Linked by Massimo Sandal on Thu 7th Jul 2005 20:14 UTC
Linux Recently in a post on my blog I argued that, despite many claims to the contrary, GNU/Linux is almost ready for the desktop. In particular, I argued that GNU/Linux is already a very good and easy desktop if people just take the time to learn its very basic differences with Windows before actually using it. Note: Don't forget to rate this article!
Permalink for comment 1269
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Linux isn't that bad for desktop usage. Actually, with a little bit of patience, you can tweak it enough to actually use it on a daily basis.

Not necessary to tweak anything with todays modern mainstream Linux distro's.Especially when you have capable hardware.While fortunately we don't like all the same desktop you can alter it's looks and feels according to your desires.I rather wouldn't think of that as tweaking but more the usual configuration like on any OS.

But Linux is far from perfect.

No OS is perfect.And i think it never will while it has to address so many expectations at the same time.

The problem is that most of these librairies are built on top of many other librairies, and as if it wasn't enough, most of the desktop applications use a ton of these librairies.


For the user, it's a Bad Thing. It makes it really hard for them to address issues (Is it a problem with the application? Is it a problem with Gnome? Is it a problem with GTK? Is it a problem with some other libraries?) They are always confused when they encounter a problem.

Not if you have done your work allright as a so called developer.

It's really easy (for the average user) to make the difference between the OS and the applications under Windows/MacOS. When they encounter a problem, most of the time they know where it comes from

It all depends on how exeptions are handled and the way information is given back about what could be one of the potential problems.

Many times i have experienced cryptic mesages given by windows.

You installed a Symantec antivirus program, or another application that installs a kernel driver, under Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 32-bit. After the installation, the computer unexpectedly restarts or encounters a blue screen with a STOP message similar to:

STOP 0x0000007f (0x00000008, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)

Now hat does "Blue screen with "STOP 0x0000007f" error on Windows NT/2000/XP/2003" say to your average user?

Under Linux, it's a bit harder. There's so much things that you never know where to look first. For the average user, it's hard to accept.

First thing to look is if there're any updates avaible.Unlike windows,most Linux distributions also *upgrade* instead of solely patching holes.Secondly you can look on the homepage of the package maintainer if there're similar cases.You can use google,mailing-lists,etc.You could preferrably fill-in a bug report instead of sending a windows error-message back to wherever it goes and guessing at best what's in it.

And as if it wasn't enought (again), there're still speed issues. Ironically, these speed issues are somewhat related to the above problem. Layered systems aren't as efficient as "almost flat" systems. Each layer is overhead.

Sorry,maybe you are a (windows) developer or just has never had the right equipment.I'm running SuSe 9.3 om a
1 GB AMD64 3000+ raid0 dual SATA.I didn't have problems on my previous Athlon XP2500+ 1GB DDR either.Runs as fast as XP (faster,when native x86_64),and still after whatever lenght of time.

A freshly installed windows XP with no updates and only the necesaary motherbord+graphics card drivers is fast.As soon as all the updates and your apps are installed it runs slower eatch other day you use the machine.

Why is the GUI not so snappy under Linux? Is it related to the desktop environnment/windows manager? Some librairies? I guess it would take me too much time investigating it all.

Depends on wether you have a nvidia chipset based graphics card and installed the accelerated Linux driver or not.Depends on the distro you installed.

This is why I said Linux was a bit over-rated for desktop usage. When you put it next to Windows and MacOS, it hardly makes its way.

I think Linux is under-rated especially when you put it next to windows.These days recources are becoming scarce.People are beginning to open their eyes.And see all the equivalent (office) applications being developed for Linux and they come all free to use and are constantly being developed and improved.

Would be nice (less expensive) for a lot of people when they could buy a bare system or a PC with an professionally installed Linux (mabybe with a rescue CD?).All the extra costs of office-suits,burn software,anti-spyware,anti-virus,defragment programs,the OS itself can be put to work in to better/faster hardware or peripherals or just saved.

Reply Parent Score: 1