Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
Linux We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Thread beginning with comment 364153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by pcunite
by ggeldenhuys on Mon 18th May 2009 22:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
ggeldenhuys
Member since:
2006-11-13

This article is very accurate from a developer's point of view (which I am one).

As a developer by trade myself, writing commercial and open source software for Linux and Windows platforms...also as a Linux user, that article is far from accurate.

Many of the things mentioned there is a simple point and click action to solve. I'm using Ubuntu 8.04.2 and I've tested Ubuntu 9.04 which makes many things even easier.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by steviant on Wed 20th May 2009 05:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

I hate to agree with the whiner, but if it's so easy to fix those things, why are they left broken or in a stupid configuration in the first place?

It does seem like in many cases Linux distributors are like bakers who aren't really able to guarantee the right taste because they don't control the raw ingredients in the recipe.

I guess it's an unfortunate side effect of a decentralized development model, but it seems that Linux distributors are vulnerable to being taken for a ride by misguided developers, where someone like Microsoft or Apple has the ability to force their developers to conform to a lofty vision or strict usability guidelines. (Not that they do always)

Edited 2009-05-20 05:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1