214 karma · joined August 9, 2009
Why not make it OS agnostic, like a PC? They can still limit support to the original OS (like many PC vendors). It seems they just making it hard to root because that's the way they've always done business - and change is hard for them.
Most importantly, probably something we haven't yet thought of.
On Windows, you may need to go to dozens of vendor sites to get software updates - each with their own update procedure (in addition to the Windows update itself). This process alone is probably responsible for many Windows infections, as it's hard for end-users to tell what's 'normal'.
There's also a difference in the user base. Linux desktop users, by definition, are more technically knowledgeable and experienced - they can install an OS. As trivial as it sounds, most people are not willing or able to do that. The willingness to learn what's necessary leads to better practices.
I was hopeful when The Guild became popular enough to get funded by Microsoft. Then again when Joss Whedon, a major producer/director/writer, created Doctor Horrible (and it became profitable). Now, with an actual 'television' series perhaps we're finally going to see the beginning of the transition to online distribution?
Fingers crossed.
I assume they have their reasons, and as a free service they have no obligation. It's still annoying for the user community.
If OLPC hadn't forced the issue, no one would have cut their manufacturing costs and margins to this level.
The Netgear WNR3500L with DD-WRT firmware is as close as you're going to get for a reasonable price (about $100 USD).
Edit: The feature list for DD-WRT is here:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/What_is_DD-WRT%3F#Featu...
For example: "A script to estimate the time at which a process will complete".
I skim through several thousand RSS/ATOM feed entries each day; unless the meaning is clear and interesting to me, I usually don't waste time trying to decode it.
http://www.makershed.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=43
It's probably the easiest and lowest cost way to get your hands dirty.
I have seven different computers (x86_64, i686, ppc) and I don't have to install any drivers.
What does that tell us? Just as much nothing. The fact is that Linux supports more hardware (as of about 2007) than any other OS. Feel free to Google it yourself.
And when you say Linux, what distribution? I use Fedora 12 at the moment (the on-screen text is beautiful); there are over 300 active distributions.
Keep in mind that a Windows or Mac is pre-installed, with the drivers for the specific hardware. If Linux were pre-installed, why would you expect otherwise? Have you ever seen an end-user try to install a retail copy of Windows (missing drivers)? There's a reason people pay Geek Squad $150 for a Windows re-install.
At this point, I don't think there's any technical reason that Linux on the desktop/laptop/netbook/smartbook wouldn't fly.
End users never see a command line in mainstream Linux distributions, anymore than they do with Windows 7 or Mac OS X (though power user still use them). Applications are available from a nice point and click GUI, very similar to the apps marketplace on smartphones, making software installs a snap.
Linux now has the best hardware support of any OS; hardware that doesn't "just work" is kind of rare these days. There's no driver installs, making the end user process even easier.
Since smartbooks will be the next big push, Linux will have an early advantage, as it did with netbooks.
All that said, unless more vendors start offering and promoting pre-installs, Linux on the desktop will not be mainstream. No one (expect we few) installs an OS. If viruses take over a machine, they take it to Geek Squad and pay $150 for e re-install. That's just the reality, just as most people don't do their own car maintenance anymore.
The single largest failure of Linux (which I use exclusively) is that it has no serious marketing. 99 out of 100 people I encounter have never even heard of it, after all these years. They know Android and Tivo and Google and Sharp and all the other brands that run Linux under the covers, but they have no idea what it is or that it's something they can use on a computer. I understand that the free distribution model doesn't lend itself to paying for marketing, but there isn't even a way to contribute towards advertising. The only thing Linux has is word of mouth.
The ability to create custom Linux spins and even full system software thumbdrives make drive failures / system recovery much less impacting. It also makes "ready to go" installations a snap.
* Close to upstream, for early access to packaged software,
* Security is a primary concern: SELinux by default, Firewall by default, PolicyKit, Exec-Shield, Compile Time Buffer Checks, ELF Data Hardening, Restricted Kernel Memory Access, Stack Smash Protection, Buffer Overflow Detection, Variable Reordering, etc.
* Complete transparency of the distribution (including open sourcing all software they create for their internal processes),
* I prefer PackageKit/yum/rpm,
* They contribute heavily to upstream, as part of their process,
* They drive the development of a lot of the software other distributions use (NetworkManager, D-Bus, PolicyKit, PackageKit, ConsoleKit, HAL, SELinux policy, PulseAudio, etc.).
Those are some things that come to mind.