Being saying that for years.

+2

---

Now this is also a better forum for this subject.

UNIX/Linux is great for those involved with servers and other mission critical hardware applications.

But to the "average user", they'd rather use something that's much more "user friendly" and until Linux groups get together and make this OS easier to use and understand for the "average user" of desktop and laptop computers then it'll just stay as an "elite user" product.

Performing the "Granny test" on a pre-installed system, I consistently find that the "grannies" I've helped out with their PCs have found various flavours of Ubuntu Linux easier to use and more reliable than their prior 'slowdowns' suffered under Windows. Set up with a web browser, email, and one of the office suits (LibreOffice is the latest preferred flavour), my dozen or so examples continue online without problem. All too easy.

They even do adventurous stuff for themselves such as changing the screensaver and desktops! :-)

So usability is more than good enough. All the more so for no anti-virus silliness.

I think it is more the issue of "pre-installed" and Marketing...

If Linux was so "good" for the "average user" then this current table would be very much different, http://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0&qpct=6.

A more believable comparison can be seen listed on:

Wikipedia: Web clients usage share

w3: OS Platform Statistics

Note that there is a history of Microsoft software implemented websites that would actively check whether you report using Microsoft Internet Explorer and blindly refuse to work otherwise. Hence there are still a proportion of non-Windows browsers that deliberately lie to fool the Microsoft foolishness, and so artificially boost the reported Windows numbers a little (or a lot?)...


Still, we are in interesting times of change as we see the rise of the mobile devices, very few of which have bought into other than just Android and Apple.

A monopoly by ANY system is dangerous... :-(


We really do need some competitive and interoperating balance from at least another two good operating systems...

IT is what we make it...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Good post.

We really do need some competitive and interoperating balance from at least another two good operating systems...

Name them.

---

We really do need some competitive and interoperating balance from at least another two good operating systems...

Name them.

And there is the problem...

There is an outside contender with FreeBSD but that lags a long way behind Linux distros for interest and sexiness.

Google is ever more deeply steering Android towards its own selfish ends...

And there are a small number of proprietary examples that are designed so as to attempt to forever lock in users into those systems in every/any way possible. Hence in part the very expensive neverending IT fiascoes continually seen in the news...


Anyone volunteer to race alongside Linus?

All for freedom of the users...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Whatever happened to OS/2? We ran mail servers on that in the 90's.

IBM quite updating and selling the OS as of December 31st, 2006. A third party has taken up updating the code and selling it as eComStation. It sees limited use in ATM terminals and various other kiosks.

Now this is also a better forum for this subject.

UNIX/Linux is great for those involved with servers and other mission critical hardware applications.

But to the "average user", they'd rather use something that's much more "user friendly" and until Linux groups get together and make this OS easier to use and understand for the "average user" of desktop and laptop computers then it'll just stay as an "elite user" product.

If Linux was so "good" for the "average user" then this current table would be very much different, http://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0&qpct=6.

Cheers.

when I had installed linux mint on the wifes laptop, I had help from a user who runs linix on his computers. I had to burn it to ISO before I could do an insatll.
Why should anyone have to do an ISO burn. Why cant you just have the damn file download. Like I said up above, Its so the geek techs can feel smart.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Why should anyone have to do an ISO burn. Why cant you just have the damn file download. Like I said up above, Its so the geek techs can feel smart.

And how are you going to do an install on a machine that has no O/S? (new empty hard drive) You have to start with something that can boot be it a USB disk or a CD/DVD. (You have seen Windows install discs?) Haven't played with it enough to know if you could do a network boot/install but that would be from another source on your LAN. Or was your plaint that you can't go into a store and buy a install DVD? "Free" has costs and that is one of them.

Apple solved that with a hidden read only "emergency" partition. But it will only install Mac O/S that way from the Apple Store.

---

when I had installed linux mint on the wifes laptop, I had help from a user who runs linix on his computers. I had to burn it to ISO before I could do an insatll.
Why should anyone have to do an ISO burn. Why cant you just have the damn file download. Like I said up above, Its so the geek techs can feel smart.

With all due respects James, I find this a really strange post.

How do you install any operating system ? They all come on a CD or DVD. If you buy Windows on line you still have to burn the image to CD in order to install it. Is burning an iso image to a disc really such a hassle ? With modern drives it would take 15 minutes maximum.

Do you build your own computers or do you buy "ready made" with the OS pre installed ?

Surely at sometime in your life you must have installed an OS on a computer, even if it was DOS 5 and Win 3.1 with their 12 or so floppy discs.

