Anyone use Linux?

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by joele

You may want to try bibblelabs, I used this for a fair while under linux (gone back to vista recently). Sorry to sound like an advert but it worked great for me and was nice to see commercial support for linux from a good graphics application developer.

There is outstanding commercial software for Linux, where the prices are already steep. E.g,. it's been a good decade for high-end CGI apps, as well as CAM/EDA. But yes, it's nice to see a lower-priced app available.

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by Russell-Evans

If that is your goal, you might as well run Unix Services for Unix 3.5 for the Interix package.

I prefer a GNU basis than UNIX. There are a few components in SFU that are "useful," but for the most part, most are "thrown together." Never been a huge Interix fan at all, especially not for porting (I'd use Cygwin or MinGW).

[joele]

Originally Posted by bjsmith

There is outstanding commercial software for Linux, where the prices are already steep. E.g,. it's been a good decade for high-end CGI apps, as well as CAM/EDA.

Sorry didn't mean to exclude those high end apps, they are just a bit beyond my basic photo editing needs.. In this area windows is spoilt for choice, linux has a few opensource solutions but very few commercial choices..

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

For any Linux/Unix folks who are also forced to use Windoze in their daily routine because you're application-straightjacketed (like me,) consider installing Cygwin on the Windows box - it gives you a remarkable Posix-like environment where you have a full bash shell, Xwindows (including -multiwindow startup option so you can have the windows desktop manage the individual Xterms,) Apache, sshd, ftpd, ksh/perl/ruby/python, etc, etc, etc...

I've written perl scripts to manage a lot of my Windows folders - perl with 'exiftool' can make nice ad-hoc reports about lens usage, link all shots taken by the same lens into lens-specific folders with one command, etc. Very powerful and fun. Do Cygwin.


.

Going the other way works too. Wine runs Photoshop CS2 pretty well. CS3 has issues at the moment but that's likely to change soon. Not sure about Lightroom.

[DaddyO]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Going the other way works too. Wine runs Photoshop CS2 pretty well. CS3 has issues at the moment but that's likely to change soon. Not sure about Lightroom.

True. I am also running the Pentax PhotoLab software under WINE, as well as PhotoME. Both function just as they do in Windows.

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by joele

Sorry didn't mean to exclude those high end apps, they are just a bit beyond my basic photo editing needs.. In this area windows is spoilt for choice, linux has a few opensource solutions but very few commercial choices..

I highly disagree.
Linux has such a mainstay in industry now that vendors cannot avoid releasing a Linux port.
Only where there are political considerations do vendors hesitate.

E.g., Adobe would have the Microsoft "Gold Books" yanked from under them if they released a native Linux Photoshop port, just like Corel did years ago.
Side Note: You can thank Disney for getting Photoshop to run well under WINE, it was their only, major CGI app not on Linux some 5 years ago.

As far as "SOHO" consumers, agreed, Microsoft controls much of the distribution channel.
They even try to muscle out Apple as much as they can.
I don't see Linux breaking into the "superstore" market anytime soon.

But in reality, Open Source is "incompatible" with the "superstore" profit model anyway, where vendors get SOHO users to upgrade every 2-3 years.
All other arguments are "economies of scale," and when it comes to industry applications, it's just as costly on either platform once you move away from SOHO.

[joele]

Originally Posted by bjsmith

I highly disagree.
Linux has such a mainstay in industry now that vendors cannot avoid releasing a Linux port.
Only where there are political considerations do vendors hesitate.

E.g., Adobe would have the Microsoft "Gold Books" yanked from under them if they released a native Linux Photoshop port, just like Corel did years ago.
Side Note: You can thank Disney for getting Photoshop to run well under WINE, it was their only, major CGI app not on Linux some 5 years ago.

I am not sure what you disagree with from my post? I just said that there is more choice for native commercial apps for basic photo processing on Windows than linux (so I apprecaite bibblelabs effort).. you disagree??

OK you admit to lightroom, photoshop and elements, political issues are irrelevant to the end user from the perspective of simply saying there is less choice.. I would have to add to that list rawshooter (though adobe bought this), Capture NX, Capture One, Silverfast, Helicon Filter, PaintShopPro PhotoX2, ulead PhotoImpact, ACDSee Pro, SilkyPix and obviously all the bundled ones from Canon, Pentax, Nikon that all don't run natively on linux.. I wish more would add Linux support, and game developers too, and so I wish to commend Bibblelabs on their effort.

[Venturi]

Originally Posted by bjsmith

...
I don't see Linux breaking into the "superstore" market anytime soon.

But in reality, Open Source is "incompatible" with the "superstore" profit model anyway, where vendors get SOHO users to upgrade every 2-3 years.
All other arguments are "economies of scale," and when it comes to industry applications, it's just as costly on either platform once you move away from SOHO.

I would agree with this, and posit my own opinion that open source software, to a degree, is what is keeping Linux out of the stores. OSS projects like MySQL, Mozilla, OpenOffice and Linux itself as a Server OS work both in the SOHO as well as the enterprise because at their core they are very well funded. And in the case of some you have paid-for enterprise level support.
However when it comes to most other applications there isn't that corporate backing, and as such the software isn't up to snuff with the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and shudder at the thought of being trapped in Redmond's idea of what computing should be. But I acknowledge that I pay a price for my "freedom".

Now look at Apple's Mac OS X. It is actually BSD Unix once you pull back the covers. In a brilliant move they made UNIX a viable OS for the masses by wrapping code libraries, a familiar and friendly looking GUI and robust applications around Berkley Unix. They turned a once scary environment for anyone but a systems programmer in to a virtually idiot proof platform. I mean no offense to Apple users; I'm merely stating that virtually anyone can fire up a Mac (a UNIX machine) and be instantly productive. Nice job, Mr Jobs.

But Linux is still playing catch up and will remain so until Redhat or Novell or a company like them steps in and gets serious about funding application development. Just as an example, of all the photo editing software able to run natively on Linux only three of them can compete at any level in the Windows and Apple worlds: GIMP, Bibble and LightZone. And two of these are not open source. GIMP can and does serve as a viable alternative to Adobe PS for Win users, but it is a very exceptional case. RawTherapee, UFRaw, DigiKam, RawStudio, et. al. are all good and fine applications but in the retail marketplace they could never stand on their own merits in their current incarnations. They simply are too unfriendly from a UI standpoint for the majority of people. If your UI intimidates people they won't use it and if they can't/won't use it they certainly won't buy it.

I'm a big fan of both Linux and open source, but it's a real love/hate fanaticism.

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by joele

I am not sure what you disagree with from my post? I just said that there is more choice for native commercial apps for basic photo processing on Windows than linux (so I apprecaite bibblelabs effort).. you disagree??

I disagree with the phrase very few commercial choices when people think of only the "superstore" model. Once you get past the SOHO aspects, there are many commercial Linux applications, a rather sizable subset of those available for Windows. In some areas of industry,, Windows versions are actually faltering in comparison. They are not SOHO apps, but 4-5 figure applications.

Originally Posted by joele

OK you admit to lightroom, photoshop and elements, political issues are irrelevant to the end user from the perspective of simply saying there is less choice.

But these are applications that get their volume from SOHO users.

Originally Posted by joele

I would have to add to that list rawshooter (though adobe bought this), Capture NX, Capture One, Silverfast, Helicon Filter, PaintShopPro PhotoX2, ulead PhotoImpact, ACDSee Pro, SilkyPix and obviously all the bundled ones from Canon, Pentax, Nikon that all don't run natively on linux.

Again, either bundled or those applications that get most of their volume from SOHO sales, not industrial ones.

Originally Posted by joele

I wish more would add Linux support, and game developers too, and so I wish to commend Bibblelabs on their effort.

Game title companies are pulling out of the PC more and more, so moving to Linux is not going to happen. Loki Entertainment tried and ended up owing more than 7 figures in licensing fees before they went Chapter 7. Heck, open source is becoming more and more of the game development community on the PC in general (regardless of OS).

Again, economies of scale. Where you have economies of scale, you have software you will either find bundled or at the superstore, with regular releases that often only work with certain Windows versions, if not a subset of a version. There quite a number of superstore hardware, drivers, software, etc... that will not run on even the initial XP release these days.

Understand my differentiation. A lot of people commonly use the "very few commercial choices" not realizing when you start talking about software outside the "superstore" economies of scale, and priced 4-5 figures/node, it's quite different. Disney five (5) years ago got tired of having 2-3 computers on thousands upon thousands of graphics desktops, and their sole hold-out was Adobe. So they used WINE and removed everything but Linux, since all of their other apps ran native, and Evolution had developed an Exchange connector (with a Terminal Server login as a fall-back) that removed the only other reason for Windows.

Everyday I see people talk about Linux not having X and not having Y, when it's not true at all. I not only see it, I integrate it for corporations. I've been doing that for over a dozen years now. First it was engineering, then CGI, then financial, now it's taking over the desktop in many industries. I also think people forget that a lot of innovative ideas come out of open source and are in UNIX/Linux applications first, not the other way around. So much so that Microsoft has hired many key Linux developers over the last 5 years to head up new user interface changes. Including several colleagues of mine.

Just last week I was pulled in to do a discovery for a major. household name retail store who is trying to modernize and renovate their in-store customer solutions. E.g., customers who want to remodel their kitchen, including bringing in digital photos. The solutions are out there, and the TCO (total cost of ownership) savings are there, big time, for Linux-based solutions. And that includes when you have both niche, industrial hardware as well as for purchasing advanced, commercial software, which is typically available for both Linux and Windows.

Linux is just never going to cater to the "superstore" consumer. From the hardware vendors wanting to keep their specifications closed so drivers are not perpetual (forcing upgrades with new systems/OSes) to the smaller (and even a few larger -- e.g., Adobe, Intuit) software vendors fearing retribution ("yank the 'Gold Books'") if they release a native Linux port. More and more vendors are officially and purposely building their apps to be WINELIB/WINE compatible, as well as using Mono (open source .NET) libraries instead of Microsoft ones, because they have a rather sizable Linux user-base, but making it WINE/Mono compatible does not cause the wraith of Microsoft.

It's all about the distribution channel, and Microsoft has it. Even Apple has had to deal with that.

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by Venturi

I would agree with this, and posit my own opinion that open source software, to a degree, is what is keeping Linux out of the stores. OSS projects like MySQL, Mozilla, OpenOffice and Linux itself as a Server OS work both in the SOHO as well as the enterprise because at their core they are very well funded. And in the case of some you have paid-for enterprise level support.
However when it comes to most other applications there isn't that corporate backing, and as such the software isn't up to snuff with the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and shudder at the thought of being trapped in Redmond's idea of what computing should be. But I acknowledge that I pay a price for my "freedom".

I agree, but also disagree.

This "isn't up to snuff with status quo" is over-stated. I've been using StarOffice since 1995. It kicked MS Office's ass back then. Microsoft took years to add simple things like HTML export, let alone their document compatibility over years is junk. At Boeing we had to virtualize Windows just so we could run MS Word 97 so we could edit old F-15E documentation for the F-15K.

It (including OpenOffice.org) kicks it now, and even more so once 3.0 hits on Mac. Microsoft yanked the Solver and VBA in MS Office 2008 for Mac, which has never had good document compatibility "sending back" to Windows (coming from Windows ,it's tolerable -- long story). OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9 for Mac is fully Aqua native, and now has a full Solver with a subset of VBA.

In other words, if your corporation has developed VBA, your best bet for Mac users is the forthcoming OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9. People assume OpenOffice.org/StarOffice isn't up-to-snuff because of assumptions of how an office suite is supposed to work or how things are laid out. E.g., in Writer, the Page Format has always been with all the other formats, not "slapped on" into the "File" menu. The differences in Word - Excel - PowerPoint are because they were not integrated applications, unlike Writer - Calc - Impress.

