Linked by Sean Oliviero on Wed 28th Jul 2004 05:54 UTC
The promise of Desktop Linux (DL) has been long coming. It's made significant progress since the mid-90s when GNOME and KDE came out, giving Linux users a somewhat modern desktop to work upon. However, it's been 7 years and DL hasn't progressed much at all since then. Today, DL is still nothing more than a UNIX-clone with a task bar, a start menu, and a desktop with some icons on it. But why has DL evolved at such a glacial pace?
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.
This has to be one of the worst articles published on this site recently and it is running against strong competition.
So, why is it so terrible? Because no one is allowed to criticize linux? Because linux is perfect?
No, because the author doesn't seem to have a clue what he is talking about.
Take for example his claim that you have to edit something under /etc to get your networking working. This is simply false. Sure, there are distros where you have to do that, but if you take any of the more "userfriendly" distros like Suse, Mandrake, etc. you don't even have to know something like /etc exists.
I'm sorry, there is a lot of things to criticize about linux on the desktop but if you want to write a critique of the state of desktop linux do yourself and the readers a favor and inform yourself about the subject before writing an article. This way we may be able to read an article about the subject that is actually worth reading and that could lead to new ideas and a fruitfull discussion and not simply an uninformed flamebait.