Linked by Mike Martin on Mon 14th Jul 2003 17:42 UTC
Linux After reading yet another "why Linux is not ready for the desktop" article/discussion, I decided that, as someone who uses Linux exclusively at home, its about time I wrote my response to the attitudes expressed. I have been using Linux since January 1999 (Red Hat 5.2 off of a cover disc).
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
How a bad article can stoke people's fires..
by Aris-T on Mon 14th Jul 2003 22:10 UTC

..though it's not hard I guess since this topic is always a heated subject ;)

I wish these articles were a bit more objective. They would give the author more credibility rather than them passing on their gut feelings. This is more of a messageboard rant than something that's article worthy.

And in response:

>1. its free/open (not money but freedom!)
Like JSplice I fail to see what the big deal is except if you want to be able to completely mold the entire operating system to your whim. If that's the case I only see a very small percentage of people/businesses actually going to this extreme. It only matters to a person if they are actually going to make use of that openness (is that a word?).

>4. its very stable
This is one statement that gets toted most often like its absolute truth. It ain't. There will always be an element-be it software, hardware, drivers, patches, whatever that can cause an unstable element. Heck I had GTK die on me when my machine froze up for no apparent reason when I switched from a terminal window to Nautilus.

>5. its virus free
Oh there are viruses, just not many. As it becomes more mainstream, you don't think the hackers out there aren't going to try and attack *nix machines?

>6. it has tons off application that i like
Good for you. But here it's more personal preference than anything else. But the software selections not for everyone.

>7. i today hacked at least 2 supermarkt pc (so called secure...:)) running Windows 2000 with my Zaurus.
A little far-fetched, but that's the IT department's fault, not the OS. Even Linux is able to be hacked if the yutz you runs it doesn't have all the security measures in place. So your point is moot.

>8. its not developed only by one controlling company
You know I'm not surprised people don't pick on Apple about this. They have an OS monopoly on PPC desktops but because they are the desktop underdogs it's "okay". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

>10. its the OS of the future
Time will tell.

Am I a Windows supporter? No, I use it because it works best for me. It's a tool, not a religion. Why handicap myself by following a belief that I should go with free software when it has very few solutions for me? Then what, dual boot? If I was an advocate of free software and I was against "the man", wouldn't this be defeating the purpose? Makes you wonder if the loud Linux cult shops at Wal-Mart, buys Kraft cheese (company owned by big tobacco)and eat at McDonalds.