I know why it fails as a Desktop Operating System. And it's probably one of the best reasons. Anyone can sit down and learn an operating system over time. It doesn't even matter which operating system it is. The thing that screws Linux royally is the fact that there are so many different distributions to choose from. I ask of you, how many of you can really sit here and tell me for a fact that you know, which of these Linux Distributors are a real big company with a lot of backbone and most likely future development that will hopefully not go under in say the next ten years? Now put yourself in the position of a general consumer that doesn't know much about Linux at all. Maybe not even that much about computers too. As soon as they ask someone about Linux and someone says it can be difficult at times, they automatically get turned off to it. So what shines through to the general consumer? Microsoft does of course. And sometimes Mac OS. Microsoft is the big player because we all know how Microsoft started and how it has blown up to a information domination machine that it is today. Now compare that shiny XP or Vista box on the shelf to your favorite flavor of Linux. Which do you think the consumer would choose? Especially after they figure out there are pretty much endless versions of Linux out there, all made by different people!

The general consumer has absolutely no idea what they are getting themselves into. They do however know for a fact that Microsoft has been around the block for a while now and will probably continue to do so. When people buy expensive things, they buy it for the future not just the present. It's like buying a car from the dealership. You wouldn't buy a brand new car without a warranty would you? Exactly. Wait, Linux does have some perks doesn't it? Indeed it does. Some are put out by semi-large companies, it's just now that the consumer has found a big companies, how do they know they even have money to really help the consumer if there are problems? Microsoft does. Everyone knows it. You see the commercials, you see them knee deep in everything technology. And Mac is the runner up. It's like trying to sell a Buick when there is a Porshe sitting right next to it.

I don't like Microsoft, I don't even like windows. Linux is my all time favorite operating system followed by Mac OS. Microsoft is the worst thing ever put breathe into. I urge *everyone* to at least try Linux. And not just *try* it. Install it on a pc you have as a spare and use it. I mean really USE it. If you just get discouraged try harder and *learn* something for once. Nothing is going to fall out of the sky and into your lap. Everyone had to figure something out at some point on their own or maybe with a little tutorial, and so can you. I think one of the biggest threats to Linux itself is that users stay with Windows while they play with Linux. And because of this as soon as they run into a dead end they hop back on their Windows box and never look back until they think they are ready to try something else with their Linux box. Come on people, spread the Linux!

 

 

 

Reply

You are right there with most things. Like that the problem is with consumers but there is also problem with the linux itself it is just not so nice and it is certainly not user friendly.

And most common users are having problems with Linux and they would never switch from windows because with windows you click here click there and if you don't destroy your system you probably get what you searched for. but with linux you have to sit down and type and then learn a bit more programming and then type again and so on. you can see rreally whos got advantage over here. That is problem, and I think that is the biggeest problem of the linux. Because people just turn their head away when they see it.

And with linux distributions I think they are in fact plus for linux because they are mostly compatible between each other and I wont to say programs are usually compatible at least they were those who I checked. And this is plus because potential user is able to choose from vide variaty of products it is like going to supermarket and then buying there several types of chew gums while microsoft still offers only one and it will stay like that however. Problem is that microsoft is also brand name and in the western culture brand name means really a lot.

On the other hand most of the microsoft profits comes from the united states and the problem here is that in the united states Linux is considered some stupid European thing which wants to depreciate their domestic brand.

 

 

 

Reply

Seriously. Do your homework before posting.

Yes, Linux is on average harder than Windows. Why? Because people have been learning to use Windows for years. I used Windows when I started using computers, and used Windows at school in my first computer classes. We are born and bred, as the saying goes, into a completely Windows environment. And you are surprised that it takes two days to install a driver (shadowx)? Did you try that kind of thing two days after the first boot of Windows? Hell, no!

"The plethora of distributions"- what's wrong with that? I personally like Ubuntu best - and by no means have I tried every distro out there - other people like Fedora Core, yet others are even more advanced users and use Gentoo. You just need to find something that you like best. Not really that hard.

that hurts. It makes me wonder whether you actually figured out about the repositories. It's a great thing that no commercial OS will ever have, simply because of the way their marketing strategies work. You can update the system from the repositories. It's not hard - in fact, it notifies you when updates are ready, even with an annoying little pop-up if you want it to. The only possible reasons you would want to re-compile everything installed is
a) You swapped processors to something drastically different, in which case the processor would most likely fail to operate at all
You are re-compiling the entire system instead of just updating the core, in which case I would like to take this opportunity to label you i. sadly misinformed ii. extrememly lucky that you actually managed to compile a system. However, after recompiling everything, all the programs in the repositories would be updated, so you wouldn't have to "recompile" anything.

