Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

Simón Ruiz wrote:

Of course, my goal was to be free of proprietary software, not just to

have a free Photoshop clone.    

Can I ask why you want to be free of proprietary software? I know you're not the only one who feels this way...

Does it relate to moral opinions about selling software? Is it wanting to save money? I can't say I understand this sentiment completely. I can understand open protocols and formats, but everything else is a little unclear to me...

Feel free to speak for just yourself if you aren't inclined to speak on behalf of everybody else :)

--
Joe Auty, NetMusician
NetMusician helps musicians, bands and artists create beautiful, professional, custom designed, career-essential websites that are easy to maintain and to integrate with popular social networks.
www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

There is an old story I once heard, perhaps you have too.

A man walks along the beach. The ocean tide has washed thousands of
starfish up on the beach where they will die in the hot sun. Another
man is combing the beach and picking up starfish one by one and thowing
them back in the ocean. The first man approaches the man trying to save
the starfish and says "Sir, you can't possibly hope to save all these
starfish". The other man bends over, picks up a starfish, throws it in
the ocean and says "No, but I just saved that one".

Interestingly this story has much more impact when it relates to
something like using open software than its usual motivational purposes
because the benefits can be reaped by the individual immediately instead
of requiring large group participation. The point that I wanted to make
with the story is at what point do you put the bar for desktop software
being successful or not. Some people thinks it has something to do with
how many people you convert to it. I think its more on an individual
basis and one person being successful with their own switch. Not all who
make the switch are going to like it, some are fine where they are at.
Some can't decide what they want to do and the moment you save them,
they get washed back up on the shore. Fine, whatever. People are all
different and there is no stopping that, but the fact that they are
different is what should drive them more towards openness and
flexibility, doesn't matter if its Linux, Mac, Windows, BSD, Solaris,
etc....

Just three weeks ago, I switched to using XFCE4 because I got tired
of issues with Gnome Terminal, so I started using XFCE4-terminal (which
is excellent by the way), then I decided to give XFCE another go because
I had tried it before and thought it was nice, but it wasn't quite there
last time I tried it. This time, I've been thoroughly satisfied with it
and haven't found anything that would make me switch back, so I think
I'm an XFCE convert now. You just got to give yourself time and a
reason to adjust.

The whole experience of switching between desktops within Linux
reminded me once again of why I use it to begin with. Choice. It really
is all about having the ability to choose how I want to use my computer
damnit. If I want my windows to have 15 operation buttons in the title
bar or none at all, that's up to me. If I want 100 virtual desktops that
wrap around or a taskbar or panel buttons that can have their behavior
changed, by george I better be able to do that. If Windows or Mac were a
more open environment that allowed these levels of customization then I
might be more for using them, but they don't. And in a world where
people express themselves and their choices in their cars, houses,
refrigerators, clothes and everything else, it always puzzles me why
they settled for such conformity with their desktop environment.

