Anyone using Linux?

[deema]

hehe. Reminds me of BOB

Hey, GOOD CALL. I had not even heard of Bob until a couple weeks after I had finished designing it. The owner of Windowsforums dot com said that it looks like "bob done right", when I posted. Then I researched it. Gates, just two years ago, said that he still feels that bob is the future of the desktop. He just doesnt know yet that I have already beaten them to it... As an aspie, the promotion side of the whole thing is where I falter, badly

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Linux is something that can be interesting to use on the desktop if you're not focused on productivity. I know a lot of people here will tell you that OpenOffice/LibreOffice and modern desktops are adequate, but they are in many ways quite a few years behind the state of the art in commercial OSes. The same people will tell you that the ways they are behind are cosmetic, but they are very much ergonomic and not just cosmetic

My 2c.

 

[113]

Linux is something that can be interesting to use on the desktop if you're not focused on productivity. I know a lot of people here will tell you that OpenOffice/LibreOffice and modern desktops are adequate, but they are in many ways quite a few years behind the state of the art in commercial OSes.

It depends what kind of productivity you are talking about.

• For many types of programming, Linux is far better than Windows unless you are programming in .NET.
• Windows still doesn't have virtual desktops yet. Mac only got around to borrowing them from Linux in 2007.
• The "eye candy" of Windows 7 and 8, where newly-opened windows fade in with the bottom sliding down, was borrowed from Linux.
  
• Only Linux has tiling window managers, which is probably the most productive way of using a desktop.
• MS Word may have some extra features (I'm not very familiar with recent versions), but LibreOffice is perfectly suitable for top-quality professional work.

It comes down to personal preference in the end, but Linux is not behind commercial OSes.

 

[Randomperson]

Meh I find discs with linux and mac os on them to make fine coasters, now that aol no longer junk mails me free coasters in the mail anymore.... I might hate giving M$ money every few years for a new os, but I hate buggy non gaming os's even more.....

 

[GoofKing]

"Anyone using Linux?"

Hell no, everyone knows that the BSD family of kernels are the real deal Jk

I think M$ Windows and Macs are more for the everyday average computer user and that Linux is more of a alternative for people who wants to learn how their computer works or likes looking at the source code and enjoy the freedom of changing it to their hearts content.

I just hate when groups fight and bicker with each other over something silly like which OS is the best and why.

For me, to each their own and every OS has it's good and bad but Linux is far from replacing M$ Windows and Macs. This isn't because Linux is bad or anything but it's not really something for average computer users.

The other problem is getting cooperate software to port their programs to Linux. I don't see why not as you could just change your binaries to run on Linux and make the users pay a small fee.

I'd love to see the average users start using the Linux kernel with corporate software to be twice as productive as they were before How come we don't have more big Linux companies like Red Hat to produce state-of-the-art software for business productivity ?

 

[113]

Linux is far from replacing M$ Windows and Macs. This isn't because Linux is bad or anything but it's not really something for average computer users.

That may have been true ten years ago, but Linux is everywhere now:

• Chromebooks run Linux
• Android is Linux-based
• Phones/tablets: Firefox OS, Amazon Fire, Samsung's Tizen, etc. are Linux-based
  
• Ubuntu is desktop friendly for "average users"

I just hate when groups fight and bicker with each other over something silly like which OS is the best and why.

I think it depends on what you want to do with your computer. If you are a serious gamer you will probably want Windows. If you are a web programmer you should probably use Linux or Mac. If you're a professional designer, you'll probably want a Mac, etc.

I'm not arguing which is the best -- only that Linux isn't inferior to the others.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

113,

GoofKing referred specifically to replacing Windows and Macs. Linux has been successful on phones/tablets because it is the kernel that has been adopted, and not the operating system/desktop environment. It is very handy to have the kernel available for embedded applications and I have used it as such myself a couple of times. Ubuntu desktop market share was on the order of 1% in Dec 2014, barely high enough to register. I said before on WP that virtually anyone using Linux on the desktop is an enthusiast. Market share for non enthusiasts is near zero. There is no longer the possibility of blaming it on market domination by Microsoft, because we have seen non-Microsoft products become easily adopted by users if they work well enough for those users.

A smaller issue is that the Linux kernel is a monolithic design that was obsolete when it was first developed in the early 90s. This was mitigated somewhat by loadable kernel modules but is still a serious design flaw. Linus knows and admits this. It creates very real issues for users. It's not a problem for phone/tablet/embedded because the entire hardware environment is controlled by the manufacturer.

 

[dragonwolf]

Linux is something that can be interesting to use on the desktop if you're not focused on productivity. I know a lot of people here will tell you that OpenOffice/LibreOffice and modern desktops are adequate, but they are in many ways quite a few years behind the state of the art in commercial OSes. The same people will tell you that the ways they are behind are cosmetic, but they are very much ergonomic and not just cosmetic

My 2c.

In what ways, exactly, is Linux behind the others?

Also, productivity is highly, highly subjective. At any given time, I'm running at least Windows and Linux, sometimes I also have a Mac going. Of these, I'm most productive in Linux, the Mac, then Windows. And no, it doesn't have to do with software availability, because the software I run runs on all three platforms.

"Anyone using Linux?"

Hell no, everyone knows that the BSD family of kernels are the real deal Jk

I think M$ Windows and Macs are more for the everyday average computer user and that Linux is more of a alternative for people who wants to learn how their computer works or likes looking at the source code and enjoy the freedom of changing it to their hearts content.

I just hate when groups fight and bicker with each other over something silly like which OS is the best and why.

For me, to each their own and every OS has it's good and bad but Linux is far from replacing M$ Windows and Macs. This isn't because Linux is bad or anything but it's not really something for average computer users.

The other problem is getting cooperate software to port their programs to Linux. I don't see why not as you could just change your binaries to run on Linux and make the users pay a small fee.

I'd love to see the average users start using the Linux kernel with corporate software to be twice as productive as they were before How come we don't have more big Linux companies like Red Hat to produce state-of-the-art software for business productivity ?

Mac OS only got big again because the iPod took off not long before they switched to Intel hardware. Those two things allowed Apple to regain a foothold in the desktop world.

Right now, one of the biggest hurdles for Linux is that it's not pre-installed on computers that are sold in retail environments. This means people aren't exposed to it, period. Did you know that nearly all Dell computers are certified Linux compatible? Yep. They are. They're made that way due to their international market, which has a rather high percentage of Linux installations. You can't get it on non-netbook machines in the US, though. Another issue is the lack of help provided with those OEM installs for how to do the basic stuff, though Windows and Mac don't really offer that, either (hence the accusations from all sides that the "other" isn't nearly as intuitive as "this" one).

A large amount of the compatibility is there. I've yet to run into compatibility issues with hardware (though AMD graphics cards are still lacking, due to the way they decided to handle drivers, but nVidia are phenomenal). On the compatibility front, it's just a couple of big software vendors that are holding things back (Adobe being the big one).

The companies who haven't just "changed the binaries to run on Linux" have found it too cumbersome and can't justify the resources necessary to do it. I suspect, though, that that will start changing as Valve and Steam on Linux gain traction and start illustrating what the market really looks like when people are actually given the option to buy a Linux version of popular software.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

I see a lot of explaining in the above post. I don't care. The numbers are there.

 

[113]

I said before on WP that virtually anyone using Linux on the desktop is an enthusiast. Market share for non enthusiasts is near zero.

This is no longer true due to Chromebooks.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

I addressed phones/tablets/chromebooks above. They use the Linux kernel, but that's about as far as it goes.

I'm referring to using Linux as a desktop OS with the usual GNU trimmings.

 

[113]

It is still Linux.
Mac and Windows are prepped by the manufacturers as well.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Then we're having two different discussions here. I agree that Chrome OS is appropriate for many desktop users, and that is why it has gained market share. However, it does not share usermode code with any Linux operating system; it only shares kernel code, and even that is in a fixed hardware environment. The discussion I am having is about GNU/Linux distributions as desktop operating systems in the PC sphere; Chrome OS is neither a GNU/Linux distribution nor is it in the PC sphere where users have to install drivers and such. It shares as much with Linux as Android does. Mac OS is only distributed by one OEM, so of course it is "prepped". Windows only permits minor changes by OEMs.

Again, this discussion is about GNU/Linux in the PC sphere.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

In what ways, exactly, is Linux behind the others?

Also, productivity is highly, highly subjective. At any given time, I'm running at least Windows and Linux, sometimes I also have a Mac going. Of these, I'm most productive in Linux, the Mac, then Windows. And no, it doesn't have to do with software availability, because the software I run runs on all three platforms.



Mac OS only got big again because the iPod took off not long before they switched to Intel hardware. Those two things allowed Apple to regain a foothold in the desktop world.

Right now, one of the biggest hurdles for Linux is that it's not pre-installed on computers that are sold in retail environments. This means people aren't exposed to it, period. Did you know that nearly all Dell computers are certified Linux compatible? Yep. They are. They're made that way due to their international market, which has a rather high percentage of Linux installations. You can't get it on non-netbook machines in the US, though. Another issue is the lack of help provided with those OEM installs for how to do the basic stuff, though Windows and Mac don't really offer that, either (hence the accusations from all sides that the "other" isn't nearly as intuitive as "this" one).

A large amount of the compatibility is there. I've yet to run into compatibility issues with hardware (though AMD graphics cards are still lacking, due to the way they decided to handle drivers, but nVidia are phenomenal). On the compatibility front, it's just a couple of big software vendors that are holding things back (Adobe being the big one).

The companies who haven't just "changed the binaries to run on Linux" have found it too cumbersome and can't justify the resources necessary to do it. I suspect, though, that that will start changing as Valve and Steam on Linux gain traction and start illustrating what the market really looks like when people are actually given the option to buy a Linux version of popular software.

You're obviously an enthusiast. I am describing nonenthusiast users.

To delve into hardware issues, I have to warn you in advance that I'm an engineer with specialties in both Linux and driver engineering. There are numerous driver issues on Linux, and most of them can be traced to the monolithic nature of the Linux kernel, which as I mentioned Linus himself agrees was a mistake. AMD's FGLRX driver has always been terrible. The open source driver cooperates better with the rest of the OS (DRI) but is slow and really recent hardware is often only supported if you update to a really recent kernel (e.g. 3.18 for the FirePro W4100). Then, after you've updated the driver, you have to separately find an Xorg module, which potentially will require you to update Xorg to 1.16. Then, you need to set up VDPAU if you want to watch video. This has mostly been done for you by distributions like Ubuntu on hardware over several months old, but the point is that it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to do it, and that it is a design artifact. Most users, when presented with an issue like this only one time, are finished with Linux.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Yeah, I'm hanging onto Windows 7 Pro for dear life! But even then much of my software doesn't run on this 64-bit platform. Just yesterday I tried importing Illustrator 8.0 and got it working..but when I close the program I still get a weird error. Can't say I've had any hardware driver issues other than my laserjet defaulting to 600 dpi instead of 1200. That sucked!

Just as well with a 256 gig SSD. As a consequence, I have lots of disk space because of all those programs I can no longer use. Oh well....just another reason to keep my legacy system running XP intact.

Windows 8.1 is okay if you install Classic Shell (and I also install AeroGlass). It's effectively an updated, faster Windows 7 if you configure it that way.

 

[113]

Again, this discussion is about GNU/Linux in the PC sphere.

Maybe we are talking about different things. I'm basically just replying to comments like: "This isn't because Linux is bad or anything but it's not really something for average computer users." and "Linux is something that can be interesting to use on the desktop if you're not focused on productivity."

I know for sure that it is productive, because I've used it in professional environments for many years.

I know that it can be suitable for everyday users, because I've helped many people learn how to use it. Also you can find examples like Chromebooks, Android, and these:

• 30 Big Companies and Devices Running on GNU/Linux
• List of governments operating on Linux
• Edit: another interesting list

AMD's FGLRX driver has always been terrible. The open source driver cooperates better with the rest of the OS (DRI) but is slow and really recent hardware is often only supported if you update to a really recent kernel (e.g. 3.18 for the FirePro W4100). Then, after you've updated the driver, you have to separately find an Xorg module, which potentially will require you to update Xorg to 1.16. Then, you need to set up VDPAU if you want to watch video. This has mostly been done for you by distributions like Ubuntu on hardware over several months old, but the point is that it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to do it, and that it is a design artifact. Most users, when presented with an issue like this only one time, are finished with Linux.

In many years of using Linux on many computers, I haven't encountered any of those things.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

People do encounter those things though. It doesn't have to happen often for it to be fatal to the popularity of the OS outside enthusiast circles. The demand of users for products to Just Work is perpetually increasing, and Linux distributions are addressing this need, but not fast enough to gain market share.

Chrome OS is a "Just Works" OS based on the Linux kernel. It is gaining market share specifically because it "Just Works".

 

[113]

People do encounter those things though.

I don't want to get into a long debate about it. My main points were only to refute the ideas that Linux is not usable on the desktop for ordinary users (more examples) or that it is not productive.

If someone buys the latest model of computer and doesn't check whether it runs Linux, then they may have some problems. If they do a quick search in Google before they buy a computer, they won't encounter those problems. I used to buy ThinkPads, which had no problems. For my last computer I got a latest-model, touch-screen VAIO. I did a quick Google search at the store to find out whether it was Linux compatible, and there were no problems...

 

[dragonwolf]

You're obviously an enthusiast. I am describing nonenthusiast users.

To delve into hardware issues, I have to warn you in advance that I'm an engineer with specialties in both Linux and driver engineering. There are numerous driver issues on Linux, and most of them can be traced to the monolithic nature of the Linux kernel, which as I mentioned Linus himself agrees was a mistake. AMD's FGLRX driver has always been terrible. The open source driver cooperates better with the rest of the OS (DRI) but is slow and really recent hardware is often only supported if you update to a really recent kernel (e.g. 3.18 for the FirePro W4100). Then, after you've updated the driver, you have to separately find an Xorg module, which potentially will require you to update Xorg to 1.16. Then, you need to set up VDPAU if you want to watch video. This has mostly been done for you by distributions like Ubuntu on hardware over several months old, but the point is that it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to do it, and that it is a design artifact. Most users, when presented with an issue like this only one time, are finished with Linux.

I already acknowledged the issues with AMD drivers. The issues there are as much to do with ATI's previous and long standing choice to open source part of their drivers, but not all of it, then leave it up to the community to build the usable driver as it does with the nature of the kernel. A monolithic kernel didn't stop the manufacturers in the Win9x days, nor has it stopped nVidia from making a good driver for Linux that runs even the topmost cards.

Also, please explain your definition of "enthusiast" for the rest of us, because as it stands, it seems to be "anyone that runs Linux and likes it," to which I would say that it doesn't mean what you think it means. Otherwise, my barely computer literate sister would be an "enthusiast," because she took over the Linux Mint box I built for her kids.

Yes, I run Linux. Yes, I'm good with it. I can say the same for Mac and Windows as well. It's been integral to my livelihood that I be. And for my livelihood, I've found that Linux is the best tool for what I do and the way I work. I'm actually not one to do a lot of tinkering anymore (actually, I tinkered with Windows more, back in the day), I want something that I can easily get set up and running and have it be reliable and not get in my way. For me, that's currently Antergos for work and Windows for gaming.

 

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

I think you meant the FGLRX driver, I'm describing an issue with the DRI infrastructure that affects all open source drivers including the open source Radeon driver which is separate and different. The nVidia driver basically does an end run around the entire Linux driver infrastructure in order to be user friendly (in the process creating non-user-friendly issues like incompatibility with additional graphics devices from non-nVidia manufacturers). That shouldn't be necessary and indicates a problem with the OS.

Enthusiast is hard to define, but does not include your grandma, your aunt, etc. It means technically inclined people who like to tinker. The only non-enthusiasts I have ever encountered running Ubuntu et al do it because they have an enthusiast in the family who set it up for them. And even those are rare.

I think it's entirely likely that Linux is the best for what you do - it's the best for much of what I do as well. Just recognize that you're more the exception than the rule among the general populace.