"With the release of Microsoft's new Windows operating system (Vista), more and more people are looking for alternatives to Windows for various reasons. This tutorial is the second in a series of articles where I will show people who are willing to switch to Linux how they can set up a Linux desktop (Mandriva Free 2007 in this article) that fully replaces their Windows desktop, i.e. that has all software that people need to do the things they do on their Windows desktops. The advantages are clear: you get a secure system without DRM restrictions, and the best thing is: all software comes free of charge."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-13
Linux, and for that matter Mac OSX, are not REPLACEMENTS for Windows -- they are ALTERNATIVES to Windows, just as a motorcycle or a pick-up truck is an ALTERNATIVE to a car.
They are not the same, will never operate the same, will never support identical applications, and people will choose these alternatives for their own good reasons. There are always pros and cons when you consider alternatives.
A point that is often overlooked. Linux is not supposed to be a "free Windows", and as long as people keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by expecting linux to mimic Windows, desktop linux will remain a statistical niche by their standards.
The problem with comparing linux to Windows is that invariably people remain stuck on what linux can't do, which discourages them from thinking about linux *can* do. Today. Right now. And building from that.
Sure, linux will never be Windows. It's aiming much higher 
Member since:2006-07-20
Hmmm I don't recall comparing Linux, WIndows or any other OS. I made the point that for a lot (most if we're honest?) it's the APPS they use, not the OS that's important. If there isn't a viable alternative they'll continue using whichever OS runs them. Where's the missing logic in that? Many designers use a Mac or Windows because they want to run Photoshop. It's simply the tool they're comfortable with and in my opinion has zero competition for these people. Also my bike isn't an alternative to my car in any way, it's just a fun toy :o)
Member since:2006-03-21
There was a time when I simply would have agreed. However, you are falling into some logical traps in your arguments.
1. You may prefer Photoshop or some other app, but that preference does not render an alternative "not viable". Gimp users have done and continue to do incredible, artistic work. I have many gigabytes of digital photos and scans of earlier work, cataloged and manipulated with Open source tools. I used Windows until 2002, then changed. There are alternatives; some better than others, some better than the originals.
2. If you choose to ride your bike to work instead of taking your car, the bike became an ALTERNATIVE to your car with a number of clear trade-offs. My choice for personal transportation is a compact pick-up truck. It is not a direct replacement for a car -- better at some things, not so good at others. Place a Mac beside a PC, and the comparison will be -- better at some things, not so good at others. Place a Linux box beside the Mac -- you get the picture.
3. You continue to extrapolate your own opinion to others -- "in my opinion has zero competition for these people" -- expressing your opinion is perfectly valid, however, you cannot know what others think, and cannot possible speak on their behalf.
4. Factors besides applications drive the choice of platform. They certainly did in my case. License restrictions, DRM, price, data portability, vendor lock-in, freedom -- plus, I find using my computer is fun again, the way it used to be. Windows stopped being fun around 1995. If Open Source did not exist, I would have had to invent it, which would be a tragedy, as I'm not that bright.
Member since:
2006-03-21
"Until such time as the big guns like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, MS Office etc are ported then Linux remains irrelevant or a pleasant novelty for many users."
This line of reasoning is, pardon the word, stupid. To paraphrase:
Until such time as that motorcycle supports 6 passengers and keeps the rain off my suit, it will remain irrelevant or a pleasant novelty for many users.
Linux, and for that matter Mac OSX, are not REPLACEMENTS for Windows -- they are ALTERNATIVES to Windows, just as a motorcycle or a pick-up truck is an ALTERNATIVE to a car.
They are not the same, will never operate the same, will never support identical applications, and people will choose these alternatives for their own good reasons. There are always pros and cons when you consider alternatives.
Why bother with alternatives? I'll give you three reasons.
1. Restrictive EULA backed up by Windows Genuine Advantage (bullshit name for policing of license terms)
2. DRM technologies that restrict you from using media that you purchased legitimately under the fair use terms of current copyright laws.
3. Price of proprietary software.
If these reasons do not matter to you, and you want to continue using Windows, that is your choice to make. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.
I sincerely doubt that you have been granted the authority to speak on behalf of "many users" "most people" or "Joe Average" so try to avoid doing so.