Well, I don''t think Linux is unpopular. It finds it way into many discussions for many development companies. It''s already killing off Sun in many shops. Oracle just signed a deal with RHat to develop a RHat customized version for Oracle DBs. Microsoft is facing large international pressure and some domestic pressure from Linux.

While Linux fails to meet the desktop needs for many users for various reasons, it''s already proven itself as a solid server platform for many businesses. It''s also a popular choice for embedded devices, which is another large growth market.

But if you want to compare with Microsoft by sheer number of users, well, that''s where it''ll fail.

But I think most people would be surprised by how much Linux is out there and out of sight. I know at my job in Manhatten, most of out infrastructure was on Solaris and I personally replaced quite a few Windows servers with Linux without end users noticing (who all used Windows, we also ran Novell for our LAN management--don''t ask, not my choice *grin*).

Same at my current job, though I do test for a Win32 platform software package, I still roll in Unix solutions where and when I can. Mainly because I find myself able to quickly build little one-off script solutions for backups, automation and such without having to study 14 ActiveX objects or writing custom applications.

If I don''t need some feature of Windows, such as ADS or WMI for specific purposes, I will probably put in a Linux/Unix system if I can. I know I can lock it down and not stress about constant patching beyond the core daemons I need. Example, I set up a Bind server, I only have to watch for exploits on SSH and Bind, both of which I can later upgrade without uninstalling the current version, and without a lick of downtime.

Windows is still a great OS though for various tasks (Active Directory + Group Policy is excellent for LAN management). As for Windows being the best desktop, I disagree, I think Apple has the best User Interface. Windows mainly has popularity that I enjoy (driver support, many, many choices for software, etc).

Interim

open source does not mean GPL, and there is a lot of excellent open source software out there which is used widely (zlib, libpng, freetype, etc) - just because you''ve run in to projects that seem to be going nowhere, doesn''t mean that they are a representation of the whole open source world. it''s true there''s a huge quantity and there isn''t always quality in all of them, but you have the power of choice, and thanks to it being open source you now have direct control over it to do with it as you like.

quote: Original post by Interim

If I don''t need some feature of Windows, such as ADS or WMI for specific purposes, I will probably put in a Linux/Unix system if I can. I know I can lock it down and not stress about constant patching beyond the core daemons I need. Example, I set up a Bind server, I only have to watch for exploits on SSH and Bind, both of which I can later upgrade without uninstalling the current version, and without a lick of downtime.

You make some great points in your post, and myself being in many similar positions have done the same.

Although, I greatly prefer djbdns over BIND ( postfix or qmail over sendmail in much the same way.. but I do tend to use ISC''s DHCP implementation ) as it is easier to manage, more secure and just flat-out makes more sense (without the incredibly useless feature creep of BIND).

A lot of places are simply making big hardware for Linux these days. That is what was missing for Linux that the other big players had -- reliable, robust hardware that scales.

The obvious places that Linux was able to make immediate impacts were in places that low-end x86 hardware could do the job: web servers, mail servers, dns servers, samba fileservers, tape-backup servers, etc etc.

Now the shift is getting the mid and high-end hardware that has been available to other *nix OSes exclusively ( Solaris/Irix/HP-UX/AIX/Tru64 ) available to Linux so that the rest of the hardcore application in those tiers are ready to rumble.


.zfod

As far as Linux popularity vs unpopularity I guess one could point out that a year ago this forum rarly went over 5 threads in 5 days. Now it sees much more activity.

quote: Original post by Interim
I know at my job in Manhatten...

You''re in NY? Ever go to an NYLUG meeting?

My main gripe about Linux is that the windowing system doesn''t work properly under high CPU load. On the Windows NT kernel, I can crank my CPU up to 100%, and any thread with equal or higher priority as the busy process will still be able to render windows and respond to GUI input. Under X-windows at least, once my CPU gets above 70% usage (easy on my overtaxed server), I can''t use jack. If the system is booted into the GUI (RedHat) I have to pretty much reboot to get back to my beloved command line.

Since the windowing system is an addon layer to the Linux spec, and not an integral part of the OS like in Windows, I doubt the problem will ever go away.


My other gripe is the open source scam. The advantage of a dedicated, paid, and coherent team of developers (i.e. Microsoft) is that the software is far less disjointed and much more capable of supporting a wider hardware base. Open source software theoretically allows any user to correct a problem specific to their hardware, but in practice this very rarely works. What we end up with is projects that have shuffled hands and developers so many times they feel like patchwork, and we get the 25-different-ways-to-do-everything syndrome that plagues Linux (IMHO). I don''t think this will ever go away either, and I think it is one of the biggest reasons why new users [that is, newbies] will shy away from Linux. Users with 20 ways of doing one thing will quickly freeze in the headlights of the oncoming train, and by the time they figure out that all of the choices are equal, they are splattered across three counties.

As for being accused of not looking for documentation, I spent way more time than I should have looking for it. It was all either beneath or above my level of comprehension, and the local LUG was mostly a bunch of Linux users who knew about as much as me. The "Linux Community" is very friendly to newbies and gurus, but there''s little for those stuck in the middle.

As for the ugly fonts, I find it amusing that the solution ended with "So Linux prevails (after some work)". So, my choices are, Windows, which looks and works well out of the box, or Linux, which looks and works well after some work. Granted, Linux can work better, but that takes time, knowledge (which takes more time), and effort (even more time). Linux can work great later, or Windows can work good enough now.

I guess what it comes down to is that, for some of us, Linux is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Thus, if something else (Windows) can get us to that end faster, easier, and only slightly worse off, we''ll take it.

Please note that I''m only talking about Linux as a desktop. Of course, I don''t think that Linux is unpopular as a server.

quote: Original post by ApochPiQ
Since the windowing system is an addon layer to the Linux spec, and not an integral part of the OS like in Windows, I doubt the problem will ever go away.

Actually, you could get Accelerated X or one of those other optimized X server implementations. They cost money, though.

quote: ...a dedicated, paid, and coherent team of developers (i.e. Microsoft)...

<obligatory joke>Coherent? Sometimes it seems various teams under Office don''t know what each other are up to!</obligatory joke>

Seriously speaking, quality Linux desktop use will only happen when a Linux distro focuses on providing a real professional desktop - and charging if that is what it takes to reach the required levels of integration and functionality. I think the Ximian Desktop 2 is a step in that direction. The free download comes without a variety of functionality, even though much of it can be individually sought and downloaded over the web.

I would like to see a desktop user-oriented distribution. Forget the server/corporate workstation space; there are enough distros targeting that already. Let''s see a new distro that focuses squarely on usability, efficiency and aesthetics - and doesn''t just close Windows a la KDE.

In typical Linux fashion, however, I have to scratch my own itch...

quote: Original post by Subotron
There's no API like DirectX for linux
There is: SDL. In combination with OpenGL I think it's even better than DirectX. OpenGL is already used more than DirectX as far as I know in games (but only the graphics part. OpenGL has no features for input, sound, etc.) and you have SDL to do all the other parts of DirectX which OpenGL doesn't include (sound, input, etc. as mentioned above) Well opinions differ if DirectX is better than OpenGL and SDL or vice versa, but objectively I think you can say the two are almost the same/as good.

To be frank I'm sure there are far more games using DirectX than OpenGL. It's also true that DirectX is more successful at keeping up with technology, whereas in OpenGL you are relying on extensions. Maybe OpenGL 2 solves this problem.

SDL isn't perfect either. There's no sound input facility, no real equivalant of DirectPlay (if you like that sort of thing - I'm a Berkeley sockets guy myself), no DirectMusic... SDL is great, and that's what I use on Windows, but you have to be honest and admit it's not equivalent.

quote: But hey, if you want Windows fonts, PUT THEM IN LINUX. There are thousands of manuals on how to do this. Ok, it takes some work, but you can have both the font sets. Windows only has it's own. So Linux prevails (after some work)

Don't make it sound like I was saying "Linux is not as good as Windows". I was answering the original question, which was "Why isn't Linux a realistic option for most people?" Most people want good fonts. They don't want to have to import fonts from another OS. They may not even have the other OS. If Linux looking good relies on you having Windows, that's a barrier. And even once imported, they still look crap compared to how they look in Windows, because the antialiasing is not done in the same way (due to TrueType patent issues I believe). I did this myself the other day, and was distinctly underwhelmed with the results. So, for 'most people', I'd say font handling on Linux is definitely inferior.

quote: The same thing with most of the other cons that are stated: Linux is bad at this, linux is bad at that, etc. But you people forget to mention you can 'tweak' linux all the way, and this makes it possible to solve almost all those problems you have.

Is it possible to tweak developers so that they all use the same sound server? Is it possible to tweak applications so that they all use the same widget set (or at least all look similar)? Is it possible to make small adjustments so that using the clipboard is truly predictable instead of the lottery that it currently is? Or to stop developers thinking they're doing you a favour by linking their apps with the absolutely most recent library packages, forcing massive downloads whenever you install stuff? Or to get Konqueror to stop being retarded when operating on archives? All these things are possible, but practical, and for 'most people'? Not even close.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

[edited by - Kylotan on June 19, 2003 7:06:01 AM]

quote: Original post by 255
In the windoze world don''t all dependencies come with the software so a similar or the same library gets installed multiple times with new apps?

Well, the tradeoff is that with a Windows app, you download the library each time but you''re assured that the app will work. Also, the library gets installed but generally in the same place so there''s no duplication on your disk - older versions are overwritten by newer ones.

With Linux (in my experience) there seems to be a lot more dynamic libraries that get used, and they almost never come with the program you''re trying to download. Instead you have to rely on your rpm tools being set up properly and automatically downloading an unspecified number of libraries of unspecified size. Several times I''ve had to cancel installation of a package because, unknown to me, it decided it needed to download a newer library than the one I already have, which was going to be a 40m download or whatever. Linux needs to have better rpm tools that will tell you the file size of the stuff you need to install and where it''s going to get it from (disk/install cd/ftp).

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]