Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Mar 2009 18:53 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Linux Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC.
Permalink for comment 355020
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by Clinton on Wed 25th Mar 2009 19:58 UTC in reply to "..."
Member since:

IMHO Linux missed the desktop train, and all for internal politics.

I'm sure internal politics and, I don't know, patents and licensing fees have played a large role in what the modern Linux desktop is. However, that's a bit nebulous. Here are some of the reasons the Linux desktop fails for me:

1) Imperfect graphics drivers (artifacts with nVidia and just plain crap with ATI -- random hangs, poor compiz support, etc.)

2) Inferior DVD and video support.

3) Less than ideal support for printers and horrid support for scanners.

4) Spotty support for peripherals.

5) No commercial professional applications like Photoshop, QuickBooks, Illustrator, etc.

But Linux on the desktop has worked for me for years.

Yes it has. Since 1994, actually.

The response to this statement shouldn't be "Good for you" though. Instead try to understand exactly why Linux has worked so well for some of us.

Reasons would include:
1) High ability to automate and schedule tasks.
2) Thousands of quality software packages.
3) Excellent development tools.
4) Highly customizable.
5) Strong education potential.
6) Better distribution.

Neither list is comprehensive.

Edited 2009-03-25 19:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7