Re: Linux on the desktop - it's come a long way, but is it there yet?

["Derek Martin-9" <user=7@nabble.blu.org>]

 Rich, 

I think you raise some valid points, but I also think that some of the 
information you've presented is either incorrect or reflects 
unrealistic expectations.   

Remember that Microsoft is a near monopoly, and that hardware vendors 
code drivers that work to Microsoft's specifications before they 
release a product.  With Linux, some vendors do this, but many simply 
still don't care about the Linux platform, leaving the job to be done 
by the thousands of developers who volunteer their free time to do so. 
Naturally, they can't do it until they can actually get their hands on 
a particular device; for this reason, Linux will *ALWAYS* be behind 
Windows in terms of hardware support, and there's quite literally 
nothing the Linux community can do about this, save one: GROW.  If 
there are enough of us, eventually the hardware vendors will have to 
support us, or lose business to their competition. 

To address some specific points: 

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:25:00PM -0400, Rich Braun wrote: 
> My point is this:  display setup is controlled from exactly one menu 
> in Windows (accessible two different ways, control panel or 
> right-click anywhere in the background), 

This is, quite simply, not true (at least not universally).  If you 
use any modern, reasonable graphics card (i.e. ATI or NVidia, and 
probably others), they have their own applications to manage display 
settings.  *SOME* of that functionality is integrated into Windows 
display manager, and a lot of it is not.  Most of it is accessible 
from a third place you didn't mention: the proprietary display 
manager's icon in the notification area of the task bar.  Some may 
require you to launch an application from the menus, depending on the 
specific hardware you've bought, and what software the vendor decided 
to ship with it. 

> 5) 
> If I activate certain of the screen-"savers", the motherboard eats 
> 30 watts (!) of additional electricity in order to perform the 3D 
> calculations.  (Maybe they need an Energy Un-star icon next to these 
> selections. ;-) 

High-performance 3D graphics make your system work harder.  This is no 
less true in Windows than it is in Linux, and should be common sense 
to experienced users.  Microsoft just doesn't have those fancy screen 
savers.  :)  If you don't want to use the extra power, the simple 
solution is just don't use those screen savers... 

Also, while I admit I've seen problems with screen savers in the past, 
I haven't for *years* -- though I've been using well-supported NVidia 
cards almost exclusively.  I have never seen the specific issue you 
raised about the screen saver (apparently) not actually engaging... 
The power saving features are quite likely not available because 
you're using hardware that isn't well supported. See above about 
hardware support. :) 

I can't say what is causing your issues with the screen savers; I can 
only say that I have not encountered any similar problems for a very 
long time -- not personally, and not in my role as a Linux support 
person. 

[...] 
> different vintages that we use to cobble together systems; 

Experienced users who do this should a) be able to figure out how to 
deal with these issues, and b) expect that they may have issues if 
they go this route.  Even in the Windows world, my understanding is 
that Microsoft has chosen not to include support for a wide array of 
old hardware, and most vendors haven't released updated drivers to run 
old hardware on Windows XP either.  I had such a problem with an old 
scanner I bought, which ironically enough does actually work in Linux 
(on Fedora). :D 

> or as neophyte users, they simply won't be looking up any 
> cross-reference sheet before buying a system.   

You're right, they won't.  They also probably won't run into any of 
the issues you talk about, because their needs are much simpler than 
what you're describing, and because common commodity hardware tends to 
be very well supported. 

> Sure, what I'll wind up doing is going into my xorg.conf file 
> whenever I have a whole day to deal with it and get the X settings 
> set up precisely how they need to be, and then figure out which apps 
> break things so I can tweak them as well--but this is 2008, why is 
> this even necessary? 

I run dual monitors... just the other day I had to deal with this on 
my laptop.  The NVidia drivers include a configuration utility very 
similar to the one they ship with Windows...  I used it to configure 
my laptop to use the external VGA monitor (a Dell 24" wide-screen LCD) 
as the primary display, and the laptop's built-in display as 
secondary.  It was fast, simple, and painless.  Bottom line: it just 
worked. 

I have not tried to rotate any of my monitors... I actually am 
interested in doing this (at work, not home), but haven't had a chance 
to look into doing it.  I have some hope that it may turn out to be 
just as simple as the above, but until very recently the software I 
was running was too old to support the feature (I believe). 

> I'm challenging y'all to look at this from the eyes of the neophyte 
> and imagine sending a box of PC parts and a URL to your grandmother 

Neophytes don't use boxes of PC parts.  They go to BestBuy and buy an 
HP.  If you install Linux on such a box, virtually everything a 
neophyte will want to do will "just work" -- web browsing, e-mail, 
word processing, sound, etc.  It will even have nice quick-launch 
icons in the "task bar" -- just like Windows does.  There will be a 
few exceptions; some proprietary media types are still not supported 
well on Linux.  Apps like xine and vlc can play most of them, but with 
varying degrees of success.  Linux can hardly be blamed here; it's the 
proprietary vendors who are to blame for not releasing specs (or just 
supporting Linux directly).  There's a limit to what the OSS community 
can do, in an ever-changing landscape of technologies. 

Your points about hardware support are basically right; but unless you 
go to the store looking for the latest and greatest hardware, or try 
to cobble a system together from parts laying around, I just don't 
think the average user is going to run into any of the issues you're 
complaining about...  For the *average* user, I think Linux very much 
IS ready for the desktop. 

And, while I'm not a neophyte, the bottom line for me is that Linux is 
just a lot more reliable and far less annoying than Windows.  I use 
Windows regularly, but almost exclusively to play games.  Whenever I 
want to get any real work done, I reboot into Linux (or use a 
different system that is already booted into Linux). 

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 
-=-=-=-=- 
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in 
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss