LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions
User Name
Password
Linux - Distributions This forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on... Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-23-2009, 11:13 AM   #1
perkunas
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
A quick thought how to make linux desktop OS better


Had a quick thought how to make the desktop OS better.
why not offer a premium version of the OS with things pre-installed
Its much easier to delete programs you don't like then try to install them. I'm talking about things like flash java wine ect that most people use, and spend hours trying to figure out how to get working. Especially if you are running a 64 bit OS (what a pain). Then you can leave the basic versions for the propeller heads that like that.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 01:10 PM   #2
camorri
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Somewhere inside 9.9 million sq. km. Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.1, 14.2
Posts: 5,187

Rep: Reputation: 526Reputation: 526Reputation: 526Reputation: 526Reputation: 526Reputation: 526
Quote:
Then you can leave the basic versions for the propeller heads that like that.
I guess that makes me a propeller head. I've been called worse.

I think you need to understand some things. Some of the code you mentioned is not open and free, ie Flash. It is proprietary, so there are ownership things involved. Java is installed on some systems, but not all, and not what Sun supplies.

There are a lot of apps pre-installed with default installs. I use Mandriva. I had to install Flash, like most other users. Part of using linux is to learn how things work, and to manage your own system. It does take some time, but is well worth the effort, at least I think it is.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 02:48 PM   #3
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
The biggest problem here is that "the desktop OS" in the Linux / OpenSource world is not one entity---there are hundreds out there, and each one does things a bit differently. some of them come very close to what you are suggesting-----take a look at http://distrowatch.com to see some of the diversity.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 03:03 PM   #4
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkunas View Post
Had a quick thought how to make the desktop OS better.
why not offer a premium version of the OS with things pre-installed
Its much easier to delete programs you don't like then try to install them. I'm talking about things like flash java wine ect that most people use, and spend hours trying to figure out how to get working. Especially if you are running a 64 bit OS (what a pain). Then you can leave the basic versions for the propeller heads that like that.


Heh, that's funny :\

What's a "propeller head"!? *I'm still laughing, that's a funny term*

There are quite a few Linux OS's which, as far as I know without doing a load of research, have things like Flash, Wine, and Java installed, OR have them very close by, like on the install disc, or within a few key-strokes or relatively simple commands to the package manager.

Compared to that popular closed-source OS from Redmond, even a "propeller head Linux" is pretty fully stocked with goodies right out of the box!

Plus, I don't know if it's really fair to say that "most" people use those things. Surely "many" people use them, but many do not. Sure, if you want to watch you-tube videos, see internet ads, and play Windows games you probably want at least two of those things.

You're using Ubuntu by the looks of things. Maybe the 32bit Ubuntu would be easier to install this stuff on, if it isn't already in there?

Sasha

Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 09-23-2009 at 03:05 PM.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 03:11 PM   #5
linuxpokernut
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware 14
Posts: 237
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 59
You're already running Ubuntu, its pretty easy to get all the things you need. Once you know what you're doing in any distro I guess its pretty easy ... Anyway the answer is indeed licensing. For example, wine is pretty run of the mill until you download directx for it, which is from what I understand completely illegal. I think the file that makes your dvd player function is illegal in the US, the wmv codec is owned my microsoft etc etc.

Last edited by linuxpokernut; 09-23-2009 at 03:13 PM.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 04:50 PM   #6
perkunas
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 10

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Sasha
"There are quite a few Linux OS's which, as far as I know without doing a load of research, have things like Flash, Wine, and Java installed, OR have them very close by, like on the install disc, or within a few key-strokes or relatively simple commands to the package manager."

"Exactly", i think the ownership thing is a bit of a red herring,heck its already being done, and there is a million ways around it.
The big problem comes when we all move to a 64 bit OS trying to get things like wine to work is like pulling teeth (i gave up)sure i could go 32bit but y?. I have 8 gigs ram only 3 would be used and my processor is optimized for 64bit. Kind of like only using half of your computer. The more people use it the faster things get fixed. Oh ya package manager doesn't work most things need major tinkering to get them working hmm i wonder if windows 7 has that problem.
P.S.
Yes I'm using Ubuntu
Peter

Last edited by perkunas; 09-23-2009 at 04:52 PM.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 04:51 PM   #7
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 4,064

Rep: Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkunas View Post
why not offer a premium version of the OS with things pre-installed
Isn't that 'sort of' what Ubuntu does? (Not the premium version part, but, if you take the defaults, doesn't it just assume that you want openOffice, Firefox and a few other bits and pieces.)

So is your suggestion that there should be a distro like Ubuntu that makes even more assumptions about what you want as a 'default' set of applications? Or is it, more specifically, that you'd like to pay for the distro and the rather literal quid pro quo is that it should include paid for software?
 
Old 09-23-2009, 04:57 PM   #8
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkunas View Post
The big problem comes when we all move to a 64 bit OS trying to get things like wine to work is like pulling teeth (i gave up)sure i could go 32bit but why?. I have 8 gigs ram only 3 would be used and my processor is optimized for 64bit.
The above is not true, or at least, not accurate. The 32bit kernel with PAE can address much more than 8Gib of RAM, and certainly more than 3Gib (I myself had no trouble using 4+ Gib on 32bit Slackware).
See here for basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

As for Wine, if you REALLY need that much Windows software, either install Windows in a VM, or install Linux in a VM inside Windows. For some folks, these really are the best solutions.

