the software apply to the business model? That's the question. and proves once again that the open-source model will never work for a whole OS. RFLMAO MacOS X is a perfect example of what a company could do with a *NIX-based OS. Seems to contradict your above statement. OS X hides what Linux parades around - the boot logs Amazingly enough a number of distros do hide this. Both Windows and Mac OS X allow you to view this. A lot of you don't seem to understand that computer users aren't just kids, but adults as well that don't want to know about command lines, rebuilding kernels, or makefiles. Niether do Windows lusers. These aren't necessary for daily operations of GNU/Linux by Joe Blow moron. In fact, I'd put money down that any of you that use Linux now won't in 5-10 years. Seriously. Why? Because as you get older you just want things to work. You find that you don't have time to deal with all the extra maintenance that Linux forces upon you, and the lack of third party support just makes it even worse. That's the beauty of technology. Something better always comes along. Possibly I'll be using GNU/Hurd, a BSD or possibly something extemely new. You see unfortunately you seem to base what others think of GNU/Linux based on your perception. So you seriously think that support will be as lacking in 5-10 years? You're not that old are you? If you were you would know that hardware support took quite some time for Windows as well. By the way, how old do you have to be before you roll over and just want everything done for you while letting that mass inside your head shrivel? I guarantee that most people out of college for more than 2-5 years don't tinker as much as they used to, That would depend largely on your job function now wouldn't it? Please tell Linux to send me some of what he's smoking. A kernel doesn't smoke. You're a hold-over from Adeqaucy.org aren't you? Maybe, instead, people should check out OS X at their local Apple Store or CompUSA. So rather than spending less than $100 on a GNU/Linux distro they should spend thousands and still have some difficulties learning a new OS and application sub-set? HP made a profit from Linux, but did Linux make a profit from Linux? No. That's my point. Software doesn't get a paycheck. If Linus had wanted to get rich he wouldn't have ported his kernel to the GNU or licensed under the GPL. Rather he would have continued to develop a complete OS. Did anyone that worked on Linux get a cut of that $25 million? When you make contributions you understand that you are doing so under the terms of the license. It doesn't take OSS for someone to be left standing with their hand out. Did STAC make anything from every copy of DoubleSpace sold? Did Gary Kildall get anything when Tim Paterson used his work to write QDOS and sold it to MS? What about John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz when MS ported BASIC to the ALTAIR and claimed it as their own? Did Gates offer to give anything to them when he blasted hobbyists for stealing his work? There's no doubt that Linux has its uses, but my mom's not going to install it just because HP posted a profit. So she installs Windows because MS makes a profit or OS X because Apple has a good quarter? Your arguement is flawed. Edited January 19, 2004 by El_Cu_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemical Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 windows sucks, linux owns :) sorry had to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrStaticVoid Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I think kemical summed it up nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Jones Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 A lot of you don't seem to understand that computer users aren't just kids, but adults as well that don't want to know about command lines, rebuilding kernels, or makefiles. Niether do Windows lusers. These aren't necessary for daily operations of GNU/Linux by Joe Blow moron. Yes it is. Trying to install a MSN messenger client, which would enter the category of things any n00b will want to do first, is a pain in the buthole. Don't tell me how to do it. I know. Just don't say it's as easy as on Windows. Or Mac OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Well, we'll see in 5 years if we're right. However, I have a feeling that the best we'll get from Linux is the same klunky installer/OS, a continuing lack of driver support, and a lot of Apple GUI ripoffs. windows sucks, linux owns Yeah, that's intelligent :rolleyes: I don't suppose you could actually back that up with anything, can you? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+virtorio MVC Posted January 20, 2004 MVC Share Posted January 20, 2004 I think if linux users stopped bitching about how much they disklike microsoft and actually started improving some of the problems with linux that stop it from moving into the mainstream, it would end up their a lot quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Jones Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 The major problem with linux, I think, is what everybody want to think of as its strength.. Everybody is working on it. And that is a big problem, and will always slow any progress made to it, or make it progress in a bad direction. Example : Would you let everybody in your town build the suspended bridge you would need to cross to go to work every morning, with your car, along with 500 000 other people? I don't think so. Some people's job is to write software, and other's to build bridge. There is nothing wrong with building a pop-sicle bridge in your yard, or writing open source software, but you really should stop dreaming about mainstream use, because, you know, maybe you are not fit to write software after all, or to build bridges, and nobody told you before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zivan56 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 (edited) I just need Linux to be more resposive GUI wise on my PIII 650Mhz, then I would use it. Unfortunatly, my P4 machine needs to run accounting software which barely even works in Windows. So I guess speed would help it get into mainstream. Edited January 20, 2004 by zivan56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 EDIT: I over-quoted. Everybody is working on it.And that is a big problem, and will always slow any progress made to it, or make it progress in a bad direction. Example : Would you let everybody in your town build the suspended bridge you would need to cross to go to work every morning, with your car, along with 500 000 other people? I agree with the notion but I think the reason this isn't all-good is different. The problem with everyone working on linux at once is a lack of direction. Sometimes we get very good things out of that: GNOME vs KDE lead them both to become very reliable and feature complete environments. XFCE is a start-up by comparison but it's shaping up pretty well. If there was only one Linux desktop environment : XFGNODE it _might_ become a very impressive package that can rival OS X/Windows, on the other hand without much competition it could also go the other way and stagnate (like XFree86 is IMO). The other problem with being able to work on anything on any project at any time is that people don't do the boring parts. things that need to be written aren't (like patches for stupid bugs that aren't really an issue) because people are too busy working on newwer things. Another problem is that while just about anyone can write YATE (yet another text editor) the developers who can write something like LiDVD authoring software are few and far between. There are times when I think a central officially sanctioned "linux: the distro" would be a good thing. It certainly could do a lot for fixing the boring bugs, and bringing conformity. Unfortunatly it would also kill a lot of what makes linux unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-Cloud Posted January 20, 2004 Author Share Posted January 20, 2004 Yup. You answered your own question. Linux can't go mainstream because it has no business model. No profit, no R&D, no incentive for anyone to put any time into it since they don't get paid for it, so therefore Linux never goes mainstream. Linux is its own worst Catch-22, and proves once again that the open-source model will never work for a whole OS. Hi, If noone has any incentive to put time into Linux and/or Linux-related software, then please explain the various contributions by major corporations such as Intel, HP, IBM, Novell, and Sun. Granted, a lot of these contributions have been made towards Linux server code, and/or in the form of server hardware, but you also see stuff in Linux contributed by these people that everyone will use, such as filesystem code (jfs, etc) and compilers (icc). How do you think the GNOME foundation funded their recent, highly-publicized "code bounties"? Also, explain why nVidia provides official, accelerated graphics drivers for Linux if they don't have any incentive or profit to do so - the simple reason lies in that there *is* a very great incentive for them to spend money on R&D, and specialized Linux code. These are just a few of the many examples of major corporations adopting Linux and/or contributing to the Linux experience. Noone is trying to say that Linux at the moment is ready for mainstream desktop use, although its desktop *does* have many redeeming qualities over Windows (or even MacOSX), in the same manner that it has its weak points that are being worked on. Regarding your MacOSX point - I agree with you in that OSX is a beautifully designed operating system - I'm currently running a Smooth Stripes-like theme on GNOME. Yet, you appear to contradict yourself when you say that you dislike how Linux tends to emulate MacOSX in certain areas (as you put it - Apple GUI ripoffs), and then going on to say that you think that Mac OSX is what Linux should be. I fail to understand the logic behind this paradoxical statement. I mean no offence by saying this, but from what I've read here on Neowin, you've been a frequent poster to any thread relating to Linux on the desktop. You keep rehashing the same three points - 1. Driver support (your infamous Radeon) - I concur that this is a problem. However, look at the current trends in the hardware industry - started by NVIDIA, ATI offers binary drivers, and many companies are releasing hardware specs to the community. Also, there is more incentive for vendors to provide Linux drivers with its increasing amount of acceptance in governments and corporations. 