"Linux doesn't have a decent desktop OS and it never will. I've got a stack of linux cds that I purchased including: RedHat, Mandriva, SUSE, Kubuntu, and Xandros. I can use them as coasters, but that's about it. My use of linux goes back to 1998. Promises cost nothing."

Apparently you are stuck in time (1998)as almost all distros are free at distrowatch. There must be 80 or 90 at this time. I personally use a dualboot (Wubi)WinXP SP2/
Unbuntu on my laptop and I would say WinXP is totally unsuitable for a 16Gig machine. I would
wipe it and install Puppy/Slax or DSL. I would never pay the vig for a Win OS on a geek toy like this.

BTW MS is ready to sell 1,000,000 licenses to the OLPC project at $3.00 a pop thats $3.00 more than any linux distro.

RedHat, Mandriva, and Xandros *all* sell "enhanced" versions of their distros. Not sure about SUSE, never looked at 'em.

Apparently you're stuck on distrowatch and have forgotten that other distributions exist?

Linux doesn't have a decent desktop OS and it never will. I've got a stack of linux cds that I purchased including: RedHat, Mandriva, SUSE, Kubuntu, and Xandros. I can use them as coasters, but that's about it. My use of linux goes back to 1998. Promises cost nothing.

meh, it's as decent as you make it. I can understand and I agree that it can be considered not ready for non-technical users (though I've seen cases where it absolutely is ready) but it makes a fine desktop if you take the time to make it one.

So, make the case. Why isn't it a decent desktop OS? (leave the not valid since 2000 comments in the trash, thanks)

Yeah,I come home from a 12 to 14 hour workday and I'm going to spend several hours learning how to use an OS. That's just the start of the learning curve. How many people are writing drivers for linux? I personally know one guy. Nothing about linux is "absolutely ready". It's not quite as good as Vista and Vista was described at Extreme Tech as a "turd".

I would remove Ubuntu from that list-- its very latest release is a huge difference; and projects for it, like Wubi, which is featured here on BetaNews, are a godsend to neophytes.

How does that mean it's not ready?

You've stated your laziness, nothing more. Linux supports thousands of devices out of the box, more than XP (probably not as many as Vista, unless you count devices Linux supports and Vista does not).

OMFG an online magazines opinion says it's not as good so it must be true!

Next, you'll be quoting ZDNET..

Why don't you spare us the crap and just say "because I said so" and move on like a good 12 year old.

Thanks.

Ubuntu still sucks stupid things that it shouldn't suck at like hibernation and suspending, but it's come a long way.

Rob does have a point-- esp. the installing & even worse, keeping updated of third party apps-- but doesn't realize the very latest Ubuntu has pretty much solved his concerns... including those of drivers for the most part.

Three words: Universe, Metaverse, and Restricted.

I agree that it can be a pain to maintain third party apps that aren't in any of those three categories though. I have templates for packaging those, I just drop the software into a folder, run a command, and wait.

;-)

Drivers??? What are you using??? I've not had a single piece of hardware not instantly recognized and configured in my Linux systems. Everything from multi-function printers, to wide LCD displays to cameras, cellphone, memory sticks, video cards, SATA devices...the works. And, I'm not running around looking for misplaced and out of date driver disks, either. And, I've never had to install a driver disk with a clean install, for the motherboard, either.

Linux doesn't have a decent desktop OS and it never will.

To say it never will have a decent desktop OS is a bit naive. There is nothing that prevents them from releasing one, they just haven't come up with it yet. The ability is there.

I've not had a single piece of hardware not instantly recognized and configured in my Linux systems.

I don't even use Linux and I can name hardwares that fail to work properly with it. nForce 4?

http://www.nvidia.com/ob.../linux_nforce_1.23.html

Yeah, I'd probably be using/learning it a lot more now if it didn't make my mouse cursor invisible. (Note: The mouse cursor is still there, I can click on things, drag-select, etc...I just can't see the cursor.) Heck, I might have even had the patience then to figure out how to give it a static ip address if I hadn't had that problem. Ubuntu may be great desktop distro once you get past those "little" problems; but until those "little" problems aren't there out of the box, it won't be a viable Windows replacement.

