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 364213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by cycoj
by cycoj on Tue 19th May 2009 03:52 UTC
cycoj
Member since:
2007-11-04

This list is ridiculous. Let's go through the points one by one:

0. WTF does this premise have to do with Linux being ready for the desktop?! and software patents???!!!

1. I can't speak about professional audio, because I have no experience, but that are not the majority of desktop users. So other subpoints, difficult to set up volume levels? How is sliding a mixer up and down difficult? PCM/Line In/Mic/Output confusing mixer settings (especially coming from someone who in his first statement said you can't use Linux for professional audio). About distros, all the last distros I used had sound working out of the box, actually the only time I was confused by sound settings was with my GF HP netbook. If you plug in a headphone into the combined mic/headphone jack the internal mic stops working and there is no way to turn it back on that I found.


2.1 no stabilized API. That's rubbish GTK 2.0 has been stable for what, 7 years. QT just broke backwards compatability but if you need the old API just install it in parallel. Also the prime example that this does not hinder adoption is Apple, they became popular just after they broke backwards compatability.
2.2 Slow GUI, without compiz enabled I've never had problems of things being too slow, with compiz it's another thing (bad intel drivers).
2.3 I actually don't know, because I never noticed. I know that raster (from enlightenment fame) at some point made some benchmarks and found that software rendering is most of the time faster than hardware on X (which brings us back to bad graphics drivers).
2.4 ??? I don't see how some of those points are related (fontconfig high-level?) And can't be changed on the fly (I must be doing something wrong here). Compatible windows fonts (What does that even mean?)

3.1 how does it drive most users mad that different distros configure things differently (which is only true in a limited sense), normal users don't constantly switch distributions
3.2 You can distribute your software as static tarballs
3.3 You can't install all software on windows either without either paying money or compiling it
3.4 Use static libraries
As a side note. I've yet to hear from any major software house that finds that this is actually a problem and keeping them from developing for linux

4 You can't configure everything through a GUI on windows or OSX either. That's sometimes on purpose, they only want advanced users to change some things. Also on windows and OSX you can't configure some things full stop (Theme on OSX)

5. A lot of the programs average users use have equivalents in Linux.
5.1 All the people I know who use these programs use a pirated version and could just as well use the OSS equivalent. But then they wouldn't have bragging rights
5.2 I agree that Linux is lacking in games
5.3 Yes driver support for some desktop hardware could be better
5.4 and how many average users have a BlueRay drive in their computers?!
5.5 How's that different from Windows?

6. I actually agree to some degree. Hardware sometimes does stop working with kernel upgrades.

7 How does that prove anything

8 examples?
8.1 If you don't know what you're doing here you should probably not be doing it

9. He must have been comparing load times with the ooffice/MSoffice preloader active. I can't confirm this at all

9.2 If we compare boot times (does windows have parallel boot) most Linux distribution run circles around windows in my experience. If' gotten boot time on my laptop to 15s by simply enabling concurrency boot

9.3 ?? Again a lot faster than what I've seen on windows.

10. Well some applications show some errors only when started from the CLI, i.e. firefox. But then they would not show these errors at all on other systems, or they only show up in logs.

11. Documentation could always be better.

12. Now that's just wako. What security model is he suggesting? Sudo requires CLI??? What about gsudo?

13.1 Correct if they were dynamically linked. But you just get the new version of the program.

13.2 If you link against a newer library you expect it to work with an older one?

13.3 The link actually points to a way how you can distribute software linked against one specific version of a library actually overcoming most of these problems. No bugs regressions

14.1 ??? I don't get it.

14.2 Actually I'd argue there's a more standard way of software distribution in any Linux distri than in other systems. In the Linux distribution the standard way is to use the package manager, on other systems it's selling CDs in shops, downloading, sending out free cds (AOL anyone??), on magazine CD...

14.3 Why does Samba not count? Also NFS, dhcp?


This list was "not even worng" to quote Pauli

Reply Score: 0