Linked by Ben Mazer on Mon 26th Jan 2004 19:52 UTC
Lately, there has been a "Why linux isn't ready for the desktop" article every 3 days. Most of the time, these articles originate from a lack of understanding or acceptance of the open source system. I'd like to try to address some of the common arguments against linux here, and try to help people understand why linux probably won't be on your desktop for a while.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
> Linux isn't as easy to use
The author spends a lot of time saying how Linux is getting better. Thats great and all, but as it stands to day, it is not as easy to use as Windows XP.
> There are already lots of studies out there though, and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users.
Finally, he gets to the point, and says nothing.
> Linux isn't as polished
> What does "polished" mean? In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent.
Huh??? What does polished have to do with knowing the inner workings or not? It is about the user experence.
> No one in their right mind would say that Linux isn't moving towards polish. If you want to help, write something and give it to KDE, GNOME, or your favorite desktop distribution.
Say the author says Linux is not as polished yet. Next.
> Linux is fragmented
> All distributions ARE united, so its not like there are 100 different operating systems. What unites linux distributions? For starters, they all use the Linux kernel. They all use the GNU tools. They all use XFree86. They all use glibc. You get the point.
The author misses the point. All the parts he listed are nothing the user deals with. When you get to the part that the user needs to know, each distro is different.
> Package Management
Author misses the point again. THe problem with package managment is that a single package only works with a certain distro. This means there needs to be many packages for a single piece of software. Makes things more difficult for the user since they need to find the right one.
> Linux doesn't support commercial software/idealogy
I lost interest here.
> There Are No Drivers
Im back
> Yes, there are. Linux supports more hardware than Windows, it's that simple.
This is desktop we are talking about. Stick with x86.
> But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing the big picture.
How is expecting hardware manufactures to provide drivers not seeing the big picture. This is a perfect solution to all problems. How is this a bad way of getting hardware to work? It keeps everybody happy. Manufactures can keep their secrets and users can use the hardware.
> That said, I understand "it works for me" isn't enough.
Nice that you included the main issue with hardware.
> Conclusion
Seems like all the author is saying is Linux is the way of the future, yet has nothing to support it other then his own beliefs. Not good enough for me.
Next.