Mainstream Linux Desktop ?


Recommended Posts

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.

:yes:

Also, project management software such as cvs or bitkeeper plays a huge role in this as well - not just any patch gets committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree, but at least it would be a "platform" to work off of; a Linux standard so to speak that people could build off of. Then later savy users could easily replace things and customize it to their liking easily. There needs to be a foundation for Linux to blast off from though, right now it's a foundation of sand where everybody is doing their own thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mgcloud,

Wow. What a refreshing response. So much better than the immature crap I seem to see here a lot.

Actually, the reason I meandered into the Linux forum was to get some insight on the SCO issue.

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"?

I don't dispute the fact that Linux is doing well, but it could do so much BETTER. The problem is that there's no financial incentive to the people that contribute to it. And to be honest with you, if I were working on some aspect of Linux or one of its apps and I found out that HP or someone made a gazillion dollars from it, I'd question my position in the work I was doing. I'm sorry, but a free contribution won't help pay for my mortgage or my kids' college education. I think it's noble that this open-source movement is out there, but let's face the single most important fact - bills exist and people have to pay them. That's why I said above that most people that work on Linux probably won't after college since the reality of making a living finally sets in.

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.

I have a repsonse for that, but I'm under NDA and can't really tell you why.

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.

There's no paradox in that at all. What I'm saying is that people working in the Linux community seem to spend more time ripping off OS X (iTunes ripoff, GUI ripoff, icon ripoffs) and not spending enough time making the installer look better, or working on other areas under the hood that need improvement. OS X is what Linux should be when you don't rip off other people's work, and also when you have something solid under the hood.

What Linux needs is someone who will bring a direction to the project. I'm sorry, but Linus isn't the person to "rally the troops". Linux needs someone like Steve Jobs to inspire people. Linus isn't inspiring, and the product reflects that.

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.

1. Well, it's true. What good is an OS if there's no proper hardware support? Do you buy a car with an engine that has a flywheel you need a mechanic to work on before you can take the car out to work? No. That's what Linux is.

2. Linux is mainly worked on by people that can afford to not get paid.

3. OS X is not more than Windows. XP Home is $99, XP Pro, which is what Panther is more related to, is $199, and Panther itself is $129. Not to mention all the iApps you get with it; I'd consider it a bargain.

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.

Linux has holes. The problem is that so many people hate MS that they work their ass off to exploit it. You're right, no OS is perfect and that includes Linux. However, I'll take day-and-date driver support, game support, Office support, and all the other perks that comes with Windows over crossing my fingers any day of the year.

And then you have OS X which has caught up to Window's stability and driver support. I bought a MIDI->USB adapter yesterday and there were OS X and Windows drivers right on the CD.

No Linux drivers, though. Whew! Good thing I'm not using Linux for my music!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like the alternative filesystem hierarchy, then maybe GoboLinux is right for you.

You could also try a psuedo-unix like BeOS.

if I were working on some aspect of Linux or one of its apps and I found out that HP or someone made a gazillion dollars from it, I'd question my position in the work I was doing.

First off, not everyone contributes with the thought of financial gain. They are doing so knowing that someone could package the work or the compilation and make money from it or the services that surround it. It's not like you contrbute something the say "damn I didn't know somenoe was going to try to make money off of my work". That is unless you're onew of those retards tht doesn't understand that you can actually sell OSS.

I'm sorry, but a free contribution won't help pay for my mortgage or my kids' college education.

Why is it free (as in cost)? If you develop an application designed to run on GNU/Linux or other unice nothing is preventing you from seeking monies. While your way of thinking would prevent you from making such contributions, don't forget that not everyone thinks exactly as you do.

I think it's noble that this open-source movement is out there, but let's face the single most important fact - bills exist and people have to pay them.

You say that as if it were something new. A noble effort!?! So you dismiss their work yet benefit from it on a delay basis. Don't like "free" contributions? The stay off the Internet.

That's why I said above that most people that work on Linux probably won't after college since the reality of making a living finally sets in.

So that's the only reason? Most major contributors or not college students. And many college students don't make contributions to such large projects not because they have lost the will to do so/ It is because they simply can't. Many companies own all rights to any software created by one of their employees.

I have a repsonse for that, but I'm under NDA and can't really tell you why.

