“If you want a desktop or laptop and you want to move to Linux then you’re cooked. You have very few options and retailers have used low-cost Linux systems to bait and switch users. Unsuspecting PC buyers will be faced with the need to upgrade to Vista in the near future. So, that bargain PC from Dell will probably keep on costing you money. Do alternatives exist? We like to think so.”
Hmm, firstly Vista will not be out till mid / late 2006 atleast. Ths initial spec is overspec.
I think that linux desktops will live on. As long as people keep contributing to there fav distro and to open source in general then by the time vista comes out it will be legacy compared to some distros. Linux is not just a reliable work horse, to most its a hobbie or even a passion to the devouted.
AJ
Hm, you really should read the article, not just the headline.
It isn’t the kind of article you seem to expect from the headline.
It isn’t the kind of article you seem to expect from the headline.
I think it is. It’s a mix of uninformed statements and facts that isn’t really news to anyone.
I don’t really know what the point of his endless rambling really is?
“Can I have linux on the desktop for christmas daddy?”
You are right, when I read the headline I expected one piece of crap and when I read the article I found it was a piece of crap very different from the one I was expecting. What the hell such and inexact, non-technical article adds to OSNews? I prefer you link to more content for hardcore technical dudes/gals and less for OS zealots. No matter what OS/religion is the article about.
From the article:
“You will not find name brand computers bundled with Linux. The desktops from Dell, HP, IBM and Gateway come with Windows. So, you want to avoid those systems. They will have problems right away and will have a short lifespan.”
I’m not quite sure what he’s talking about here. Though I’m guessing he’s talking about Windows having a problem with a virus or spyware or whatever it may be, it sure sounds like he’s saying that a company like one of the examples makes a poor machine. That’s kind of an odd statement, seeing as that most of them share IBM/PC hardware. For someone who can’t build a machine, you can always buy a cheap machine from these companies with less hassle and install Linux yourself. That doesn’t cover every user obviously, but it does cover more ground than an all or nothing type of stance on it.
At any rate, it’s fair to say that you will most likely not get a computer from these companies with Linux preinstalled, but I thought for a while HP had some type of deal, or was that a “business only” type of deal? Another thing I wonder is if a company like Dell or HP would offer a system with no OS installed but a copy of some form of a Linux OS. Obviously, it would have probably no support software wise, but it could be a start. Just a thought, even if it is unrealistic.
Edited 2005-11-25 21:25
I’m a Linux advocate and even I can tell the article is a little biased as well provides incorrect information regarding where to purchase Linux systems. For example the author mentions Dell, HP and IBM all of which do offer Linux systems. Then there’s other companies such as GamePC.com that will offer to preinstall SUSE Linux for customers or even run it dual boot with Windows XP.
New things in Vista:
Better search — I have Beagle
Transparent windows — I have Xorg composite
Symbolic links — I have this in Linux since I know
Updates that you don’t have to restart a computer — I only have to restart a computer when I’m upgrading a kernel
Uninstallable Internet browser — No I don’t want that
Long boot time — I have boot time under 14 sec
Self defrag & etc — I dont need defrag (ext3)
I don’t know what is new in Vista that would make me move from Linux or even MacOS, which had that before, to Vista. Vista only brings new copy of Aqua, some security fixes again Operating System whitout viruses and security holes. Vista has New features only for Windows world, the rest of us already has this features.
COmposite http://www.urbanlizard.com/~aseigo/exposite1.avi
http://www.urbanlizard.com/~aseigo/exposite2.avi
Next Xorg
http://vizzzion.org/stuff/xgl_wanking.avi
Come back when all of those features are complete and production-ready. Beagle? X.Org Composite? Come on now.
How about … integrated applications/UI? Polish? Manufacturer support? New API frameworks? Read up on Vista, please.
Oh yeah … and every filesystem is subject to fragmentation. Some deal with it better than others, but the fact remains. 🙂
How about … integrated applications/UI? Polish? Manufacturer support? New API frameworks? Read up on Vista, please.
Not to mention many of the best applications on the market.
And what is this shit about XP dying when Vista is released? A lot of stuff in VIsta is being backported, so XP has at least 3-5 years of life left in it.
Oh, and advising people who are worried about driver hell to switch to Linux – BAHAHAHAHA! Puff, puff, PASS buddy!!
Yeah, really.
Sometimes I swear that with every distro comes a blunt for your enjoyment. I don’t see how else these people can write this drivel and pretend they’re serious.
How about … integrated applications/UI? Polish?
Honestly, I don’t see those in windows, either. The so-called “advanced” OSes of today seem more of a step back, if anything, especially in the area of UI.
-bytecoder
It’s all relative. All Linux distros still feel like it’s a set of disconnected applications trying their hardest to work together — and that’s exactly what it is.
Windows seems to get it right sometimes, but the occasional ugly crack will shine through.
OS X gets it right most of the time — except when it comes to UI consistency in some of Apple’s latest applications. iTunes, for example, has a slightly different theme from the rest of Apple’s stuff.
can you please post examples of how the so called “advanced” OSes area step back instead of just claiming it?
“every filesystem is subject to fragmentation”
are you fscking kidding me…ZFS isn’t
Sure it is. It just has algorithms in place to minimize it, but it’s not something that is possible to completely avoid.
HFS+ is much the same way (though obviously not as advanced).
>Better search — I have Beagle
Uses as much ram and cpu as nothing I have seen before. Does not know which app to open with a given type of file.
>Transparent windows — I have Xorg composite
Not stable, it’s even made just for experimental purposes only. It does not work on major linux distros without tweeking and is painfully slow. Causes main DEs to crash often.
>Symbolic links — I have this in Linux since I know
Yes, unfortunately, noone uses them with desktop purposes in mind. Never seen a distro or a user do something cool with symlinks.
>Updates — I restart a computer when I’m upgrading a kernel
Agree here, though my Ubuntu had 2 kerner upgrades this month, so minimum 2 restarts.
>Uninstallable Internet browser —
No problem, just rename the executable, it won’t ever launch.
>Long boot time — I have boot time under 14 sec
Exactly the opposite is generally true and everyone dual-booting here could confirm this. Windows: 23 sec, tweaked ubuntu: 1.min 12 seconds.
>Self defrag & etc — I dont need defrag (ext3)
Agree…
While I don’t love or adore windows at all, linux is not a king yet too.
Symbolic links — I have this in Linux since I know
Yes, unfortunately, noone uses them with desktop purposes in mind. Never seen a distro or a user do something cool with symlinks.
That’s probably because you can’t do “something cool,” lest you like using inelegant, hacky systems. The entire concept of filesystem links seems to me to be a throwback to a simpler time, and needs to be replaced, but I’d love to be proven otherwise, however unlikely that may be.
-bytecoder
How?
Why?
Symlinks are a very strong concept, it’s very useful and used very often, from what I see. Mostly on servers though, but also on desktops. E.g. /etc/alternative/* on every Debian.
Let me correct myself. Links are heavily overused, but have at least 1 plausible use. Most of the time, though, their presence suggests the need for a redesign. Take dynamic linking in linux, where the generic name of the library is a link to the latest version. This is basically just a hack to emulate version control, which is something that is applicable to all types of files, and thus can and should be implemented in the base system.
-bytecoder
Symbolic links — I have this in Linux since I know
Yes, unfortunately, noone uses them with desktop purposes in mind. Never seen a distro or a user do something cool with symlinks.
OK, hows about implementing runlevels in Mandriva and related distributions? Or transparent links in user home directories? My company has used symlinks to implement a lightweight terminal server package called Nymph, used by both Mandriva (as the basis for their terminal-server package) and SuSE (a port).
I have to admit, I prefer filesystem hardlinks, with which my company have quickly implemented a complete backup solution, yet one which is only differential in per-backup disk overhead.
Cool tricks with links aren’t immediately apparent until they are needed, and then when they are needed, much can be done easily.
Uses as much ram and cpu as nothing I have seen before. Does not know which app to open with a given type of file.
Last time I tested WinFS on Longhorn (or was it Vista already), WinFS was far worster performer, both speed and ram. Just as is WinFS not supported commercialy yet. It will be out after Vista. Which means beagle has a year to get stable.
Yes, it knows which app to run. If it doesn’t you probably don’t have mime installed as it should be.
Although to say the truth. I don’t find beagle as usable engine. My religion says “No Mono or Java services”, but that is just my personal opinion. Something written in C or C++ or any other language that doesn’t require runtime engine (or database installed) would get a chance from me anytime.
Yes, unfortunately, noone uses them with desktop purposes in mind. Never seen a distro or a user do something cool with symlinks.
Obviously you’ve never seen symlinks in use. Use can be inteligent, but only if job requires it. Enforcing symlinks is stupid.
No problem, just rename the executable, it won’t ever launch.
Doesn’t work in XP anymore.
Last time I tested WinFS on Longhorn (or was it Vista already), WinFS was far worster performer, both speed and ram. Just as is WinFS not supported commercialy yet. It will be out after Vista. Which means beagle has a year to get stable.
WinFS != Beagle, or Spotlight, or whatever other search app you have these days. WinFS is much more than that. That fact has been explained a million times already, but it doesn’t seem to really get through to many people.
Functionality similar to Spotlight and Beagle will be standard in Vista. There are already apps you can download today that mimick this functionality for WinXP.
WinFS is nothing but an implementation of technology already existing in (even old releases of )Amiga OS, BeOS, modern GNU/Linux distributions, Mac OS X and old OS/2 versions.
WinFS is overhyped, bringing an “old” technology to Windows after much waiting.
“WinFS is overhyped, bringing an “old” technology to Windows after much waiting.”
Then show us some sources (links, articles, anything) that prove it.
WinFS is useless. It’s already out as an update for XP (beta). I tried it and I must have to say…it sucks.
Ever heard of BFS? Not only did it have fast querying and “smart folders” (e.g. collections), it was also designed well enough not to abuse them, unlike what windows appears to be doing.
-bytecoder
Functionality similar to Spotlight and Beagle will be standard in Vista. There are already apps you can download today that mimick this functionality for WinXP.
Yeah, agree. Same thing, except default is solved more or less as hack as overlaying service (more or less hackish and slow). WinFS on the other hand is running under OS as underlaying service and provides 3 more things besides correct implementation.
1. API for developers (all others provide that)
2. same functions as beagle, spotlight, gds. And as default hack, nothing more from user perspective.
3. Network transparency, well at least in case if client will be connected to Blackcomb server. (here is the only case where WinFS is better than others)
Correct enough? Or are there more facts that have been explained million times?
From grub menu till I’m inside Gnome on my 1.5 GHz Sempron, it takes 12 seconds to boot. Much faster than with Win2K3 Server (23 seconds).
But then… you don’t boot so often it actually matters.
In regard to symbolic links you’re terribly wrong. You can’t find a single linux distro for the desktop which don’t use symbolic links. In general symbolic links ought to be avoided. They are usually there to fix flaws, and are a bit hackish to look at.
Renaming Iexplore.exe does not solve anything at all. IE is still linked deep within the system. The executable is the smallest part of IE.
Long boot time — I have boot time under 14 sec
Exactly the opposite is generally true and everyone dual-booting here could confirm this. Windows: 23 sec, tweaked ubuntu: 1.min 12 seconds.
My ubuntu used to boot slower that XPSP2. But, I used <a href=”http://initng.thinktux.net/index.php/Main_Page“>initng ,my ubuntu started taking less time than XPSP2.
>>Uninstallable Internet browser —
>No problem, just rename the executable, it won’t ever launch.
This statement is not true. Most of the IE browser is part of the Windows OS and not a part of the executable at all. Most of IE launches at boot with the Windows OS.
There is nothing a user can do to prevent this from happening.
A virus & malware weak point just waiting to be breached as soon as any connection is made to the net.
>>Long boot time — I have boot time under 14 sec
>Exactly the opposite is generally true and everyone dual-booting here >could confirm this. Windows: 23 sec, tweaked ubuntu: 1.min 12 >seconds.
Nope. Windows certainly gets a pretty desktop quicker, but the time it actually takes to become usable is nearer twice as long as, say, gentoo. Time how long it takes on each system to start up, have all the boot processes stop and for you to be able to launch a program.
Symbolic links come with Windows 2000, you just need to be a programmer or download a free utility to use them.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The entire article reads like it was written purely with the intention to bash Microsoft in mind, with no other real aim.
He really needs to educate himself about Vista/OS X/Linux as it is *right now*, and as it *will be*. I see all three camps making great advances in the next 2-3 years.