"Until these factors are resolved, there is no way anybody can even think about Linux competing with Windows for the desktop market. Only in dreams."
Linux isn't competing with Windows. How could it? What does, say, the Ubuntu foundation, gain from me using Ubuntu. Nothing. Yes, there are distros that aim to take market share away from Windows, but so long as Windows doesn't bother Linux (see: DRM), I think you will find that the majority of Linux users are content not to bother Windows. I'm happy with Ubuntu. Why should I care what everybody else uses. Treat it the same way you do freedom of speech.


First of all, there is perfectly good documentation for all distros of Linux that have made much of themselves. It's the user's responsibility to inform themselves, rather than having the OS give you all the information at once, when you don't actually need it (see: force-feeding). You have to understand that Linux is not a corporate adventure, and that the configuration, settings and methods of use depend on a usually small group of people who are making things the way they like them. So, since people have different tastes, different flavours of Linux have appeared, and since they are different, not everything in them is the same.
Normally, however, unmounting a thumb drive is as simple as right-clicking the icon that appears on the desktop and clicking eject. Not hard.

"You have to give windows the credit, they've set a, more or less, a good standard for operating systems, security problems and other things aside." yes, it has. It has enabled people who do not want to put effort into learning anything to user computers for various tasks. As they say, "It's gone from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of terminals that tell them what to do and how to do it."
Even so, I'd strike out the "good" in that.

Why? I set a download going overnight, and in the morning I have a new OS ready to install. No black magic, just navigating the distro's site. Larry Ellison once said something about the senselessness of software in little card-board boxes. He also, coincidentially, said "I hate the PC, with a passion" in the same sentence, but I'm sure the two have nothing to do with one another (see: sarcasm).

"Maybe if some hardcore linux coders programmed some automated installers it would help the masses to adopt it." There have. They are the funny-looking things that appear when you boot with the CD for the first time.


That says more about the intelligence of the tech people than it does about Linux. As you have correctly noted, it is nothing do to with Linux when your Windows install breaks (see: redundant), in which case you should have the brains not to mention Linux. For Linux, in case you hadn't figured it out, nobody employs idiots to try and help people that are smarter than them solve things if anything breaks. We use the forums, making use of the knowledge of those with more experience.

"Also I would like to say what I have read in one PC magazine is the thing that in windows they are actually using linux based system although a bit adjusted for their needs. So that says much about windows and security. Why don't they use their own software"
I wish you had a few more details about that. See, the roots of windows were laid ages before Linus Torvalds started linux. If you are not talking about the core OS of Windows, then things like additions to Vista in regards to functionality bear strong resemblance to the GNOME window-manager, eg the "waiting" cursor (which appears rather too often), the way you toggle sections in the open/save boxes, the way you enter the administrator, aka root, password - the screen even dimms! - and so on. I tried a copy of Vista Ultimate for a while, but even in that short time I was rather distressed at the extreme rip-off. Damn good thing I hadn't actually paid money for the thing!

Configure your ISP? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard so far. You don't configure your ISP. If you have dial-up or something, you configure your computer according to the settings given to you by the ISP, but most people have a modem and router in between, so nothing at all is done that relates in any way to the ISP.

"The newer versions have made it simppler to install applications but for that you need an internet connection. A fast one at that."
What can you download on Windows, Mac, Unix, *BSD, Solaris, or ANYTHING, without an internet connection. Or do you buy every single app you have ever used in a little cardboard box? In that case, stick like hell to Windows. No-one in the FOSS communities ships their programs in cardboard boxes any more.


Ten years? Seriously. That's if you want to invest your fortune in stocks or something. What does it matter if development stops tomorrow if I have a good operating system installed? The software is still yours

"Now compare that shiny XP or Vista box on the shelf to your favorite flavor of Linux. Which do you think the consumer would choose?" Mine! That's why I have it. Of course, I realise that not all "consumers" are ready to digest the amount of information needed to set up something like this, but still. I think that with your argument strategy, it might be a bit more effective to say that 98% of home computers come with Windows pre-installed, and that most consumers have no idea what an operating system is, or heard of linux.

You are looking for help about some random issue, right? Why are you looking for money? Ever heard of the "Wealth of Knowledge"? That's something no Linux forum lacks.

"linux itself it is just not so nice and it is certainly not user friendly." That takes me back to my first point. How long have you used Windows. How long have you used Linux? I'm sure most people posting in here have at least tried some flavour of linux (if they haven't, they should run as fast and far as they can while they still have a life) but I'm not convinced that all of the posters have actually taken the time to use Linux until it became a routine. Until you not only know the power of linux, you realise it, you understand it.

I'm not completely sure whether I'd compare Windows to a Porsche, but I get the message. It's all a matter of taste. Personally, I would hate to have a Porsche, since you can't use it for anything useful, for fear of screwing up the paint or something (the Porsche-Windows analogy wasn't so bad after all, it would seem...). I also just don't have that kind of money. And I'm sure as hell not paying for a nasty OS like VISTA (fyi, vista means chicken in latvian. I found humour in that.)

"click here click there and if you don't destroy your system you probably get what you searched for. but with linux you have to sit down and type and then learn a bit more programming and then type again and so on["
I get the impression you are referring to the process of searching either for a file on your system, or perhaps information in general. For files, in most GNOME configs, it's "Places -> Search for Files... " or something similar. Not sure about KDE, but I'm sure it's something simple like K -> Search. No programming involved. For other info, I would use google, or the help files (which, by the way, actually contain useful information).


I see you are from Slovenia, so I don't think you should be saying what people in the US think (no, I'm not from the US either, I live in Norway). I don't know what the truth of this is, though I plan to investigate the matter this summer, and before that I will hold my general opinion concerning the US firmly to myself, unless I'm ranting about it specifically. (btw, have you seen the latest Vista sales in China. You should Last time I checked, they were at around 250 XD )

I guess there should have been some final point, somehow explaining why I took the time to do all this typing (and no, I won't sue anyone if I get RSI because of it), but there is none. Besides, of course, the chance to say that:

YOU
ARE
WRONG

and I am always right. This time I'm just even more right than usual (Quote: Linus Torvalds).

Sorry I did not put all the quotes in quote boxes, there appears to be a limit... :-?

Further reading: "Linux is NOT Windows"

Thank you, and good night.

Reply

elrohir: w0w. Now THAT's a burning argument. Although you could have been a little nicer on that, it is edging on flaming

To be fair, synthetix is right as far as it comes to the user impression. Most people just WANT THE DARN THING TO WORK.
They don't care how much they have to pay for it to happen, but they want their word processor, games, and internet running
preferably with as little hassle as possible. Options only confound an ignorant public. Plus linux doesn't have that much publicity
to the general populace (at least here, NO ONE should start flaming over a dumb thing like that, accept it as a fact.)

Plus, thanks to those idiots who indeed don't have a clue about linux, the general public stays confused and ignorant because
when they DO have a problem they don't know how to fix it. Yes, there ARE forums and they're the most useful things in the world,
but that's not something you'd figure out on your own uberfast because you're not used getting others to help you freely in a
proprietary OS mentality. At least, not with the system itself. The idea that you pay for OS support is practically indoctrinated into you.

Umm... a friend of mine got a copy of RedHat 7 (back when it was still supported) at WAL-MART. 2 YEARS ago.
They're already in shops. At least, where I'm around.


THEY know and WE know because they actually do. If you buy a copy from a major linux distro , they usually include
support with it. With Red Hat and such, the philosophy is that they sell the services, not the operating system.
Try it out sometime, you might be surprised.

Oh, come now. The words were ISP Client. It's a standard problem that everyone has starting with, even on Windows.
Let's not be that hard on the guy.


Ok, now this is something I definetly know. I live in the infamous superpower of the world, I know the general impression of linux.
And here it is: "huh?" Most people have never heard of it. Mention it and you'll get something like "what's that?"
Mention it to someone of the general populace that DOES know, and they'll think it's something for people who are pretty good with computers
because that's where they've heard the term. People who have heard of it but don't know much think of it something that "elite" computer users use.
Add that to the reinforcement (NO THANKS to the US media :sarcasm:) that "hackers" use linux, and it sounds like something you want to stay away from.
(Even though you'd think that "hackers" use linux for a reason.)