You don't have squat

What I'm saying is that people working in the Linux community seem to spend more time ripping off OS X (iTunes ripoff, GUI ripoff, icon ripoffs) and not spending enough time making the installer look better, or working on other areas under the hood that need improvement.

This right here show how little you know about GNU/Linux. There's no installer for GNU/Linux. Hell there's no installer for Unix either. You seem to base your entire perception of GNU/Linux off a single distro. This show how limited your knowledge is.

Besides I don't see you ripping on Windows Theme builders. Not everyone works on a single aspect of an operating system at the same time yet you expect that everyone in the Linux community should. There are millions of contributors to various aspects of open source software with different skill sets. You don't seriously think that they all have the knowledge to make kernel contributions do you? Just because you make a contribution to an aspect in GNU/Linux doesn't necessasrily make a part of the Linux community. Not all contributior to the GNU Project are part of the Linux community. Not all contributors to KDE are part of the Linux community.

It doesn't take someone working on an open source project to waste time ripping off parts of OSX. Do I need to drudge up XP's Luna or how MS delayed Windows so they could further rip the graphical UI from OS/2 rather than fix the OS faults? Those "contributors" had a financial gain yet they still screw it up.

OS X is what Linux should be when you don't rip off other people's work, and also when you have something solid under the hood.

Back to the old ripping off rant again. I'm not going to get into a debate over GNU/Linux v BSD/Mach.

What Linux needs is someone who will bring a direction to the project. I'm sorry, but Linus isn't the person to "rally the troops".

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about Torvalds' role in the Linux community. Not everything is up to him. Steve Jobs wouldn't change anything either. The GNU Project isn't going to do whatever Jobs would tell them and niether would the QT/KDE developers.

The following is a rebuttal to you 123 rants. I won't waste space pasting the paragraphs. You can read the above post for that.

1. Your problems with a single distro are obviously not existent throughout the entire GNU/Linux install base. Got SuSE working perfectly right out of the box. No need to call the "mechanic".

2. So these people are all millionaires? Many are paid to work with OSS.

3. Sure if you have a Mac and it will run OSX. Not that cheap if you are switching platforms now is there? With GNU/Linux (and the BSDs) there's no real need to switch platforms.

The problem is that so many people hate MS that they work their ass off to exploit it.

It doesn't take a lot of work to exploit Windows.

However, I'll take day-and-date driver support, game support, Office support, and all the other perks that comes with Windows over crossing my fingers any day of the year.

Depends what you are using it for. Mainstream doesn't mean that it needs all that. Not all mainstream users play games for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, not everyone contributes with the thought of financial gain. They are doing so knowing that someone could package the work or the compilation and make money from it or the services that surround it.

Now, why would someone do that? Why would I work my ass off so that someone ELSE could make money?

The reponse I'd expect from an open-source community is that the contribution is for the betterment of the project, but to say that someone works for free so that someone else could make a mint sounds pretty retarted.

You don't have squat

Why must you be a child? I have an NDA with nVidia. I'm working with them on something. Why can't you grow up? I guess the 300-page internal document and free GeForce 4 in my PC at work is just imaginary.

This right here show how little you know about GNU/Linux. There's no installer for GNU/Linux. Hell there's no installer for Unix either. You seem to base your entire perception of GNU/Linux off a single distro. This show how limited your knowledge is.

I'm getting sick and tired of you people that split hairs with the definition of "Linux". Is it referring to the core or the distro? When you go into the store to buy a box it says "Linux" on it, but you'll be more than happy to say that "Linux isn't a distro" for the sake of winning an argument.

Please...stop that. Take a cue from page 1 and see what it's like to write an intelligent response.

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about Torvalds' role in the Linux community. Not everything is up to him.

As do you. Every other thread about Linus seems to end in "he makes the decisions" or "he doesn't make the decisions". You people can't make up your minds about the facts. Does Linus have final say or not?

Depends what you are using it for. Mainstream doesn't mean that it needs all that. Not all mainstream users play games for one.

Perhaps not all at once, but any one of those items could be crucial in someone making a decision about which OS to use.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, why would someone do that? Why would I work my ass off so that someone ELSE could make money?
Why does it have to be someone else? Why couldn't that someone be the developer? There's nothing in the GPL which (or most open source/free software licenses) which says you have to give your work away.
but to say that someone works for free so that someone else could make a mint sounds pretty retarted.

See above

I guess the 300-page internal document and free GeForce 4 in my PC at work is just imaginary.
Yes it is. I've taken the time to read your other anti-linux rants and found them quite amuzing. "I worked with this guy that did that yet I can't remember his name or where he work or what the project was". Nobody's buying it.
Is it referring to the core or the distro?

Which distro? You seem to be confused. Not all distros use the same installer as the are setup different and for different purposes. The main point of the discussion is that you can't seem to differentiate between distros not just Linux the OS (GNU/Linux) and linux the kernel.

You people can't make up your minds about the facts. Does Linus have final say or not?
Again you lack the ability to distinguish between GNU/Linux and Linux. Torvalds has final say in reference to the kernel.
Perhaps not all at once, but any one of those items could be crucial in someone making a decision about which OS to use.

And there in lies the rub. People don't choose there OS (at least not the mainstream audience). They use what comes with their computer. It's an issue with familiarity. Also you'll find more driver support for an OS as soon as manufacturers can more accurately determine the number of people using GNU/Linux. Amazingly enough all your same arguments were used against Windows and look what happened there. It became and extremely popular mainstream OS (not by choice mind as is the case with OSx and other desktop unices).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is. I've taken the time to read your other anti-linux rants and found them quite amuzing. "I worked with this guy that did that yet I can't remember his name or where he work or what the project was". Nobody's buying it.

WTF are you talking about? Forget to take your Ritalin this morning?

You can sit there in your high chair and disbelieve all you want.

Again you lack the ability to distinguish between GNU/Linux and Linux. Torvalds has final say in reference to the kernel.

That's what I was talking about. I'm not confused, little man. Where did I say that Linus had any say in anything BUT the core?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...free GeForce 4 in my PC...

What happened to your Radeon?

Quit with this gaming/driver subject because the winds are changing and soon both will be plentiful thanks companies like Intel, IBM, nVidia and ID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When threads get like this, they are no longer constructive, and I just tune them out (still looking every now and then for some signs of return to reason).

But, right now, it is just "my OS is better for my needs" versus "well, my OS is better for my needs" :angry:

And no one seems to realize that they are terming subjective importance in absolute terms. :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to your Radeon?

Quit with this gaming/driver subject because the winds are changing and soon both will be plentiful thanks companies like Intel, IBM, nVidia and ID.

AT WORK I SAID.

What is wrong with you...CHILDREN?

Quote PROPERLY.

I guess the 300-page internal document and free GeForce in my PC at workb> is just imaginary.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree with that.

I agree that many programs for Linux (like GnuCash! and Cinelerra) are much better than its Windows alternatives. On the other hand, there are many Windows programs (like MS Office, Windows Media Player, Visual Studio, Internet Explorer, HTML Help! and lots of games and lots of hardware drivers) far superior to Linux alternatives.

Linux is really hard to configure - almost every program uses its own components to do the same thing (like printing :angry: ), while Windows provides "standard" components for all programs to use (and programs that don't use them are much less known and used than the ones that use).

There are "myths" about Linux and Windows (and OS X and ...), Unfortunately people believe them. This causes people to stay with their current OS, which is a great plus for Windows as the most common OS today. Microsoft is not evil and there are Linux distribution that (at least try to) configure themselves automatically!

About directory structure: I like having programs in one folder (one folder for each program with its help, libraries and other needed files - like in Windows) not scattered all along my file tree (like Unix like systems have them).

I like Linux, because it is fast (but many (user-friendly) distributions aren't - for example on my computer RedHat and Mandrake were noticeable slower than Windows 98SE) and quite powerful (probably because it uses knowledge of my CPU architecture on build time). But I am still using Windows because I can't open and/or run MS Office files (which are the most commonly used ones), use advanced IDE (like Visual C++) benefits to write programs, use MSN protocol to its maximum extent (but my friends are using MSN), use nice graphical program to change EAX effects my sound card enables me to use, play many good games (and shooting is not good IMO) on Linux and I don't have decent documentation on Linux (well - man pages are only useful when you know what exactly are you looking for (which is generally the answer to your question)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few observations:

