[SATLUG] Linux Not Ready for the Desktop

[Hector Bojorquez]

so if Linux office apps aren't ready for "the Desktop" why stake
professional reputations attempting to migrate unless there is a huge
financial burden (such as a non-profit would encounter) or a "for-profit"
boss is unreasonably cheap.
The burden it places on users to "get work done" seems to outweigh the
benefits......

I honestly can't think of a legitimate business situation where there would
be any payoff ..(other than tech places)..
Insurance offices-- they have special apps usually written in VB, or C# that
are integrated with MSoffice,
"Sales"--- Accounting software..ditto to MSOffice integration...
Medical--- that's a whole 'nother beast---
Real Estate-- browser based, but much of the paper work that gets done by
agents, appraiser, etc gets exported  to PDF from databases into Word THEN
PDF....

We seem to be stuck on the backend.....Is it a bad place to be?

Not really considering that Open Source LAMP, Ruby or Plone solutions are
simply superior (and cheaper...AND easier to document)  in comparison to
lame .NET  development...and that's just on the "web" side...

I don't belive that Linux will never be ready for the desktop...
But..(wait here it comes)... it will take a long time development is not
driven by a dedication to usability as opposed to simply wanting to stay
with certain open source conventions...

GIMP for example... has been stuck in a world of its own...many functions
that should have been obvious from "logical" places in the menus....were
simply hidden in "context" menus... This was just dumb if you are trying to
lure users... BUT because it made sense in it's original code base--- it was
kept in for many iterations (until just recently).... And sorry, as much of
an open souce fanatic that I am ( I don't show it here.. cause face it...
what's the fun in preachin' to the choir?)  I simply don't see how that was
smart....

One of the problems I see with open source "desktop app" development... is
that ...I just don't see a lot of  commitment to the user...There's lot of
commitment to making sure it's not "MS"  but little commitment to even the
simplest rules of modern UI development.

And sorry... if you want Linux to be a viable desktop alternative... THAT'S
where the development energies should be...










On 10/26/07, Geoff <geoff at w5omr.shacknet.nu> wrote:
>
> Brad Knowles wrote:
> > On 10/26/07, Alex Bartonek wrote:
> >
> >>  Linux is ready for the desktop but the applications
> >>  that are written that need to be installed by the user
> >>  are not.
> >
> > I'm sorry.  An operating system doesn't really do anything useful in
> > and of itself, at least not for any "normal" user.  It's only the
> > applications that do useful things.
> >
> > If the applications aren't ready for a typical desktop user (who would
> > not be able to chase through library/package dependency hell), then I
> > would argue that Linux as a whole is not ready for the typical desktop
> > user.
> >
>
> which has been exactly my point of contention the whole time.  Thanks
> for verbalizing it well for me, Brad.
>
> --
> -Geoff
>
>
> --
> 73 = Best Regards,
> -Geoff/W5OMR
>
> A: Yes.
>
> > Q: Are you sure?
>
> >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>
> >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to unsubscribe
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
>