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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
"Show me a similar article that will allow me to tweak Linux and/or KDE/Gnome in the same manner."
You don't need one. You just need to choose the right 'Linux'. Despite the author's ramblings and ambiguities, there's a lot more to the situation than that.
Let me sum it up in a nutshell. I recently installed Slackware on a P75 with 40M RAM. It runs a graphical desktop (IceWM), with a word processor (AbiWord), web browser (Dillo) and more. They may not be the most powerful apps in existence, but they're modern, up-to-date and supported with security fixes.
Now go and install Windows XP on that same machine. Oh wait, you can't. It requires 128M. WinXP runs extremely slow on the minium-requirement spec, whereas a good Linux distro zips along fine.
Bottom line: Mandrake, Fedora and SUSE etc. may be big and bloated. But Linux per se, as evidenced with Debian and Slackware, is much MUCH faster than the equivalent Windows.