I'm new to Linux and so far only seen Suse 9.1. But I've been around since CP/M on 2MHz Z80s and 128kb single sided 8" diskettes.
I had a great deal of difficulty getting my head around Suse. I installed it only because I wanted to run two applications:
1. Firebird RDBMS server for some Windows based (where all the customers are) client application development; and
2. Subversion source code repository served via Apache2
To cut a long story short, I got Subversion and Apache going and I have to thank this list for helping me when I was about ready to apply a rusty razor-blade where it would do the most good. Firebird is still a work in progress but not a Linux issue.
This is my newbie take on Linux ...
Linux (or maybe I should be saying Unix or SuSE - forgive my inattention to detail which doesn't interest me) was developed by technical gurus to be a very powerful server. For them, performance was and is everything.
Following advice from this list I studied the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard so I could maybe get a handle on things. I learned that *nix/linux (not just the FHS) is entirely aimed at sysadmins who need to keep servers up and performing to the max. Period.
New users will become Linux gurus or fall by the wayside according to darwinian self-selection. I'll probably drop off the perch before I learn enough. Linux sux unless you are prepared to devote considerable brainspace to it. Compared to being "competent" in Windows it's a different place. No comparison.
This discussion should really be about KDE versus Windows not Linux versus Windows. Don't want to offend any Gnome users out there, I haven't even seen Gnome. Anyway, that is the comparison which mattters.
The first thing you need if you are going to take market share from Bill Gates is a strategy which begins with seeing things the way they really are rather than the way you want to see them. That's a reasonable definition of sanity :)
Begin with a name. KDE is a marketing black hole. Gnome is a better gname only if the marketing ploy is gnu-based. But even so, Gnome sucks too. Apple is brilliant but it is taken.
Windows the GUI has successfully blurred the distinction between the operating system and the GUI. Linux as the OS should be in the background; the GUI (whatever GUI) should be in the marketing foreground. There should be a boot level 6 where you never see the Linux OS booting up - instead you should see your favourite photograph and a progress bar.
I reckon the time is right to launch a sharply named GUI to compete with Windows. Longhorn will be released too soon - under the direction of the accountants who need to keep the shareholders happy. It will generate heaps of bad press. Windows users are all savvy nowadays. They know what Bill is like. Just give them something they can hang their hopes on.
The big selling point for the GUI is that it runs on Linux which is brilliantly stable and forever being improved and tested by millions more users than Windows is tested by. It is secure and comes out of the box to reveal a fortress against the vandals who understand Windows so well.
Everyone needs at least one server and that gives you another marketing point for the (you do need a name!) GUI is that it interoperates with Linux servers just naturally. Finally, it also interfaces with all the legacy Windows systems out there.
Bottom line for me is that SuSE Linux is a server not a workstation. To be a workstation it needs a snappily named GUI with simple apps and simple documentation aimed at my simple clients. They are the ones you need to convince. Not me.
Regards
mike
Ok, number one, I have always been led to believe that Linus Torvalds developed Linux (not his name but given that name by the later developers) as part of his university course. It was first and foremost developed as a secure and stable operating system in a similar way to Unix but for running on IBM compatible PC's. Please, say if I'm wrong. Next, Linux doesn't really need to worry about market share as it is free at it's core. SuSE, Mandriva (formerly Mandrake) and others charge for a packaged, convenient form of Linux. If one of these companies went out of business tonight Linux would still be there. As long as there is one person writing code and developing the OS it will always still be there. If M$ went out of business tonight the OS (WIndows in all of its flavours) would be dead unless somebody bought the (astronomical) rights to it to continue development. So Linux users don't have to worry about 'market share'. Yes, it's very nice that more and more people are using Linux but that's all really. It would no doubt make a difference to us users if say 50% of the PC users in the whole world used Linux as the hardware manufacturers would suddenly find that they had to develop drivers for Linux. They'd no doubt charge for them but that's another debate. As for naming of GUI's? What? Does it matter if a GUI has a snazzy name? Not to me. A GUI is there as an interface to the OS (the command line if you like but that's simplifying it) and as long as it works for me then I'm happy and don't care if it's called 'My Warty Mother in Law's Eyes' onto the Desktop'. :-) -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR