The overestimated Death of the Linux Desktop

For the last couple of days I've been reading about the so called Death of the Linux Desktop. What I cannot understand is, how so Linux desktop can be dead if it never existed?

For few years, we've been hearing all sorts of saying, that this year will be "the year of Linux on the Desktop", that this year, Linux will conquer desktop arena, etc. So if all that is true, wouldn't that mean that it is not on the desktop yet, and hence it cannot die?

That depends hugely on point of view. What would mean, that Linux is on a desktop? I use it. On the desktop. Does that count? Some people I know use it on laptops, servers, and even embedded devices. Does this count?

Yes. Everything does. The main point of these articles, debating on the death of desktop Linux, is to address the departure of one of the major desktop proponents within kernel developers. While great thing by its own, it doesn't yet encapsulate the whole desktop on Linux, isn't it?

I think that the most important thing is that work will be kept going on, improving things we have, inventing new ones and making everything better and better. And only after awhile, we would be able to look back on what we've done, what happened and decide: That was the year of Linux Desktop. That year it made it. And only if it won't be going well anymore, we'll say - Linux on Desktop is dead.

But until then - I think we should stop jumping to conclusions, and just keep doing what we do the best - the greatest software and the best communities.

Linux on the Desktop is yet to come.

-A.

Grandma factor

I've been reading around different stories about how we're not making our systems enough "grandma"-proof (that is to be "easily" used by grandmas. Sorry grandpas, you're probably not too appealing for the cause).

In fact, I've written something like that myself some time ago. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about that essay, I just adopted an attitude.

What I am thinking now, when considering things said in that article, is that designing a system for an "average" computer user is becoming less relevant. I do think that usability must go as one of the first and foremost important features, but nevertheless, making our systems oversimplified (Gnome anyone?) is a totally wrong thing to do.

(Regarding my Gnome remark, I just saying rather large opinion that I hear around. I use Gnome myself, and it is sufficient enough for me. But also is a Xfce and MacOS X, and in some degree Windows and KDE. I just want to say, that in some projects, craving for simplicity overshadows main goals of the projects - and that is to deliver functionality. And Gnome's "simplicity" was the factor that turned Linus Tourvalds to KDE)

In fast technology race, the functionality can be beaten by usability. But usability means "convenient use", not "simple". Any system that simplifies on expense of other important aspects, is destined to fail.

All I want is that technically oriented crowd would differentiate between the so-called "average" user and everyone else. My wife (wife to be in a short while) uses a computer without significant problems. She just doesn't like how some things are done (such as MSN Live upgrade forced up on her. She liked it the way it was, and she doesn't like to be forced to do anything, as we all don't).

In the world I live in, there's almost everyone knows how to handle a computer. For better or for worse. And you know what? My dad is a grandpa now, and he can handle complicated computer tasks very well. Do you know how? I'll tell you how.

Because he's a grown intelligent person, that can take his time to learn a new thing. Just like he did once when remote controls for everything began to appear.

What I'm trying to say, is that we should probably stop using a "grandma" factor as a major "usability" measure. Many computer users are not that illiterate anymore. Almost all newly grads for last 10 years (who lead many businesses today) are comfortable with computers. Many college students grew up with one.

So, I think there's a need for yet another level of usability. A community needs to find another type of a person that will test a usability of a product.

It should be an advanced computer user, who are not afraid to try new things, who understands what a new product is and what is usability and how can it be assessed.

Try me for that.

Google Linux

I just read a column in Inquirer about meetup in Googleplex. There are people from Linux Foundation and FSF, which meet up in goal to discuss the latest Microsoft ramblings about licensing problems in Linux:

Following Microsoft's inking of agreements with Linux hawkers, offering to shield them from lawsuits over the 235 patents it reckons versions of Linux infringe, a gathering of open sorcerers is assembling at Google HQ to debate what is to be done.

According to Reuters report, which helpfully details what a Linux geek is wearing these days (T-shirts and jeans), organizer of the "Collaboration Summit", Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation, told the amassed geeks: "Guys: Be seekers of truth, not finders of contradiction."

Maybe something will come of it, but typically, like the Left in politics, there may be too much squabbling over what society should look like after the revolution that the revolution will be eternally postponed.

I actually agree to this. Its much easier to discuss than get things done. But then, I like this comment:

Google Linux anyone?

Funny isn't it? Not that Google needs such a thing, but I think that while everyone is talking Ubuntu would do the trick and take it all.

-A

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu

Responsive computing required!

Hey all. Thanks for spelling me out the obvious by commenting on my previous post - using swap out of memory is useless.

But I still want my computer to be faster and swap less. I know that today's userspace apps suck and use much unnecessary computer resources, but all I want for my computer is to be responsive!

I remember in DOS days, with much slower computers I didn't have to wait for it. Computers perform tasks much faster that people, so I want to use this tool and I want it to be usable. I don't want to wait for it to do something it "thinks" it needs to. I want it to respond in half of a second to any of my actions.

Is that too much to ask for?
Is it possible to be easily done? Without the suggestion to buy more hardware? If so, how?

-A.

