How to Conquer the Desktop

What does Sturmbahnfahrer mean? And who would have guessed the meaning of Stormbaan Coureur? They are different names for the same software: "a simulated obstacle course for automobiles".

Now grab someone off the street and ask them what Linux means. No? A "command-line" operating system is all you'll get from a lot of people. Most people who have used Linux before the year 2000 have had some sort of problem, due to usability, and it has put them off.

Now, ask them what Windows means. Sure, it's an English word and English is fast becoming the language of choice. It has two meanings: "A piece of glass" or "What my computer always says first". People don't know anything about operating systems. What your computer has is what it will have forever, is most people's opinion.

To change systems then is a frightening step to many and many won't be clever enough to understand the concept that something will "exist outside of Windows".

Wubi meanwhile (a program to install Ubuntu "inside" Windows) will just confuse people even more. If they understand Ubuntu is another program, they won't get why they can't just use their own programs.

People don't care about how free or open their system is. They'll buy Windows 7 because they'll probably hate Vista or be forced into it. We had a little legroom while Vista was out since Windows users started looking around for something different.

The thing is, people fear change. They won't move away from what they're used to even if it is fundamentally broken or flawed or just keeps crashing. The only way to wrench people away is to add more small Linux-based devices to the market. Netbooks are doing pretty well in this area. Due to people not recognising it as a computer (or a laptop) people will be more open to what is on it. The same happened with the iPhone. The software is different, yes, but the hardware is also different, so people feel that they can accept it.

To change people with an open mind (a lot of users are switching already) we need to follow these steps:

STANDARDISE!! This is the most confusing aspect. Have ONE standard distro, call it something cool and DON'T mention Linux. Have ONE standard Desktop Environment. Everyone knows how to use it, it's all the same.
Have ONE Package manager. That means ONE way of installing. It won't break if more people work on it. Have packages downloadable in a format inclusive of all the libraries. Also have an add and remove panel. Repositories are cool. They have made our software secure. Let's have ONE repository containing only GUI end user applications, named after their use (Image Editor not GIMP) and have essential packages built into the system. No library packages, no dependencies, Just download Image Editor and it works. Perhaps like Acorn or Mac OS, in which you drag and drop the program to your desktop and it works. If duplicate libraries from packages exist, keep the newer. If packages break, the library has dropped support for something, so don't drop it! If a console app exists now, make a standard frontend for configuring it. E.g. Web server package (inAdvanced section) installs Apache AND a STANDARD frontend, All its libraries are there in the package. One package file to install for Web server. One to install for File Server. And so on.
Standard packages. Have ONE text editor. If it lacks features from others, add them. Have a beginner and advanced mode. Etc. Call them "Text Editor" not "nano" or "kate" or "gedit". What the hell are those?
Advertising. Advertise like you've never advertise before! PRODUCT! And why you should buy it! It's cool! Let's all get on this.
STABLE! If things can break, fix them BEFORE releasing. Ubuntu releases broken products (look at 8.10). Debian delays but releases when finished.
HARDWARE! My brother's iPod Nano doesn't work in Linux straight away. This is one thing that will leave people ditching Linux. My 3D games I downloaded don't work. I don't want to have to bother with nVidia drivers. My camera doesn't get picked up. I can't sync to my MTP media player out of the box. Etc.
No Command Line. No one should EVER have to type anything into a console. It's simple user-friendliness.

Let's all work on this and soon we'll have a user friendly system, easy to use, ready for the enterprise.

There is an ongoing project to conquer this challenge. Its codename is Xenon and it tries to do all this in the browser. It can be used on all devices and will be installed on small devices. To catch up with development or contribute, please visit: https://web.archive.org/web/20100107134808/http://xenon.kevinghadyani.com/ (edit 2021: archived)

Comments

Dan Dart (URL) said on 2009-08-21T15:06:23.882Z:

@Luka I'm redoing all the programs in my web desktop to be easier and have the best advanced mode features, that is, the best bits from each. And not have emacs or vi or any existing program.

Unknown (URL) said on 2009-08-21T15:02:29.235Z:

No, You haven't invented OSX, You've invented Android. Problem with your approach is Emax vs Vim problem. Not everyone will agree what should be the "one" program, nor should they. Diversity is what makes progress happened. Of course, not everyone likes to cope with it, so there is always room for making it simpler for those people.

Dan Dart (URL) said on 2009-08-19T20:46:12.811Z:

@P. Static Ooh, noo.. Linux is the LAST thing I'd call it. I want to move away from that. It confuses and irritates people.

Haha, OSX. Well.. I guess, but less DRM encumbered and prettier. And portable. And way more different reasons.

P. Static (URL) said on 2009-08-19T19:50:43.519Z:

Congratulations, you just invented OS X. :)

On a more serious note, I really believe that the kind of standardization you're talking about is fundamentally incompatible with what Linux is. It would require some kind of centralized control, like OS X has Apple, and Windows has Microsoft. One of the core philosophies of Linux has always been letting a bunch of coders do their own thing, and watching what happens.

Sure, you /could/ create an operating system based on Linux, all standardized and uniform and user-friendly and easy to understand, but do the rest of us a favor: don't confuse people by calling it Linux.

What Free Software needs

Permalink | Author: Dan Dart | Published: 2009-07-05 13:21:00 UTC | Tags: bsd. competition free linux packages standardisation windows

When I was young, I remember wanting SUSE 9.2 Professional. It seemed like a good stable system with many good reviews. Afterwards (luckily) the distribution switched to GPL and I managed to acquire a copy of 9.3. It was very good for its time, its acheivements vastly outstepping anything I had previously seen. With instant search, good photo management, and all the rest, it seemed to be a good stepping stone onto which further development could be put upon.

A while later, I find that "cool" features seem to be getting less and less common. With the advent of Compiz a few years ago, coolness in the desktop rose a little, but with less common other features, and small incremental updates in most distributions, computing was getting a little more boring, with little to wow about. We now need a good jump up, or proprietary software will catch up. KDE 4 recently has been a downfall, mainly because people disliked it from being so very different to the very stable and mature 3.5 series, which I was in fact excited about at the time. When the "broken" Microsoft Vista followed after KDE 4's (premature) release, people managed to give Vista bad hype for being so out of step with current needs that it would not run software that ran on previous releases flawlessly. Between now and then, KDE 4 and Vista have largely sorted out their concerns. Ever since Vista SP1 and KDE 4.2, I think a lot more people are happy with either release. But many people still dislike this new "dark" theme over the previous light theme, and as such prefer to stick to the "dead" XP or the less-supported KDE 3.5.

Other problems we in the Free Software community face are:

Lack of standardisation. Yes, as much as I hate to say it, standard ways of doing things are waning. Especially in the Linux community, 500 different distributions are not a good way of doing things. Factoring out the "useless" distributions, based on whether they have been done before, how useful a distribution is, whether the same effect could be copied painlessly in another distribution, I think maybe 50 might remain.

Lack of standard package formats. As much as I still hate to say it, all Linux distros need one defining package format. Right now it is considered too difficult to develop for Linux, as there are so many formats to develop for. DEB, RPM, RUN, Autopackage, TAR.GZ, TGZ, and others make it difficult to develop for. I think we need a standardised package format and standard repositories that all distros can pull from. Having different ones means that it is currently difficult and long-winded to document how to install software on all current distributions. Here is what I think we need:

One format. One format, one download link for Linux, one way of packaging. Easy, simple.

One repository. One website serving download links for every conceivable package, in an installable static format (including every library it requires) or dynamic (for short downloads).

Every application. There are far too many repositories. There are in excess of 50 for Ubuntu and openSUSE. Why can't they just all be in the same place? Of course, to keep freedom-lovers happy, split it into free and non-free but essentially it's easier to get what you want now.

Every proprietary game or application maker can now package their game or application into ONE single format, upload it to ONE server (if necessary) or ONE CD/DVD/USB, and allow use or play to EVERY free software user.

Standard Libraries. GNOME and KDE are in pretty much fair competition. I cannot dispute or argue against it. Choice is paramount, but applications that don't work are unacceptable. If there were a library that could be used to create desktop applications that would run fairly on each, and not look foreign on one or the other, then it should be developed upon by everyone trying to provide a fair experience. People don't always have the libraries that are needed by some obscure piece of software, so they should be readily available, or the application should use something more common.

Backward/Forward Compatibility. Proprietary module or "driver" creation is impossible in Linux. If a hardware manufacturer wishes to hide the functionality of their driver, they cannot release binary-only drivers in Linux currently. I know that manufacturers should be encouraged to develop freely, but if there is no chance of this, there is no chance of that hardware working on Linux. The license makes it difficult but I believe that if a manufacturer provides one of those "Driver CDs" in that standard package format above with Module Versioning support on in the kernel, drivers do not have to wear out.

The kernel seems to not like modules from a past or future kernel, mainly because it is not at all stable, but also because Module Versioning does not work by default in most distros by default. Looking at Windows, applications and drivers from a number of years ago will work in today's release, and (in general) releases before the release of the application or driver. We need this back-forward compatibility for proprietary software vendors (who can't be convinced to switch to free) not to have to either release their code or keep compiling their code for each kernel or new release.

A hopeful fix I'm in the process of creating a browser-based desktop environment that will hopefully overcome all that, and allow for major cool features as well as ultra compatibility and ease of use for new users. It isn't Linux, or anything to do with current free software but it can lie on top of Linux/Solaris/BSD/Windows/Mac/whatever if the user so wishes.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100107134808/http://xenon.kevinghadyani.com/ (edit 2021: archived)

Comments

Dan Dart (URL) said on 2009-07-06T01:07:54.836Z:

@xenom Distros do different things but maybe if we had stable, testing, etc repos for enabling?

@P. Static Oh no, mine is doing way more than fixing these problems. I'd love current distros to overcome this and standardise with each other. Otherwise, maybe a "1-click install" for new repos and packages is in order, which integrates with their package manager, whatever it may be.

P. Static (URL) said on 2009-07-05T16:24:15.792Z:

so, the problem is that there are too many distros doing things too many different ways, and your solution is... to make a new, completely different distro? ;)

Unknown (URL) said on 2009-07-05T15:02:00.026Z:

The package system problem come only with propriary software, with FOSS, the package are the problem of package maintainer of the different distributions. The one format is not a real problem for devellopers. If they want to make a package for distribution it is their problems, else it is the package maintener's problem. One repository for all distribution is not technically possible, because distribution have different package update system and motivation, many just take stable version (like Debian Stable) and other are bleeding-edge and rolling-release (like ArchLinux) and this is really good, I don't imagine using Debian on my personnal computer and ArchLinux on company server. I also think on different compilation options.

The lack of standard librairies is a problem, but not a big problem, we can easily have 2 ou 3 different librairies without problems.

How to Conquer the Desktop

Comments

Post a comment:

What Free Software needs

Comments

Post a comment: