Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (3)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 9 hrs, 56 mins ago -
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 1 day, 13 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 2 days, 2 hrs ago -
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 6 days, 1 hr ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to juise- For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-05-07
, 11:38
|
|
Posts: 42 |
Thanked: 22 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#42
|
This question has been asked almost every year for the last ten years, and has frankly become tedious. It's normally only asked by people new to Linux or by journalists with nothing better to write about.
For a start, Linux has a massive share of the server OS market. Massive. Most websites you visit will be running on Linux.
In terms of desktop installations, there are several reasons why it hasn't got such a large share as Windows, and by far the biggest reason is that Microsoft pulls its economic weight to discourage OEMs from sticking Linux on their PCs.
Whether the desktop experience on Linux is better/worse than Windows is a moot point. Until recently, most people had XP or Vista on their PCs, and recent versions of Ubuntu were vastly superior to the experience they offered.
Windows 7 made some improvements to Vista and looked a bit glossier, in effect catching up with Ubuntu. The latest Ubuntu - 10.04, is an attempt to keep on par with Windows 7.
I installed Windows 7 the other day, and I also installed Ubuntu 10.04. Ubuntu was by far the easier installation and it comes with more applications installed as default than Windows.
The real issues are that most people don't understand the idea of a "different operating system". There are PCs, and there are Macs. You're either a Mac user, or a PC user - which means Windows. Sure, some people might have heard of Linux, but even if you stuck in on their PC, they wouldn't be sure exactly what it's for.
There will be no real difference in how they use the desktop for browsing and whatnot, but they'll notice they can't install their games on it, and they can't download Windows shareware crap, and they can't find MS office.
They'll try out OpenOffice (which the latest version of, in my opinion, is far better than the MS one), but it doesn't look the same as MS Office, so they won't like it.
This problem is exacerbated by schools teaching IT literacy, but only on Windows.
So the desktop usability is equivalent in Windows and Linux these days, but uptake isn't massive, not because Linux isn't capable, but because there's a massive inertia for associating PCs with windows, and this won't be fixed until education about technology is better and Microsoft finally stop their anti-competitive practices.
For a start, Linux has a massive share of the server OS market. Massive. Most websites you visit will be running on Linux.
In terms of desktop installations, there are several reasons why it hasn't got such a large share as Windows, and by far the biggest reason is that Microsoft pulls its economic weight to discourage OEMs from sticking Linux on their PCs.
Whether the desktop experience on Linux is better/worse than Windows is a moot point. Until recently, most people had XP or Vista on their PCs, and recent versions of Ubuntu were vastly superior to the experience they offered.
Windows 7 made some improvements to Vista and looked a bit glossier, in effect catching up with Ubuntu. The latest Ubuntu - 10.04, is an attempt to keep on par with Windows 7.
I installed Windows 7 the other day, and I also installed Ubuntu 10.04. Ubuntu was by far the easier installation and it comes with more applications installed as default than Windows.
The real issues are that most people don't understand the idea of a "different operating system". There are PCs, and there are Macs. You're either a Mac user, or a PC user - which means Windows. Sure, some people might have heard of Linux, but even if you stuck in on their PC, they wouldn't be sure exactly what it's for.
There will be no real difference in how they use the desktop for browsing and whatnot, but they'll notice they can't install their games on it, and they can't download Windows shareware crap, and they can't find MS office.
They'll try out OpenOffice (which the latest version of, in my opinion, is far better than the MS one), but it doesn't look the same as MS Office, so they won't like it.
This problem is exacerbated by schools teaching IT literacy, but only on Windows.
So the desktop usability is equivalent in Windows and Linux these days, but uptake isn't massive, not because Linux isn't capable, but because there's a massive inertia for associating PCs with windows, and this won't be fixed until education about technology is better and Microsoft finally stop their anti-competitive practices.
| The Following User Says Thank You to wheelybird For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-05-07
, 11:57
|
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#43
|
Originally Posted by wheelybird
This is very much true and have been the last couple of years. But MS will not be able to stop this from happening. This is why i picked 2015. The word of linux is mainly spread from mouth to mouth. When i first tried.. it was because a friend introduced me. I have in turn introduced this to my family and friends. This effect will just grow larger and larger.
This question has been asked almost every year for the last ten years, and has frankly become tedious. It's normally only asked by people new to Linux or by journalists with nothing better to write about.
For a start, Linux has a massive share of the server OS market. Massive. Most websites you visit will be running on Linux.
In terms of desktop installations, there are several reasons why it hasn't got such a large share as Windows, and by far the biggest reason is that Microsoft pulls its economic weight to discourage OEMs from sticking Linux on their PCs.
Whether the desktop experience on Linux is better/worse than Windows is a moot point. Until recently, most people had XP or Vista on their PCs, and recent versions of Ubuntu were vastly superior to the experience they offered.
Windows 7 made some improvements to Vista and looked a bit glossier, in effect catching up with Ubuntu. The latest Ubuntu - 10.04, is an attempt to keep on par with Windows 7.
I installed Windows 7 the other day, and I also installed Ubuntu 10.04. Ubuntu was by far the easier installation and it comes with more applications installed as default than Windows.
The real issues are that most people don't understand the idea of a "different operating system". There are PCs, and there are Macs. You're either a Mac user, or a PC user - which means Windows. Sure, some people might have heard of Linux, but even if you stuck in on their PC, they wouldn't be sure exactly what it's for.
There will be no real difference in how they use the desktop for browsing and whatnot, but they'll notice they can't install their games on it, and they can't download Windows shareware crap, and they can't find MS office.
They'll try out OpenOffice (which the latest version of, in my opinion, is far better than the MS one), but it doesn't look the same as MS Office, so they won't like it.
This problem is exacerbated by schools teaching IT literacy, but only on Windows.
So the desktop usability is equivalent in Windows and Linux these days, but uptake isn't massive, not because Linux isn't capable, but because there's a massive inertia for associating PCs with windows, and this won't be fixed until education about technology is better and Microsoft finally stop their anti-competitive practices.
The hard part is to convince someone to test. When they do they often are sold. I have seen this happening numerous times. I do not know how many i have helped convert.. but it is many.
|
|
2010-05-07
, 12:13
|
|
Posts: 48 |
Thanked: 17 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ wolver
|
#44
|
well personally ive been a windows user forever as i was generally unaware of the other options available too me. i now run ubuntu/windows dual boot now and if im honest i dont even run windows anymore. i love the ubuntu system and so far have set it up for most my friends and family. the main thing that stopped me from switching before were lack of knowledge, didnt realise how easy it was to install and worries about not knowing what to do when things go wrong. would love to see linux on a more wide scale but as long as pcs/laptops come with windows preinstalled not alot of people know there are other options.
|
|
2010-05-07
, 12:18
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#45
|
Originally Posted by ysss
Lack of professional standard design tools - Photoshop, Illustrator, Flint/Combustion/Flame, AutoCAD, 3DS Max, Font Lab/Fontographer, PageMaker/Quark Xpress - that people have been using for almost 20 years and don't exactly match up point for point with their Linux derivatives is one problem. When in a pinch, I can use GIMP like no other.
To me, there's no really strong selling point of Linux to the non-techies out there. Couple that with interoperability problem with enterprise systems and 3rd party accessories or 3rd party apps, then they get more problem trying to run Linux than not.
But I've used Photoshop for 17 years... and I can tell you that some things are missing. And worse... a lot of service bureaus have yet to extend their support to the native files that the Linux options use and conversion isn't always a positive experience either.
Gaming... yet another problem. I don't play too many PC games - my machines are for business, I keep the PS3 or Dreamcast for gaming - but it would be nice to run, full-speed and accelerated games like the upcoming Portal 2. But it won't happen. And I'm personally sick of all of the Quake clones. Quake was released 14 years ago.
Linux as a dev, server, or ultimately (for the general population) as a work machine - Open Office is all I run be it OS X (NeoOffice /J) or Linux or Windows - that would be free of viruses that excels at doing office work (non-creative) is a lure that will draw more people.
But for gamers and creatives (graphic design) it's not there yet. But for musicians though... it been there. And video, it's damn close.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-05-07
, 12:50
|
|
Posts: 1,296 |
Thanked: 1,773 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Budapest, Hungary
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by roundyz
Yes, I could. Or I could just use what I have now.
This is a longshot, but you could read the api docs and write it by hand!!
Originally Posted by roundyz
It usually happens when I screw up a pointer. (That is, I forget to initialize it or other stuff.)
Sounds like poor code, best to look at thread that is running and watch your vars (in your debugger!), but you knew that !
Originally Posted by roundyz
Thanks for that.
I'm not a professional (yet)! Just trying to get you more open to the development world outside of Microsoft's implementation..
I'm always trying to keep up with non-MS technology (and for mobile, anything is superior to it), but it seems to me that the productivity of MS tools is far better.
__________________
You should follow me on Twitter!
Apps: Puzzle Master, IRC Chatter for Harmattan, IRC for Sailfish
You should follow me on Twitter!
Apps: Puzzle Master, IRC Chatter for Harmattan, IRC for Sailfish
|
|
2010-05-07
, 13:05
|
|
Posts: 838 |
Thanked: 292 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#47
|
when the average guy discovers slackware.
|
|
2010-05-07
, 14:01
|
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#48
|
Originally Posted by gerbick
Good post..
Lack of professional standard design tools - Photoshop, Illustrator, Flint/Combustion/Flame, AutoCAD, 3DS Max, Font Lab/Fontographer, PageMaker/Quark Xpress - that people have been using for almost 20 years and don't exactly match up point for point with their Linux derivatives is one problem. When in a pinch, I can use GIMP like no other.
But I've used Photoshop for 17 years... and I can tell you that some things are missing. And worse... a lot of service bureaus have yet to extend their support to the native files that the Linux options use and conversion isn't always a positive experience either.
Gaming... yet another problem. I don't play too many PC games - my machines are for business, I keep the PS3 or Dreamcast for gaming - but it would be nice to run, full-speed and accelerated games like the upcoming Portal 2. But it won't happen. And I'm personally sick of all of the Quake clones. Quake was released 14 years ago.
Linux as a dev, server, or ultimately (for the general population) as a work machine - Open Office is all I run be it OS X (NeoOffice /J) or Linux or Windows - that would be free of viruses that excels at doing office work (non-creative) is a lure that will draw more people.
But for gamers and creatives (graphic design) it's not there yet. But for musicians though... it been there. And video, it's damn close.
Yes, Gimp is not Photoshop and would not suffice for proffesionals. It is more than enough competent average users though. As photoshop runs best on another *nix-like system it probably not be to hard to port it if enough ppl want it.
Flint i am not aware of but 3DSMAX have a competitor called Blender. Of what i understand they are comparable. Blender have been used in movie productions.
After OpenGL 4.0 the games on Linux are on par featurewise with Directx 11. So they would be able to look as nice on Linux as they would on Windows. The problem is that most popular games are not released on linux... yet. Many things are on the move though and more and more game developers open up for linux. Have been reading som nice things.
Most windows games can also be run trough Wine, Cedega or VMware. Not all though and not the latest. And there are existing som great native linux games too.
|
|
2010-05-07
, 16:19
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#49
|
Originally Posted by AlMehdi
Yup, gaming isn't perfect on Linux but it isn't Linux's fault.
Most windows games can also be run trough Wine, Cedega or VMware. Not all though and not the latest. And there are existing som great native linux games too.
UT2004, Doom 3, Fallout 3, FF XI, Eve, Guild Wars, Many Steam games (like Left 4 Dead), several Counter Strikes, C&C, etc. all will run under Linux.
However, since some weren't designed for linux then there are glitches here and there.
Linux itself is perfectly capable and has perfectly capable drivers/hardware/framework to play games. It's just getting people to actually develop decent games for linux is the problem. A problem directly related to market share.
|
|
2010-05-07
, 16:31
|
|
Posts: 95 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ UK
|
#50
|
I dont know if Linux ever will take the PC market stranglehold from Microsoft, for years now I have ventured to linux periodically to see how things are maturing, but I almost always destroy my Ubuntu OS within a month and head straight back to windows. I consider my self quite technically minded (far more so than general users). And with all the different linux builds and distros etc there's too much variability, most people need reliability and consistency over the ability to tweak their OS to hell and back.
HOWEVER! open source future most likely lies with handheld and niche devices, they can quicker impliment specialised UI's. For touch screens/surfaces/ mobile devices etc. and as mobile computing becomes more and more important, linux saturation in these emerging devices will mean that almost all general consumers will have an open source encounter on a daily base (Weather it be their netbook/mobile/car AV system etc) but not so much their main home computer
HOWEVER! open source future most likely lies with handheld and niche devices, they can quicker impliment specialised UI's. For touch screens/surfaces/ mobile devices etc. and as mobile computing becomes more and more important, linux saturation in these emerging devices will mean that almost all general consumers will have an open source encounter on a daily base (Weather it be their netbook/mobile/car AV system etc) but not so much their main home computer
As for the thread topic question, for me Linux based OS has been a major contender for about 5 years already. It can do most things any other OS could, some things even better than the "major" operating systems (running a server, anyone). For the masses, maybe in 5 to 10 years, maybe never, but I don't really care, or see why it matters.