Linux Desktop Summit Re: [SGVLUG] Hello from San Diego

[Terry Hancock]

John, I must first object that you were extremely rude in your response.
That was entirely uncalled for, but I will attempt not to be overly 
reactive.

John Riehl wrote:

> Vague assertions that linux works as seamlessly as windows are just as 
> lame as vague asserstions that it doesnt.

You have your experience, and I have mine: I have had extremely few 
problems getting Linux
working on systems purchased after about 2003, using Debian "Woody" and 
later (I did have
a number of problems before that).  Linux has continued to get easier 
and easier since then
(for example, it became much easier to install sound cards since ALSA 
was incorporated into
the kernel).

On the other hand, I have noticed no such improvement with Windows. 
Every time I try to install
it, it's a bloody nightmare.   Starting with the stupid ads trying to 
brainwash me as the installer
runs. Then, configuring ANYTHING, requires mucking around in their GUI, 
second-guessing what
sort of newspeak drivel they've assumed they can translate technical 
jargon to, so that idiots
will be led in the right direction (it would be truly deceitful to think 
they were trying to illuminate
them so that they *actually* know what they are doing).

Then there's the fact that they keep removing functionality.  Command 
line tools you remember
from three DOS versions back are just NOT THERE.  GUI options are 
missing or disabled.  Critical
management areas like the registry are "cleverly" hidden so you won't do 
anything bad.

The only sense in which Windows "installs easily", is that it puts you 
right where Microsoft
(or the OEM) wants you. Usually buried in ad-ware.  If you want to 
actually make Microsoft
*do* anything. Well, "that costs extra" -- in time, money, and heartache.

> Well, I do experience it, on a pretty continual basis.  That is why I 
> included two specific examples, instead of vague statements.
>
> So if linux doesnt work with the same technology as windows, I am 
> wrong to complain about it, because linux is on par with windows?  oh, 
> please (see no evil, speak no evil, etc).

Nobody attacked you, John.  I didn't say you were "wrong" to do 
anything.  I said I disagreed.

If your users are installing Windows themselves, then they must be 
pretty familiar with it.
Maybe they don't have trouble with it, *because it's what they are used to*?

Me?  I'm used to Debian by now.  Windows truly sucks for me.  I can't 
stand it.

I installed Samba in about 10 minutes on Debian.  Then I spent 10+ hours 
mucking around
with "Network Neighborhood" trying to find the damned partitions, and 
getting Windows
to correctly send authentication to it.  Truly stupid, lousy, useless 
piece of junk.

I'm sorry, but that's really my impression of Windows.  So when you say 
it all "Just Works",
I'm pretty skeptical of that -- I'll believe it when I see it.

> These are all pragmatically correct suggestions.  However, they also 
> form a strong argument that linux is not there with respect to the 
> desktop. If linux is as good as windows, it should be able work just 
> as well as windows on the same hardware.  To relegate linux to certain 
> hardware relegates it to being a second class desktop. 

There's tons of hardware that runs Linux that won't run Windows 
(starting with anything
that doesn't use an x86 processor).  So, Windows must be a "second class 
desktop", right?

Anyway, the fact that most hardware sold is designed to work with 
Windows and tested with
Windows before it can get sold in retail outlets is *caused* by Windows 
being the dominant
O/S on the market, not the other way around.

Clearly there is something broken here -- but it's mostly the hardware 
industry, not Linux
itself.  Saying that Linux has to have a workaround for every piece of 
hardware
out there (but Windows doesn't), is a pretty darned unfair comparison.

So, yes, I buy with Linux in mind.  And when you run Windows, you buy 
with Windows in
mind.  If you run a Mac, you buy with Mac in mind.

Try installing Mac OS X on your "Wintel" PC.

Try installing Windows on a Mac.  Or a SPARC.

If there's a problem, it's this:  No one makes an off-the-shelf PC 
optimized for Linux.

You have to build one. You have to be your own manufacturer.  And that 
means you
have to do more work to qualify hardware.  I do it mostly by consulting 
community
resources online.

I've *always* built my own system, and I remember a long time when it 
was Windows
that I couldn't get to run on anything.  I also remembered how Microsoft 
solved
that problem -- they introduced those "Made for Windows" marks; strong-armed
the industry with their enormous userbase; and marketed "Plug and Play".

So what I experience with Linux is just the same thing, and I guess it 
doesn't
surprise me, because I'm used to it.

You experience failures with Linux (mostly) because you "buy for 
Windows".  You're
just kidding yourself, if you think you're not.  The fact is, the 
industry default is
"PCs built for Windows" -- so if you walk into CompUSA and just buy 
stuff without
looking at the labels, you are "buying for Windows".  And then Linux 
doesn't work
so well on it.  Well, duh.

> In the cases I sited, windows worked fine on the hardware. Install the 
> os, install the drivers, and BAM! it works.  In the case of the 
> external video monitor, linux can use laptop monitor fine, and it can 
> use the external monitor fine.  You just need to reboot in order to 
> switch between them, and you cannot use both of them at the same time. 
> Windows only needs the appropriate key to be hit.  This is not a video 
> driver problem.  With respect to the suspend, it takes some effort to 
> get it to work.   These are facts, not vague assertions.

My laptop never had this problem.  I have no idea why or why not.  I 
just pushed 'F4' and it
switched between modes: one, the other, or both.

That was a few years back. I haven't messed with it since then.

> To make the assertion that linux is just as good means that all the 
> problems have to get fixed.

What do you classify as a fix?

When hardware manufacturers make their equipment to work with Linux and 
provide either
drivers, or adequate documentation, then Linux drivers for that 
equipment will get better.

When retailers start testing their equipment for Linux as well as 
Windows, then the stuff
they sell will more often be vetted to work well for us.

That will happen when it's Linux, not Windows, about which they say, 
"Well 90% of the
market is using it, so we'll ignore the other 10%".

This has little to do with Linux "not being ready", or having to "catch up".

It has a lot to do with hardware manufacturers being snug with Windows, 
and not
wanting to change or expand.  Fortunately, there are a few exceptions -- 
and if you
want a better world for Linux, then you need to seek those people out 
and give
*them* your business.

> Silly me, I was always told that admitting there was a problem was the 
> first step in finding a solution. 

Who's "admitting" anything?  You are "blaming" Linux.  Are you a kernel 
developer?
Are you going to become one?  Written any drivers lately?

Well, I haven't either, so we're both talking about other people's work. 
Don't try
to act like you're being chivalrous. You're just promoting one third 
party over
another.

Go look at the boxes your hardware came in -- how many say "Windows" on the
box?  How many say "Macintosh"?  Now, how many say "Linux"?

*There's* your problem.

Cheers (and do try to calm down, John),
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com