Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 22nd Jul 2006 21:15 UTC
Linux Toby Richards wrote an opinion article for NewsForge, claiming that for him, Linux won't get mainstream until Evolution - or another capable Outlook-like client - gets optimized and offers 100% compatibility with Exchange. In the comments section of Newsforge readers offered more reasons as to why Linux is not mainstream, offering a view on their needs. My take: While for my personal, home usage of Linux my needs are different, I agree with Toby that companies won't switch their desktops if full Exchange compatibility isn't reached and if Evolution stops being the memory beast it currently is.
Thread beginning with comment 145445
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: more reasons...
by mjmoran on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 02:38 UTC in reply to "more reasons..."
mjmoran
Member since:
2005-08-13

All but one of your reasons don't even matter in a enterprise enviroment.(which is where Exchange is mostly going to be used)
In an enterprise enviroment, you don't want your users either setting up hardware, sharing folders, changing resolution, or adding file mappings. Those jobs are for the IT guys who should know the setup.

Now, for the more general issue of use...
The average home Windows user neither can nor do install Windows. They use what is installed on the machine when they bought it, and if their is a problem, they have someone else help them. Also, if you install a Linux Distro on someone's machine(who doesn't need any windows apps) and show them the ropes, they can get along pretty good. Point them to Ubuntu Forums and help them for a few days, and unless there is a major problem they can get along pretty good. Now, none of these people are computer geeks. One of them didn't even know how to operate a computer. Could they fix a major problem by themselves..probably not..could they have if they were running Windows..just as unlikely.

Ive found that its mainly an issue being not familiar with the interface or things being slightly different, but those with no computer experence seem to have no problem. Afterall, they have no existing notions on how the machine should operate.

Also, about point 9 on your list. As opposed to "feeling" protected, they are protected. Running Linux there are no Viruses or Spyware which can infect the system. This may change sometime in the future, however, for not the issue really doesn't exist.

Point 10 however, is very relevent though. Where I work we have Windows on the client machines, why? Photoshop and Dreamweaver. If those tools ran fine under Linux, we could ditch the beast for good. We are a j2ee shop, and all our development tools are multiplatform(eclipse and friends) We investigated using the GIMP and NVU and for a few of us it would work, however, there are some features that you just want a professional class app.

Personally, I think the OS(collectively) is ready NOW, however, the third party support(pro apps) just isn't there. Also, the mindset isn't there yet. People can be suspicious of something thats free; especially with the average users fight with spyware from "free" apps.

-Michael Moran

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: more reasons...
by tbostick78 on Sun 23rd Jul 2006 05:35 in reply to "RE: more reasons..."
tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

Great points. I disagree though that linux users are protected due to the nonexistence of viruses or spyware. Certainly the casual unix permission scheme (compared to SE-Linux) is helpful. But send an executable by email that a user can download and exec, and they are at the mercy of their own file permissions -- or any files with group wx enabled. e.g. system("rm -rf ~"); And as the user-base grows, I would speculate that tampered packages and code will surface. In this sense, no OS can be safe as long as users are able to download and execute. In general is the platform more secure? I believe so.

shane

Reply Parent Score: 1