|
Paul Murphy, in his recent article on ZDNet (referenced below), asked if desktop Linux was "stuck on stupid"... Is desktop Linux stuck on stupid? by ZDNet's Paul Murphy -- What really scares Microsoft is innovation, not copy-cat desktops. If you want to see the kind of visceral hatred fear inspires, check out Balmer's antics over Google
I don't think I agree with him, though I understand what he's saying. His main point is that he thinks Linux spends too much time copying Windows and OS X and too little time coming up with its own desktop innovations. While I do believe that being merely a "copycat" will not benefit Linux in the long term, there are a number of reasons why this can be a good thing...
For example, we know that part of helping Linux win the battle for the desktop is that it must be a relatively smooth transition for users from other operating systems. Making the transition from a UNIX OS like Sun's Solaris to Linux is a relatively easy and painless move, since Linux and UNIX have much in common. Making a transition from Mac OS X to Linux would be a bit tougher, since the interfaces are somewhat different, but because Linux has a "relatively standard" GUI, that transition isn't as tough as it could be. Similarly, because Linux has "borrowed" ideas from the Windows interface camp, it's a fairly smooth transition for Windows users as well. Thus, this concept of borrowing interface ideas from everyone else isn't such a bad one. It will actually help Linux because it makes the transition less traumatic. In fact, what Linux needs is a shade more of this re-invention of the wheel before it starts going off in a different direction. Consider Mac OS X as a sort of benchmark. Apple has gone far out of its way to hide the fact that there is anything UNIX about OS X from the casual user. Things that would require lots of command-line tinkering around in many UNIX variants are simple GUI operations in OS X (e.g., the NetInfo Manager functionality). Linux could help attract casual computer users by adopting these sorts of interface innovations. I'm not suggesting that Linux should go quite so far as Apple in hiding its "UNIX-like" features from the user, but rather it should be possible for a casual user to do anything in the "basic to intermediate" difficulty level from within a GUI. Advanced stuff (as in OS X) might still require command line interaction, but the command line ought to be able to be a "last resort" for users who prefer to use a GUI. Also, I'm not so sure the Linux desktop doesn't have some great innovations. For example, Red Hat FC4 (and maybe others) ships "out of the box" with a virtual desktop feature enabled. This is a lot like having multiple monitors attached to your system without having to buy the additional hardware. Windows doesn't do that. OS X doesn't do that. And it's quite useful. And that's just one highly visible example. Could Linux's desktop interface be more innovative? Sure. Would that draw legions of users to it? I don't know. Even if Linux somehow magically had the slickest GUI and most productive user interface right now, I'm not entirely sure that would make it any more popular against Windows or Mac OS X. That's because there are still some tricky bits to be worked out, like software installations where dependencies are always "automagically" resolved (like they tend to be on OS X and Windows), hardware drivers are available soon after the hardware hits retail shelves, and most importantly, the applications users need and want (and the files they use) work seamlessly (and I mean TOTALLY seamlessly) between Linux, OS X, and WIndows. With a few exceptions (there are always exceptions, it seems), people don't use a computer for its operating system. They use it for what they can do with it. If you want to play the latest games or use the more popular business applications, you want WIndows. If you plan to do lots of graphics and video work, you want WIndows, OS X, or maybe SGI. And so on. Right now, all that can be said for Linux is that it's cheap, it's not proprietary, and you can "kind of do the same sorts of things you could on Mac OS X and Windows within certain limits and if you're willing to put up with some little nuisances here and there" (e.g., WINE works, but not for everything). Though users may complain (like I do) about Windows and Mac OS X, those operating systems "just work" (at least most of the time) and (again, most of the time) don't require much technical sophistication to make them work. Linux is getting very close in this regard, but it does still have a way to go, in my opinion.
Related Blogs:
Related Links:
|