Agreed. He’s definitely lost on the technical front. Vista might look like Mac, but it’s not.
Written with absolutely no reason, no logic, just straight up emotion and ego meant to get others fired up because he himself is fired up — a.k.a. a troll article.
Exactly! He lost me when he said:
“What’s worse? Unsuspecting PC buyers will be faced with the need to upgrade to Vista in the near future.” Eh??
Who’s forcing anyone to upgrade to Vista? lol I really don’t get that. XP will be supported until 2011, so why on Earth would we all need to run out and upgrade to Vista?
This guy is writing an article about Linux? It looks more like he’s spreading the Microsoft upgrade FUD. Oh gee, MS has blessed us with another Windows release, that means we MUST upgrade!
About the only really interesting thing would be to sell hardware with no OS. I run Linux almost exclusively now so this is really the only option, other than building yourself. The system is so rigged. I wish that the manufacturers would consider this, as of course, there is NO copyright infringment, no legal recourse, no risk. As far as warranty, well, that’s a hardware issue…they don’t warrent the software anyway, so what’s the big deal.
Fortunately I get my computers from a local shop and always get the spec “no os” and I take it from there! He honors his warranty and we get great service.
Until the day comes when you can go to Best Buy and say, “I want that one, but without the OS” Linux will stay in the trenches.
We need to “unrig” the system somehow…
About the only really interesting thing would be to sell hardware with no OS. I run Linux almost exclusively now so this is really the only option, other than building yourself. The system is so rigged. I wish that the manufacturers would consider this, as of course, there is NO copyright infringment, no legal recourse, no risk. As far as warranty, well, that’s a hardware issue…they don’t warrent the software anyway, so what’s the big deal.
Well, microsoft could always force them to buy their software at a higher price, or could just stop selling to them completely. I don’t see the current situation as something that should be “fixed,” even if it could. Give it a little time and let the people vote with their money; if they’re unhappy with windows, they won’t buy it, simple as that.
-bytecoder
“About the only really interesting thing would be to sell hardware with no OS.”
Selling hardware with OS is like selling cars with music CD’s….that you rent allowed to replace unless you want to void the warranty.
But seriously…
I see lots of companies here (Manila) selling blank laptops and desktops. It’s a nice trend.
That’s a bogus analogy. A computer needs an OS proper to be used for tasks, a car does not need CD’s to run.
as a student I worked at futureshop (bestbuy canada)selling PC part time. There is ZERO incentive for major vendors to sell PC without OS. None of the customer I had want a PC without OS – why? because they are not just looking to buy hardware, they are buying a total computing solution – plug and play, not plug, install and pray.
I worked at a Best Buy, and a real computer geek would never spend his time talking to a salesman about what computer he would want anyways.
He’d get frustrated that no one will help him now, when he’s made his decisison, instead of when he walked through the door, and get mad at the salesperson and refuse to talk to them, other than to get the computer down.
Although I still agree, no incentive.
And Dell does sell computers w/o OSs on them, an ‘e’ series or whatnot. Actually costs more than the comparable Windows computer.
Well you could just carry on running XP on your new bargain DELL, Well worth buying a 64bit AMD computer (that DELL dont sell) Then you could upgrade from the unwanted XP Home and get XP 64 with some of the security advantages of Windows 2003 and none of the excessive eye canday and other memory hogging garbage being built into Vista.
Less radical than trying to run Linux.
bingo! here’s the best reason Linux will grow rather than shrink with the release of Vista. The era of the $399 desktop will quickly stop for at least 6 months… all those cheap Dells [I have a 9 month old one on omy desk right now] won’t even run the beta at higher than 4-bit quality… We all know Microsoft LOVES for Dell to sell back versions right?
Microsoft with Vista is going to orphan a lot of hardware out there.. pretty much everything on the shelf at any big box store it won’t run on!!! I see this as a huge opening for Linux in the cheap computer market as the updates for XP get fewer and the spyware and viruses run rampant… now’s the time for the community to clean up it’s act and put together a plan!
I think you underestimate what some people are willing to put up with. Remember, not everybody who uses a computer is a geek or nerd who is “performance crazy”.
A few weeks back I worked on a machine for a friend of my wife, a Compaq Presario 5000 (700 MHz Duron) running Windows XP Home with 128 MB of RAM! It was obviously upgraded from Windows 98 (FAT32 filesystem) and they had used the machine for some time. When I was working on the system, I put in 512 MB of memory from one of my machines just to make the work go faster.
I expect a number of people to use their low cost machines with Vista and be quite happy with it, regardless of the performance.
“I think you underestimate what some people are willing to put up with.”
Yeah, they’ve put up with substandard and troublesome Windows for years. The painthreshold must be in the stratosphere.
He’s basically suggesting that you buy a Mac. Take the millions of people who will buy PC’s this winter and they won’t see Linux. Some will see Macs. So, he’s saying buy a Mac.
The bit a about Vista is true. My Windows 98 box became obsolete the minute I installed Windows 2000. I had to upgrade everything. Then XP come out and I needed more memory and a faster processor. The same thing happened with SP1 & SP2.
Not the Mac. Upgraded three times and no hardware upgrades needed.
Not sure if you are uninformed, very lucky in the three Mac upgrades you chose or just lying.
Going from Jaguar to Tiger (which are all still OS X and less than 3 years apart), there are hardware changes required.
Jaguar: PowerPC G3 or G4 with 128MB of physical RAM.
Tiger: PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 with 256MB of physical RAM
plus built-in FireWire port.
I am not surprised by it and I am not saying Macs are worse than Windows. I just wanted to correct teh misinformation.
And as far as speculation is concerned. The PowerPC-based Macs of today are just as likely to become obsolete in a couple of years after the Intel-based Macs gain market presence and the newer version of softwares come only in the Intel flavor.
Err that a fact? You are spreading FUD. What kind of specs were you running win 98 on? Wiith a p3 500 and 256 mb of RAM XP still runs great with all the eye candy!!! SP1 and SP2 made absolutely no difference!! Sure XP was a bit slower than 98 but stability went up incomparably. Oh wait you wouldnt know…you like Macs…Macs have been slow since their advent…so I am sure for you guys Mac OS X was a breath of fresh air….puhlease! I am not saying XP is great but stop spreading FUD.
RE “xp stability
improvement on 98”
a comment re 98 only:: FYI::
I run 98 FE and 256 > 512 mb ram seems to
have made crashes nonexistant. BTW also w/
a card in a pc slot which has a fan that
expels air outward… it even runs 2 AV
rather than one.
I have never heard of anybody having to upgrade a computer because of SP1 or SP2, I certainly never have had to, on any of the systems I look after, perhaps it is pilot error?
1)If I buy a new, branded computer, it comes with Windows preinstalled. If it is a bargain, as you can find many in large superstores, who cares?
2)If you want to sell it again, you’ll have a hard time if it doesn’t have Windows. You can sell it to a fellow linux user, but in this place the ratio is about 1 to 1,000.
3)In this country anyway, people don’t buy branded computers, they ask a computer shop to build one. So it is entirely up to you what software you want to buy.
4)”You can also run Linux on your Mac. Most Linux distributions will dual boot with OS X.”
What? Most linux distros I like don’t have a PPC port and MacIntels are not available yet. And I must be convinced that Mac hardware isn’t twice as expensive, as it has always been the case in this country:
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/italystore.woa/90612/wo/t15…
1.) I do. I already pay for unlimited Microsoft software, I don’t wanna buy it again.
2.) You could buy Windows to put on it… Besides, what kind of geek (or normal person for that matter) resells their old computer. At my last job we charged people $5 to trash it, and they paid it!
3.) Not so much in the US. Our smalltime build it shops are often barely afloat, and the few that do well sell as many parts as built computers. And the one I worked at gave you the choice of: Windows or nothing.
“1.) I do. I already pay for unlimited Microsoft software, I don’t wanna buy it again.”
I bought the PC I own now in the UK, two years ago, down from £650 to £500. I missed one for £500 down from £850. I don’t complain about the MS tax when I can have such savings 🙂
2.)”Besides, what kind of geek (or normal person for that matter) resells their old computer.”
I do. I buy a new computer every 2 or 3 years, and I couldn’t afford it if I didn’t sell my old one for good money. Besides, when I have a new and better toy I lose interest for the old ones
And then space is an issue: housing in Europe has become incredibly expensive.
Edit: sorry, it was meant as a reply to ma_d
Edited 2005-11-26 02:18
The Linux system I run today is ahead of where Microsoft will be ten years from now.
No way. I don’t know much about macs, but I’d rather buy a wintel and immediately install Ubuntu on it. That way I have 2 OS’s for the price of one – one of them excellent. And I’ve never had a job where I didn’t need to bring Windows-only work home, sadly.
I’m seriously tired by the zealotry of this blog.
for those people who think windows could ever kill linux :
As far as i have noticed most of the people going back to windows are those jerks who are looking a “nice and easy”
and maybe a virus free tool … notice im not saying O.S. …. they dont even know what an operating system is about, so they never need a switch to REAL GOOD O.S
they are confortable working with fisher price tools … but for those who need a caterpilar machine … there will always be Open Source tools made for real work
No consumer market for operating systems exists, for Linux, Windows, OS X or anything else. Only geeks and CTO’s think of an OS as a separate product that can be differentiated from a computer. Everyone else assumes the OS is an integral part of the package they’re buying.
Even if consumers wanted to buy Linux, it’s invisble. No matter where you live, odds are shrinkwrapped Linux boxes are not on the shelves of the big box stores where non-geeks and non-CTO’s buy cimputers. Even if someone wanted to buy a box of Linux, it won’t be on the shelves.
To penetrate the consumer market, Linux needs to be something it isn’t: Obviously so much more appealing than Windows that it generates the kind of buzz that generates sales among ordinary mortals. (Not “better” than Windows, just more appealing.)
Asking consumers to change their OS to Linux is equivalent to asking them to swap the motors in their cars for a diesel powered by restaurant grease. You’d better give them a damn good reason. Linux hasn’t done that.
“Even if consumers wanted to buy Linux, it’s invisble. No matter where you live, odds are shrinkwrapped Linux boxes are not on the shelves of the big box stores where non-geeks and non-CTO’s buy cimputers. Even if someone wanted to buy a box of Linux, it won’t be on the shelves.”
It depends where. In the UK I once bought SUSE Pro at Staples. And at PC World there was always a selection of all the main linux distros. PC World is definitely not a place for geeks only.
>>In the UK I once bought SUSE Pro at Staples. And at PC World there was always a selection of all the main linux distros. PC World is definitely not a place for geeks only.
Still there?
CompUSA and BestBuy in my town both used to stock some shrinkwrapped Linux boxes. No longer.
I live just outside Raleigh, North Carolina, which is Red Hat world headquarters. The entire area is full of people who, at least, know what that Linux exists. If you can’t sell it here, where can you sell it?
“Still there?”
I can’t be sure because now I live in Italy.
But until last year you could definitely find linux at Staples and PC World.
Besides you could find about 4 linux magazines in the largest bookstores.
Yep.
My local PC World (Gloucester, UK) had SUSE, Mandrake and RedHat OS boxes the last time I was in there a month or two ago.
They were a version or 2 out of date, but at least they are there
Red Hat is not interested at all in the customer market.
Red Hat is blocking all others who do.
Red Hat dont have acustomer desktop market offer or whant to be in that market at all.
If Red Hat isn’t providing any competition, how can they be blocking the market?
When they were selling to the consumer market, many called them the Microsoft of Linux and said they were blocking competitors.
Often, Linux supporters praise failure and condemn success.
1) By Saying GNU/Linux desktop is not ready
2) Because they have Desktop OEM deals with
HP , Dell , etc …
Standard answer from them is , its not ready because Red Hat told us so , and where already selling Red Hat workstation that are not selling at all , we don t need more product that don t sell.
No, the real answer is that they’d lose money trying to sell Linux pre-installed on their desktop machines, even if Red Hat got back into the game.
Pick a store. Put an Intel machine running, say, Fedora next to an Intel macine running Windows. Almost everyone who takes a look will opt for the Windows machine.
“the real answer is that they’d lose money trying to sell Linux pre-installed on their desktop machines”
When Dell was selling there Desktop machine it was there #1 seller. It got pulled when Microsoft threatened to remove there preferential rating if they kept selling GNU/Linux desktop.
“Pick a store.”
Best Buy
“Put an Intel machine running, say, Fedora next to an Intel machine running Windows.”
Replace with Ubuntu live CD.
“Almost everyone who takes a look will opt for the Windows machine.”
I add 25 people around me asking what that was that I was using.
There is no real reason why GNU/Linux is not shipping with all desktop computer sold.
There is no real reason why GNU/Linux is not shipping with all desktop computer sold.
Oh, if only life were so simple.
Linux cannot just be added on to a desktop and bingo, shipped to a store. A distro has to be chosen, it has to be tested against different hardware configs. The product developers and engineers need to be re-trained, or new ones hired. A support infrastructure has to be created, techs have to be re-trained, or new ones hired. A software distribution method needs to be put in place for patches and updates for things like hardware, that will not be handled by the distro. Documentation needs to created. Production planning and scheduling will need to be modified. The complexity scales even more if new components and parts need to be used because the existing ones don’t offer proper linux compatibility.
In addition, the corporate lawyers will complicate things further with concerns about IP and patent infringement in the linux code. Indeminty is a serious concern, particularly in the US market and while there may be a bit of a buffer through an equivalent IP indeminty clause from a company like Red Hat or Novell that can afford to offer one (who will, of course, charge their own fee for an OEM license) that isn’t the case if you’re looking at offering something like Debian or, worse, one of it’s derivatives that could have something “non-Free” buried in it. So again costs are incurred.
Even something as simple as NOT including an OS impacts manufacturing costs. A company like Dell measures production costs to the penny, any change to processes or procedures carries a cost increase. Can you properly test or burn-in a system without an OS on the hard drive? Sure you can, but not using current procedures.
All of these costs must be recovered through the revenue these systems are expected to generate, and need to allow for profit as well. The fewer systems that would be sold would require a greater markup in order to recover the investment required.
It’s one thing for a small or independent shop to offer linux as a pre-built option, in most cases they’re just including the cd or preloading it, they’re not accepting calls for support when something doesn’t work. That won’t fly for the major manufacturers selling computers on the shelf in Best Buy. If Joe Average buys a computer with linux and something doesn’t work right, they are going to call HP or Gateway or whoever put the machine together.
So no major manufacturer will offer linux pre-loaded and pre-installed for a consumer in a retail machine until such time as they can make sure the customer experience will not suffer, nobody is going to gamble with their brand name that way. It has nothing to do with whether or not linux can be easily used by consumers, it’s a question of how well they can be properly supported when something goes wrong.
And, as much as I like linux (it’s my primary platform), I’m realistic enough to expect that uptake at the consumer level, if things played out this way and major manufacturers started loading it, would still be less than comparable Windows sales. Companies either have to sell more machines at lower markup or less machines at higher markups in order to recoup their investment to design and develop that configuration. This leads to the inevitable irony that comparably supported linux machines would probably have to cost more than the equivalent Windows machine. Until the sales ramp up, it just wouldn’t be viable.
This isn’t FUD, this isn’t a conspiracy, this isn’t Microsoft evilness, this is simply business 101. It’s economies of scale. Just because linux is “free” does not mean there is no cost to offering and supporting it (a fact that is raised time and time again). The price for a base level OEM windows license to a company like Dell or HP is incremental compared to the cost of having to design, implement and support a new alternative. Demand in the consumer market just isn’t there yet, not in enough numbers to justify the investment.
Business/enterprise requirements are different, far different from consumer requirements, and in many cases linux is a more viable proposition there, particularly in the server market. As a business desktop, linux would likely have lower hardware compatibility requirements and the tricky things like fancy graphics support or gaming compatibility aren’t factors. The value proposition business customers use in determining what works is much different. The business space is where linux needs to focus efforts on wider adoption, eventually that momentum can help carry over into the consumer space but not today. This is precisely the stance Red Hat has taken. Focus on serving the customers who are willing to pay today, so that you can invest in developing for tomorrow.
Personally, I don’t care about buying linux pre-installed on a system. My nealy 4 year old Dell laptop runs Suse just fine, installation was as easy and straight-forward as XP (Win2K was the OEM OS), everything worked out of the box with the exception of a couple of drivers (graphics and wifi, both of which had to be installed into XP as well). For my needs, I haven’t sacrificed anything in giving up Windows. Of course, my needs are unique to me and I won’t apply them to the general population. For many others, linux just won’t fly yet and Windows is the only viable solution for what they need.
Didn’t mean to rant, but these debates get a little tiresome. If people keep blaming Microsoft (and Red Hat? WTF?) for every linux shortcoming, the platform will stagnate and worse, the zealotry will scare people off. People I deal with at work just assume I’m some kind of MS-hater because I run linux, rather than asking me why I choose it. Let’s try and be objective and look at things in perspective.
Life is simple you just got to live it.
In reality , today , and this as been the case for 5 years now , GNU/Linux as had the capacity ,
and the software ready to be deployed with every desktop shipping from the OEM.
There this vague notion that someone would last 5 seconds in the real world with some basic 101
business lessons. The reality is that OEM or hardware maker need not to make a choice at all , they only need to provide the prototype or the model of the hardware they plan on shipping in next quarter or next year , let the distribution fight to make the best product for them. They also need to include them in there real offer as default or as a choice . Thats all they need to do.
The same hardware is shipping globally , under different version number by regions , if they can do it in South America and in Asia on the same models , then the language barrier is not a problem and the hardware certainly is not as its the same all over the globe.
There is no IP infringement in GNU/Linux at all , The US market is not important for GNU/Linux at all , in the US most people can afford Apple , Microsoft or BSD or GNU/Linux. Red Hat is not a company that can deliver the desktop , they failed even do they where provided real support and 3.5 billion in IPO. Novell is a joke ( SUSE was a bankrupt Distribution on life support ) , they have never had a winning product at all and those who tried them at first now see that it was a big mistake , there like Red Hat in that there not interested in pushing GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux desktop there just interested in making some money of it.
The hardware is not built for the OS , the hardware is built first and then the driver are made for it and then the OS is built on top of it. Its easy to claim that the small shop don’t offer better support , when the fact is that beside Dell , its really rare to get decent support from the big brand name regarding any software problem. There preferred method is to use the rescue disk and make a new installation.
In the area where GNU/Linux is offered on the same level as Microsoft windows , Microsoft is getting a real beating , its run out of the market ( read area where they offer windows lite ) , and thats why they make so much FUD about it. Your talking about building specific hardware for GNU/Linux , not even Apple do that anymore as it would be too costly.