People think open source exists to mock commercial software. NOT! If a commercial piece of software "does the job," the majority of open source developers will use it. Most open source software exists where commercial software does not work the same, or is not available. The developer "scratches his/her itch."

Even the GNOME desktop is not designed to be Windows-like, takes GUI queues from Jobs' NeXT (a few different than MacOS X/Aqua), integrates full CORBA network objects (and, more recently, .NET ones), etc... It was designed to be something very, very different than Windows. That's why it became the commercial UNIX standard as well, because it solves so many things that Microsoft ignored in its desktop.

And not always "SOHO" considerations.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Now look at Apple's Mac OS X. It is actually BSD Unix once you pull back the covers. In a brilliant move they made UNIX a viable OS for the masses by wrapping code libraries, a familiar and friendly looking GUI and robust applications around Berkley Unix. They turned a once scary environment for anyone but a systems programmer in to a virtually idiot proof platform. I mean no offense to Apple users; I'm merely stating that virtually anyone can fire up a Mac (a UNIX machine) and be instantly productive. Nice job, Mr Jobs.

But define "robust" applications? I agree, Apple does a great job at taking code -- from BSD UNIX to KHTML (KDE's HTML in Safari), and supporting open standards. But there are a lot of people running MS Office for Mac and just having a hell of a time sending any advanced document formatting back to Windows users.

I still remember when the "document exchange" between MS Excel 97 for Windows and MS Excel 98 for Mac was "CSV" (comma separated values). Other things still have issues. I know the Mac guys are still pulling their hair out on the 2008 release because Microsoft's own 2007 Windows implementation does not match their ISO documentation. It's one of the reasons it's up for review, because they submitted a standard (an incomplete and under-reviewed one at that) that is not as implemented in their own software.

Originally Posted by Venturi

But Linux is still playing catch up

"Catch up" how? Red Hat refuses to support proprietary standards, that has always been their stance. So support of proprietary codecs and other things aren't in their stock releases.

The modern, skinned "media player" was invented on Linux, among other things. Microsoft even hired several, key open source developers as a result. And that's just one example. Everything else is distribution channel and economies of scale, driven by the SOHO market. Even software installation is a "quantum shift" in difference, as Windows lets you install any trojan you download without much fuss.

In the Linux world, those "troublesome" and "bothersome" tasks to installing software are part of that whole, "Do you really want to be stupid or not?" question.

Originally Posted by Venturi

and will remain so until Redhat or Novell or a company like them steps in and gets serious about funding application development.

Again, distribution control and economies of scale. Microsoft controls both, and heavily.

Now in the case of Novell, enough of Microsoft's Partners finally complained enough that MIcrosoft was forced to engage Linux vendors. Their partners had too many people clamoring for Linux. Novell signed. Red Hat refused.

Red Hat's CEO has recently been quoted that he doesn't think a home consumer should ever have to pay for software. It's really about "getting around" those pesky "distribution control" issues. There's also little money in the area. It's better to give it away for free, than to try to support it.

Even Canoncial was recently "shot down" by Dell for its Ubuntu LTS Server, and this significantly hurts their bottom line. I.e., Canonical actually pays Dell to ship Ubuntu on its desktops/notebooks. That's something Red Hat and Novell are not willing to do, for obvious reasons. Shuttleworth's charity can only go so far, he only has so much money.

And it's not sustainable.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Just as an example, of all the photo editing software able to run natively on Linux only three of them can compete at any level in the Windows and Apple worlds: GIMP, Bibble and LightZone. And two of these are not open source. GIMP can and does serve as a viable alternative to Adobe PS for Win users, but it is a very exceptional case.

GIMP is not designed for photo editing, CinePaint is, and has 16-bit channel support. GIMP is a JPG tool, not a RAW one.

CinePaint came out of the Digital Domain (Titanic CGI) and was originally called "Film GIMP." It's improved, but it's still more for the "industrial professional" who wants to script and leverage other "geek" script-fu.

Originally Posted by Venturi

RawTherapee, UFRaw, DigiKam, RawStudio, et. al. are all good and fine applications but in the retail marketplace they could never stand on their own merits in their current incarnations. They simply are too unfriendly from a UI standpoint for the majority of people. If your UI intimidates people they won't use it and if they can't/won't use it they certainly won't buy it.

Again, "too unfriendly" depends on your viewpoint. If you mean "act like the existing Windows application/desktop," guilty! Even Windows users complain about Aqua on MacOS X.

I've known several individuals who never used Windows until they hit college. "Rude awakening." It's all about familiarity. When you grow up only knowing one OS, it's as Scott McNealy said it best a few years back, "it's the only thing you know."

Originally Posted by Venturi

I'm a big fan of both Linux and open source, but it's a real love/hate fanaticism.

For me, it's control. I lost half of my templates and documentation editing when I upgraded from Office 95 to Office 97. I still run into formatting differences between 97, 2000, XP, 2003 and, now, 2007. It's a joke for a corporation to standardize on it, because their documents will be malformed over several upgrades. The lack of Microsoft adhering to their own XML in 2007/2008 is only going to continue this in the future. Boeing was an original standardizing partner of OpenOffice at OASIS for a reason. Most long-standing law and medicine corporations, a 20M installed userbase, still run WordPerfect for that very reason as well, and are switching over to ODF.

The two "biggest holdouts" in the SOHO world are Intuit (Quicken) and Adobe (Photoshop). Intuit would be destroyed overnight by Microsoft if they ship Quicken for Linux, which would have an estimated 10M installed userbase (and possibly just as many for Quickbooks). Adobe has reserved Photoshop as a "WINE compatible" application for the same reason, although the have had Photoshop, InDesign, etc... -- let alone FrameMaker almost a decade ago -- running on Linux, natively, but only internally at Adobe (and select partners). They can't release them publicly, even though they are quite complete.

Again, it's all about distribution control and economies of scale. You don't cross Microsoft. After Corel bought WordPerfect, Microsoft shut them down. Corel unsuccessfully tried to move to an all-Linux approach, but then Microsoft denied them access to the distribution channel. It's not that people aren't asking for the Linux solutions, with paying dollars in the millions of units for several applications, it's that control of the distribution channel and the related economies of scale.

Heck, even Apple would have gone under several years ago if it wasn't for Microsoft's assistance. But that doesn't mean Microsoft is going to allow all sorts of Mac software into Best Buy like it had before Microsoft's control of Best Buy's distribution channel.

Which leaves Linux to the industrial markets where it is heavily adopted -- CAM/EDA in engineering and CGI/industry graphics for the last dozen years, financial and heavily embedded in the last decade, etc... Most SOHO apps aren't on the radar, because the radar is heavily controlled by Microsoft. Just ask Apple.

It's people's assumptions that draw these varying conclusions. The reality of control and focus, especially by Microsoft at the distribution, is what is at work here. If Apple wasn't a Microsoft partner, they'd would have died before the iPod took off. And even today, Microsoft could make it hell for Apple and its iPod if it wanted to, just like Intuit and Quicken. User preference has always been secondary to distribution control and bundling.

Microsoft learned this first-hand in the early-to-mid '90s and hasn't changed its approach since.

[Venturi]

I really don't think we're very far off in our opinions, just looking at things from different angles.

When I say "robust" I'm excluding apps like OO/SO - those are full-blown enterprise apps - and damn good ones. As to Linux playing catch-up, just look at hardware driver support for keyboards, mice, scanners and even fundamental components like GPUs. nVidia has done a pretty good job of supplying tools for Linux for its cards but it still isn't a seamless integration with xorg. Matter of fact Xorg has a long way to go in supporting multi-function mice and keyboards without the user having dig into the configuration files and heavy use of prayer.

As far as application ware, I'm going to stick to photo/image manipulation software as this is a photographic oriented forum. The problem, IMO, with the native linux apps is frankly the UI looks like the front of a Techtronix Modular Oscilloscope. That's all fine and great for engineers and those that like to tinker, but frustratingly complex for those of us (who very well may be extremely tech savvy) that just want to get the damn job done. Do they work? Yes. If you have the time, patience and inclination to tweak everything out, which in some cases means opening up an XML or other configuration file and manually editing settings. I got back into photography in part to get away from my computer, not spend even more time sitting at it.

If you need some literal examples just download a trial copy of LightZone for Linux and compare its UI to that of any of the opensource solutions. I'm a bit ticked off at LZ right now as they have some support issues that need to be addressed; but even with its problems it is light years ahead of the OSS crowd in both form and function.

What I'm talking about is Ease of Use here. And the majority of Linux apps are still far too "geek" oriented to be commercially viable at any level - regardless of who controls what distribution channels. If MS was to implode today, Apple not Linux would rise to the top.

I'm not saying Linux will ever eclipse MS or Apple, or even that it should try. What I am saying is that even with all of its advances over the past five years or so it isn't even on the same continent. The fact is it can't as long as it relies on the under funded, freelance, opensource hobbiest (or bored professional) community to build it - and this has nothing to do with distribution channels.
I use Linux as my primary workstation OS, and have for over a year now, because for the type of work I do (web server backend programming) it makes sense and there are now enough useable tools built for Linux that it is feasible. And I still have dual boot set up for XP on a separate hard drive and run VirtualBox as well. But if I wasn't an IT guy I'd still be running XP because despite its failings there are literally ten times as many options for software and hardware.

[bjsmith]

Originally Posted by Venturi

As to Linux playing catch-up, just look at hardware driver support

Again, "superstore" hardware tends to be problematic where vendors not only refuse to release specifications for drivers, but they are often licensed from 3rd parties.
Those 3rd parties are then not going to release specifications, because they want the OEMs to come back to them for drivers.

Result?

The exact same base hardware having different and incompatible drivers between OEMs under Windows.
Under Linux, 1 driver rules them all, and things are far more compatible.

Countless network MAC+PHY combinations in Windows have countless, fragmented drivers.
I even ran into a case where Toshiba had the wrong driver on their web site for Windows, although it worked flawless in in Linux.
In fact, I used Linux to get the actual firmware info so I could get the correct driver from Intel for Windows (bypassing Toshiba's incorrect download).

The entire USB stack in Windows is a mix of incompatible vendor implementations, whereas the Linux stack is a "clean" harmony of inter-working drivers.
I do not want to see this non-sense duplicated from Windows to Linux.

In fact, a lot of Windows USB drivers for countless hardware is version specific and time limited, whereas Linux drivers are perpetual.
What you want is every little nick'nack hardware you get at the superstore to come with Linux support "out-of-the-box" when the problem is the hardware vendor, not Linux.

In fact, HP finally "woke up" about 3 years ago and realized it is cheaper to leverage the subsystems built into Linux than it is to outsource its Windows drivers to 3rd parties.
Microsoft provides so little to base input, printing and scanning on, and that's why 3rd parties provide so much.

Again, "superstore profit model" -- in Windows, there's plenty of non-sense to "fill in" whereas in Linux, the subsystems for input, printing, scanning, etc... are already provided.
That's why you get lots and lots of superstore hardware that stomp on each other in Windows, etc... where you don't in Linux.

Once someone discovers the little vendor id/model strings required to "recognize" the superstore hardware in Linux, it often works "as-is" without much fuss.
The problem is tracking all of those stupid little OEM off-shoots of the same hardware, with their non-standard, 3rd party licensed software interfaces.

Again, 100% "superstore" problem, not Linux.
And some vendors, namely HP, are "coming around."

Originally Posted by Venturi

for keyboards, mice,

Huh? I've found keyboard/mouse support to be better in Linux, not just against Vista, but XP.

Originally Posted by Venturi

scanners

Scanners are largely software-only. But even in that case, SANE is superior to TWAIN. SANE is a complete scanner subsystem -- from GUI to network scanning. TWAIN is a bare-boned API that is not complete. SANE is available for all platforms. TWAIN is largely Windows-only and vendors products stomp on each other when you have more than a few devices.

Again, the root cause is Microsoft not providing real subsystems with support, and 3rd parties stomping on each other.

Furthermore, several vendors are now providing SANE support (which works on all OSes), saving a crapload of money on 3rd party licensing fees. No GUI and other components to license as they would have to for TWAIN. A few of the Chinese/Taiwanese conglomerates are now "getting on board." It all depends.

But other vendors don't want to. Why? SANE comes with network-based scanning and other things that they charge mega-bucks for! Why would they want to support something that will take away their other profits, especially when network scanning software is thousands plus dozens per node? Even HP, for Windows, does this, to get you to buy newer OfficeJets -- although if you look, the SANE drivers do work under Windows too. .

Again, politics at work. Educate yourself and you can do a lot with Linux out-of-the-box. The hardware support is often there! Just because the vendor doesn't give you a fold-out card and an installer in Linux doesn't mean that a Linux system won't auto-detect and use the hardware automagically! Red Hat's kudzu is pretty good at finding new hardware at boot, including scanners, and GNOME SANE and other support is pretty good.

It's been awhile since I've had to "manually" configure anything in Linux when it comes to scanning. The only "troublesome" hardware are the printers and scanners that use the simplistic Windows GDI. If you're using the Windows GDI for your printer/scanner support, you deserve the issues you get in Windows on their own -- seriously.

Originally Posted by Venturi

and even fundamental components like GPUs.

Huh? nVidia pretty much makes most of its margins on high-end Linux workstations and server chipsets. I can't help it if Intel keeps screwing up their chipsets and GPUs with little hardware changes that break backward compatibility, but nVidia has been outstanding. ATI has also been very good.

Originally Posted by Venturi

nVidia has done a pretty good job of supplying tools for Linux for its cards but it still isn't a seamless integration with xorg.

That's an IP issue, one that involves lots of patents. nVidia originally "opened" its driver almost a decade ago, and got cease'n desist letters from Intel, Microsoft and SGI.

Even Windows ships without support for the latest GPUs, and you have to load drivers. Now I think you're complaining more about "pre-installed" v. "user install" issues that are not Linux. I.e., ever try to load Windows XP on a new system? Driver hell.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Matter of fact Xorg has a long way to go in supporting multi-function mice and keyboards without the user having dig into the configuration files and heavy use of prayer.

Apparently you haven't used the GUI tools. Also, don't confuse "flexibility" with "usability." Just because Linux ships a lot of capabilities that are flexible doesn't mean you have to use them all.

E.g., Samba (a great example of this) lets you emulate just about any Windows Server version and finely tune any parameter, but you can set it up in a "stock" configuration -- like a Windows Server -- with a simple GUI. Again, don't "mark off points" on Linux for adding more options when Microsoft does not.

I have no problem using multiple keyboards, mice, etc... on the root X-Server (:0.0) without configuring jack. If I want to have multiple X-servers running, yeah, I have to dive into that. But since when does Microsoft offer the equivalent? Even Terminal Services has its limitations (and is hardly designed for "end-users").

Originally Posted by Venturi

As far as application ware, I'm going to stick to photo/image manipulation software as this is a photographic oriented forum.

Then send an e-mail to Adobe DEMANDING they release Photoshop for Linux, like over 10,000,000 users have done. Most of the major programs already have Linux ports, you just can't get them, because of the political non-sense. Adobe is still trying to work a strategy on Photoshop so they don't piss Microsoft off. Until then, they officially support many end-users on running Photoshop under WINE, even though they don't broadcast it.

