lets make a linux better than vista

[Raven Mill]

yeah.... it is true.... I am allergic to that kind of stuff too...

however online OSs are possible as internet speeds get faster...

The speed would have to be a LOT faster than it is now for me to go that
route. Besides, at present, they are working with the "Web 2.0" scheme,
which is about as secure as a marshmellow.

If internet speeds ever get to 100-150 MegaBYTES per second, I'll start
considering it. I supposed, to be fair, if all you ever do is get your
email online, then okay...but there is NO way that net speeds, presently (or
anytime in the near future) are going to warrant playing World of Warcraft
via that system...

 

[jonah]

12) Make it Windows compatible, so that there are REAL applications that
run on it.

Well there is always WiNE but it feels like cheating somehow and also
importing Windows crud into a perfectly good Linux system somehow does
not feel right to me.



Jonah

 

[Raven Mill]

Well there is always WiNE but it feels like cheating somehow and also
importing Windows crud into a perfectly good Linux system somehow does
not feel right to me.

wine doesn't run games, nor does VMware. Cedega is CLOSE, but only on a
select few games. If the software companies would write them for *nix, I'd
switch so fast there'd be jetstream.

My LFWPT and I have this convo constantly. People think that GIMP is as
good as Photoshop, etc. It's not. Nor does Linux have the support of
hardware vendors to get drivers and, in the case of Gimp, color profile
setups. My LFWPT and I took 10 graphics and photos (web graphics, and
photos from the same camera) and printed them on the same printer, (a Xerox
Phaser 8550) The printer had a linux driver, we made sure to be fair and use
one that did. Photoshop prints came out looking just fine, as they were
supposed to. Gimps prints came out some very well, but most of them had
varying color problems. (i.e.: One in particular printed as though the
photo was taken with a green filter applied to it.)

To be honest, the way I see it is that the only application that I really
like for *nix is the server stuff and Open Office. I'd really like to see
more support from all the vendors for *nix. But I don't think that will
ever really happen unless one distro really breaks away and becomes the
"standard" due to the differences in the kernels etc.

Then there's always the "peer support" problem. I don't know HOW many times
I've went to a "Linux Help" forum for help with something and been given
variations of the RTFM routine. If I really had to RTFM for everything I
want to do with *nix I'd be reading for about 10 years before I could even
run the OS.

 

[Luke Fitzwater]

You have been skirting the question so I'll ask it again. With an Open
Source OS where would the profits come from?

In the GPL that is distributed with EVERY copy of Linux, it 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."

So to answer your question. The software is free, but charging for
installing and services on the software can lead to revenues if a
company so decides.

Feel free to read up on the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

-Luke

 

[Luke Fitzwater]

Raven, there is a lot of games ported (or can be ported with a simple
recompile) over to Linux. Anything running any Epic's Unreal Engine
1/2/2.x/3 or IDSoftware's Quake 1/2/3/4 (Doom series included) will run
natively under Linux.

At this point it's a question "will developers compile a second
distribution for Linux?" If they won't, there are a lot of hard hacks to
get some games running under Linux(recompiling engines, copying content
from cd, modifying ini/inf files, ect...)

At this point I really don't like pointing fingers at the game
developers for the lack of support. I really point them at the higher
end hardware people for not fully supporting Linux. AMD and Intel have
both shown excellent support and tools available for Linux.
Communication and I/O cards have very good support in Linux by the
manufactures. nVidia and ATI have been very slow progress in supporting
cards (sometimes third party drivers work better than manufactures') And
outside theses groups there have been next to nothing for support from
majority of the sound card/physics/or any other type add in hardware.

Yes, I am a Linux gamer, and I dream of hosting a LAN party with all
different OSes playing against each other.

-Luke

 

[Kerry Brown]

In the GPL that is distributed with EVERY copy of Linux, it 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."
So to answer your question. The software is free, but charging for
installing and services on the software can lead to revenues if a
company so decides.

Feel free to read up on the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

-Luke

I know how the license works. So far no one has been able to make serious
inroads into the desktop marketplace selling Linux services and support.
Desktop users as opposed to server users for the most part aren't willing to
pay for support and services. I would like to see a serious competitor to
Windows for the desktop. Windows would benefit from it as would consumers. I
can't think of a way the desktop marketplace can be targeted profitably with
Open Source products. Many people with better minds than me can't either.
Some have spent a fair amount of money trying. I think it will take a
different licensing model to challenge Windows.

 

[Kerry Brown]

wine doesn't run games, nor does VMware. Cedega is CLOSE, but only
on a select few games. If the software companies would write them
for *nix, I'd switch so fast there'd be jetstream.

My LFWPT and I have this convo constantly. People think that GIMP is
as good as Photoshop, etc. It's not. Nor does Linux have the
support of hardware vendors to get drivers and, in the case of Gimp,
color profile setups. My LFWPT and I took 10 graphics and photos
(web graphics, and photos from the same camera) and printed them on
the same printer, (a Xerox Phaser 8550) The printer had a linux
driver, we made sure to be fair and use one that did. Photoshop
prints came out looking just fine, as they were supposed to. Gimps
prints came out some very well, but most of them had varying color
problems. (i.e.: One in particular printed as though the photo was
taken with a green filter applied to it.)
To be honest, the way I see it is that the only application that I
really like for *nix is the server stuff and Open Office. I'd really
like to see more support from all the vendors for *nix. But I don't
think that will ever really happen unless one distro really breaks
away and becomes the "standard" due to the differences in the kernels
etc.
Then there's always the "peer support" problem. I don't know HOW
many times I've went to a "Linux Help" forum for help with something
and been given variations of the RTFM routine. If I really had to
RTFM for everything I want to do with *nix I'd be reading for about
10 years before I could even run the OS.

How can you RTFM when there is no manual and the man pages were written by
someone who loves the command line and thinks GUIs are for wimps? If someone
was to hire a team of good technical writers and document almost any of the
current top 10 distros they would have a saleable product. They all work at
least as good as Windows and there are applications that are suitable for
most people's needs. The problems arise when something doesn't work. Even a
fairly sophisticated user runs head first into a brick wall. I recently had
an email conversation with another MVP. We were both trying to get the
wireless adapters on our laptops working in Linux. Between us we have
decades of experience with many OS's. It didn't help that we had different
laptops and different distros but you think that the config files would be
similar. I finally got mine working but I had to write a special script to
run whenever I want to activate the wireless adapter. If I change networks
or the encryption key I have to manually edit the config file. I am sure
that if I had proper documentation I wouldn't need the script or to edit the
config file. Here's the documentation for the distro I am using FC5.

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc5/#id2958504

http://fedora.redhat.com/NetworkManager

http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/

The second link is found in the first link. Not exactly helpful for
troubleshooting

 

[Bernie]

wine doesn't run games, nor does VMware. Cedega is CLOSE, but only on a
select few games. If the software companies would write them for *nix, I'd
switch so fast there'd be jetstream.

My LFWPT and I have this convo constantly. People think that GIMP is as
good as Photoshop, etc. It's not. Nor does Linux have the support of
hardware vendors to get drivers and, in the case of Gimp, color profile
setups. My LFWPT and I took 10 graphics and photos (web graphics, and
photos from the same camera) and printed them on the same printer, (a Xerox
Phaser 8550) The printer had a linux driver, we made sure to be fair and use
one that did. Photoshop prints came out looking just fine, as they were
supposed to. Gimps prints came out some very well, but most of them had
varying color problems. (i.e.: One in particular printed as though the
photo was taken with a green filter applied to it.)

To be honest, the way I see it is that the only application that I really
like for *nix is the server stuff and Open Office. I'd really like to see
more support from all the vendors for *nix. But I don't think that will
ever really happen unless one distro really breaks away and becomes the
"standard" due to the differences in the kernels etc.

Then there's always the "peer support" problem. I don't know HOW many times
I've went to a "Linux Help" forum for help with something and been given
variations of the RTFM routine. If I really had to RTFM for everything I
want to do with *nix I'd be reading for about 10 years before I could even
run the OS.