The point is that people on this side of the Atlantic are so ignorant of Linux that they've never heard of it, nonetheless know that it came from Europe.
They think football is some European thing, thank you very much. (I play it too...) We have no "OS-nationalism". Not all of us are idiots.
But Linux? Try saying that again in Latin? No one really likes Microsoft either, but a viable alternative isn't that obvious.

@elrohir: some of these guys sounds like the type of people who've ventured around with different linux distros and has become confused because of the
variation in types of bugs and features. Yes, they are wrong on several points, but lack of know-how is generally the FIRST reason someone uses a desktop instead of
consoles in the first place. When you and I think that our package manager's retarded, we pull up the console and then "apt-get" or "emerge".
We do the same thing with scripts. And it's so easy and flexible when we do so. But most people don't know. So when they DO have a problem
the GUI interface can't handle, they're stuck. If we EVER want people to accept linux as a good desktop system, we have to let them be able
to do everything in easily explained terms through the desktop. Read: a good desktop system. Windows sucks as a performance os, but it
keeps getting better and better with the desktop. And telling people flatly that they're wrong only makes them more frustrated with Linux and
the Linux community. The second part's the one that counts more. In order to use an OS at its par, you should feel that you're part of the os community.
It's psychological as well as technological things that count. Remember, it's the posts back to Linus asking for improvements that made Linux what
it is instead of some experiment for two months. We can't forget that, otherwise the idea of Linux as a whole is meaningless.
And there are a lot more people out there that want to try but really have no clue how to and just end up frustrated. They get turned off that way.
And WE CAN'T AFFORD FOR THAT TO HAPPEN because Linux is a movement, not just an os. It's people like these guys we should be listening most to.

Reply

I stand... not quite corrected, but something close, anyways. I'll blame it on the time of night it was when I posted....

It is, isn't it... Hope nobody took offence. (Do I need to add a little :snigger; here?)

Another thing I should have thought of is:



Do "we", as linux users, really want Linux to become mainstream? Dell are starting to release computers with Ubuntu preinstalled, but my first reaction was not good. Is is really a good thing that Ubuntu is on it's way to commercialism? Even if the Ubuntu devs don't seem to have much to do with it...

Fails? Linux does not fail as a desktop operating system. My computer runs it. Technically it's not a desktop, but my mum's computer runs it. Nothing has "failed".

All fault lies with the user. And I won't stand corrected on that one.

Well, isn't it? You call it soccer, so football must be european? No, wait, you have the football where you pick it up all the time. At least, I assume that you were being international when you called football football (appreciated!) ?


That's still covered by the modem -> router, before going into the comp. (And just so you all know it, most of the networking hardware available has some cut-down barebones of linux installed on it.) I'll take the "configuring of ISP client" to mean connecting the computer to a network, which yes, can cause some oddities.


So you're saying that Linux should be made easier, simpler... etc, just because the people who have spent two days with some random distro can't spend a couple weeks getting into it? That just doesn't figure.

I'm not going to argue anything further... I just hope a couple people took the time to read that article I linked to. It's pretty famous, by now, and I really think it gives a good explaination.

-E

Reply

Depends. How much do you want to be flamed?


I don't think that 'we' really want Linux to become mainstream right now. Maybe later when we have an intelligent and self-aware computer public that won't go crazy over having to go through a few lines of code, but we're a while away from that. Eh... commercialism's always a mixed blessing (Christmas! yay! ... pardon me, I've come straight out of testing, can't think straight)
We'll have yet to see if Ubuntu really is "commercializing" that much and the results of it.

Fine, I won't argue that point because I agree on its validity. (And how uber KDE is.)
But - when compared to ease of use in comparison to Windows and Macintosh it's not at the top.
Agreed, some of the desktop schematics are just so that the average elephant can understand them, and linux assumes that the user has a brain.
But still, we can't say that the desktop is one lf Linux's best points. The community? Sure. Our kernel? Definetly. But our desktop? Umm... when KDE and GNOME merge.