Yeah, it still has lots of those little problems. I use it as my day to day OS (I virtualize everything else) and now and again I still see weird problems like that creep up.

I'm ok with minor little things, those can be fixed and no OS is without them.

Depends on what you're basing the opinion on.

If you're basing it on the fact that Linux, as an OSS, has never had the corporate support and commercial backing of a full-fledged commercial OS, which is a major consideration in why it has not yet seen major adoption, then it is only logical to assume that so long as it stays OSS it will never achieve major market adoption.

well he could very well be very valid...because of the nature of this "open source" initiative. And the reason why supposedly superior free alternatives have a hard time competing with supposedly inferior commercial apps from MS/Windows.
Every now and again I load up my linux/Vista dual boot just to muck around a bit and that's about it, always back to Vista to get things done. :D Potential is always there with everything.

You bought that crap? That's some expensive coasters bro. Linux sucks particularly due the to the price, which is usually free. Hence "you get what you pay for".

Released June 2007.

nForce4 has been out for friggin' ages.

His point stands, which is that drivers almost always take longer.

Of course, this isn't Linux's fault. It's not an OS issue, it's the hardware manufacturers not developing for Linux or at the very least, not opening up their specs for OSS programmers.

That said, it still greatly effects the usability of the OS, regardless.

No doubt they take longer I wouldn't argue that.

It can impact usability, but then I'm typing that on a machine that's running gutsy really very well but Vista would barely install on. ;-)

NForce4 was supported much earlier than that, that was just the first hit on their site. It's all there, just need to put linux nforce in the search box.

I notice you didn't try ubuntu or PClinuxOS, but if you think that you hate kubuntu, I'm with you on that one. (Konqueror must be the worst browser ever, worse than IE, and you know that's pretty bad if I say that...)

Then how come I haven't paid a penny for software for years and I'm doing fine?

I'm not damning linux as an OS. I ran my server on Gentoo for about 2 years with few problems. I'm saying there isn't a satisfactory linux desktop OS available. There has to be some reason that none of the major linux distros has not chosen to release a desktop OS. They certainly could if they so desired. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

Ubuntu is a major distro, they have a desktop OS.

Undoubtedly, you could name hardware the doesn't work with Linux, out of the box. Winmodems, for example. Same is true about hardware in Windows.

I stand by my statement. I said, "I've not had a single piece of hardware not instantly recognized and configured..." That's a fact.I run four desktop systems and a laptop here in the house...and such is the case with all of them. The same for at least 15 or 20 other systems, belonging to family and friends,(older and newer off the shelf computers), who have switched to Linux and are very happy with it.

Because I said so.

It can impact usability, but then I'm typing that on a machine that's running gutsy really very well but Vista would barely install on. ;-)

All that means is that Gutsy can scale itself to lower end hardware. (not defaulting to composite-mode is a good start)

NForce4 was supported much earlier than that, that was just the first hit on their site.

I'm sure it was. I hit the site and grabbed the "posted on" date for the latest nfoce4 linux driver. Regardless, it sufficed for the point I was making.

Yeah, linux is great for older systems. :p

There has to be some reason that none of the major linux distros has not chosen to release a desktop OS.

What?

Because you've limited yourself to free software that does not perform as well as it's commercial counterparts to make a point.

Point made. Now you can go back to using the stuff that actually works. :)

Actually composite is on by default on all but one of them. ;-)

Still uses ~ 200MB of memory, with all the bells and whistles enabled.

"by default" defined as immediately enabled upon installation.

I'll be more specific next time.

Regardless....

You want to compare memory usage? Really? You're not one of those folks who thinks that unused memory is better than used memory, are you?

Please tell me you're not. I *know* you're smarter than that...

That's what I meant, it's detected and enabled at time of installation on all but one computer.

no no no, I wasn't bragging. I was just sayin. :-D

I'd prefer all my memory to be in cache buffers in case I need it, or need something I've recently used. heh

Why old OS in new Eee PC? Something really wrong!

I think Eee PC is doing fine and no need to ship with Win XP. It has hidden cost to it, if they ship with XP.