The Gimp is to Photoshop or even Paintshop Pro what Open Office is to MS
Office. They are usable and fill most needs but not high end needs.

I'm very newly checking it out again 5 years after the last time and it
has come on considerably. In terms of prettiness I have seen desktops
that beat OS/X and Vista hands down for cool eye candy. But eye candy is
really only enough to get people to look. Then to find the higher
quality Windows apps don't have good enough equivalents is a
disappointment right now but I do think that is being rectified. I do
detect the beginnings of a lot more attention going on various Linux
distros.

I think a very likely scenario is for a distro like the current Novell
SLED a year or two down the road will start to move ahead rapidly in
adoptions and that will be the start of the mass exodus. But the current
Linux fan base will remain in their own world with their own distros.
There are internal cultural barriers preventing most distros from making
large inroads on to desktops and I suspect, though I don't know for
sure, that the driver issue is a part of that culture. "Everything has
to be open source or it isn't pure." Some thought like that is holding
it all back. I don't want to develop hardware drivers or modify them. I
just want drivers that work and I'm sure my view on that is also the
majority view of potential adopters. I don't think hardware makers want
to reveal how their kit works and I don't blame them one bit. There also
seems to be far too much "community based" thinking around various
distros and a corresponding distrust of large corporations getting
involved. But nonetheless I see a great future for some flavour of Linux.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

IMO the only serious competitor to Windows is OS/X. The general public
seems willing to pay for a system that does for them what they want to do
and does it without them having to learn things like configuring devices and
such.

I doubt that most users care about OS features and capabilities. Most users
just want to use email and do things provided by simple word processing, use
programs like Turbo Tax and Quicken, do photo and music management, and
generally be entertained by a few games and puzzles. The last thing they
care about is the OS. They want a printer that...well... just prints. They
to want shop online.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Amen.

How can you RTFM when there is no manual and the man pages were written by
someone who loves the command line and thinks GUIs are for wimps? If
someone was to hire a team of good technical writers and document almost
any of the current top 10 distros they would have a saleable product. They
all work at least as good as Windows and there are applications that are
suitable for most people's needs. The problems arise when something
doesn't work. Even a fairly sophisticated user runs head first into a
brick wall. I recently had an email conversation with another MVP. We were
both trying to get the wireless adapters on our laptops working in Linux.
Between us we have decades of experience with many OS's. It didn't help
that we had different laptops and different distros but you think that the
config files would be similar. I finally got mine working but I had to
write a special script to run whenever I want to activate the wireless
adapter. If I change networks or the encryption key I have to manually
edit the config file. I am sure that if I had proper documentation I
wouldn't need the script or to edit the config file. Here's the
documentation for the distro I am using FC5.

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc5/#id2958504

http://fedora.redhat.com/NetworkManager

http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/

The second link is found in the first link. Not exactly helpful for
troubleshooting

 

[Kerry Brown]

I agree that OS/X has a chance for the reasons you say. I think that I may
actually have to buy a Mac soon. I am getting more customers all the time
that have Macs as a second machine. So far I've been able to figure out
their problems but it would be easier if I was more familiar with them

 

[deebs]

I concur.

Approaches?

a) super-home to super-savvy in a rainbow of, say, five flavours

b) one OS with the ability to cater for such a spread within one desktop OS

 

[deebs]

I've done it.

Mac Pro ordered and I am sure I will have a great deal to learn.

I intended to upgrade most of my important software to 64 bit via a
Vista route but now I will also have the option to go a Mac route should
the next few months favour such an approach.

As a ps I'll probably purchase an el-cheapo device that I can boost with
some surplus kit I have and see what linux does on it.

 

[deebs]

I think for finished consumer products Windows always wins.

Linux tends to be a garage-band OS even at the best of times?

 

[bronskimac]

I agree whole heartedly.

Most user don't care that it is a computer with programs and "stuff".
They expect the computer to do what they want it to do, in the same way
that the stereo plays music, the Hover vacuums etc. When they plug in a
new device not only do they expect the computer to recognise the device,
it should get the right software and open it up.

Some may sputter into their coco-pops reading this, but that is the
expectation of the general population of computer users. Advertising,
film and television have assisted in engendering this expectation in the
general public.

Microsoft have gone quite a way to providing this kind of functionality
and, barring some anti-trust bumps in the road, have made good progress
which continues in Vista (I will be interested to see the next round of
anti-trust/monopolies law suits).

Any viable alternative operating system has to have this kind of ease of
use.

In recent months I have installed a number of different distributions of
Linux and found that, although they have made significant progress in
recent years, there is still a far greater need for knowledgeable
intervention to get everything working than with a Windows installation.

Microsoft may have been complacent in the past but my recent experience
with Vista, Office 2007, Media Player and many Live betas has been a
very very pleasant one. MS seam to have finally started listening to the
common man/woman.

The only way an alternative Linux OS will make significant headway is if
there is an enormous input of development, lead by genuine users desires
not the needs perceived by technical types.

IBM/Google OS anyone?

Chris Gibson

 

[Bernie]

I know how the license works. So far no one has been able to make serious
inroads into the desktop marketplace selling Linux services and support.
Desktop users as opposed to server users for the most part aren't willing to
pay for support and services. I would like to see a serious competitor to
Windows for the desktop. Windows would benefit from it as would consumers. I
can't think of a way the desktop marketplace can be targeted profitably with
Open Source products. Many people with better minds than me can't either.
Some have spent a fair amount of money trying. I think it will take a
different licensing model to challenge Windows.

I think this is a moot issue. We are not yet at the stage where desktop
users want to have it on their machines. When that occurs (because of
the quality of the O/S then offered) in significant numbers it will
happen. And there will certainly be money to be made.

I agree that home users are not very interested in support contracts but
that isn't the only place to make money. Once there is a great demand
then PC World and other big box shifters will sell systems with a Linux
O/S pre installed. It could easily be that whatever margin they
currently get from Windows would be added to the price they sell clean
machines at. I've never been an OEM and don't know the margins but,
whatever they are, that much of an increase in the price of a box will
be less than the same box with Windows. And quite apart from that
Windows users do not switch to Linux over the price right now so there
is no reason to think that price is that important.

The box shifters may or may not make any money on the software but they
certainly will on the hardware and other peripheral stuff. How much do
you think they make now with Windows? I don't know but even if it were
99% it makes no difference to the people who buy machines. Buyers don't
care where the box shifters make their money they just want what they
want and if PC World or Dell don't supply it somebody else will leap in
there.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I have a MacBook Pro and dual boot OS/X and XP Pro SP2 to good advantage. I
see no reason not to live comfortably in both worlds.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The Mac OS on a PC won't happen. Apple doesn't have to offer an edition of
OS/X that can run on PC's. They have played the Intel card and it is
working for them to draw Windows users to the Mac. 75% of the Macs sold in
the first half of this year are Windows compatible. 100% of the Macs that
will sell the rest of this year will be Windows compatible. The Intel Mac
hardware is as Vista Premium ready one could want. When Apple does the Mac
Drivers for Vista that's where I am going with my MBP.

Windows has become integral to Apple's business plan. They don't have to
sell Windows, but they had to allow the dream of Windows on a Mac to
materialize in order to keep their standing in the notebook market. When
notebook sales passed desktop sales Apple had to go Intel.

There was never going to be a G5 laptop chip. Tests with G5's showed
battery life of only 20 minutes and thermal issues that could not be dealt
with in the constrained air circulation in a notebook form factor. The
popularity of the laptop is what killed the PPC Mac.

 

[deebs]

Google-Sun or even Google-san?

 

[Bernie]

I agree that OS/X has a chance for the reasons you say. I think that I may
actually have to buy a Mac soon. I am getting more customers all the time
that have Macs as a second machine. So far I've been able to figure out
their problems but it would be easier if I was more familiar with them

You said it man. I'm in the same position.