T.A.

when I had installed linux mint on the wifes laptop, I had help from a user who runs linix on his computers. I had to burn it to ISO before I could do an insatll.
Why should anyone have to do an ISO burn. Why cant you just have the damn file download. Like I said up above, Its so the geek techs can feel smart.

With all due respects James, I find this a really strange post.

How do you install any operating system ? They all come on a CD or DVD. If you buy Windows on line you still have to burn the image to CD in order to install it. Is burning an iso image to a disc really such a hassle ? With modern drives it would take 15 minutes maximum.

Do you build your own computers or do you buy "ready made" with the OS pre installed ?

Surely at sometime in your life you must have installed an OS on a computer, even if it was DOS 5 and Win 3.1 with their 12 or so floppy discs.

T.A.

I built two and yes I bought win 7 for both, But they didnt make me ISO burn it to a DVD first.
I had XP istalled. Why could I have not just downloaded the mint OS to a cd or dvd and then insatlled it with out all the ISO burn crap?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Why could I have not just downloaded the mint OS to a cd or dvd ....

But that is exactly what you did. The problem is that the "downloading to CD" direct, the download speed would have been slower than the CD write speed and the burn would have crashed. By downloading the iso file and then burning it to CD you saved both time and effort.

Burning a CD from an iso file is not rocket science.

T.A.

Why could I have not just downloaded the mint OS to a cd or dvd ....

But that is exactly what you did. The problem is that the "downloading to CD" direct, the download speed would have been slower than the CD write speed and the burn would have crashed. By downloading the iso file and then burning it to CD you saved both time and effort.

Burning a CD from an iso file is not rocket science.

T.A.

Well then why did the linux expert not tell me this? It might not be rocket science to you, But it is to me. And I will say it soured my expierence with linux. But then maybe thats the code of the linux geeks. Never make it easy so they can do it on there own.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Why could I have not just downloaded the mint OS to a cd or dvd ....

But that is exactly what you did. The problem is that the "downloading to CD" direct, the download speed would have been slower than the CD write speed and the burn would have crashed. By downloading the iso file and then burning it to CD you saved both time and effort.

Burning a CD from an iso file is not rocket science.

T.A.

Well then why did the linux expert not tell me this? It might not be rocket science to you, But it is to me. And I will say it soured my expierence with linux. But then maybe thats the code of the linux geeks. Never make it easy so they can do it on there own.

That is something you will have to take up with him :)

All CD burning programs have the ability to burn iso's. It's just matter of point and click to select the file, then hit the Go button. 30 seconds maximum to get things started + your burn time.

T.A.

Why could I have not just downloaded the mint OS to a cd or dvd ....

But that is exactly what you did. The problem is that the "downloading to CD" direct, the download speed would have been slower than the CD write speed and the burn would have crashed. By downloading the iso file and then burning it to CD you saved both time and effort.

Burning a CD from an iso file is not rocket science.

T.A.

Well then why did the linux expert not tell me this? It might not be rocket science to you, But it is to me. And I will say it soured my expierence with linux. But then maybe thats the code of the linux geeks. Never make it easy so they can do it on there own.

That is something you will have to take up with him :)

All CD burning programs have the ability to burn iso's. It's just matter of point and click to select the file, then hit the Go button. 30 seconds maximum to get things started + your burn time.

T.A.

I did do the ISO burn . But why cant the linux geeks state right up front what needs to be done?

And then you wonder why hardly anyone uses it. Even Macs are easier to use.And they dont suffer from the supposed viruses either.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I did do the ISO burn . But why cant the linux geeks state right up front what needs to be done?

Why would you want a Geek stating/describing anything.

I use Active@ ISO Burner. Easy Peazy.

Burn't many a Linux Distro. Don't use A One Of 'Em. Installed, went YUK Blech and stayed with Lovely Windows.

fO shO thOr

Prove 'it'

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

For the first time I can say I 100% agree with you.

---

[/quote]

Old James

In that respect Linux users are no different to the JW's.

How about followers of Thor?

---

Here's an interesting announcement from Valve: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/analysis-can-steamos-drag-the-pc-game-industry-over-to-linux/. It's no secret that Valve co-founder Gabe Newell has said that Windows 8 is a catastrophe, and they seem to be pushing hard to make Linux a viable platform.