Why XP the old OS? Why not Vista?

Vista costs more.

Not only does Vista cost more, it also demands more. Even Basic is way more taxing on low end and medium level hardware because of all the background processes that run at startup. The EEE runs on low power stuff, that can't be good for Vista, or rather, Vista can't be good on that. XP on the other hand, would hit the right spot for some people (in my opinion, me being one of them in fact) for a machine like the EEE. I say ship it in flavors first, XP and Xandros (or whatever distro it ships with) and let demand sort it out for a while. Then they can tilt supply in favor of what sells the best/most.

To say nothing of third party program incompatibilities.

In fact, win2k would've possibly been an even better choice: it runs anything xp can`'faster and with a ton less resources'.
Just like many folks chose win2k over xp until the latter was way past SP2, the same applies to Vista vs its predecessor-- only worse so: i can't think of any programs xp could run that 2k couldn't.

Fix what is not broken and make it more expensive. Why?

The EEE is a pretty amazing piece of tech, and the more OSes the merrier for it. While the current GNU/Linux OS has a seriously cool UI, it boots in 2 seconds and shuts down instantly.

XP won't be able to do that.

2 seconds? Bulls***, Love Linux all you want but posting outright lies goes beyond fanboyism.

Just goes to show, Linux isn't as cool as all the fan boys would have you think. I personally would rank it somewhere near the bottom amongst all the main stream OS'es, just above Mac. Too bad the BSDs don't get as much hype as Linux, it's the most solid OS out there.

Two seconds isn't impossible with Linux...but it is with Microsoft.

"Firmware company General Software announced that it is selling customized, quick-booting versions of its Linux-compatible BIOS firmware to the medical device industry. The company says its "Embedded BIOS with StrongFrame Technology" can boot to lilo (Linux loader) in less than a second.

Fast boot times are key in the medical device market, where products compete on "time to waveform" (TTW), General Software said. Yet, most BIOSes available for x86 chipsets were built for the desktop market, and thus have not been optimized in this area, according to Steve Jones, General Software CTO.

Jones explained, "Hard drive spin-up normally takes so long that the BIOS has to wait for it anyway. Take away the spin-up time and you're left with POST that should complete in hundreds of milliseconds, but instead takes tens of seconds."

Jones said that after hard drive spin-up delays, waiting for video card firmware to load is another major time-waster. "Depending on the video controller, it can take between 0.5 and 5 seconds, typically. Next to hard drive spin-up, this is actually the most significant part of POST and accounts for most of the time spent in the one-second measurement here. Other things, like keyboard controller initialization, mouse and keyboard device initialization, and USB initialization, all take hundreds of microseconds, and basically nickel-and-dime the POST time."

Jones said the claimed sub-second boot time to lilo was measured between pushing the reset button on a Soyo motherboard with an Intel 815-class chipset, and the moment when the lilo prompt appeared, showing that the drive was being read. Jones says the feat was accomplished by using "Quick Boot" tuning tools available in the General Software Embedded BIOS Adaptation Kit, which is said to offer more than 1,000 configuration options at the source level. Using it, General Software or Kit licensees can tune x86 BIOS code to specific hardware, eliminating the time-consuming scans and unneeded code branches found in desktop x86 BIOS code. Another touted benefit is faster certification, since there are fewer code-paths to test.

Jones said General Software also created one BIOS capable of booting Windows Vista to a usable desktop in 24 seconds, where the same board with a traditional BIOS took 72 seconds. Much of the speed-up was attributed to building a UDMA-capable driver into the BIOS, enabling it to load the OS into memory much faster than traditional BIOSes, which use slow PIO (programmed I/O) data transfers.

General Software said its medical device customers include Siemens Acuson and GE Healthcare.

Availability

Embedded BIOS with StrongFrame Technology is available now for a wide variety of devices, including medical equipment."

"Linux isn't as cool as all the fan boys would have you think."

Thanks for the opinion, now back it with something substantial.

There is little that it can't do. If you aren't a gamer, and you accept the power of VM technology it's unstoppable.

If you are a gamer, and you want to use the latest bleeding edge video card, by all means use Windows. It would be silly to not do so.