Quote:
The more people use it the faster things get fixed.
That's a good point; I can't argue with it from experience nor based on fact, but theoretically, it's true.
Quote:
Oh ya package manager doesn't work most things need major tinkering to get them working hmm i wonder if windows 7 has that problem.
If the package manager doesn't work, or doesn't work well, then Ubuntu forums or UbungZilla would be the place to let them know what's not working

Kind regards,

Sasha

Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 09-23-2009 at 05:12 PM.
 
Old 09-23-2009, 05:08 PM   #9
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by salasi View Post
So is your suggestion that there should be a distro like Ubuntu that makes even more assumptions about what you want as a 'default' set of applications? Or is it, more specifically, that you'd like to pay for the distro and the rather literal quid pro quo is that it should include paid for software?
That bold part is very important -- Linux is free, and Linux does not get in bed with other companies to a degree that necessarily allows it to use, include, or have always perfect functioning of, 3rd party and/or proprietary software, as is the case with MS. More specifically I should say, the 3rd party companies don't necessarily get into bed with Linux, to that extent.

And PS - MS+Windows has their share of problems, which IMO, more than compare to any equivalent sorts of problems one might experience on Linux wrt installing 3rd party stuff, etc.

Again, Linux is free -- we don't have 10000 well-paid staff in every major country, working around the clock to make stuff as compatible as can be; therefore, you (the Linux user) has a little more work to do sometimes, to get stuff just the way you like it! If you put in the effort and time, I say from my own experience, Linux will reward you; and it will never lock you out of your machine or tell you that you need new fancy hardware just to boot up

Just my two cents

Sasha
 
Old 09-23-2009, 06:35 PM   #10
perkunas
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 10

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
sasha
lots of good points didn't know that much about slackware except that i was told that it still wasn't as good as running a 64 bit OS
modern processors are opptimized for 64 bit, 32bit seems like giving up to me. Don't you want to be the 1st person on the block with a colour TV, my problem is that they are still transmitting everything in BW lol
Well its really not as bad as all that.. it seems the commercial versions of wine works fine, VM is always a possibility and i have got everything else working."3rd party companies don't necessarily get into bed with Linux, to that extent"
well maybe there is a bit of a problem there?.id be willing to spend a few dollars on a linux clone version of Microsoft streets and trips for example.
Anyway got to go bye
TNX
Peter

Last edited by perkunas; 09-23-2009 at 06:38 PM.
 
Old 09-24-2009, 07:30 AM   #11
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 4,064

Rep: Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrapefruiTgirl View Post
That bold part is very important -- Linux is free...
I was trying to find out which of those two things the OP was suggesting; both have their drawbacks, and I wasn't trying to suggest either of them particularly as the way forward, just trying to direct analysis on the one that the OP was suggesting, whichever variant that was.

Quote:
...Linux does not get in bed with other companies to a degree that necessarily allows it to use, include, or have always perfect functioning of, 3rd party and/or proprietary software, as is the case with MS. More specifically I should say, the 3rd party companies don't necessarily get into bed with Linux, to that extent.
Prior to RH splitting off fedora, with the knock-on effect on SuSE, getting a distro with 'paid-for' components had at least a path to market. You paid for the desktop copy of RH/SuSE and theoretically they could pay for additional bits and pieces their customers demanded, and include them (its not really what 'Linux', whatever that is, does, it is what the distros do).

Presumably, if a big player buys 100k licenses for a codec, they get it at a rather more advantageous price than if you or I try to buy two.

At one time RH used to take an 'only FLOSS' position (although I also remember them including Metro X) for their own software, but, the point is, that this model would allow them to include proprietary bits if they though that it was of advantage to do so. I think that, theoretically, you can still buy an OpenSuSE boxed set, but I don't know of anyone who does (...this is a bit of a pity as the included books are really quite good...) and I don't know where you'd get one (back in the day, PCWorld always used to perform the vital function of stocking old releases (!), but I haven't seen anything Linux there a couple of years now).

These days, if you want a 'big name', paid-for distro, you have to buy an enterprise distro from one of the same players.

There are smaller players (Xandros, that used to be nice, is that still active? and some of the 'disguise Linux as a cheap clone of XP' distros?). So the 'paid for' desktop distro model has more-or-less died, with the exception of the enterprise variants. And, without that paid-for stream, the distros can't really offer the 'including these paid-for bits' variants, unless they have some other income stream to finance it.
 
Old 09-24-2009, 09:05 AM   #12
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by salasi
I was trying to find out which of those two things the OP was suggesting; both have their drawbacks, and I wasn't trying to suggest either of them particularly as the way forward, just trying to direct analysis on the one that the OP was suggesting, whichever variant that was.
Just for clarity sake:

I understand you -- I was just quoting what you wrote, to provide further explanation to the OP -- I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting what I think you might think I thought you were suggesting -- and hope I haven't caused any confusion!

Best regards,
Sasha
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
share desktop with 20 clients thought web browser Felipe Linux - Software 1 12-29-2008 11:26 PM
LXer: 10 quick tips to make Linux networking easier LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-16-2008 03:00 PM
Slackware, I thought it was a desktop.... :King_58: Linux - Newbie 2 11-30-2004 05:10 PM
I thought Desktop stabu LQ Suggestions & Feedback 0 04-24-2004 09:47 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration