I just installed 10.04 on an HP mini (using it now). Is the server edition that far behind the curve or are you just being conservative?
BTW, I frikkin love Ubuntu. It's going to seep into the market quietly over the next couple/few years. I'm so glad to see Gates and Jobs having some of their market taken away, even if it's only a couple of percentage points.
If you use Ubuntu as a notebook/desktop, check out Guake if you're unfamiliar with it:
If you use Ubuntu as a notebook/desktop, check out Guake if you're unfamiliar with it:
http://guake.org
Meh. Guake doesn't look that special to me. I can't see anything there that Snow Leopard's terminal doesn't do. Not that SL's terminal is so special either.
But this reminds me of a complaint I have had for years about Linux: they use repulsive and nonsensical names that absolutely repel those who might switch to Linux. Guake sounds like the lizard people from Planet X. Or a gay version of Quake.
Linux will never go anywhere until it adopts common descriptive names for its basic utilities. Like "Notepad", "Terminal", etc. Grandma and Cousin Jed are never ever going to run a program with a name like Guake.
The Linux folk are nerds and think these obscure names are wonderful. Well, maybe for nerds. But I'm pretty nerdy and I don't like these names either. They're just flat-out annoying. This is a major reason for the failure of Linux on the desktop, along with the ongoing rivalry and issues surrounding the Gnome versus KDE desktops and libraries (hey, Linux guys, pick ONE!).
As far as the geeky names go, the problem is that Linux with it's vast open source development base, has a dozen different software packages available for any single application need, and simple names like "notepad" just aren't available.
As far as the geeky names go, the problem is that Linux with it's vast open source development base, has a dozen different software packages available for any single application need, and simple names like "notepad" just aren't available.
I think they could adopt a convention of designating a particular app version as the official standard and giving it a decent name. I also think that Linux will never succeed as long as there is a divide between the Gnome and KDE camps.
User interface design really is no longer any kind of rocket science: just pick one and relegate the other to legacy support. It doesn't even matter which one you pick; just pick one.
If you had a system like this for Notepads and Terminals, then a new geeky-named competitor (fork or new project) might over time become more popular, then every few years they could choose to go to the new Notepad program. Let's face it, every system has Notepad programs. Some proliferation of names, often for obscure features, isn't that desirable. And just how extensive or subtle can a Notepad or a Terminal really be? This isn't actually a major divide that moves the hearts of men, causes people to kill each other, determines which computer system a person chooses to use (in the case of Linux, which computer system they choose not to use largely because of this endless confusing proliferation of minor versions of almost identical software).
You need continuity of sorts to succeed. Then you have more books and magazine articles to tutor and promote the various packages, you have users who become knowledgeable about a standard utility and can help others.
As I've said, this is one of the biggest single defects in any plan for Linux to conquer the desktop. If you're satisfied with obscurity (or if you purposely desire it for various reasons) then the current Linux practices are the way to go.
Linux needs to finally become a platform, in the same sense we use those terms towards Windows and Mac OSes.
Linux needs a way to standardize their APIs and utilities but keep the open-source nature of the Linux system.
Linux is weaker as an OS because of the divided effort and duplicated effort of so many teams, especially Gnome vs. KDE. I know some people would fight to the death over the two but that is legacy stuff. Both are more than capable enough and the division in UI development harms Linux far far more than it can ever help it. I'm on Mac instead of Linux largely because I actually like having a standard set of utils that everyone else is using. I also like that OS X, unlike Linux, actually is a UNIX 2003™ certified OS. This is one reason why it was fairly easy to change the Pinguinite install script to produce a working P forum on the Mac. (I should remember to email that script to you just in case anyone else asks for it.)
Of course, the very idea of standardization offends many Linux users. So I expect total marketshare/mindshare of Linux to continue to decline because of this tendency in the Linux community.
To make my own prejudices clear, I think Linux should standardize on Ubuntu with KDE (Kubuntu). But Ubuntu with Gnome would work too.
What I enjoy about Linux is that I don't have to "just pick one". If I want I can install all the window managers and switch between them at will. Windowmaker is elegant and suits my needs most of the time, Gnome sometimes, KDE if I'm feeling like pretending I'm using Windows for that day. It allows me choice, to suit my whims of the moment. It's an OS geared completely towards individualism, there is no "one size fits all package".
As to "platform", lots of companies use Linux. IBM has even offered an entire Linux "platform" suite of servers that were well received.
Don't forget Enlightenment. A pain to install but it looks good.
I installed it again on a VM a year or so back, thinking I'd finally see why people rant about it. I still don't get it. It isn't that pretty. And is the goal to try to create your very own Vista desktop?
I don't get the proliferation of window managers. Again, window managers really are not rocket science. And there is no reason to pretend that there is any scarcity of system ram or video card power any more; those are inconsequential on any hardware from the last five years. So again, why does anyone really need a variety of heavyweight and lightweight window managers? Why is anyone supposed to care about them? It's about as relevant as debating which flavor of BASIC you have in ROM, namely, none. These kinds of inconsequentials that fascinate a certain segment of Linux users (maybe the majority) are something that harms Linux as a platform.
Pick a window manager, stick with it. Dump the others, stop wasting time on them. If people want a lightweight WM, then offer options to disable the more advanced features of the WM.