it is 2002, do you know where linux is?

[shen]

i saw an interesting ad for HP yesterday. it names about 10 different companies that "get their computing solutions from the new HP."

the interesting part for me, was that at least 8 of those 10 (i wouldn't be surprised to find this true of all 10) used HP machines running Linux.

now i am not shocked that the ad didn't mention this, but i am shocked that 1) i noticed it and 2) they listed that many Linux using companies in one ad. one more sign that Linux is the accepted solution for just about everything but the desktop? and how far off can the desktop be?

[robbie_n]

If you read through this section of our archives (http://www.tuxreports.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=&topic=1&allstories=1), you'll find opinion pieces that will tell you that Linux on the Desktop is an impossible dream, others that say it's "almost there" and still more that will argue that Linux on the Desktop is a reality here and now.

I believe that Linux on the Desktop has arrived, sort of.

Let me clarify that. Desktop Linux can be divided up a number of ways. I usually go for two major areas: hardware compatibility and usability for the end user.


Hardware support

I try to compare the current state of Desktop Linux to Windows NT Workstation (http://www.microsoft.com/ntworkstation/) in 1996. Its hardware support is at a similar stage of development - and vendor support is just as lousy.

That said, Linux supports a diverse range of consumer-oriented peripherals. Hundreds of printers, scanners, mass storage devices and other odds and ends work flawlessly, and Linux supports most major video and sound cards with little difficulty. Hardware detection for supported hardware is excellent, and driver installation can be as easy as with Windows, depending on the distribution in question.


Usability

While Mandrake still focuses much of its advertising on the installation of Linux, the real test is afterwards, when the network administrator, tech-savvy child or other benefactor is no longer around to sort things out. KDE 3.x is a mature desktop environment, but the fragmentation of desktop applications with their different APIs and toolkits frankly confuses a lot of consumers. Red Hat's often-reviled BlueCurve is a brilliant move in the right direction in this area - badly implemented, maybe, but a necessary beginning nonetheless.

The issues of multiplicity aside, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla 1.1 and Ximian Evolution make an excellent alternative to Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook for a lot of users. Power users who need specialized applications (I use FileMaker Pro, for example) will still need to use Windows, but for the majority of consumers, who just write the occasional letter, check their email and surf the 'net, Linux on the Desktop can already be a reality if the hardware in question is compatible.


Distribution wars

There is only one Windows. Like the plethora of Linux distributions, the teeming multitude of Linux distributions is confusing in the extreme. Which one is really Linux? Or, more pertinently, which one will fulfill the needs of the individual consumer? Answering this question in general terms provokes religious arguments for some reason, so I won't go here. Suffice to say that for "old hands", Libranet (http://www.libranet.com/) is probably a worthwhile contender, and for new users, either Lycoris Desktop/LX (http://www.lycoris.com/) or LindowsOS (http://www.lindows.com/). For corporate users, Xandros Desktop (http://www.xandros.com/) beats the competition hands down at the present time.