Mark

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 01:17:07AM GMT, Joe Auty [joe@netmusician.org] said the following:
> I know this is sort of troll-like, but I do mean this in a constructive
> way. I've wanted Linux to be ready for the Desktop, but I just don't
> think it will ever get there. At what point does it make sense to just
> focus on using Linux on servers and give up on using it as a Desktop OS?
>
> The failings of Ubuntu, in my personal experience, largely don't have
> much to do with Linux itself, but with the general ecosystem. As of
> right now my ethernet controller just randomly panics and I can't do
> anything to restore network connectivity but restarting my machine. This
> is clearly documented in a bug report on Launchpad, this is a known and
> confirmed issue. The update to Ubuntu 10.04 broke LIRC for me - also a
> documented and known issue. I'm also getting random problems preventing
> DVDs from working with messages logged along the lines of the DVD being
> resized (I've had this problem off and on for ages). I've encountered
> reports of other people having the same problem. The NVidia drivers
> randomly cause XOrg to crash. I haven't had this problem in 10.04 yet,
> but the weakness of these drivers have been documented too, hence
> Nouveau except it doesn't have 3D acceleration yet. The 64 bit version
> of Flash doesn't support fullscreen video properly. The 9.10 update (if
> memory serves) partially crippled LIRC for me in using my IR blaster.
> Shared printing broke in Ubuntu 9.10, and SMB printer browsing randomly
> broke for me too. I can print to my shared printer when I restart SMB
> and enter its name manually. I've had file system corruption with ext4.
> It literally seems like more stuff is broken than is not, I've always
> had something or another broken, and maybe I'm anal, but I like having
> stuff work.
>
> None of this touches on the various usability problems I've encountered
> or problems I had some time ago, these are all just recent problems.
> Like I said, most of these have been documented and acknowledged. A
> couple might be fixed in the 2.6.33 kernels, but I've been unable to get
> sound the the NVidia driver to work in these kernels last time I tried.
> Like I said, I realize that Linux itself is not to blame for all of
> this. I appreciate something like LIRC existing pretty cool, I'm willing
> to overlook some problems.
>
> What is difficult to overlook is the constant regression and coin flip
> as to what will go wrong whenever I update. I should not have to wipe
> and reinstall an OS in 2010 as a troubleshooting technique, the idea of
> bit rot or some sort of corruption is weird voodoo, and it is most
> frustrating when I go ahead and do something like this anyway only for
> it not to make a difference anyway.
>
> So, it's 2010. We've been hoping that Desktop Linux will be more
> bulletproof for a long time now, it's just not there. Monitor
> arrangement is nowhere near as solid as its been on the Mac since
> probably the 1990s or something. The commitment from vendors like
> NVidia, ATI, Adobe, and probably many others is just not there. I'm sure
> some progress will be made, but it is so far away from being an OS that
> Grandma can use that it's laughable. Yes, one can setup a rig for
> Grandma for specific tasks and she can never update it, and yes Desktop
> Linux can be functional in some cases, but how about Grandma or even Mom
> being self sufficient like some can approach being with Windows or OS X?
>
>
> Is there any reason why I should not give up on Desktop Linux, guys? I
> don't mean to be troll-ish at all, I'm a very heavy Linux/BSD user, I
> like the idea of consolidating on Linux for my day-to-day use, I'm
> rooting for it. But, it is what it is. Is there a point where it's just
> a complete waste of effort to expend more resources into Desktop Linux?
> Now that I'm a full-time freelancer, I certainly don't have as much
> interest as I used to in fiddling with Linux for my entertainment
> purposes, it's just a huge time sink.
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Auty, NetMusician
> NetMusician helps musicians, bands and artists create beautiful,
> professional, custom designed, career-essential websites that are easy
> to maintain and to integrate with popular social networks.
> www.netmusician.org <http://www.netmusician.org>
> joe@netmusician.org <mailto:joe@netmusician.org>
>

> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Erik Wallace <eriktwallace@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
>> old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
>> move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
>> manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
>> A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.
>
> I agree that the independent windows are old fashioned.  Gimpshop actually
> has
> this thing called a "deweirdifier" which takes care of this problem (in the
> windows
> version at least).  If I really wanted to, I could install an older version
> of Gimp
> and use gimpshop with it, but I still wouldn't have the 12/16 bit per
> channel capability.
>
>> I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
>> advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
>> is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
>> thought of it you can provide the idea.
>
> Well at least according to the FAQ on the Gimp webpage, it has been on their
> list for
> quite a while, and they claimed it would be ready when version 2.4 came
> out.  We are
> at version 2.6!  I really think they should ditch all other adjustments to
> the program,
> and focus on this problem, as well as borrowing the gimpshop idea, with the
> deweirdifier, as a standard part of the program.  At this point, that's
> pretty much all
> they need to do to become competitive with photoshop.
>
> But I started my previous comments by saying how much I like Ubuntu, and
> Linux in
> general.  In addition to what people have already said, one thing I love
> about it
> is the ease of using latex!  Installing latex packages in Windows was always
> a chore.
> In linux, I just install texlive!  And, compiling PDF's is also easier.  So,
> when it comes
> down to it, I boot into Linux the vast majority of the time, and boot into
> windows only
> when I need to use photoshop.
>
> -Erik

I agree that the GIMP could stand to get certain features, like
greater (or arbitrary) color depth, and CMYK color spaces. I don't
feel a particular need for them myself, in my everyday use, but I
would appreciate knowing they're there.

Particularly arbitrary color depth because I have a DSLR that take
photos in RAW; however, even when I used Photoshop, I had to render it
to 8bit color before I could do anything with it, so I don't feel a
loss working that way now.

As Free Software, they can never afford to pay for proprietary color
space licenses, though, so they will never compete with Photoshop in
the commercial printing arena, I don't think, but I don't think that's
really the goal.

I disagree that the GIMP needs to change it's interface to become a
Photoshop clone. If enough people were that enthusiastic about copying
the Photoshop structure in GIMP, I assume, the GIMPshop would be a
more successful project.

I used to be a Photoshop user before I started using Linux and, at the
time that I started divesting myself of proprietary software
addictions, I did use GIMPshop. But, while it put the menus in
generally familiar areas, it didn't behave enough like Photoshop for
that to help too much.

The GIMP is a different program, and simply mixing the menus around
doesn't change that.

I quickly gave up on the idea of having a "Photoshop clone", and
started using the GIMP as it came pre-installed and frankly that
helped me get over the learning curve faster because it wasn't quite
so easy to expect it to behave like Photoshop once I stopped asking it
to play dress up as Photoshop.

Of course, my goal was to be free of proprietary software, not just to
have a free Photoshop clone.

And my livelihood does not depend on image manipulation, so I don't
really *need* any of the things that Photoshop does that the GIMP
doesn't, and it's entirely not worth the license price tag to me.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

> My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
> old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
> move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
> manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
> A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.

I agree that the independent windows are old fashioned.  Gimpshop actually has
this thing called a "deweirdifier" which takes care of this problem (in the windows
version at least).  If I really wanted to, I could install an older version of Gimp
and use gimpshop with it, but I still wouldn't have the 12/16 bit per channel capability.

> I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
> advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
> is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
> thought of it you can provide the idea.

Well at least according to the FAQ on the Gimp webpage, it has been on their list for
quite a while, and they claimed it would be ready when version 2.4 came out.  We are
at version 2.6!  I really think they should ditch all other adjustments to the program,
and focus on this problem, as well as borrowing the gimpshop idea, with the
deweirdifier, as a standard part of the program.  At this point, that's pretty much all
they need to do to become competitive with photoshop.

But I started my previous comments by saying how much I like Ubuntu, and Linux in
general.  In addition to what people have already said, one thing I love about it
is the ease of using latex!  Installing latex packages in Windows was always a chore.
In linux, I just install texlive!  And, compiling PDF's is also easier.  So, when it comes
down to it, I boot into Linux the vast majority of the time, and boot into windows only
when I need to use photoshop.

-Erik

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Steven Black <yam655@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Erik Wallace <eriktwallace@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why not Gimp" you may ask. Well have you ever compared gimp with Photoshop?
> Gimp has one mildly annoying problem, which isn't too hard to get around and
> one show stopper.  The mildly annoying problem is that the tool sets can be
> a little tricky to use. Aha, you say, but there is Gimpshop.  But Gimpshop
> doesn't work with Gimp 2.6, only with an older version (2.2 I think).  Gimp 2.6
> worked fine, I installed Gimpshop, and then Gimp wouldn't even load: the mini
> gimp icon went bounce, bounce, bounce and nothing ever happened.  Sure sign
> of a dependency issue! So I uninstalled gimpshop, and Gimp 2.6 worked fine
> again.

My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.

> But this isn't the show stopper.  The show stopper is the fact that Gimp
> does not support more than 8bits per channel!  I'm sorry but it is precisely this sort
> of shortcoming that separates professional photo software from
> non-professional.  If you tell me I can't have smoother gradients, I'll go somewhere
> else where I can get the smoother gradients, and that somewhere is photoshop. If
> only the Gimp people were as efficient at improving their, software as the Ubuntu
> people are, maybe Gimp  would be able to support more than 8 bits
> per channel by now.  And the day that they do, is the day that I blow away
> windows XP partition.  I don't need to wait for Adobe to jump on the Linux
> bandwagon, but this presumes, that the Gimp folks get there act together.  Now
> having gimpshop work with gimp 2.6 or later would be nice, but as I say it is not a
> show stopper.  Not having more than 8 bits per channel really is!

It is odd that they don't have floating-point support for the color
channels. There are open-source file-formats that support
floating-point colors (as well as >8 bits per color). Floating-point
color channels would completely clear up the issue.

Also, I really thought 12-16 bits per color were fairly common in many
environments.

But then again, when you select the "Color space" you can only select
"RGB", "Greyscale" and not "HSV" or "CYMK". -- And it gives you no
indication that there's any options for differing bits per
color-channel.

I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
thought of it you can provide the idea.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Erik Wallace <eriktwallace@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why not Gimp" you may ask. Well have you ever compared gimp with Photoshop?
> Gimp has one mildly annoying problem, which isn't too hard to get around and
> one show stopper.  The mildly annoying problem is that the tool sets can be
> a little tricky to use. Aha, you say, but there is Gimpshop.  But Gimpshop
> doesn't work with Gimp 2.6, only with an older version (2.2 I think).  Gimp 2.6
> worked fine, I installed Gimpshop, and then Gimp wouldn't even load: the mini
> gimp icon went bounce, bounce, bounce and nothing ever happened.  Sure sign
> of a dependency issue! So I uninstalled gimpshop, and Gimp 2.6 worked fine
> again.

My big problem with the Gimp is that all the little windows are really
old-fashioned. I'm used to environments where I don't need to manually
move windows around and then still not get the windows placed in a
manner I can use them all at once without my desktop showing through.
A minor annoyance to be sure, but an annoyance to be sure.

> But this isn't the show stopper.  The show stopper is the fact that Gimp
> does not support more than 8bits per channel!  I'm sorry but it is precisely this sort
> of shortcoming that separates professional photo software from
> non-professional.  If you tell me I can't have smoother gradients, I'll go somewhere
> else where I can get the smoother gradients, and that somewhere is photoshop. If
> only the Gimp people were as efficient at improving their, software as the Ubuntu
> people are, maybe Gimp  would be able to support more than 8 bits
> per channel by now.  And the day that they do, is the day that I blow away
> windows XP partition.  I don't need to wait for Adobe to jump on the Linux
> bandwagon, but this presumes, that the Gimp folks get there act together.  Now
> having gimpshop work with gimp 2.6 or later would be nice, but as I say it is not a
> show stopper.  Not having more than 8 bits per channel really is!

It is odd that they don't have floating-point support for the color
channels. There are open-source file-formats that support
floating-point colors (as well as >8 bits per color). Floating-point
color channels would completely clear up the issue.

Also, I really thought 12-16 bits per color were fairly common in many
environments.

But then again, when you select the "Color space" you can only select
"RGB", "Greyscale" and not "HSV" or "CYMK". -- And it gives you no
indication that there's any options for differing bits per
color-channel.

I suspect none of the developers have considered it important. The
advantage of open-source software is that you can check to see if it
is on the list of things that will ever happen, and if no one has
thought of it you can provide the idea.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that we don't need those packages, hell I use GIMP on Windows
> even if it's installed side-by-side with Adobe CS3 (which it is at my
> work) and I understand HTML 5 should obsolete some of the more common
> situations where  Flash is currently "needed".
>
> And I agree that even without those big commercial packages Linux
> adoption will grow for the reasons you listed and more...leading to
> those same big commercial packages being released for Linux...leading
> to more people using Linux.
>
> I don't think we're disagreeing on principle here. Or am I missing something?

Aye. We agree more than not. I should've replied to the person before you.

Sorry about that. I was feeling hot-headed and didn't select the
correct email before replying.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to the better SVG support
required by HTML5. The HTML5 spec is very pragmatic in the approach to
many issues. Some of the decisions turn my stomach as it violates
other specs, but when the masses violate a spec, HTML5 also violates
the spec. The logic is sound, if unfortunate.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Steven Black <yam655@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is really where I have to disagree on principle.
>
> Why do I use Linux?
*snip*
>
> I believe that the best open-source software is focused on serving the
> user population before it is focused on serving commercial purposes.
*snip*
>
> We don't need *any* Adobe product. It should shame the Linux community
> that it was Steve Jobs saying they don't need Flash and not the Linux
> community.
*snip*
>
> Cheers,
> Steven Black

I agree that we don't need those packages, hell I use GIMP on Windows
even if it's installed side-by-side with Adobe CS3 (which it is at my
work) and I understand HTML 5 should obsolete some of the more common
situations where Flash is currently "needed".

And I agree that even without those big commercial packages Linux
adoption will grow for the reasons you listed and more...leading to
those same big commercial packages being released for Linux...leading
to more people using Linux.

I don't think we're disagreeing on principle here. Or am I missing something?

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

As a new linux convert I am very enthusiastic about linux being ready for the
Desktop, if that day isn't already here.   Mark Warner helped me install
Kubuntu on my machine, and I love it! With that said, I feel that I am forced
to dual boot with Windows XP.  The reason is that I *need* Adobe Photoshop.

"Why not Gimp" you may ask. Well have you ever compared gimp with Photoshop?
Gimp has one mildly annoying problem, which isn't too hard to get around and
one show stopper.  The mildly annoying problem is that the tool sets can be
a little tricky to use. Aha, you say, but there is Gimpshop.  But Gimpshop doesn't
work with Gimp 2.6, only with an older version (2.2 I think).  Gimp 2.6 worked fine,
I installed Gimpshop, and then Gimp wouldn't even load: the mini gimp icon went
bounce, bounce, bounce and nothing ever happened.  Sure sign of a dependency issue!
So I uninstalled gimpshop, and Gimp 2.6 worked fine again.

But this isn't the show stopper.  The show stopper is the fact that Gimp does not support
more than 8bits per channel!  I'm sorry but it is precisely this sort of shortcoming that
separates professional photo software from non-professional.  If you tell me I can't have
smoother gradients, I'll go somewhere else where I can get the smoother gradients, and
that somewhere is photoshop. If only the Gimp people were as efficient at improving their,
software as the Ubuntu people are, maybe Gimp  would be able to support more than 8 bits
per channel by now.  And the day that they do, is the day that I blow away windows XP
partition.  I don't need to wait for Adobe to jump on the Linux bandwagon, but this presumes,
that the Gimp folks get there act together.  Now having gimpshop work with gimp 2.6 or later
would be nice, but as I say it is not a show stopper.  Not having more than 8 bits per channel
really is!

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Steven Black <yam655@gmail.com> wrote:

This is really where I have to disagree on principle.

Why do I use Linux?

It isn't because some magical commercial package is available.

It isn't because it has the best hardware support.

I believe that the best open-source software is focused on serving the
user population before it is focused on serving commercial purposes.
(This is a problem I have with GNOME software -- the Human Interface
Guidelines are explicitly about providing disservice to all but the
newest of the user population.)

Hardware and Linux has always been about making sure the hardware is
compatible with the software and not vice-versa. This was the way
things were back in 1995 when I migrated to Linux and while things
have gotten better this remains the way things are. I was pleased that
when I migrated to Linux they had IDE/ATA CD-Rom support as that was
still relatively new when I migrated.

I am an open-source advocate as even when it doesn't focus on the
user-population the way it should (such as GNOME) if there's a great
fuss it can be forked and the new project can focus on the larger
user-population.

I use open-source software because it is superior to commercial
software, regardless of the features of the commercial packages. I use
open-source software because they focus on interoperating with other
applications, and that means interoperating with the favored programs
of people-other-than-me. I use open-source software because when I
decide to change programs for a task, I can be sure that the
file-format will be supported.

Commercial packages may appear to provide more software features, but
what you pay is far more than the $120+ for the download. You can't
send someone usable data files unless they own identical software.
(Usable does *not* mean flattening a multi-layer image!) You can't
change to competing software without risking loss of data. Shoot, you
can't even always use supplementary third-party products without
jumping through hoops using file-formats other than the native
application format that you so long for!

Then again, the whole point of this is that Adobe doesn't *have*
competition. Even though all evidence shows that a monopoly in the
market does *not* produce the best results for the end-user
population. This means they can fracture their product in to a dozen
smaller subprojects and charge you for each with the expected increase
in cost for "bundling" the product. They can do this at any time and
all you can do is pay more for the honor of using their product.

We don't need *any* Adobe product. It should shame the Linux community
that it was Steve Jobs saying they don't need Flash and not the Linux
community. The complaints that Steve Jobs has against Flash make
sense. It is buggy. It kills your browser. It has security holes. It
is closed software. There are open web standards which make it
unneeded.

As for Quickbooks, we need that even less than CS5 as there are
multiple accounting packages for Linux, many of which are designed for
small businesses. These are packages currently being used on a daily
basis by small businesses. (Shoot, there's even free Point-of-Sale
software for Linux!)

Cheers,
Steven Black

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mark Warner <mhwarner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David M. Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could
>>> happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short
>>> period of time.  If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master
>>> Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in
>>> Windows' coffin.  If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial
>>> application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and
>>> Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time.  That could
>>> be a serious game changer.
>>
>> Same for Quickbooks. That would make it a viable alternative in many
>> small businesses.
>
> While Linux uptake will increase because of Quickbooks and CS5, or
> just proprietary vendors in general, I don't think we'll get
> Quickbooks and CS5 until Linux uptake hits some magical money-related
> point where it's stupid for them *not* to support us.
>
> But, frankly, I feel that's almost inevitable.
>
> Simón
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:56 AM, David M. Moore <davmoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as Linux taking over on the desktop, no, I don't think its going to
> happen.  Its been "This is the year that Linux takes over on the desktop!"
> for at least 14 years now.  I could write a 10 volume epic on why I think
> this is, starting with too much fracturing, egos, and infighting within the
> Linux community.  This is the group of people that for the first 5 years of
> its existence the biggest focus within the community was do we pronounce it
> lie-nucks, lee-nucks or lin-ucks.

I remember the disagreements about that. It didn't end until an audio
file was distributed with Linus providing his pronunciation.

I think a big part of the push toward Linux could be done by the
younger crowd. They're young, have little money, and too many other
reasons to spend the money on other things. They love ways to save
money, and they love free things.

The earlier we get new users the better. If they get familiar with
Linux, and with the concept of so much software being freely
available, they'll be less likely to want to fork out hard-earned
money when they can do the same things for free.

My 16 year old niece uses Linux (and has for 2-3 years or so) and
advocates Linux. There's a crowd of kids at her school using it, and
there are more that would like to install it if their parents let
them.

While Linux continues to work on older lines of hardware, it remains a
better option for young people than continually upgrading Windows.
While Windows is pushed heavily at the college level, if Linux gets a
root in the community earlier then the students will start demanding
Linux instead.

The only reason for kids to use Windows is to play commercial games,
and games tend to work more reliably on consoles. (I've had games stop
working after Windows upgrades.) Thus there's no reason to use Windows
to play games.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

Simón Ruiz wrote:
>
> While Linux uptake will increase because of Quickbooks and CS5, or
> just proprietary vendors in general, I don't think we'll get
> Quickbooks and CS5 until Linux uptake hits some magical money-related
> point where it's stupid for them *not* to support us.

The proverbial chicken/egg situation.

> But, frankly, I feel that's almost inevitable.

A change in the dominant computing platform is inevitable. What that
platform might be and what time frame will be involved remains to be seen.

--
Mark Warner

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

This is really where I have to disagree on principle.

Why do I use Linux?

It isn't because some magical commercial package is available.

It isn't because it has the best hardware support.

I believe that the best open-source software is focused on serving the
user population before it is focused on serving commercial purposes.
(This is a problem I have with GNOME software -- the Human Interface
Guidelines are explicitly about providing disservice to all but the
newest of the user population.)

Hardware and Linux has always been about making sure the hardware is
compatible with the software and not vice-versa. This was the way
things were back in 1995 when I migrated to Linux and while things
have gotten better this remains the way things are. I was pleased that
when I migrated to Linux they had IDE/ATA CD-Rom support as that was
still relatively new when I migrated.

I am an open-source advocate as even when it doesn't focus on the
user-population the way it should (such as GNOME) if there's a great
fuss it can be forked and the new project can focus on the larger
user-population.

I use open-source software because it is superior to commercial
software, regardless of the features of the commercial packages. I use
open-source software because they focus on interoperating with other
applications, and that means interoperating with the favored programs
of people-other-than-me. I use open-source software because when I
decide to change programs for a task, I can be sure that the
file-format will be supported.

Commercial packages may appear to provide more software features, but
what you pay is far more than the $120+ for the download. You can't
send someone usable data files unless they own identical software.
(Usable does *not* mean flattening a multi-layer image!) You can't
change to competing software without risking loss of data. Shoot, you
can't even always use supplementary third-party products without
jumping through hoops using file-formats other than the native
application format that you so long for!

Then again, the whole point of this is that Adobe doesn't *have*
competition. Even though all evidence shows that a monopoly in the
market does *not* produce the best results for the end-user
population. This means they can fracture their product in to a dozen
smaller subprojects and charge you for each with the expected increase
in cost for "bundling" the product. They can do this at any time and
all you can do is pay more for the honor of using their product.

We don't need *any* Adobe product. It should shame the Linux community
that it was Steve Jobs saying they don't need Flash and not the Linux
community. The complaints that Steve Jobs has against Flash make
sense. It is buggy. It kills your browser. It has security holes. It
is closed software. There are open web standards which make it
unneeded.

As for Quickbooks, we need that even less than CS5 as there are
multiple accounting packages for Linux, many of which are designed for
small businesses. These are packages currently being used on a daily
basis by small businesses. (Shoot, there's even free Point-of-Sale
software for Linux!)

Cheers,
Steven Black

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mark Warner <mhwarner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David M. Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could
>>> happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short
>>> period of time.  If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master
>>> Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in
>>> Windows' coffin.  If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial
>>> application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and
>>> Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time.  That could
>>> be a serious game changer.
>>
>> Same for Quickbooks. That would make it a viable alternative in many
>> small businesses.
>
> While Linux uptake will increase because of Quickbooks and CS5, or
> just proprietary vendors in general, I don't think we'll get
> Quickbooks and CS5 until Linux uptake hits some magical money-related
> point where it's stupid for them *not* to support us.
>
> But, frankly, I feel that's almost inevitable.
>
> Simón
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mark Warner <mhwarner@gmail.com> wrote:
> David M. Moore wrote:
>>
>> Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could
>> happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short
>> period of time.  If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master
>> Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in
>> Windows' coffin.  If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial
>> application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and
>> Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time.  That could
>> be a serious game changer.
>
> Same for Quickbooks. That would make it a viable alternative in many
> small businesses.

While Linux uptake will increase because of Quickbooks and CS5, or
just proprietary vendors in general, I don't think we'll get
Quickbooks and CS5 until Linux uptake hits some magical money-related
point where it's stupid for them *not* to support us.

But, frankly, I feel that's almost inevitable.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

David M. Moore wrote:
>
> Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could
> happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short
> period of time. If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master
> Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in
> Windows' coffin. If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial
> application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and
> Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time. That could
> be a serious game changer.

Same for Quickbooks. That would make it a viable alternative in many
small businesses.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] I don't think Linux will ever be ready for the Desktop

I'm going to go against the flow here and suggest something other than everyone's beloved Ubuntu and Debian.  I've used Linux since 1994, starting with Slackware.  I tend to favor Redhat for servers.  I use Mandriva on the desktop.  I like Mandriva, so much so that I pay for it every year, because it just works, right out of the box, on almost everything I throw it at.  With Debian and Ubuntu and their derivatives (I had to consciously make myself not type "ilk") , on the other hand, I've never had them correctly install, even *ONCE*, on anything I own without going through a whole lot of grief (and cussing)...and I don't own any weird hardware.  Suse sucks just as bad for me in that regard.  My feeling is that I don't have to pound on Windows to get it to install, I don't have to pound on OSX to get it to install (so long as I'm using hardware blessed by His Holiness The Pope Saint Steve the First and touched by His Mighty Hand), so I expect no less from a Linux distribution.  Yes, I can write drivers and compile kernels, and have done all that.  But that doesn't mean I want to, and especially not on every install.

As far as Linux taking over on the desktop, no, I don't think its going to happen.  Its been "This is the year that Linux takes over on the desktop!" for at least 14 years now.  I could write a 10 volume epic on why I think this is, starting with too much fracturing, egos, and infighting within the Linux community.  This is the group of people that for the first 5 years of its existence the biggest focus within the community was do we pronounce it lie-nucks, lee-nucks or lin-ucks.

Having said that, though, I will say there is one thing that could happen that could radically change that possibility over a very short period of time.  If Adobe would release a version of CS5 Master Collection that ran natively on Linux, that could be the first nail in Windows' coffin.  If you look at any poll on the most wanted commercial application for Linux, what ever the current version of Photoshop and Premier is when the poll is taken is the winner every time.  That could be a serious game changer.

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Joe Auty <joe@netmusician.org> wrote:

I know this is sort of troll-like, but I do mean this in a constructive way. I've wanted Linux to be ready for the Desktop, but I just don't think it will ever get there. At what point does it make sense to just focus on using Linux on servers and give up on using it as a Desktop OS?