Linked by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 476116
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Year of the Linux Desktop..
by RichterKuato on Sun 5th Jun 2011 21:07
in reply to "RE[3]: Year of the Linux Desktop.."
RE[5]: Year of the Linux Desktop..
by lemur2 on Sun 5th Jun 2011 23:20
in reply to "RE[4]: Year of the Linux Desktop.."
I myself don't use my computer for productive tasks. I just know that most semi/professional users need industry standard applications to do their jobs. That's is, those users that actually need a PC.
If they are using expensive professional programs that are only available for Windows, why are they buying a netbook?
Even then, getting away from netbooks, the traditional notions of "my type of work needs an industry standard application that can only be run on a Windows PC" are very questionable these days.
One favourite that used to be mentioned a lot in this context is AutoCAD.
Now, one can run Bricscad:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp
... even on Linux.
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/comparison.jsp
You are out of date.





Member since:
2005-07-06
You forgot to add: "For me, Desktop Linux..."
For a home users (like many people around me), Linux/Firefox/LibreOffice is far better than the equivalent (Bootlegged Windows + Old Office + whatever IE that came with the non-upgrade-able due to WGA).
More-ever, the change between Office 2000/XP/2K3 and LibreOffice 3.x is far less radical compared to moving to the ribbon based Office 2K7/2K10.
Never the less, I do agree that using Linux on the desktop requires two things:
1. Availability of comparable software.
2. Time.
Switching OS, any OS takes time to master.
- Gilboa
Edited 2011-06-05 16:59 UTC