Thanks.

"Fast boot times (3 seconds from power-on to Linux console)" - http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot

Maybe, instead of making yourself look bad by trashing technology you should learn to understand it better first.

Lets see Windows run in your bios area.

This is yet another area where Linux is stronger than Windows. Things like this are why I'll defend either, they are both just as powerful.

Easy to use is just a perception, Windows becomes not so easy to use when you have a project like coreboot where you need to replace your BIOS.

Linux becomes not so easy to use when you want to boot up some Windows games.

They both have their strengths, all of the bashers on both sides are wrong.

Thanks.

Lets see, his argument is the current Linux OS, your link is not an operating system but rather a firmware update.

While it may be able to do so in 2 seconds, the Linux OS itself does not boot in 2 seconds.

"3 seconds from power-on to Linux console"

Linux console is the log in prompt, that prompt can be a GUI or non GUI login window.

Check it -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=nuzRsXKm_NQ

It absolutely is the Linux OS booting.

It's just booting from ROM.

Quit fishing, and go read the site.

Thanks.

IF I install Ubuntu, Xandros, Fedora or any of the other distros out there, it does NOT load in 2 seconds. (this was my point, now if you have a different link then the one about the coreboot, show me.) Which again is the OS itself, you are again referring to firmware as it describes how to use a different bios then what comes with a standard pc. His argument was Linux OS, its very vague and can be misconstrued to however you like it, but my interpretation was the Linux itself installed no tricks, no editing just installing it, as buring the iso onto a disk and running it whether it is ubuntu or pick your distro does not load in 2 seconds.

I am sure if someone wanted to they could boot windows much faster as well, but seriously who cares if your OS takes 2 seconds or 20 seconds.

"2 seconds? Bulls***, Love Linux all you want but posting outright lies goes beyond fanboyism."

I'm sorry, this does not imply Ubuntu, Xandros, or Fedora. You said "2 Seconds? Bulls***" followed by Linux.

I showed you Linux booting that quickly. I'm sorry, you are wrong. Deal with it.

This firmware is a Linux kernel that is bootstrapped when power is applied. It is capable of presenting a GUI, that GUI can be Ubuntu's, Fedora's, or whatever else you want to throw at it.

If someone wanted to boot Windows that fast they would have done it by now. You can't present make believe as a fact to support your argument.

Again, you are wrong. Deal with it.

"The EEE is a pretty amazing piece of tech, and the more OSes the merrier for it. While the current GNU/Linux OS has a seriously cool UI, it boots in 2 seconds and shuts down instantly."

"2 seconds? Bulls***, Love Linux all you want but posting outright lies goes beyond fanboyism."

Try putting the comments together they make more sense that way...

So, wrong, not really, misconstrued, yes.

Lets call it a draw and move on. :-D

WOW!!!

And the first real recipients of this system are the medical equipment manufacturers. Now let's see...your life depends on how quickly the equipment is in action. Do you want to wait for a Windows based system to boot up, or are you willing to accept Linux?

My mother has one. The Linux installed is much easier to use, for her, than XP would be.

I still want one. Xandros or XP, I think I'd prefer to format it and whack on Ubuntu. :p

If I had my mother's Eee PC I would do the same. I have Ubuntu on my system.

See my comment in the Wal-Mart article section.

Repeat after me:

"Linux Will Never Ever Be Ready For Prime Time On The CONSUMER Desktop".

Anyone who didn't have Rose Colored Glasses and applied logical thought to the situation could see this. I did ten years ago.

You're an idiot. Linux is superior to Winblows in many areas. The only place that Winblows was better are in games, but that is changing.

BTW, DELL is still selling systems with Ubuntu on them instead of Winblows.

Its not as if they're going to discontinue using Linux on the EeePC. Even the manuals for the current ones had a section on using XP.

>>You're an idiot. Linux is superior to Winblows in many areas.

Ever consider you are an idiot for mindlessly believing this?

Start with the NT kernel, it is a Hybrid Client/Server kernel (Means it has no microkernel overhead or monolithic multi-tasking issues.) Linux is pure microkernel, OSX is monolithic kernel - both fail in technology comparison.