"All fault lies with the user." Heh. Your point's valid, but the egocentric user won't believe that. Besides, who's everything made for?
Yes, we develop for ourselves, but I'm sure gcc's used by more than the gcc people. There are people who use it and will never know the internals of that code.
I prefer to call them users. And what do we do when we have a bug with it? Do we work around it using some crazy manipulation or do we just patch it away?
So far development's edged on the latter. All fault does lie with the user, but given enough users making the same mistake, it's time to make some edit to at least save time.

--Digression--
Ah digression, the god of everything interesting. I'm from outside this nation. I call football football and have been doing so since the age of two.
I don't get the whole "soccer" thing really. The type of football played around the world came from the styles of Great Britain, hence it's "European" in descent if not in current nature.
Urgh... Chelsea should have recieved that penalty. (Just came back from seeing the game against Arsenal, anyway...)
Also, if any mods are reading this, I think a digression tag's in order. DON'T EAT ME.
--Digression over--


Good God no. That's not my argument. There's a Linux for Dummies series and I think it fits its niche quite perfectly.
Sounds like you've made a strawman argument from what I've said, but eh, I'm getting back to my point.
Going back to my little philosophy, when enough people complain about the rock on the road, it's time to remove it instead of making everyone go around it.
I'm saying if we have to, post a copy of The Linux Newbie Administration Guide in a standard iso so
that the n00bs don't have to go posting on forums. Saves our time, prevents their frustration, and we get more self-relying n00bs.
I don't know what it takes, maybe a "newbiux" distribution even. All I'm saying is that if intelligent people are getting frustrated with a change to linux,
there's something fixable. Why not at least give it an attempt?
As for the people who spend maybe days on a distro and go on and complain, well, there's not much we can really do for that. But I do understand
how not being able to even ask for help (e.g. not being able to connect to the internet to ask for the help on how to connect...) can be frustrating.
I have no exact mechanism for this idea, and I don't think anyone really does. But what I'm asking is that we try to make Linux more OPEN in their eyes.
NOT easy. OPEN. Let them see a little of what it's all about before they give up on this new random os they try out. After all, isn't the openness what it's all about?

And it's not as easy as you might think. Educating n00bs isnt' the most fun thing in the world and they might actually stumble across something it'd take
advanced users a while to handle. I remember a time when I was just trying out my first distro (Slackware) and I was trying to configure XFree86.
It got so confusing I just gave up. I knew C/C++, had just got into x86 assembly, and kind of knew the console and bash scripting pretty well,
but that thing was so frustrating I just decided to give it up and go to the autodetect distros (turns out it was a serious bug in the ol' Slacky Free86 build)
Now I know what went wrong. - But it took me about two years to figure it out. If a normal Linux user can be frustrated with a system, how much
more can a total newbie be frustrated with it? - He (or she, mind ye politically correct) doesn't know a thing about it.

Sure, we want people to change when they come to linux, learn to adjust and become part of the community, and granted that will happen.
But the community is changing a little and we have to accept that we're getting a lot more of total n00bs asking about this than before.
It's worth a try to help them learn what exactly they're getting into at the least.

Reply

Drivers. Drivers are difficult in any distro. Some devices can't be installed, even if you're a Sudo master *chuckle*. That's my main abjection with Linux.

Reply

Linux needs to have some sort of standardisation among the various distributions. One big problem that many of my friends face in linux is installing applications/ packages. There are too many ways to install a application. There is the debian way, RPM, Gentoo, and the good old source compile. Most of these confuse first time users as they are more accustomed to the next - next - next - finish kind of installation. In windows all a user need is get a CD or search the internet for an application, double click the setup.exe and install it, though some of the windows users still find it hard to do that.
First there has got to be a common packaging system. I personally prefer the debian way. On my Ubuntu, all I have to do is goto synaptic and saarch for the necessary package and check that and install. All dependencies are automatically handled.

Second is the user interface. Mac OS X is also based on Unix system. But look at the user interface. It just rocks. Everything is very easy to do on a Mac. Also their way of packaging is super cool for a newbie. All he has to do is drap and drop the application into the applications folder and it is ready to run. Linux still has a long way to go in terms of UI. Ubuntu is doing great on that part with really pretty interface. SuSE and Mandriva are also equally good. But since Ubuntu I haven't switched over to anything else.
One thing that I like about Ubuntu is the viral marketing done by Canonical by providing free CDs. Come on, who wouldn't want a bunch of CDs shipped to them. Ubuntu is doing a lot of cool improvements in terms of usability. In those days the installation was a nightmare. Now you can put the CD in your drive and try out the OS before you install it.
These are just a few important things to be sorted out before Linux even get a decent marketshare.

Reply

osknockout, I think we are about in agreement, even if priorities lie in other drections. Must be the first time...

insaneinnovations, I can't comment about that, since I have never really had any problems with drivers (closest being installing firmware for my ipw2200 wireless card, which took three completely standard commands).

and now, fslog


I think that you have not realised an important thing about the Linux "marketing scheme". It's not made to be noo-friendly. Sure, some distros try to, the same way some try to be a windows look-alike, most distros are targeted at the people in this world who have some knowledge, and require usaility rather than have a distro that noobs can use without a learning curve. Take Synaptic, for example. It's a lok easier to go


Than it is to navigate through the menus, open synaptic, enter password, search for application, mark it for installation, accept dependancies and finally install it. The keyboard will always be superior to the mouse, the same way the terminal is superior to most GUIs for most tasks. I'm not saming I use the terminal for everything, just that for most things it's easier and quicker. So, not having a fluffed-up GUI by default is derived from the fact that most people don't need one - and of course they can install one themselves if they want. It's all about choice.

So you think that windows installation methods are superior to those of Linux? That's pretty sad. Mac, I can't comment on, since I have never really done anything like that with it, but since it's Unix-based, it pretty much has to be awesome, doesn't it? I still maintain that using the keyboard is more efficient than a gui, though. A perfect example of this would be bash scripting and the ease of creating a routine series of programs using only commands that are available on the system anyways. I understand that not all computer users are capable of understanding something as simple as a bash script, but Linux is made and largely maintained for those who can.
I would agree that Ubuntu is doing a lot for Linux, most of that in terms of popularisation, but it is aimed at people who come into Linux through the window, and I would consequently consider it more of a "gateway OS", if you like, that gives the user a good introduction to the linux world and the experience they need to try other OSes and make an educated choice based on the aquired experience - even if that means stayin with Ubuntu, which I have to say is a very solid OS. It also happens to be the only Linux OS in which the GUI "just works", which is why I still use it quite a bit. That, and the fact that you don't have to go through the hassle of installing a good theme to make it look decent. (see: gentoo) Ubuntu is good in that you don't immediately have to do anything complex, but you can if you want to, once you have the know-how and desire to. it's all about choice

Reply

I would agree with much of that: linux is not going to overtake windows for a standard desktop operating system, because the ease of expanding and compatibility can never compare: It's main advantage would be in the business sector with a group of experienced staff who would be able to preside over it: with several thousand computers, with no game playing: but rather all office applications like word processing or databases or spreadsheets! The cost is far less and easier to maintain, whilst the security is far improved: however the lack of teaching about linux as people grow up has always being the thing that held this back. Since your standard network administrator only has qualifications in Windows and other microsoft products, whilst the user has probably never seen linux in their life: even for just simple things like word processing, where open office can be an adequate replacement whic works identicallt to Word, it is the problem of using something different from "the Norm" which causes the large companies which hold the sway over Microsoft to turn away from using the alternatives

Linux needs to have more compatibility "out of the box" as it is called for the home user: the "click and install" attitude would be so much better and easier to use: I believe Suse tried to implement it. If you need for example a graphics program, you just put in the dvd, type in your search term: so graphics, and click INSTALL next to the Gimp. Easy to use and no seperate installing. This combined with the interbet downloading of programs clearly works better then compiling out of source code: the easy to use setup.exe of windows is perhaps its strongest point, hence why people will still use windows 98 over linux: not because of the GUI. To have a chance getting into the home user market, a linux brand like Suse needs to come forward and convince computer manufacturers that ordinary, non-geeky users will be able to turn on the computer and understand what to do: otherwise people will get windows installed as standard and never consider anything else.

Alongside all of this, nobody would consider using linux if their old printer doesn't work with it, or even their new printer: linux is very far behind on offering support to extra hardware: part of the tight and vicious circle: if they can convince people that linux is the way to go, it would also force companies to offer support and drivers for their products straight off the cd, as opposed to finding some hacked together driver off the internet which only provides limited support: if linux can get itself established in this market, then it stands a much better chance of being widely accepted and perhaps as a result, find its way into the world of standard destktop operating systems

Reply