Personally, I look forward to this as a possible motivation to making Linux my main desktop OS (not looking forward to a "Steam box" that competes with the likes of XBox or PS4 as I'm not interested in console gaming). However, I think two promoted comments from that article sum up nicely the hurdles for this challenge that Valve has taken on:

"Nate B2 @ ArsTechnica.com" wrote:

I can practically guarantee what's going to happen if Valve releases HL3 as a SteamOS exclusive:

I'll go through the trouble of dual-booting to SteamOS, play HL3, boot back into Windows, and never touch SteamOS on my gaming PC until another must-play SteamOS game is released. Rinse and repeat.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who will be doing this - one reason I love gaming on my PC is so can keep a game running in the background while I'm doing stuff, letting me switch back and forth between gaming and doing other things. An OS devoted to gaming is worthless to me.

The *only* useful feature I can see in SteamOS would be to stream PC games to my TV, depending on how good the latency/quality is.

Except replace HL3 with any MMORPG title and I feel exactly the same. Why switch OSes or dual-boot needlessly? An OS needs to encompass all needs to encourage switching, and the hassle of rebooting to use a different OS is not a viable solution.

Way back in the day, I used to use a program called System Commander to switch between many OSes (multiple versions of DOS, OS/2, Windows 95, 98, and Linux), and ultimately found that anyone proudly claiming that they use one OS for the majority of their needs and dual-boot into another for a specific need is largely missing what technology is all about.

Being able to run virtual machines inside an OS has been a great boon in reducing or eliminating the need to reboot simply to use another OS, except that most VM performance is unacceptable for high framerate video, meaning that running Windows as the primary OS is preferred and running Linux inside a VM for learning, researching and familiarizing myself with the OS is my preferred method of computing - yet I still find myself with little motivation to use my Linux VM as everything I want to use work well or better on Windows.

Which brings me to my next comment:

"villanim @ ArsTechnica.com" wrote:

I have toyed with a couple of steams linux games that I have in my steam collection and they have a lot of work to do. I am all for OpenGL but from what I have seen it still cannot hold a candle to the visuals being pushed with DX11/windows. With the lack of available titles on steam/linux my only real testbed is Serious Sam 3 which not only had higher (read: nearly double) framerates with DX/windows, it simply looks better than with OGL/Linux. The sooner they can close this gap the better.

There are still some HUGE hurdles this must overcome.

First; the SteamOS has to be able to play EVERY game on Steam. No exceptions, no waiting time before it's functional on the specialized OS.
Second; all games will have to work more efficiently than on the Windows 7 platform that most PC gamers use.
Third; SteamOS needs outstanding driver support for graphics cards, and input devices. Oculus Rift, game pads, flight sticks, steering wheels, mice, specialized keyboards, multi-monitor displays --- this will be vital to the long-term viability of the platform.
Fourth; A secure web browser.

Icing on the cake would be support for Netflix, Amazon (movies), DVR functionality and support for TV recording cards, streaming audio server ... and a bunch of other "nice to have" features.

But, I do not see any of this happening as Linux has woeful support for peripherals, throw another new version on and it will only be worse.

^^^ Agreed. If Linux wants to be a viable platform for gamers, these are the technical hurdles that Linux needs to overcome to be a competitor to Windows.

Looks like there's been a lack of information about a hack that rooted kernel.org:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/who-rooted-kernel-org-servers-two-years-ago-how-did-it-happen-and-why/

Looks like there's been a lack of information about a hack that rooted kernel.org: ...

From TWO YEARS ago?!...

We already know the story: Overworked sysadmin laptop gets compromised that held an ssh-key into the web-facing servers. The rest of checking and ensuring clean code is well documented. All the checks showed no code changes.

Note also that hit made the headlines for being THE Hit of the decade. World headline news indeed.

From that, new people are now involved and new practices used to ensure no repeat.


Meanwhile, the security story for other big vendors' systems remains a joke.

But that is for another thread if you wish to start one.


IT is what we make it,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And Ubuntu 13.10 is soon to hit the world and spawns a "The Register" giggle review:


Ubuntu 13.10: Meet the Linux distro with a bizarre Britney Spears fixation

On the surface, based on the second beta just released, Ubuntu 13.10 is shaping up to be a solid, if slightly dull, Linux distro.

There have been no major visual changes to the desktop and only a couple of expanded features for the Unity Dash, which means 13.10 – due 17 October - won't look all that different from the last release of Ubuntu when it arrives.

Ubuntu 13.10 is, however, something of an iceberg - the bulk of what's new is hidden away under the surface...


Some very good new all-devices-encompassing new tech included with some rather neatly all-encompassing search facilities included for those who crave convenience and care not where they search... All due out later this month.

All shaping up to be rather good.


Myself, my own preferences are for such as Mageia 3, Mint, or for the computer dedicated and interested: Gentoo.


All worth a look!

IT is what we make it,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)