How can Linux beat Windows?

[LizardKing]

I think people see there desktop as the entire "PC Market" (of which Linux has a very small foot print) and dont see the much bigger spectrum of uses for computers.
Linux may have very little use on the desktop but for everything else you will find Linux in one guise or the other.
A few example that use the Linux kernel beyond your average desktop.

The Wii
Google Android
Apple OS (ok its based on Unix)
Various routers
Tomtom's
+ Many many other items.


I think its more of a case of how will Windows beat Linux outside the Desktop market

 

[rsatd]

Linux should beat Windows by throwing Apples at it

Hahaha

 

[!bluetonic!]

Mac OSX is Unix based, so you can get decent hardware support and lovely GUI with smooth font rendering. Those who have seen Compiz Fusion (look on YouTube) know what can be done with a GUI on a Linux machine.

Because of the millions of combinations of Linux flavours and GUIs, technical support would be a nightmare.

 

[reflux]

I was spurred on to do try a few flavours of Linux by my boss, who is basically a Linux evangelist, and I came away fairly unimpressed. Ubuntu worked absolutely fine, but then I switched to SuSE - which didn't seem like a massive step up - and was rather put off by it.

I had to manually configure my screen, network adaptor and sift through YaST directories in order to install things like codec packs and other useful things. Whilst I eventually got it working quite nicely, it used a hell of a lot of RAM and the GUI was still not to my taste.

I guess the main problem with consumer Linux is that it needs a big consumer-orientated company to get behind it; to enforce usability testing, to get some really decent design work behind it and then it'll be able to stand on a level playing field with Windows. After all; the main problem with Windows is not how you use it, but that the architecture behind it is very inefficient vs. the Unix/GNU kernel. You just have to look at Mac OS to see what a decent investment behind a decent kernel can do.

 

[B@Th*nG]

Dual Booting is the Future. Or the past, Infact I'm doing it at present.

So yeah, Dual Boot, don't choose 1 over the other

i do dual boot, windows 7 64 ultimate and XP pro 32

B@

 

[PanchoVilla]

If you read something like this:

... you get to know just how powerfull unix/linux is.

I can honestly say that the shell command line in linux along with awk/sed etc. and the 'zen' of unix apps have saved me countless hours of real work. But I still use windows as my main OS.

Yes, a lot of the apps on windows works better, but the 'way' unix does things is better owing to greater flexibility/efficiency.

 

[Caged]

By viewing websites hosted on it...

Not quite the same as using though is it? Because if that's all it takes to qualify as a user then everyone who uses the internet has 10+ years experience with Cisco routers and anyone who's ever phoned a company with more than 10 people knows how to run a PBX.

And whoever decided to come back at the "hard to install software" claim with an example of what you should type in a command prompt, you are exactly what's wrong with the desktop Linux mentality. A Linux-based OS will never be a large player in the desktop market until the developers accept that things need to be easier to use, as opposed to the current thinking which is "well people should just accept that it's superior and if they don't want to learn the command line then they aren't worthy [stuffs face with cheetos, scratches neckbeard]"

 

[NickK]

I moved from XP to linux. After a year of kubuntu I became disenchanted with the whole package thing due to incompatible prerequisites especially if you make the mistake of compiling something.
I spent more time attempting to fix things than actually doing what I wanted.

So I switched from linux to a Mac and not looked back since.

 

[PanchoVilla]

I moved from XP to linux. After a year of kubuntu I became disenchanted with the whole package thing due to incompatible prerequisites especially if you make the mistake of compiling something.
I spent more time attempting to fix things than actually doing what I wanted.

So I switched from linux to a Mac and not looked back since.

I know exactly what you mean. I started the package management thingy in RedHat 3 or something and it was ('RPM') hell. Moved to debian (ubuntu etc. are based on this) and liked the whole apt-get thing but still found it cumbersome. Hence, I am a proponent of Slackware that just works better.

I guess Mac's are good also as they are based on BSD, but I've not ventured in that area.

 

[PermaBanned]

For desktop use, sorting out the god-awful GUIs and font rendering would be a start.

Linux Mint? Crunchbang? I generally find that distros based on other ones pay more attention to detail since there's a lot less they have to worry about. It's basically taking one thing that's already good and improving it.

 

[Hairybudda]

A Linux-based OS will never be a large player in the desktop market until the developers accept that things need to be easier to use, as opposed to the current thinking which is "well people should just accept that it's superior and if they don't want to learn the command line then they aren't worthy [stuffs face with cheetos, scratches neckbeard]"

Looks like someone doesn't know what Synaptic is (or the frontend Add/Remove in Ubuntu that makes finding and installing a program easier than googling and downloading on Windows). [stuffs face with cheetos, scratches neckbeard]

 

[Caged]

Except it's not, is it? What do you do when an application you want to use doesn't appear in there? Oh you just add the repository you noob!

In a single post you managed to pretty much prove my point about Linux nerds not accepting that making things easier can be done without losing this "control" they so love.

Also you've completely missed the point - my post wasn't just about installing apps, it's that the Linux community in general seems to think that having to use a command prompt to configure a desktop OS is acceptable in 2009, and anyone who disagrees is just not good enough to be allowed to use their beloved distro.

 

[Vonhelmet]

For Linux to succeed, it must become less fragmented, though that goes entirely against the open source ethos. Catch 22...

 

[Hairybudda]

Except it's not, is it? What do you do when an application you want to use doesn't appear in there? Oh you just add the repository you noob!

Any time you're adding a repository you're more than likely using an application your average home user will not be needing, your point is moot because only nerds are going to need that therefore will happily learn how to add a repository.

In a single post you managed to pretty much prove my point about Linux nerds not accepting that making things easier can be done without losing this "control" they so love.

What are you even talking about?

Also you've completely missed the point - my post wasn't just about installing apps, it's that the Linux community in general seems to think that having to use a command prompt to configure a desktop OS is acceptable in 2009, and anyone who disagrees is just not good enough to be allowed to use their beloved distro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell


I'm not a huge linux fan, nor am I a huge windows fan, I'm just not one of the bitter pro windows/pro linux guys like you clearly are.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

It must also want to succeed. I'm aware of Ubuntu's number 1 'bug' report, but Ubuntu is now turning into Windows. They have made things more difficult, by making them "easier" than they were to start with. Xorg for a start.

Linux does not want to beat Windows. It wants to be Linux.

 

[PanchoVilla]

Linux does not want to beat Windows. It wants to be Linux.

In truth, there is no single corporate linux objective to compete with Windows. Every linux distro wants to stand out in it's own way advancing the gnu/linux platform in steps.

KDE and GNOME seem to be the main projects that provide any sort of threat to windows as they offer some consistency to the desktop. If you remember linux before these desktops, it was a mixmash of individually designed applications.

 

[Caged]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

Ah yes, PowerShell, that thing that is essential to setting Windows up properly.

I can see reading posts isn't your strong point so I'll leave it. But yes I am incredibly bitter that Linux on the desktop is such a huge threat to Windows/Mac OS that I have to defend them at every opportunity, as opposed to, you know, pointing out reasons why the Linux desktop can't happen having used it extensively.

 

[|Thomas|]

Except it's not, is it? What do you do when an application you want to use doesn't appear in there? Oh you just add the repository you noob!

In a single post you managed to pretty much prove my point about Linux nerds not accepting that making things easier can be done without losing this "control" they so love.

Also you've completely missed the point - my post wasn't just about installing apps, it's that the Linux community in general seems to think that having to use a command prompt to configure a desktop OS is acceptable in 2009, and anyone who disagrees is just not good enough to be allowed to use their beloved distro.

You don't have to add a repo to install programs outside the standard repos. I believe in ubuntu the GUI (yes GUI, no CLI involved) to install .deb files is Gdebi, this is installed by default. Download the .deb you want from where ever it is, couple of clicks and you're done. It works in precisely the same way as a .exe. The disadvantage of doing it this way is that if the software is updated you don't get it, hence why linux users prefer to add repos.

Furthermore, if you wish to add a repo it can be done entirely through synaptic, no CLI involved. The thing is that when you're giving instructions over the net it is far quicker to say type this 'sudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.lst' and add this 'bla' than click here here then here, open this do that etc.

I am honestly struggling to think of any situation where the CLI is the only way of doing something. As a self confessed nerd for many things I prefer the CLI because with a bit of knowledge it's better for my needs. However, that doesn't mean I have a problem with people using GUIs for absolutely everything (regardless of platform), they can do whatever they want on their computer. I think the majority of 'power' linux users (and by that I mean those using distros like arch, gentoo, slackware etc) really couldn't care less, as long as we're still allowed to use the CLI it's not a problem.

 

[Hairybudda]

Ah yes, PowerShell, that thing that is essential to setting Windows up properly.

I can see reading posts isn't your strong point so I'll leave it. But yes I am incredibly bitter that Linux on the desktop is such a huge threat to Windows/Mac OS that I have to defend them at every opportunity, as opposed to, you know, pointing out reasons why the Linux desktop can't happen having used it extensively.

The commandline is not essential for setting up Ubuntu although it is useful for administation, just like powershell. As a matter of fact my technophobe father was more than capable of setting it up on his laptop when I burned him a CD (and he can update it, install applications, read e-mails, browse the web and watch DVDs with no hassle) and he gets the added benefit of not being an easy target for the spyware/malware he managed to get repeatedly on his windows installs. I see comprehension is not your strong point. Where do I state linux is a threat to the desktop market? All I'm doing here is proving your archaic opinions invalid, either you're basing all your opinions of linux on the state it was in back when you joined these forums or you're only aware of the enthusiast distributions like slack/gentoo.

 

[Lightnix]

I think the true, fundamental problem with Linux systems is the now very aggressive open source ideology. I think a lot of commercial developers are reluctant to develop for a platform where a large quantity of the user base seems to expect developers to give their product away and make money around it as a support service rather than a retail product (just as an example).

Also, I'm of the opinion that Linux does make some features extensively hard to use, such as certain networking options like crossover network bridging (brctl is not fun, kids.) but I think that is only a minor patch on the main problem which is the surrounding ideology.