2. Linux cannot be mainstream because it does not have a business model - Not everything in the world revolves around capitalist principles. Imagine Joe Noob shopping for his computer - having absolutely no idea about how to use computers, and only wanting to perform a few basic tasks, he sees two operating systems that are nearly equivalent in functionality and hardware support - Windows 2010, and Mandrake Linux 15. One is horrendously expensive, the other is free (or *very* cheap). Ten bucks says he'll choose Linux. 3. Mac OSX is better - Yes, currently, I'd have to say it is. It's even more expensive than Windows though, and Linux does offer more freedom of choice. While these points do hold validity, please recognize that no operating system is perfect and each has its own merits and drawbacks. These things are relatively small issues compared to say, the security holes in MS software for example. Doh, i just spent the only 10 minutes I had on the comp writing this reply :p Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly2003 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I just changed from Mandrake 9.2 to Fedora, and what an improvement Fedora is over Red Hat 9! I love the new booting screen, and it actually seemed to detect my hardware with no dramas. I can understand the whole not including NTFS and MP3 thing, Red Hat want to avoid legal trouble. But the major problems seem to still exist. Its great to see many invididual distros out there, but what I dont understand is why Linux users can't unite to build a unified configuration tool template to suit all distros which can be easily branded and changed to suit the needs of the individual distro. For example, Mandrake has an excelent Control Center, its major problem is it looks a little bit thrown together and also a little bit buggy. Rad Hat's config tools look great, and arent buggy, but the functions of the tools are limited. If we could combine the power of Mandrakes tools with the polish of RH tools then we would be half way towards defeating the usability issue. Then there is the nightmare'ish file system. It seems that programs will install themselves in half a million different places. There are several folders where progs can be installed. Program config files can be just about everywhere, and the short folder names like "bin", "mnt", "opt", while they do the job, it would be nicer to see more friendly names. Why not have a Linux file map like this?: /Applications /Applications/OpenOffice.org /Applications/Gimp /Games /Games/TuxRacer /Games/EnemyTerritory /System /System/Linux /System/Linux/bin /System/Linux/Config /System/X /System/X/Config /System/KDE /System/Gnome /System/Fonts /Disks /Disks/Floppy /Disks/CDROM /Home /Home/Bob /Home/Bob/Config /Home/Bob/Documents /Help /Help/Linux /Help/Gnome /Help/KDE While the above examples are probably not perfect, you can see what I am trying to say. A simple file system will defeat another major usability issue. I'd sure rebuilding the currentnightmare file system would be hard, but surely it is inevitable. Dependencies. I tried installing "Totem" (media player) on Fedora. OMG what a terrible process. I must have spent over 1 hour downloading RPM's for different things. It seemed that for every RPM i downloaded it would give me 3 extra dependiencies that needed fixing. In the end I gave up. Dependency hell is another problem that needs fixing. I' a geek, an if i have trouble installing progs on Linux then the non-geeks will. Linux can make it mainstream, but it seems too geek orientated at the moment. To satisfy the average Joe, Linux needs to evolve to a point where people canuse it properly as soon as they install it. I have no doubt that there will be a learning curve for a new OS, but re-organising it, and having excelent config tools would minimise the amount of hardship involved in learning it. Secnario: Someone hears about Linux, a new alternative OS. Being brave they decide to give it a go, so they obtain a copy of Fedora Core 6. Firstly, It must install easily (most distros do install easy now days), it must run properly first time, and the user must have no trouble setting it up to suit their needs (the average Joe will not manually edit "fstab" or "fonts.conf"). If the user has a good experience with Linux, then they will brag about it, if they have a bad experience then they will tell everybody to avoid Linux. Good experience = more people trying the OS Bad experience = more peope being told to avoid the OS So its good that Linux isnt mainstream atm, because i think that most average Joes will have a bad experience, and as a result Linux will get a reputation for being cheap an nasty, and will never make it mainstream. Anywyas Ive gone on long enough (again). Keep going Linux you will get there one day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewy Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I just changed from Mandrake 9.2 to Fedora, and what an improvement Fedora is over Red Hat 9! I love the new booting screen, and it actually seemed to detect my hardware with no dramas.I can understand the whole not including NTFS and MP3 thing, Red Hat want to avoid legal trouble. But the major problems seem to still exist. Its great to see many invididual distros out there, but what I dont understand is why Linux users can't unite to build a unified configuration tool template to suit all distros which