[SLUG] What do people make of this: Why Linux isn't ready for desktops

[David Webster]

Stephen O'Neill wrote:

>
>Well, I think he makes a lot of sense. I don't think that the article
>was really too much about being ready for the desktop, it seemed to be
>more about how to make linux appeal to windows users. If linux wishes
>for vast numbers of linux users to switch then yes, improvements need to
>happen first to make the transition possible.
>
>That's what I think anyway, oh and yeah - apps really do need to be
>easier to install to appeal to a wider audience ... this week, for the
>first time, I gave up trying to install an app and run a free windows
>app under wine. Shameful, but there you go.
>  
>

The package/library management thing is an issue which is becoming of 
less of an issue with tools like apt-get.  But I think the thing is that 
Windows separates the developer and user layers of the OS,where as with 
Linux the line is much closer to the surface.

>However I did disagree with him when he started to push down the line
>that linux should essentially have the same interface as windows, but
>just be different under the hood - windows only got 'my documents' a few
>releases ago, and it's only with XP that it seems to actually mean
>anything, so why should linux use that terminology by default? Why hide
>users from settings/preference differences just because windows does?
>  
>
Apparently Microsoft is dumping the 'my' prefix in Windows 
Vista/Longhorn.  Now that's irony.  Maybe they'll change to 'Microsoft 
owns your PC with DRM's Documents'