Linux is really hard to configure - almost every program uses its own components to do the same thing (like printing :angry: ), while Windows provides "standard" components for all programs to use
True, but I think of it as a trade-off. Microsoft's integration of programs such as IE, and using the same .dlls for different programs can also cause instability problems. The IE flaw of <input type=crash> would also crash MS Word. And integrating IE with the OS causes the MS kernel to have (or deal with) problems it shouldn't have. Now, Microsoft has made GREAT strides in this area, and only a fool would call Windows "unstable" now. But it is less stable than it could be.
I like having programs in one folder (one folder for each program with its help, libraries and other needed files - like in Windows) not scattered all along my file tree (like Unix like systems have them).

A matter of choice. Horizontal vs. vertical. To say that unix files are "scattered" is a bit misleading. They are organized, but by type. Of course, some progams break the convention for file placement - both in *nix and in Windows.

But I am still using Windows because I can't open and/or run MS Office files (which are the most commonly used ones), use advanced IDE (like Visual C++) benefits to write programs, use MSN protocol to its maximum extent (but my friends are using MSN), use nice graphical program to change EAX effects my sound card enables me to use, play many good games (and shooting is not good IMO)
Good points. MS Office files can be accessed via StarOffice/OpenOffice, but if you use VB macros, then you need to look to CodeWeavers CrossOverOffice, and run MS Office in Linux. And, games... Better gaming in Windows (I don't game). Better, still, on PS2 or XBox. :p
I don't have decent documentation on Linux (well - man pages are only useful when you know what exactly are you looking for (which is generally the answer to your question)).

Did you know that if you are looking for something on (for example) ftp, you can use apropos ftp, and it will show you all man entries that have ftp in them...

Anyhow, well written, and it underscores that the best OS for you is a matter of choice. I think that the problem most Linux users end up having with Windows users, is that so many Win users say "Windows is best, and Linux sucks" without ever really looking at what Linux offers...

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track:

I'm a big fan of the idea of Linux on the desktop. I've personally been using Linux as my desktop OS for well over a year now (almost going on 2). Here's my general thoughts on strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths

1. You can still surf the internet and not have to worry about adware and/or viruses being secretly installed on your machine. One of my favorite things about how the Linux desktop (or any *nix for that matter) is that in order to install anything into any directory other than your personal directory, you need the administrator password. I wish this was something that Microsoft would consider for their next OS version or possibly even a service pack.

2. Stability of Linux as an OS is remarkable. If a program crashes on you, it doesn't take the entire OS down with it. This is really a bright spot for me, as I've encountered way to many lockups in both Windows and Mac OS 9 and prior.

3. The sheer amount of open source applications that replace proprietary programs. Programs like Mozilla, OpenOffice, and others make the Linux desktop experience all that much better. I'd still like to see a good replacement for Macromedia Dreamweaver, however.

4. Community support for Linux is almost overwhelming. If people ever have a problem, the answer can typically be found online via great resources like linuxquestions.org. Generally, my questions already have an answer ... just a matter of doing a search to see what I can find. If there isn't a solution, posting a question typically results in having an answer before the day is out.

5. Installing programs in Linux these days is as simple as you can possibly get, thanks to programs like APT and YUM. I remember when I first started using Linux many moons ago, not quite understanding the concept of compiling programs and wishing for something this simple. Low and behold, my wish was granted and I haven't looked back since. I love APT. :)

Weaknesses

1. I feel that there are just waaaaay to many distributions available right now. It's hard to make a good choice, as so many distributions build Linux in so many different ways. One distribution may offer a completely different computing experience than the next. This is one of those things that will never change, however, since one of the founding principals for Linux is the ability to choose.

2. The lack of popular software ported to Linux underwhelms me. I would love to see companies like Macromedia, Adobe, Apple, AOL, etc port their popular software to Linux. If I ever saw a boxed copy of Macromedia Dreamweaver and Fireworks for Linux, I'd buy them in a second. Same goes for alot of Adobe's products. iTunes for Linux would be nice as well.