can be easily branded and changed to suit the needs of the individual distro. For example, Mandrake has an excelent Control Center, its major problem is it looks a little bit thrown together and also a little bit buggy. Rad Hat's config tools look great, and arent buggy, but the functions of the tools are limited. If we could combine the power of Mandrakes tools with the polish of RH tools then we would be half way towards defeating the usability issue. Then there is the nightmare'ish file system. It seems that programs will install themselves in half a million different places. There are several folders where progs can be installed. Program config files can be just about everywhere, and the short folder names like "bin", "mnt", "opt", while they do the job, it would be nicer to see more friendly names. Why not have a Linux file map like this?: /Applications /Applications/OpenOffice.org /Applications/Gimp /Games /Games/TuxRacer /Games/EnemyTerritory /System /System/Linux /System/Linux/bin /System/Linux/Config /System/X /System/X/Config /System/KDE /System/Gnome /System/Fonts /Disks /Disks/Floppy /Disks/CDROM /Home /Home/Bob /Home/Bob/Config /Home/Bob/Documents /Help /Help/Linux /Help/Gnome /Help/KDE While the above examples are probably not perfect, you can see what I am trying to say. A simple file system will defeat another major usability issue. I'd sure rebuilding the currentnightmare file system would be hard, but surely it is inevitable. Dependencies. I tried installing "Totem" (media player) on Fedora. OMG what a terrible process. I must have spent over 1 hour downloading RPM's for different things. It seemed that for every RPM i downloaded it would give me 3 extra dependiencies that needed fixing. In the end I gave up. Dependency hell is another problem that needs fixing. I' a geek, an if i have trouble installing progs on Linux then the non-geeks will. Linux can make it mainstream, but it seems too geek orientated at the moment. To satisfy the average Joe, Linux needs to evolve to a point where people canuse it properly as soon as they install it. I have no doubt that there will be a learning curve for a new OS, but re-organising it, and having excelent config tools would minimise the amount of hardship involved in learning it. Secnario: Someone hears about Linux, a new alternative OS. Being brave they decide to give it a go, so they obtain a copy of Fedora Core 6. Firstly, It must install easily (most distros do install easy now days), it must run properly first time, and the user must have no trouble setting it up to suit their needs (the average Joe will not manually edit "fstab" or "fonts.conf"). If the user has a good experience with Linux, then they will brag about it, if they have a bad experience then they will tell everybody to avoid Linux. Good experience = more people trying the OS Bad experience = more peope being told to avoid the OS So its good that Linux isnt mainstream atm, because i think that most average Joes will have a bad experience, and as a result Linux will get a reputation for being cheap an nasty, and will never make it mainstream. Anywyas Ive gone on long enough (again). Keep going Linux you will get there one day! yeah your right it would make it easier :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 though I think its a good idea to change the linux file structure (i.e. kinda like OS X), but I don't think it will ever happen. I really like the concept of the ROX filer. http://rox.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Then create symlink to these directories. It's not that difficult. Until a standard is determined you won't see this in a desktop Linux distro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrStaticVoid Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 (edited) Then create symlink to these directories. It's not that difficult. Until a standard is determined you won't see this in a desktop Linux distro. It is a standard: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ :p A lot of people in the Unix community would be upset if that was ever changed, including me! It already is logical, you just have to learn it! No need for /Applications when there is /usr/share...no need for /Games when there is /usr/games. /System?...nah.../usr (usr == UNIX system resources). /mnt...not /Disks. We already have /home and there is /usr/doc full of help. If you like the alternative filesystem hierarchy, then maybe GoboLinux is right for you. Edited January 20, 2004 by Mr. Static Void Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeWolf324 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 and dont forget /etc/ is for config files!!! :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrStaticVoid Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Example : Would you let everybody in your town build the suspended bridge you would need to cross to go to work every morning, with your car, along with 500 000 other people?I don't think so. Sure if everyone in my town was an engineer or construction worker. The fact of the matter is that not every user is working on Linux, only the developers who know what they are doing. As you said, it is some people's job to write software, and guess what! They are the ones who are doing the actual work on Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts