The Linux Desktop: We've Arrived.

I'm sorry but this article is just a piece of sh**! A lot of stupidities, false statements, etc.

By the way, I use exclusively Linux/BSD for many years now and yet I find the current state of the Linux Desktop quite poor. The Year of the Linux Desktop is quite far to be reaching, if ever there comes a day...

The linux desktop has already been here for a long time. The problem is that it needs users willing to learn a new OS, but only a few want to do that. If you install Linux as your only OS (try a Live CD first to check if your hardware is compatible with that distro) and have the will to learn and use something new, in a couple of weeks you'll be enjoying your linux desktop.

I think a good part of the whining problem has to do with the time and effort required to learn anything new. In the case of Linux the problem is compounded by the fact that most newly purchased computers come with Windows, unless you buy a Mac. The Windows OS is the most available and the one most people will try to learn or in most cases already know.

I am a Linux user and love Linux but the question my friends and relatives ask is "why should I learn Linux when I already know Windows?" That is a good question and even when I tell them about the security, openness and freedom that comes with Linux the stock response is that they don't want to have to learn another system. Learning a new system is a struggle and for most not worth the time unless there is something of compelling urgency that they need in the new system. But there is hope and I see it in mobile devices. There Linux did not have to fight the "pre-installed" Windows issue as Windows is almost absent in that space. Apple and Android are dominant. Because of the wide variety of apps that have been written for mobile devices people are more apt to try things out and more inclined to experiment and try something new. This breaks the Windows mind-set and opens new users to a new experience.

As Linux finds its way into schools and universities and as it becomes a major force in the mobile space it will find more users. I think your positive spin on the current state of desktop Linux is on the mark. It is every bit as good as Windows or Apple, it is also as easy to use and attractive. I am confident that it will continue to grow and find more users over time. Thanks for your hopeful look at Linux.

Ok everybody, about this ease of setup and drivers argument. I know people in the tech support at a university. I have been told that the bench time required to set up a Windows computer is 9 - 12 hours.

I know this is must be true because I did work in tech support at the University back in the Windows 2000 days and it took at least 6 hours back then to setup a computer.

This is for things like:
Install AV software
security updates for all of the software installed
Custom files and scripts for services on campus,
etc. etc.

This is with the ability to clone drives with programs like Norton Ghost.

Now if every faculty member was required to buy the same computer, all at the same time, bench time would be reduced. But that will never happen.

So there.

I see you've taken the liberty of keeping all of Linux's flaws in the shadows. There's no use even pointing them out, since anyone who complains about Linux is a troll in every regard.

I got my first computer around the time Internet access started to become widely available to the general public in the mid 1990s. It was a hand-me-down 386SX-16 with 4MB of RAM and came with Windows 3.1.

Having got a taste for the Internet at school, I wanted to be able to access the 'net at home during the summer too, but my computer didn't have enough memory to run Netscape 1.2. I had heard about a text-only web browser called 'Lynx'. I obtained a copy of the DOS version of Lynx, but was unsuccessful in configuring it for Internet access.

My room-mate at school, a computer science major, had shown me a Linux CD, so I decided to look into the possibility of installing Linux on my machine so that I could run Lynx.

After downloading several sets of Slackware 3.0 floppy disk images using a Windows 95 machine with a 28.8 modem that I had access to in the evening, I set about making the installation disks.

My computer had two floppy disk drives, a 5.25" drive (A:) and a 3.5" drive (B:). The 5.25" floppy drive was configured as the boot drive, and not knowing how to change that, I decided to use the only 5.25" floppy disks I had available that evening, which just happened to be the install disks for Microsoft Windows, to create the Slackware boot disks. Out came the scissors to cut a notch into the side of the MS floppies to make them writeable.

After lots of waiting and inserting floppy disks, I had my Linux machine up and running. Next, I configured my 14.4 modem and a script to make the SLIP connection to my Internet service provider with a little help from the 'minicom' program. I was on-line and delighted to be using Lynx to browse the web and Pine for email.

After discovering that my 386 did not meet the minimum system requirements to run a CD-ROM, I decided to save up for a new system. The new machine was a 486 DX2-66 with 16MB of RAM and was able to run X.

The only 'desktop' I can recall at the time was a commercial package called 'CDE'. I ordered, for a nominal fee, an academic version of SCO Unixware in order to try out this desktop. While it was pretty and had more features than FVWM, which was what I was using on Linux, I found Unixware wasn't as flexible and didn't have as good support for my hardware.

If my memory serves me correctly, changing the look of the window title bar buttons in FVWM involved editing the source code and recompiling. (I think. I compiled lots of source code back in those days. I hardly ever do now, as binaries for just about everything seem to be easily available.)

The next 'desktop' I recall was called 'Looking Glass' and it came with Caldera OpenLinux, which I had obtained a free copy of at a COMDEX show. Like CDE, it was proprietary and did not come with the 'Lite' version of OpenLinux.

I think the first Linux distribution I tried that had a graphical environment that I didn't spend much time fiddling with to make it look better was Red Hat 6. I also tried SuSE Linux 6.1 around the same time and it had a good desktop as well, but the book that came with it did not have the greatest translation from German to English.

I have read lots of articles about distributions and desktops, but one thing that I think that has improved the graphical experience greatly but doesn't necessarily get the spotlight are the various sets of widgets. When I started using Linux, most of the graphical programs used either the Athena widgets or the proprietary Motif widgets (e.g. Netscape and GIMP). Widget sets like Lesstif, GTK and Qt have made Linux graphical applications much more attractive and easy to use.

Today, I think we Linux users have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to our choice of Linux desktops. I think they're all quite excellent and I would be content using any of the ones I have tried.

"There are user friendly distributions out there for non-techies " (highlight is mine)

To clarify something I was reacting to, I am quoting a sentence from the author. It all goes to define what "friendly" and "non techies" means, and to which tasks they apply.

Linux Mint which was listed as part of rebuttal arguments by people does not qualify as a friendly distribution to install and maintain by non techies user because one still need to dig down in configuration file and play around quite a bit to fix some issues that should be trivial things to fix for the user (such as setting a max resolution and frequency for a monitor). So what is significantly better than Linux Mint at dealing with configuration issues? I actually want to try a couple more distributions...

Linux mint once installed and configured properly with all the hardware it will be connected to may well be user friendly in everyday usage... :D

For those who use Linux it is getting better and better, and it is becoming somewhat more accessible to new and novice users... but prime time?

Ignoring obvious differences like cost, fuel usage, size, relative safety, etc, let's make an analogy...

Cars today are VASTLY more complex than cars from 100 years ago, they are easier to use and safer... 100 years ago you need to know spark advance, shifting gears, fuel ratios, etc... So let's imagine Windows is like a car. It's much easier to configure and use Windows today vs. 15 years ago. Windows (and the car) feels nicer, looks cooler, it's safer, etc... but the best part is that the basic principals of operating it--steering, gas, brake, start/stop engine, drive, reverse, etc, are all basically the same. People are comfortable with know how to drive a car, knowing how to operate said car on the roadways to get from point A to point B.

Ok, so if Windows is a car, then Linux is a helicopter... the helicopter is clearly more versatile then the car, but because of the perceived complexity toward operating a helicopter most people simply won't even consider buying one--even if there are new models of helicopter that are easy to fly as a car is to drive.

To carry it further... when you get into just about any car you know how to use it.. sure it might take a moment or two to figure things out, but basically it's easy to use and the features are similar. A helicopter is not quite the same, there might be bigger differences between the controls, etc...

So really the problem is how to get people to understand and want to use a helicopter for their daily transportation instead of a car...

Here's IMHO a single and sufficient issue that illustrates why Linux desktop is not ready:
drivers, drivers, drivers..... & configuration

I just took a couple of vanilla computers and installed a few of the most recent distributions (ubuntu, debian, mint, etc).
Only one of the distribution was somewhat able to configure my displays half correctly (debian) and only after I picked the expert install. I have not have any display problems with a window install in what, 10 years? Even running dual displays....
Ok so install does not work properly, but I can easily change the configuration, right?? Well, good luck on the "easy" part. Took me two days of trial and errors and saw on the way forums littered with the same issues as mine, unresolved, or resolved in ways that even sometimes startle would educated IT people.
While one can not expect linux to detect correctly all devices since nobody pays for the drivers to be written to start with, simpler tools to correct the configuration and a system of collection of device and settings that work does not exist, which means that the same problem has been lingering for years.
There are tons of "good excuses" that explains drivers issue, but at the end of it, until configuration detection/modification issues are resolved, linux desktop will only be reserved for IT techies, and even then, one has to be willing to still gets its hand really dirty on a regular basis...
Eye candies ....? Will be great when I can SEE them ;-)