3. Gaming on Linux currently stinks. While Linux is an amazing platform for gaming (see games like UT2k3, Enemy Territory, Neverwinter Nights, etc), most vendors have yet to move towards providing Linux versions of their games. I think that this mostly is due to the fact that most vendors write their games for DirectX instead of OpenGL, which tends to hurt the Linux gaming community. Thankfully, game companies like id understand that Linux people want to play games to and port their popular software for us to play. Some might argue that WineX is a good platform for emulating DirectX APIs, but the real truth here is that WineX just isn't there yet. I doubt that it'll ever truely be what it aspires to be, as they always seem to be two steps behind Microsoft's development crew.

4. The lack of a compelling GUI has left much to be desired for in Linux. While I like the look and feel of GNOME, I really feel like it could be so much better than it currently is. With Novell behind the wheel now, that might just be the change that the Linux desktop needed to begin making headway. Something that really bugs me is that most of the newer themes for GNOME and KDE generally have a "OS X" aqua feel to them, which is an injustice to any desktop. They're generally way too colorful and tend to be more of a distraction than anything. That being said, I also hate the default GNOME icons too. Personally, I would love to see icons that are real images that can be scaled to any size the user wants (which, ironically, is one of my favorite things about OS X icons ... and I may be contradicting myself a bit by saying so :whistle: ).

Some general thoughts:

I love the bounty hunter idea that is currently underway for the Gnome desktop. This is a fantastic way to encourage people to find solutions for the things that should be working better on the Gnome desktop.

Maybe the GNOME and KDE projects should look to merge in the near future to create one ultimate kick-ass desktop?

Creators of programs used specifically for KDE *really* need to stop naming things with a K. It's just too confusing for new users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, ucw.

However, I still think that OS X is a better solution if you still want the UNIX underpinnings (if you don't, ignore the rest of this paragraph :) ). Every point you made in the "Strengths" section is exactly the same set for OS X. Since it's based on UNIX, a lot, if not all of the popular UNIX apps have been ported, there's macosxhints.com, and you get COMMERCIAL support, which is, in my opinion. very, very important. You could say that the hardware's expensive (it is) but you could always get a used G4 or a new iMac (or eMac). The only serious downside is the inability to boot between Linux and Windows on the same machine if you had to. However, if you're not using Windows for gaming there's always Virtual PC. I use it on my 17" Powerbook when I need to use Windows fast and it works perfectly.

As for your weaknesses, these are mainly the reasons why I wound up eventually building a PC. Back around '96 or so the Mac support was so bad that I was forced to get a PC for gaming, which I wound up using to do my first Slackware install (3.1 or 3.2). Slackware was such a disaster and dual booting was so poorly done that I moved away from it and installed Win95 alone.

The bad GUI in Linux irks me to no end. First off, the submenus are off by a few pixels so I find myself moving the mouse straight across out of habit only to miss the top of the right submenu. It ****ES ME OFF. I booted Knoppix a few weeks back and I almost threw my laptop across the room because the menus were so badly shifted. Also, it flickers a lot (no, it's not because of the video refresh rate), has horrendous bugs, and doesn't have the snappy response I get from WinXP or OS X. It's like playing with a GUI that has no 2D acceleration.

But this is what I keep saying - at its current rate of improvement, Linux will NEVER reach the mainstream desktop because anything that's not "under the hood" go so slowly that by the time it's "done", something new on Windows or OS X comes out and already Linux is behind the times - and they always, always, always will be.

The distros are annoying. There never seems to be a perfect distro. RedHat is good for this, but bad in that. Mandrake kicks ass in that but sucks at this. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WINDOWS OWNS LINUX!!!! LINUX IS TOO COMPLICATED AND WINDOWS MAKES EVERYTHING EASIER PLUS IT HAS GAMES AND LINUX DOESN'T!!! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

...Sorry. The Windows fanboys never showed up so I had to make up for their disappearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WINDOWS OWNS LINUX!!!! LINUX IS TOO COMPLICATED AND WINDOWS MAKES EVERYTHING EASIER PLUS IT HAS GAMES AND LINUX DOESN'T!!! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

they never showed up cuz we asked for them not to...

i think even if linux wasnt to go mainstream...something closely related to it will. and ill be using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Bill Gates kill your mom or something? Seriously...why all this anti-MS hatred? It seems to me that the people that hate MS the most do so because of several reasons:

1) Somehow, they thought Linux was cool; like some geek status symbol to know how to rebuild your kernel.

