What GNU/Linux REALLY needs to replace MS Wind is

NOT:
EASIER package installs.
Package installs are VERY easy. In Debian, I can download virtually any program I would ever need with one command.

NOT:
DEPENDENCIES to be handled.
On the best distros, dependacies have been handled, and they've been handled for several Years.

NOT:
GUI installer.
The current installers we have are Incredibly easy. They are better than any other OS, period!



Here's what it REALLY NEEDS:

PREINSTALLED.
To be preinstalled and in every Bestbuy other computer store in the country. When you buy a new car, you don't take it to be repainted. Similarly, 99% of people aren't going to replace MS XP with GNU/Linux on a new computer. It must come preinstalled. (Micheal Roberts and Linspire have made great strides in this area and should be commended highly.)

BOXED SOFTWARE.
Photoshop for GNU/Linux(with a little picture of tux on the box). When people walk into a computer store, they want to see software made for THEIR computer. If the only Boxed Software they see is MS, then that leads people to believe that Very Little Software for Linux exists. They can see and touch the software(so to speak). "Boxed software" has a psycological effect on people.

NATIVE GAMES.
Wine is Not gonna cut it! Most people can barely set Wine up. People want commercial games, and Companies need to know that GNU/Linux users WILL PAY for software. They need to know that we're not a bunch of freeloading bastards. Whether you like UT2K or not, buy it for a Microsoft using friend or relative. Support the companies that support GNU/Linux games!

You know, I actually agree with you one hundred percent! Well said.

I thought this was gonna be one of those stupid threads but yeah, nicely put. Except boxed software, while I see where you're coming from then you pay for packaging when I could just be sitting it home typing in 'emerge gimp' in my aterm

he's going after marketing..

shiny boxes.. less expensive.. cause all you're paying for is packaging and documents..

exposure tho.. could happen

I don't think too many people will disagree with this, but it really comes down to companies supporting linux. And it could happen.

Hasnt Apple been doing all these things with MacIntosh (maybe cept the last one very well)?

Anyway, to be honest I dont know how ready the average person is for linux and to be honest, I dont necessarily want them to be ready.

I still run my windows box from time to time (have some engineering apps that arent available in linux) and to be honest I am very happy with it. Never have any virus problems, dont really get any spyware etc. On the other hand run a 3rd party firewall, use Opera as my web browser etc, am careful of what I do.

Meanwhile, my friends here at school can use their windows for about a week before they complain about something or another. I just envision them with linux for about a week and can picture them deleting / or not keeping it up to date. I think a lot of your experience with your computer lies with you as the user. Also, (maybe I am cynical), but I feel the AVERAGE computer user is an idiot. Sure there a number of users that would benefit from not using windows, those typically can go buy a mac and 90% of their problems are solved.

Would it be cool if there was a distro of linux so easy that it could basically replace windows to the average person? Yes it would be, but there are macs for those people too.

NOTE: Dont think I equate mac users to idiots here... I used to use one back in the day and would still if I could cough up some cash to buy one.

i think you have a point. linux might not be "better" because it is actually "better," its just better because its so complicated.

if you know what im getting at...


as for apple doing them, not really.

like you said PERFECTLY in your last line, macs are waaay too expensive. and like it or not,one of the biggest uses of computers is gaming. windows is in first place, linux is a distant second and apple is brining up the rear.

i think THE killer app for linux would be directx. with that, EVERY_SINGLE PC game can be easilly ported to linux. and because of the superior performance, adoption woud be very fast.

now all we need is for microsoft to invest millions of dollars in creating directx for linux...

Personally, I think this post is correct... marketing is really what Linux needs. As for the DirectX thing, OpenGL takes DX by miles... this just needs to be realized by game manufacturers, and games will be easily ported to Linux (Doom3)

care to explain how?

and its not something game manufacturers need to realize. it has nothing to do with which technology is better. its all about using MS technologies for MS's OS.

Yeah, 'cept I don't care for Proprietary software or Vendor-lockin.

I prefer GNU/Linux. I value freedom of vendor and freedom of support. I'll buy a hundred Linspire or Xandros machines before I buy one Macintosh.

Please don't tell me you're one of these, "I'm 3l33t because I use linux/bsd, and if more people use it, then that takes away from my l33t-ness."

Because I hate people like that.

Magazine : Linux Format
Issue : January 2005, No 62
Page 7

France's Ministry of Finance converting 100,000 desktops to OpenOffice

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of thing Linux needs
and the kind of thing Microsoft fears most

live long and prosper
floppy

I prefer games in OpenGL as opposed to DirectX...
The rendering feels substantially "smoother" in OpenGL as opposed to DX, and this is aside from OpenGL working in Windows and Linux, whereas DX only works in Windows. It seems as though this would be better to write things in, as it increases potential client base.
Keep in mind I'm not much of a gamer (I prefer to use my computer as a learning device), but what I have seen of games, OpenGL appears to outperform DX.

. . . the umpteenth thread with the same topic?

OpenGL is quite different from DirectX. DirectX is a complete API, it has not only layer support for graphics, but also sound and general input devices as mouse, keyboard and joypad, while OpenGL only render graphics. You need then use a second API to make OpenGL useful, as SDL, for example. Needless to say, DirectX is less painful to work with, it's better documented (all we have good on the net about OpenGL is the Nehe tutorials, which is very difficult to understand in first place).

Then, there's SDL, it has even worse documentation than OpenGL. The good ones I've found are in german... and I can a bit of German, but reading a tutorial is overwhelming.

So, basically, that's why games are written in Windows:

- DirectX is very practical, complete and it is well documented, unlike OpenGL (and thank god, go' ol' English);
- Windows Integration makes it easier to develop. If you have Visual Studio, just download DirectX SDL and start coding. They all work nicely together.
- With all very integrated, huge user base and good documentation = faster game development = less expensive production
- Since most of users already have Windows installed, many developers find it quite pointless to invest cash in another Operating System.

Well, this is how I see the situation though

OpenGL vs. DX is a fun topic. However I have found games that use DX look a lot better then OpenGL although Doom 3 seems to be the exception. However DX is a total gaming solution in whcih input, sound, and 3d is all controlled through DXwhile Open GL is more limited. With the amount of power available to gamers now days people more or less favor looks over speed. Thus Doom 3 being capped at 30fps or 60fps.

As for the main topic I agree. However thats pretty hard to do. First unless the hardware manufacturers decide to support Linux it won't be preinstalled anytime soon. On top of that MS has a lot of clout in that manner as by being MS exclusive companies like HP and Dell get larger discounts for the OS licenses. So you would need to convince the computer builders that by doing this they will in fact earn more money.

THese guys are in the business of making money if they make 2000 linux boxes a year and ship them out to retailers they have to pretty much be sure as hell that many would be bought. On top of that the retailers will want to know the same thing. Who the hell will buy it? Given the fact that the Lindows based PC's that walmart tried to sell failed miserably retailers will be pretty reluctant to try that again.

There is a lot more to this then simply preinstalling the Os and selling the machines. With a low potential market, reluctant retailers, and MS pressure its going to be hard to be preinstalled on machines people typically buy. Also you WILL need to make it more user friendly and fix the things that you said don't need to be. Why? Because PC builders like to limit the amount of calls tot heir tech support centers.

Also MS office is really important. Almost every company uses MS office. it is a very powerful office suite and wether or not you like MS or what you think it is pretty much the defacto standard of the commercial area. People who use MS Office at their place of work will probably use it at home as well.