Technorati : Linux, Ubuntu, technology, windows

Killing open source

Did you know that Open Source (yes, I chose to write it with capitals) can be killed? Yes, that is at least what Dana Blankenhorn from zdNet thinks.

I've written last week about my opinion on what Dana thinks. I really like to read his articles, because they get me pissed every time. But that is a good thing. It makes me think about an issue on hand, and sometimes I change my mind about them. Sometimes I don't, because I make my opinion even stronger.

So, this time Dana talks about two possible ways to "kill" open source (just like that - no mentioning whether is he talking about specific software, generally open source software or the concept):

1. Spam it to death. (He mentions that this is what killed newsgroups).
   
2. Keep it from getting raw material.
   

I personally think that both reasons are dumb. I'm not sure about the possibility of "killing" open source as whole, but this sound like a very cool journalistic trick to draw attention.

So, regarding the first his suggestion - spamming the open source to death...laughable, isn't it? I just can't understand how "open source" can be spammed to an unimaginable death.
If it is software - a specific one at that - then such vendors as IBM, Red Hat, Google, Novell, Sun - might have to say something about it. If it is a community - then spammers will shoot each other's way of life, because many of them use and are actual member of open source communities. And if it is a concept - how can one "spam" a concept with a useless info? I have no idea.

The second suggestion - keep open source from getting raw material, is somehow a good point. If content providers would not allow me to consume their content with my open source tools, that would be a problem. But then, wouldn't that make me to search for another content provider? Such as one that allows me to use the content, especially if I'm ready to pay for it? This would benefit me and that provider, and the former one that never agreed to me using his content with my choice of software/hardware, will loose.

While loosing me is not such a big deal, I believe that loosing such big communities as Ubuntu/Debian users, Fedora/Red Hat users, Solaris users and SuSe users would be a major loss, because these are potential millions of customers who's money will go to other vendors.

And finally, it open source [community/concept] can be killed, then, please, let me know how do you do it with Creative Commons song, book or beer.

Just my 5 cents.

-A.

Technorati : [ Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, technology ]

Standard Linux - is it possible?

I've read a post by Dana Blankenhorn, who "has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985".

Here's a trackback to a story.

He's talking about running a "standard" Linux distribution. Not choosing one, but rather, using one.

I like his way of thinking actually. If mostly used distribution is Ubuntu, doesn't that makes it "standard"? Wouldn't it be easier for all to create and distribute products that would work with this vendor? Wouldn't it be great to optimize ourselves to work with/on it the best way possible?

Well, yes and no.

Yes because all Linux distributions (and Ubuntu in particular) are built alike. All of them include the kernel (it is a kernel what makes Linux after all), basic software, X server system (with great graphics support), management tools and software, which is generally the same on all of them. So, when an application or product is "ready" for Ubuntu, is will not be daunting or hard task to make it work with almost any other Linux distribution.

And no because it seems to me we already been in this scenario. Just imagine: a real alternative to Microsoft's and Apple's OSes, and a good one. It is so good, that many vendors start creating a products for it and based on it. Hardware vendors provide drivers and optimize their hardware. Accessories are made. Software is getting better. Ain't it great? The world, where at least one distribution becomes as good as commercial operating systems?

But that is exactly the world we're trying to change. We don't want the "lock-in" on a single vendor. I don't want to be forced to use something I don't choose by myself. We already have such vendor in our midst. Wanna guess who that is?

Isn't that the reason we do what we do with free software in the first place?

I'm all for innovation. I'm in favor of competition. I am in favor of trying to achieve high goals.

But I can't stand a choice forced on me. Even with best intentions in mind.

Technorati : Linux, Ubuntu, technology

Bitter commentary in free software world

I've been long-time reader of Linux Watch, and its journalist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (S.V.N).

He recently wrote a column, about Debian's latest release - new stable version, 4.0, codenamed Etch.

His comments, while harsh towards Debian Linux, are correct. He's mostly talking about decisions made by Debian developers in making this version, such as name changes for some applications, or flame wars led on developers mail lists.

But now, I've read comments by Debian developer Thaddeus H. Black, and some more by other journalist (can I say Debian-zealot? probably I can) Sam Varghese. These comments, while being probably correct by fact, sound like a bitter cry for me.

So, ok, Steve has very strong views and opinions about free/open software. But such comments are not adding anything to the issue. They seem to me, as like a developer being defensive and trying to justify and explain problems (nuances for my taste) in S.V.N's article, and Sam Varghese article sound totally like disgruntled guy got offended by some "mistakes" and opinions. He's much more offensive in his articles, bashing everything not truly "open" with much persistence.

Some people don't get it, ain't? That's why combined, OpenSuse and Ubuntu have almost 5 times the rating of Debian, according to Distrowatch.

I don't really understand, why these people are so offended by personal choices of other people. If I decide to use non-free (in RMS sense of the free) software/product, it is like I'm being treated as heretic. It is like such a thing is a total abomination.

I think, all people should be more tolerant to each other and respect each other's opinions and decisions.

If S.V.N likes Ubuntu - let him. If I like Ubuntu let me. If I choose Gentoo let me.

So, just let me be with my fully functional system and I will let you do with yours, however incomplete it may be. I don't care if it is not "free" enough to you. It is free enough for me.

It is my choice after all.