Are Proprietary Tools the Key to Linux Desktop Success?
I'm having a rather traumatic experience with certain Microsoft products lately. My problem is that I'm trying to "get to know" Microsoft's Hyper-V for my virtualization column over at Linux Magazine. The problem is, that to manage a true Hyper-V system remotely, you must have a Windows Vista or Windows 7 system. The problem with that is that I'm not gonna do it. I refuse to adopt either system, which in turn, will also prevent me from using Hyper-V or writing anything about it. I think that for Linux to survive and thrive as a desktop operating system, it needs some proprietary tools.
Must we follow the path of the unrighteous to survive? I believe that all this freedom and openness might be turning in on itself and hurting us in such cases. It is also surprising to note that one must have a Windows Server on which to install VMware's Virtual Center to manage VMware ESX/ESXi systems that are Linux-based.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 1304 reads
- PDF version
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
I see several problems...
Linux desktop success has multiple barriers:
First, unlike Windows, where I can boot a copy of XP from 2001 on my brand new machine with an X58 chipset and a Core i7 processor, Linux chokes. You have to have a kernel with support for it. This will frustrate users to death.
Second, unfortunately, the Linux world seems to have gone gaga over Ubuntu, which totally lacks any GUI support tools and requires some command line work if it doesn't work like it should. Windows users and Mac users alike simply don't like this. They run straight back to where they came. There are distros, like OpenSuse and Mandriva, that do provide tools like this, but unfortunately, all the OEM's have somehow avoided them because of all the Ubuntu hype. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with Ubuntu, per se, but it's just the initial shock coming from Windows. Besides, KDE would feel far more at home to a Windows convert. Gnome is just a different animal, and hard to get used to from the start.
Third, package management is completely confusing. I'm not one to scream that all distros should just standardize, but package management loses new users. There has to be a better, more standardized front end to doing this. I have high hopes for Packagekit, and KPackagekit, but unfortunately, they're not there, yet. Also, this is a barrier for proprietary software vendors. Even if they provide a deb or an rpm, what systems will it work on? They don't all just work. Something compiled for Ubuntu won't necessarily work in Mepis.
Fourth is the complete lack of software that people are familiar with. Don't get me wrong, switching from a PC to a Mac will get you similar results, but many people are completely lost in the goofy names and the total lack of familiarity. Some of the OSS software is as good, if not better, than proprietary counterparts, but the familiarity issue is the problem.
Fifth, some OSS software is downright rough around the edges. They lack the commercial polish and feel that users want.
Sixth, there are often too many hoops to jump through to do simple things. For instance, setting up PLF repositories in Mandriva to get libdvdcss2 to play DVDs. It should be simple. It should be done for the user, period. The simpler we can make it, the more they will come.
Seventh, the market is too splintered and too accustomed to free as in beer to allow for commercialization. Either big players simply don't see a market in it, or little players simple can't afford to...but there is a complete lack of marketing behind Linux as a whole. The public is generally still unaware that Linux is even an alternative. However, we'll never see the day that Novell starts promoting it, because everyone expects to download it free of charge, and therefore there's no incentive for Novell to push the product.
Do we really want everyone to get on the Linux bandwagon? Do we really want people who don't even know how to setup an email account or buy a new computer because Windows started acting up or got a virus? Do we really want to invite more attempts at cracking Linux and getting a major infestation? Do we want to attract attempts at malware and spyware?
In reality, Linux needs to have at least 10% marketshare. Then OEMs could no longer ignore Linux and will have to support their hardware. Then, proprietary software vendors will, at least, begin to look at supporting the platform. Also, that kind of marketshare will provide additional projects and development. However, let Microsoft keep getting the bulk share of attacks. Honestly, I think I'd like to see Linux get 15%, Mac 15%, and let Microsoft have the other 70%.