Fragmentation - Even with a highly fragmented component based OS, Linux still suffers from less features or capabilities than Windows.

Gaming - There is an architectural reason Windows is better at games, especially moving forward with the Vista WDDM. Linux starts with a basic double buffer video subsystem, with several hacks to get OpenGL ICD performance. The Linux Window environment will never meet Windows Speed in basic applicaitons let alone games.

Even the OpenGL group stresses that the Vista WDDM model offers more abilities that provide performance to the OpenGL model, because the OS handles GPU scheduling and VRAM virtualization, and this benefits OpenGL greatly.

And finally back to the WIndows NT architecture. The client/server kernel architecture allows Windows to run all OS API layers in a subsystem. Even Win32/Win64 run in a virtual subsystem, and NT itself is not dependant on them.

Other OS APIs run side by side Win32/Win64, something Linux and NO OTHER consumer OS can do.

This is why with Vista you can install the Unix subsystem, and have access to a full BSD API Unix subsystem install that runs side by side Win32/Win64 - no virtualization, the BSD Unix API is actually a part of the NT OS at this point.

There are 100s of specific technilogical things that could be argued that Windows NT is superior to Linux, sadly most people don't even realize Windows is actually Windows NT, let alone the technical aspects of the OS models and architectures.

Go troll elsewhere, Linux is a good Unix, it is NOT superior to Windows NT, even as argued by some of the best OS theorists and engineers of our time. (They will b**** about Win32/Win64, but NT gets respect because it has several things no other consumer level OS does.)

Linux is a good Unix, it is NOT superior to Windows NT, even as argued by some of the best OS theorists and engineers of our time. (They will b**** about Win32/Win64, but NT gets respect because it has several things no other consumer level OS does.
________________________________________________
OS theorists? Pray tell, whom might these be who are extolling the virtues of Microsoft's mighty spaghetti code? Lots of absolutes in your claims. Give us some links that don't start with www.microsoft.com

Tell us oh great one how Linux is better?

A microkernel style operating system has always been superior to Windows NT. Also, Mac OS X has always been a microkernel style operating system. The operating system itself should only consist of the kernel, everything else should be a separate application. Windows NT is nothing but a heavily bloated operating system.

It's not that people DON'T want Linux, it's just that they want Windows.

Actually sort of does not mean it always has been...

"Mac OS X is sort of microkernelish. Inside, it consists of Berkeley UNIX riding on top of a modified version of the Mach microkernel. Since all of it runs in kernel mode (to get that little extra bit of performance) it is not a true microkernel, but Carnegie Mellon University had Berkeley UNIX running on Mach in user space years ago, so it probably could be done again, albeit with a small amount of performance loss, as with L4Linux. Work is underway to port the Apple BSD code (Darwin) to L4 to make it a true microkernel system."

NT was an MS attempt to make a microkernal system but it failed, singularity is the new breed for them.

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/

You start out with a good introduction but provide no examples and use the typical bs every fanboy says, why is osx better then nt?

bull, thanks for your opinion though.

Why shouldn't they?

It's a hybrid microkernel, Microsoft calls it a modified microkernel.

Sure, Linux lacks features that Windows has but the opposite is also true. Windows lacks features that Linux has. IE: Magic sysreq is just one of a multitude of examples.

The argument that one is better than the other is pretty 1995, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Once you have them both down, that's when you start taking real advantage.

"according to Torvalds the reason Linux hasn't taken off is that most people are happy with the way things are. “If you act differently from Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn’t matter; better is worse if it’s different.”"

http://blog.wired.com/mo.../02/linus-torvalds.html

More precisely, people know Windows, are familiar with it, so they want it.

I'd tell them, take a chance, try Xandros, or Ubuntu. I know people who actually did that, and were very satisfied.
But the large majority will stick to what they already know, and they can't be blamed, since they feel comfortable with it.

I know lots of people on both sides of the fence. I have no problem telling people that need Windows to use it, and those that don't not to.

IE: If you play games, or require third party software to perform tasks (like photoshop, or quicken) use Windows.

If not, then give Linux a shot. If it doesn't fit, no big deal and if it does, GREAT.

You still don't get it.

Users don't want to have to BUILD something. They want it fast, easy to use, full-featured with consumers apps and NOW. Linux isn't and never will be that way and neither will the applications that run on it.

That's why any Linux desktop initiative aimed at the consumer market will always fail.

That's not opinion.

That's FACT.

I have an undeniable ten years of empty "Linux is gonna make it on the desktop Real Soon Now" promises to back me up.

"BTW, DELL is still selling systems with Ubuntu on them instead of Winblows."

For now.

Dell is also a poor third and still falling player in the game.

It's not fact, it's opinion.

Users don't care where an app comes from they just want it to work.

You have ten years of the same fanboy nonsense that claims that it'll be there as you do the ten years of fanboy nonsense that says it isn't.

Thanks.

Just more opinion.

Making stuff up to spread make believe that you are preaching facts when you aren't.

I wasn't just talking about Mac OS X. All *nix operating systems are faster and more reliable than Windows NT. Doom 3 (with the graphics quality cranked up) seems to run faster under Linux than Windows XP on a computer with an AMD Opteron 1.4GHz single core CPU, 512MB RAM and Nvidia GeForce 6800GT AGP 8x graphics w/256MB video memory.

How is it nonsense, when every year there is a claim that Linux is now ready for the desktop and each year it falls on its face?

This has been going on for at least 10 years...

Maybe when the sequel to duke nuk'em comes out Linux will be ready...

Actually its not, Dell sales have been pretty bad...thats a fact. I also believe they are being investigated for something as well...

It's nonsense because it's a constant pissing party on both sides.

It's a non-winnable where both sides are both wrong and right.

His implication that Dell is only selling Linux PCs for now is an opinion.

"Never Ever"? Says who? I'd like to see you saying that 10 yrs from now.

Exactly!

Ubuntu IS that way. Why don't you try it yourself before you go bashing it?

So?

I COULD say the same sort of stuff back at you... BOTH have their good points and bad points, and would you mind not calling people idiots for saying true things? Linux IS better than Windows in many ways, AND Windows is better than Linux in many ways, so why don't we all just call this a pointless point and go do something else?

*nix vs. NT:

*Insert such pointless gibberish here for both sides no one can make sense of anything*

So why bother?

It seems a lot of people don't want the ability to configure an application to do specifically what they want to do. They want someone (like Microsoft) to give them a generic configuration and tell them what they can do. Open source users are different. They want to have the control and the options, rather than have a "nanny" do it for them.

Yes indeed. Microsoft has made most computer users numb from the brain down.

Been there, done that.

...back to Vista. :)

Eee.

Did their key get stuck?

What no Vista? ahahahahahaha

What no OSX? Oh wait, to do that Apple would have to control the hardware and add a "premium" price to it.

True, but at least you know it would work, unlike many "Vista Capable" machines. :p

Hey it just says its "capable" nothing in there says it has to work well :P

Oh it would work huh? How come all the people I know with macs have just as many if not more problems with them? Apple has terrible hardware quality control.

Huh?

What?

But, I thought Linux was taking off and it was finally "its" time!

Someone lied to me, again...

With the price hike due to the 9 inches screen and Windows, what we end up is just another cheap laptop.

Different time for different people. I've been Windows-free for three years and would never switch back.

Problem was they were paying for Xandros anyway.

Yeah, You couldn't pay me to re-install Winblows again....

Can we pay you to stop going in topics that contain MS in it because you have yet to stfu about it.

Both Windows and Linux are good for different things, as a technical consultant for a large automotive company I have to use both systems for various software and various servers. I use Win2k on my eee, it runs xp fine, but 2k is just snappy on it, boot times are longer though. I find it much more useful than the pre-installed xandros. On another note, I really cannot take people who use "winblows" or "linsux" seriously, it just shows their fanboyism and closed-mindedness. They are both useful to different people.

best comment in article.

I run Windows in a VM all day every day, it never crashes , it never gets infected, and it's rock solid.

Of course the VM drivers are pretty basic, and stable so I attribute a lot of my stability to that. Which by definition takes the blame off of Windows.

Really...