Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?

From: Neal Lippman (nl_at_lippman.org)
Date: 09/04/03

  • Next message: Andrew Malcolmson: "Re: Sid CD fails as apt source" 
    To: michf@math.tau.ac.il
Date: 03 Sep 2003 21:08:47 -0400

    On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 18:01, Micha Feigin wrote:

    > The main problem I see with linux is the lack of commercial programs.
    > Unfortunately for some stuff there is no way around it. For commercial
    > quality image/video processing for example there is no alternative at
    > the moment, or places where you need to be able to show reliability
    > certificates, which cost quite a lot with free software. Sometimes you
    > also need some to be legally liable if something goes wrong when running
    > critical systems, and that costs money.
    > I think that whats holding linux back from the home market is mostly
    > that people tend to stay with the preinstalled os they get with the
    > computer, since replacing it is usually to daunting for most users. Also
    > linux currently has a name as a hard to install/configure/maintain for
    > geeks only os. To get it into the home market, it needs to change its
    > market image and arrive preinstalled to change the market share.
    >

            I think this is well said. The fact is that, in my opinion, most people
    would be able to work quite satisfactorily with a good installation of
    KDE or Gnome, at least as well as with Win98. Where Windows has Linux
    beat is a) the OS comes pre-installed which just plain makes it easier,
    and b) there really is good consistently (not perfect, but good) between
    the way the start menu is configured from install to install. This is in
    contrast to both KDE and Gnome, where the K or G menu comes up with a
    mess of programs, not well organized into logical categories and
    submenus, and often with menu items created without the programs
    installed (for instance, a "Games" submenu even though I never install
    the games programs).

            The lack of good commercial apps really is a problem that we open
    source zealots don't want to acknowledge, and the reason it's a problem
    is very straightforward. While I think we would all agree that the
    quality of the Linux kernel, X, KDE, Gnome, etc is at least as good and
    often better (like the kernel) than the equivalent components in
    Windows-land, the fact is that many of the apps that we use regularly
    are not as slick, polished, or feature-rich as similar programs in
    windows land.
            I think that this is largely because while some of he large projects
    (kernel for instance) have many developers and a a fair number of those
    developers are working full time on Linux under the auspices of whatever
    Linux or non-Linux company sponsors them, a large number of the other
    programs that would be mighty useful for the Joe-Desktop-Windows-95 user
    are written by one guy in his spare time trying to hold down a day job -
    and it's just plain hard to get a lot of quality programming down in the
    odd hours between when the kids are in bed and when I need to go to bed
    myself to be up the next AM for my real (non-computer) job.
            Here's an example: digital photography. Kudos to the gphoto team aside,
    so far I've only been able to find ONE application that handles the
    highly useful task of importing digital photos either from a digicam or
    from jpg files on disk and displaying them in a photoalbum kind of
    interface, and that program is unfinished and sparse compared to similar
    programs for Mac or Windows systems. [Aside: This is not intended to be
    a poke at the guy writing this program, far from it - I wish he could
    work on it full time so that I could get it to use!] For the Mac you get
    iPhoto, the "definitive app" in this category; for windows there are
    many options including the highly rated Adobe Photoshop Album. But
    nothing at that level for Linux. The difference: the programs for
    Windows and Mac are developed by companies devoting teams to this
    full-time, so no wonder they make faster programs. Heck, if we could get
    as many people working on "lPhoto" for Linux as there are on the
    kernel...

            Another problem Linux faces is that frankly too much choice is as bad
    as too little. Having competing desktops, while often put forward as a
    advantage (choice is good), is fine if you are an enthusiast who likes
    experimenting with KDE, Gnome, Windowmaker, Blackbox, etc until you get
    just what you want, customized the way you want it. But for Joe-Desktop
    buying a computer, even having to choose between K and G during his
    standard Dedhat install is just a decision he cannot make - so he goes
    to Windows, where no choice really is a better choice. Having
    development efforts all focussed on ONE really good, fast, well-written
    desktop (with an advanced config mode for those who really really really
    want to customize the appearance and function of every last pixel)
    would, I think, really help Linux move onto the desktop.

    nl 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Andrew Malcolmson: "Re: Sid CD fails as apt source"
    Loading