Originally Posted by Venturi

The problem, IMO, with the native linux apps is frankly the UI looks like the front of a Techtronix Modular Oscilloscope. That's all fine and great for engineers and those that like to tinker, but frustratingly complex for those of us (who very well may be extremely tech savvy) that just want to get the damn job done.

Funny, I've heard the same said about Aqua from Windows users. It's all about familiarity.

Have you ever met a teenager who has never used anything but GNOME? They'd say the same thing about Windows.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Do they work? Yes. If you have the time, patience and inclination to tweak everything out, which in some cases means opening up an XML or other configuration file and manually editing settings.

Huh? Dude, I have to go into the registry under Windows far more than I ever have to run GConf in GNOME. Again, I think you're confusing "flexibility" for "usability." Yes, Linux lets you tweak all sorts of stuff. But how often do you do it? Better yet, does Microsoft really provide a GUI for everything?! Not! Heck, you often have to search for advanced management tools for Windows or hack the registry as well.

Again, don't confuse "flexibility" for "usability."

Originally Posted by Venturi

I got back into photography in part to get away from my computer, not spend even more time sitting at it.

I would not run Linux if it was a "pain in the ass." I don't sit around installing or tweaking it, I use it -- 100% from the GUI for my daily usage.

Originally Posted by Venturi

If you need some literal examples just download a trial copy of LightZone for Linux and compare its UI to that of any of the opensource solutions. I'm a bit ticked off at LZ right now as they have some support issues that need to be addressed; but even with its problems it is light years ahead of the OSS crowd in both form and function.

I thought we were talking "commerical software" for Linux? Quit switching between the two to fit the argument.

Originally Posted by Venturi

What I'm talking about is Ease of Use here. And the majority of Linux apps are still far too "geek" oriented to be commercially viable at any level - regardless of who controls what distribution channels. If MS was to implode today, Apple not Linux would rise to the top.

The majority of people use Windows, and assume Linux is "geeky." If you ever meet someone who has never used Windows, and only Linux, they would say the same thing about Windows. I have known several now.

It's all about familiarity. E.g., I prefer "focus follows mouse" instead of "click to focus." There are countless, other usability differences.

Originally Posted by Venturi

I'm not saying Linux will ever eclipse MS or Apple, or even that it should try. What I am saying is that even with all of its advances over the past five years or so it isn't even on the same continent. The fact is it can't as long as it relies on the under funded, freelance, opensource hobbiest (or bored professional) community to build it - and this has nothing to do with distribution channels.

It has everything to do with distribution channels, pre-installation, superstore hardware and software, etc....

It's the entire reason why Adobe Photoshop has not been released for Linux!

Originally Posted by Venturi

I use Linux as my primary workstation OS, and have for over a year now, because for the type of work I do (web server backend programming) it makes sense and there are now enough useable tools built for Linux that it is feasible. And I still have dual boot set up for XP on a separate hard drive and run VirtualBox as well. But if I wasn't an IT guy I'd still be running XP because despite its failings there are literally ten times as many options for software and hardware.

There are grandmothers running Linux.

Just because you can't walk into the superstore and buy any piece of hardware or software is not a "usability" issue, it's a "distribution control" matter. Don't confuse the two. Hardware support in Linux is actually better than Microsoft, because of all the subsystems provided by Linux whereas Microsoft leaves to 3rd parties.

That's why you have device conflicts and ophraned hardware with no updated drivers in the Windows world. It's the superstore profit model, with OEMs, 3rd party drivers and related non-sense. Lack of standards is a huge issue in Windows, where hardware and software vendors have to "fend for themselves" when it comes to standard APIs.

At some point, vendors are going to grow tired of the costs. But for now, for SOHO consumers, they are willing to upgrade and re-pay to do so every 2-3 years. But for industry, that's not viable or feasible at all. That's why Linux is taking over. Once that happens, home users will start running what they do at work, for work.

[joele]

Originally Posted by bjsmith