2) They're not serious gamers (serious gamers would never use Linux since...it doesn't run most games).

3) They don't care about Office.

4) Simple rebelliousness.

You DO realize that Linux doesn't allow you to get the most performance out of your computer, don't you? Hate MS as much as you want, but without it, I wouldn't feel I was getting the most out of my computer. What I feel I could gain from Linux is the ability to do simple tasks without all the bloat. However, since faster processors are dropping in price and you can find web sites on how to strip down XP's process list without degrading stability and performance, WinXP isn't such a bad OS for PCs.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Bill Gates kill your mom or something? Seriously...why all this anti-MS hatred?

Whoa, starman....

I think you are over-reacting to slayer's joke here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding more to this (bad punctuation and all):

i think even if linux wasnt to go mainstream...something closely related to it will. and ill be using it.

Which seems to be the sentiment of most Linux users.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I still think that OS X is a better solution if you still want the UNIX underpinnings
I love OS X, it's a fantastic OS and probably what Linux should be. Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of the price range on a typical Mac machine, which can range from $1000 on the low end to $3000+ on the high end. Now, if you could build your own Mac and it was cheaper to do so, I would make the switch tomorrow. Or even better yet, if Jobs announced availability of Mac OS X for the PC right this minute, it would be purchased installed on my machine by this evening.
you get COMMERCIAL support, which is, in my opinion. very, very important.

I agree. One thing to point out is that if you purchase Linux from any vendor, you get commercial support. HP is a good example in this case. They have desktop machines with a variety of Linux distributions, and they support each one of these distributions. Take a look: http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linu...lientscert.html.

I find myself moving the mouse straight across out of habit only to miss the top of the right submenu.
Interesting. I've never encountered that issue before. Have you contacted someone at Knoppix or posted the problem on a bulletin board? I'd be interested to find out what the problem is.
has horrendous bugs

Can you provide an example? I use Knoppix as a rescue resource for my Windows servers at work. Granted I haven't used it on a regular basis, but for what I have used it for it was stable and worked well.

It's like playing with a GUI that has no 2D acceleration.
Sounds like your laptop has an ATI card. The generic drivers that most distributions use are horrid. I personally update the video drivers almost immediately after an install. But as you're using the bootable version, that may not be an option.
at its current rate of improvement, Linux will NEVER reach the mainstream desktop because anything that's not "under the hood" go so slowly that by the time it's "done", something new on Windows or OS X comes out and already Linux is behind the times

I'm not 100% sure if I'd agree with this statement. While I will agree that module development can sometimes be slow, more and more vendors are beginning to provide 3rd party software for Linux. Case-in-point are the video cards and the drivers provided by Nvidia and ATI. Another good example are printers. I know for a fact that Lexmark develops and tests Linux drivers along side of Windows and Mac drivers.

My other thought to this is many major companies are investing time and development into Linux. I think that as new technology progresses, especially by these companies (HP, Novell, IBM, etc) will be incorporated into Linux by the vendor. At minimum you will see immediate module/driver support. Maybe even one day Linux will come out with a "killer app" (I hate that term) that Microsoft and Apple will scramble to incorporate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Give it a few years and you'll probably see Linux along with the Windows and Mac specs on the bottom of hardware boxes in your favorite computer hardware store.

The distros are annoying. There never seems to be a perfect distro. RedHat is good for this, but bad in that. Mandrake kicks ass in that but sucks at this. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Knoppix that has the problem, it's Gnome, or whatever GUI is on Knoppix by default. Every distro of Linux that I've used has that problem. It's like the tops of the submenus never, EVER line up with the parent, so you have to move your mouse down a bit to match it up.

The laptop has an nVidia GeForce 2 in it. It's the first time I ever used Linux on my laptop.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Knoppix that has the problem, it's Gnome, or whatever GUI is on Knoppix by default. Every distro of Linux that I've used has that problem. It's like the tops of the submenus never, EVER line up with the parent, so you have to move your mouse down a bit to match it up.

The laptop has an nVidia GeForce 2 in it. It's the first time I ever used Linux on my laptop.

Mike

KDE for Knoppix, Gnome for Gnoppix. ;)

I love gnome, never had any of the issues you've mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.