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 364280
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lithium
Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't you think it's funny to define some OS as "desktop ready" by the availability of some special-interest software?

Well some would consider MS Office 2007 as totally essential. Some would consider iTunes to be essential. I guess everyone has some preferred apps, mostly due to being used to them for years. Add up all those preferred apps and you will end up with giant list. But every single user will maybe only miss one or two of those. I don't know a single category where Linux "on the desktop" is missing some free alternative for some best-of-breed Windows app. Same for Linux "on the server". You can always construct a case of weird special-interest stuff where Linux does not have anything to offer but those cases really don't matter in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't you think it's funny to define some OS as "desktop ready" by the availability of some special-interest software?

Being able to install software on a desktop for a wide variety of fields, and giving the means for developers to write and sitribute such software, is not 'special interest' - however you choose to define that term.

Well some would consider MS Office 2007 as totally essential. Some would consider iTunes to be essential.

You miss the point, as many do. Talking about specific software is pointless. It's the ability to write, distribute and install software that is at issue. If you build it they will come.

I don't know a single category where Linux "on the desktop" is missing some free alternative for some best-of-breed Windows app.

Then you need to get out an awful lot more. Beyond some basic e-mail and office tasks there is a huge gap in required functionality, and even e-mail and office functionality can be lacking.

Same for Linux "on the server". You can always construct a case of weird special-interest stuff where Linux does not have anything to offer but those cases really don't matter in this case.

It's funny. People always try to wave away the desktop by talking about Linux on the server or by dismissing the unavailability of software many people require by labelling said software as 'specialist'. The software that people install on your average Windows desktop is not 'specialist' to the many who rely on it and I'm afraid applying the 80/20 rule doesn't work either - the 80% of people use a different 20% of features each time.

Besides, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and Linux desktop share has not appreciably increased by many metrics despite being completely free to get and install. You know people are running out of ideas when Mark Shuttleworth talks about making Ubuntu as 'beautiful' as a Mac. It's not going to help you.

Reply Parent Score: 1