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.
I should correct myself.
Instead of saying I know that 99% of the software for windows will install and run without a hitch (because the truth is I haven't installed every program made for windows), I should say that I feel MORE confident about a installing and running a Windows program than I do installing and running a Linux program. I am not basing that on the quality of the program or gui, etc. I mean if I download Windows shareware or freeware I have more confidence in it installing and working vs the same situation in linux.
But look I am not arguing about the quality of software and installations of either OS. You cannot disagree with me that installing a program in Windows is less troublesome or cumbersome that installing apps in linux. Sure there have been times when I installed software in linux (source and binary) and it just worked. But there are more instances in the linux world of installation problems than there are successes. And if installing software is still a major issue for beginners and novices, how good can that OS really be?
I am making this complaint because I love linux, but darn it, it just makes me mad that it took me over an hour to just install Audacity on Mandrake 9.2, a simple but cool sound editor, because of dependency and rpm problems. However when I installed Audacity on my Windows System it was installed, up and running, in less than a minute! To me, that says something about the OS, not the software.