I am going to agree on one point with you , Business and customer market are not the same , but to say that its easier to push GNU/Linux in business , is dead wrong. Business can afford far more software cost then individual can.
Red Hat don’t serve the customer who paid for its creation as they where not built by the corporations at all , they have decided that the cost to serve those who help build them is too great so they are going to sit on the money they received until someone else deliver a viable situation and then did as they did with servers: claim they are #1 in it and invented it entirely.
Desktop Brand name are built for those who cant do it themselves , GNU/Linux desktop OEM are not built for those who can install the current distribution , the turn-key solution are built for those who cant put it together themselves or those who don’t want to.
Most people don’t know whats available or that GNU/Linux exist.
That being 3rd party hardware suppliers who when MS releases a new OS usually dump support for 6mth old hardware and only support the latest and greatest on the new MS platform. There have been numerous times when considering upgrading I have come across this lack of Hardware Device Driver support and it is really annoying. I would expect the same to happen again from Vista.
This is something Linux can capitalise on as support for older hardware devices is very good under Linux.
OS-X, I can’t say you can even compare a Windows Configuration to a OS-X Mac ATM. Wait until x*^Macs are released and then we will see the true bang for buck of each platform. At the moment, here in Oz, Macs are Fn way overpriced….
There are things that I can easily do in MS Windows that are as yet not possible in Linux. Part of the problem is device drivers. In particular, Linux has poor support for scanners (no drivers for my Visioneer scanners, for example).
I’m a scientist, I often need to scan pages and pages of tabulated data. In Windows, I can OCR directly into a spreadsheet (Excel).
You can’t do this at all in Linux. While there are a few commercial OCR programs in Linux, they cost more than an entire Windows PC with OCR software (such as OmniPage). And they don’t scan into a spreadsheet.
Yes, I can do wonderful things with awk to reformat the data, but that sure doesn’t beat the push-button simplicity of Windows OCR.
If the Linux desktop community ever wants to seriously challenge Windows, then they better start addressing some real-world workflow problems like this, and get their act together with scanner support.
There are free OCR programs, and I’m sure an hour in the right irc channel will land you with the awk scripts you desire.
I’d take awk over push-button anyday.
Smart users choose power, not low mnemonics. Because they know they’ll need it later.
Now, you are right about scanner drivers. Maybe you should complain to the company that you’d like Linux drivers; if half the people who make these complaints in forums actually talked to the company I think you’d see a lot more Linux drivers. People are vocal in all the wrong places.
You’re the first scientific user I’ve heard from who prefers Windows.
Yes, there are free OCR programs being developed now. They are all recent and very immature. Definitely not ready for prime time.
I have found that complaining to companies regarding drivers for Linux – and I have complained to several, does absolutely no good. You don’t even get a reply. But I do it so that they take notice that there is a Linux market.
I did not say that I prefer Windows. I said that there are things that you can readily do in Windows that are not easy/impossible in Linux. I use whatever works best for the tasks at hand: I’ve got ten machines at home running Windows, SUSE Linux, and freeBSD.
I don’t need to search the web for awk (or shell) scripts. I write my own (re-read my comment).
The drivers issue entirely depends if you are migrating an old windows system to linux or if you build the system from scratch for linux.
If one plans to use linux from the start many of these driver issues are nonexistent because hardware that is known to be supported is used.
For instance, HP generally has very good linux printer and scanner support.
Edited 2005-11-26 02:53
Re: “HP generally has very good linux printer and scanner support.”
True. I’m running the HP PSC 1510xi All-in-One in my SUSE Linux LAN. SUSE Linux 10.0 even comes with a HP Device Manager (HP Toolbox) to assist with HP device set-up. When I first transitioned from Windows XP Professional to SUSE Linux I thought I’d be in for headaches due to a lot of Microsoft FUD spread by Balmer and others. If anything I’ve noticed wider driver support for hardware due to the contributions of both developers, manufacturers and others in the Linux community. I’ve also been able to cut cost by purchasing hardware OEM due to not requiring extras like installation CD that typically contain Windows and some with OSX drivers. This is partly due to the distributions like SUSE Linux that offer great plug and play support where most hardware doesn’t need to be manually configured, at least no where near as troublesome or time consuming as when I used Windows in the LAN.
“I’m a scientist, I often need to scan pages and pages of tabulated data. In Windows, I can OCR directly into a spreadsheet (Excel).”
Out of curiosity, where are your data coming from? Hand written documents?, old printed documents? or old data files?
THIS CRAP NEEDS TO BE STOPPED RIGHT NOW. The number of articles like this one keeps showing up on this site.
“Microsoft VISTA WILL KILL LINUX”
“LINUX GUI better shape up for VISTA for survival”
Non-technical basement dwellers who have nothing better to do than writing crappy articles is what’s “GOING TO KILL OSNEWS.COM”
Quite frankly…I’m tired of these “geek wannabes” and their crap, zero experience, dumb stupid articles so I switched to http://www.digg.com for the ‘real news on OS’.
Thanks for the http://www.digg.com link. I didn’t know the site, it’s pretty cool.
You too will get modded down by this. That’s spamming in my book regardless of my opinion on that site.
Edited 2005-11-26 01:26
joelito i agree with you here. This tactic is getting really annoying
Windows is only good for your mom, dad, sister and grandparents.
There must be something wrong with people who read OSNews or Slashdot and still use Windows. I think they’re just stupid.
Wow…
This is exactly why I started using Windows again for my desktop. I got sick and tired of listening to flames and attacks by the immature folks that seem to flock to the Linux/FLOSS camps. I have more important things to do than deal with them while helping others. Instead of telling new users to go use Linux, I point them to Windows applications that will be easy to use, unlike people who think that awk,shell,perl and other scripts are ‘solutions’ for their user friendly OS
If you want a desktop or laptop and you want to move to Linux then you’re cooked.
True.
You have very few options and retailers have used low-cost Linux systems to bait and switch users.
Very true.
So, why don’t the major Intel vendors offer Linux? Short answer: Microsoft. The old monopolist still commands and makes demands on its OEM vendors.
Not exactly true. While Microsoft may have hold of OEM vendors who signed contacts with Microsoft, nobody stops IBM, Novell, Red Hat, hordes of other Linux vendors from offering Intel hardware with Linux on it.
After all, all that hardware is Made in China, IBM would not have any technical or legal problem of offering Lenovo computer outfitted with Linux. The only problem they have is nobody asks for Linux on desktop.
What’s worse? Unsuspecting PC buyers will be faced with the need to upgrade to Vista in the near future. So, that bargain PC from Dell will probably keep on costing you money.
Lie.
I run Windows2000 which, guess from its name, was bought around 2000. I had no need to upgrade to XP. I have no need to upgrade to Vista.
Do alternatives exist? We like to think so.
Yes, they do. Go buy yourself alternative and stop claming Microsoft is monopolist. It is not, exactly because alternatives exist and freely available.
“I run Windows2000 which, guess from its name, was bought around 2000. I had no need to upgrade to XP. I have no need to upgrade to Vista.”
Bought? Bought?! So you actually paid money to get the worst OS in existence?!
The worst OS in “existence”?
Why exactly did OSNews start allowing Anonymous losers to start posting again? They did say it cut back on crap like this…
Yes, they do. Go buy yourself alternative and stop claming Microsoft is monopolist. It is not, exactly because alternatives exist and freely available.
I live in Spain and I can not find a laptop with linux preinstaled. I do not mean my favorite Distro, I mean, Linux at all. Of course I can install it myself but I want to know that my hardware is 100% compatible.
Even if people dislike linux, which something argueble, I suppose that some shops could use it to save money in the OS. The bucks from the OS can be enough to choose or not a computer. And most users won’t mind using an ilegal copy of windows. Perfect excuse, more value for the client. Appart from the fact that it will be a nice marke niche.
bwhahahaha
*rolling on the floor*
usualy i don’t even answer on any news about MS
but this one deserved a good laugh
I don’t see why Linux desktops have to get “killed” by Windows, there seem to be quite a few Linux options out there now. Linux distros often do not get paid per user for one reason, and it is also common for a WIndows pre-load machine to end up with Linux at a later date.
Personally, I don’t have any interest in Vista next yr, I like Fedora, but why would he suggest that Vista will have many security problems? I doubt that it will be exceptionally unsafe, in the end it is up to the user to pay attention as best as they can.
The article seemed to get attention of someone interested in Linux getting assaulted in some way, and then quietly suggest that one should get an Apple. Is Apple really that friendly to the consumer? It may be, i am just saying that I don’t know if it has to be any more friendly than any other company. TO me, the most friendly company is the one you never have to speak to, because your component work right the first time. I prefer the PC market as often, if a part borks there are more choices for replacement.
Looks like to me that there are three good choices for the consumer: Win, Lin, Mac, and they all seem pretty well supported these days, not to the detriment of each other.
I’m getting bored with these rants that always state the same stuff:
People who buy computers are stupid except for me.
A vast conspiracy exists between Microsoft, PC manufacturers, retail stores, the US government, etc.
This must be so since Bill Gates is rich and I’m not. He therefore must be an enormous villain since I’m the one who deserves to be rich because I can edit text files with vi.
Things will change real soon now and people will then appreciate how really smart I am.
How is it spamming? I can see it being off-topic, but spamming?
Whatever. Mod me down, I don’t really care.
I’m seeing this on other related sites. People bashing the site they’re posting on and then tellin people to go to that other site that was mentioned(the one with the d)
BTW I know this was offtopic and I don’t mind being modded down for this. But I’m tired enough of that tactic that I ignore risk
Edited 2005-11-26 05:27
The problem I see is that for many of these “Linux” desktops or laptops, they just arent that good of computers spec wise. Not only are many of them slow they use no name parts and are something I would consider rather dubious on the quality. Just because its a Linux system, doesnt mean it has to be built on the cheap.
One more thing just to clarify things… I am talking about the computers you see in your major chain stores like Wal-Mart or CompUSA.
No market?… I just have to say “I run linux” and everyone I talk to always and I mean always says “I’ve been wanting to try that.” exactly worded like that too….Men, woman, geeks and non-geeks… it’s becoming so frequent it’s scaring me. I’m glad I’ve never said “well let me help you set it up” or I’d have a full time unpaid job just doing that.
I have a friend who once had problems with her win98 computer. So I let her use mine once… she then begged me to put it on hers. I was flabbergasted.. We’ve gone through numerous issues but she’s never once asked for windows back. only bats her eyes and asks “nicely” for me to fix it.
It’s got a larger market than you’d think. The main issue is it’s got to be easy to install, upgrade, maintain and configure. If it doesn’t it’s the people like me that get over worked.
I used to tell people “I run Linux” before I switched away 4 months ago…
People’s eyes would glaze over and ask what it was, if it was a Mac application or Windows application…for some reason in NY it’s not gaining the market that you’re seeing.
Yes ease of use, maintenance, configuration and installation are important…but so is the power of games. WOW runs terribly on my computer using WINE because of issues with my ATI and Transgaming’s solution. Same thing with CoV and EQ2.
Maybe someday I will get proper APM support, proper game support, proper Video Card support..but until then Linux, FreeBSD, or any of the other so called viable replacements for Windows are useless.
Links for those wanting to run games and applications ported to Windows on Linux or just looking for a Linux software alternative for your favorite application. Also specifically regarding games I’ve found the site http://www.linux-gamers.net/ very useful both for news and information on running games ported to Windows on Wine and also games ported to Linux. Yes, there are game developers porting to Linux unlike what some claime. Serious Sam, Quake and Doom 3 are good examples.
http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=75640
http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53452
Cheers
Edited 2005-11-26 07:21
you forgot Unreal Tournament 2004 and Enemy Territory among others
One personal anecdote doesn’t make a market. How many of your friends have actually tried to buy Linux? Gone into a bib box and asked a clerk “Do you sell Linux?”.
I’m convinced that if there was money to be made selling Linux — or any other alternative desktop OS — to consumers, then someone would be doing it.
Imagine just one commercial for say.. Novell SuSE linux that just talked about how it can revolutionize the desktop. All it would take would be one vendor and a single commercial, and the name would be stuck in people’s heads.
Current heavy computer users who aren’t geeks probably wouldn’t flock to it, because they care about the software, but new computer buyers would take the price:performance ratio very well.
Linux desktops are failing because nobody knows what they are.
“If you don’t know much about computer systems, they will say that you should buy a Compaq, HP or other manufacturer. So, be careful.”
Oh No! A computer salesman not being entirely honest and trying to make you buy the more expensive option!
Yeah, that’s news.
“Many people will wind up with Linux for Christmas.”
Uh what? Just now he said it was hard to get Linux. Which is it?
“While commodity hardware systems from low cost leaders may seem attractive, they typically have poor quality control”
Because a big company would never try to cheat you…right. Come on, they’re all OEM’d from Taiwan anyway.
The article basicly says “I love Steve Jobs and want to have his baby”.
Why do osnews keep linking to all these incoherent and substandard LXR “articles”?
.
I mean come on. Every article is some scheme that one guy sits around his basement dreaming about. Enough already
My ten years old PC is showing its age. Indeed, I will get a new PC as Christmas gift. Choices and arguments:
Mac: too expensive.
Linux: too complicate to configure, printer, modem, software installation, …
Windows: my choice.
I do not claim windows is the best choice, I just find windows is the system that gives me less problems. Interestingly, I’m using only Open Source applications, OOo, Python, LaTeX; no music, no games, no movies.
with the upcoming release of mac-tel, linux is furked … and good riddance!
This article is obviously written by a Linux lover. It came across to me as a very much “listen to me, do as I say” type of article without much proof or valid reasoning behind any ‘advice’.
Personally, I think it would be very misleading to a new Linux user, and very anti-windows. It neglects to mention Windows can be secured with free third-party apps to make even grandma at home on the machine, and doesn’t talk enough about Linux downfalls for the user who would benefit from this type of ‘advice’ article.
Those that don’t need to benefit already presumably know all this, one would assume. So, at the end of the day, I found it very ‘quick’ in its conclusions without much reasoning and therefore, misleading.
LOTS of places to buy linux laptops.
http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/ to install
if you want to BUY one with linux already on it:
see the ads in linuxjournal.com magazine.
This is one of the weakest articles I have read in a long time.
It can be summed up for me in “Im an Ueber-geek – Microsoft evil & crap – Apple pretty” .
Sorry but I am able to use the ;atest fully uptodate version of XP without too many problems & fully uptodate is what a new computer would ship with.
IBM PC’s I guess are not that bad because we Linux penguins seem to be able to get stable systems on them .
Why would anyone be so stupid & waste their time installing an OS on hardware which is not fully supported by the OS (Linux on Mac) – How about using OSX – yes I hate the OSX look but it is a lot more stable in my experience than many a Linux – & just works.
If one has the money for a Mac – then I guess – you can get one – prettier – more stable – more secure – more advanced than Windows & better or equal to Linux .
If you dont have the money for a Mac than I think you can start thinkig about a desktop computer based on Linux on an IBM PC.
Windows is no where as bad as many in the Linux community want to believe & most Linux flavours from my experience are nowwhere as good as many would like them to be.
Just IMO
im sick and bored of this kind of articles…get a life people and stop with this nonsense bash.
This “article” is a blog post and its full of crap. Save your time, skip it.
The author claims that people will “need” to upgrade to vista.
I still regularly service people’s laptops with Windows 98se on them with all the dell / compaq / gateway crap still on it. Though I mention that they ough to upgrade to winxp because no new security fixes are out for 98, they don’t care, they just want the spyware / virii off their computers so they can get back to using IE and Ms Office.
I am a computer gamer primarily and see absolutely no need to upgrade to vista, maybe to windowsXP 64bit when I get a new processor.
For the record, Articles contain sources. Op-Ed’s contain opinions / editorials. Please add “Article” or “Op-Ed” so that I know what to skip.
Browser: ELinks/0.9.3 (textmode; Linux 2.6.11 i686; 100×37)
If I could buy a brand name computer with a distro on it, I probably would change to a different distro. I cannot think of what distro I would prefer on a dell laptop. I would want to try them all. So Dell cannot entice me with a distro. I purchased a Walmart Linspire laptop, and immediately changed to Mepis. And now I am running Slackware on it. I prefer Slackware, but no retailer is going to pre-install Slackware. The only rational thing for a retailer is to sell a structured distro such as Xandros and Linspire. Not because they’re better, but because they are sold with appropriate hand-holding. I suspect that knowledgeable Linux users could NOT AGREE on appropriate retail installed distribution. What’s a retailer to do? Sell a laptop with a stack of 30 distributions?
Since Bill Gates paid off the music and film industry to only allow their DRM products to function under Windows – Linux as an entertainment desktop is dead as a doorknob.
It is and probably will always be regulated to business users, people who hate Microsoft, and people whom can’t afford to buy Windows and still eat.
Actually you can thank the RIAA for the DRM issue, not just Microsoft though they are a supporter of it. The RIAA pressure tactics is what possibly caused the legal powers that be in the USA to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Anyway, regarding Linux I’ve tried to stay away from purchasing music that supports DRM such as from recording company Sony BMG who were also backlashed by the security industry for attempting to hide a Windows rootkit in music CD that were produced by them. To clarify your comment regarding Linux use with DRM I did a test with a CD produced by Sony BMG and did not had any issues playing music with DRM technology embedded. Though DRM limits what a consumer can do such as transferring the media to an iPod/Nano or a Motorola Rokr which is another reason to avoid those that support DRM. I understand the reasoning behind DRM to curb piracy but a consumer shouldn’t have to purchase music a second time just to play on their portable music devices. By the way Apple does include DRM protection for music downloaded from the Apple music store which means once downloaded cannot be transferred to another media player. I’ve included some links that may interest you regarding the DRM issue.
Explaining DRM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
DRM consumer and industry concerns:
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/47497.html
Sony BMG get caught:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47491.html
Consumer attempts to circumvent DRM:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47476.html
Ever hear of itunes? Not made by MS
Other way around there son.
I’m a big Linux fan… but this guy needs to learn to write.
I felt like I was reading a transcript of the aimless thoughts from the mind of a poorly informed Linux evangilist with a serious case of AdultADD, who started doing shots of tequlia about half an hour ago.
I call shenanigans. I don’t believe that you really used to use Linux. I honestly can’t believe someone would actually switch OSes because of Internet trolls, that just doesn’t make any sense.
FYI, Windows trolls are just as bad, including the ones that work for MS management, such as Steve Ballmer. Does that mean you’ll switch away, perhaps to OSX? Here’s a tip: their trolls are just as bad.
Internet trolling is completely irrelevant to the usefulness of a computing platform. Either a platform is good or not, who cares about what goes on on some websites.
So, no, I don’t think you switched away from Linux because of that. You’re simply making up this story to make it look as if the Linux advocates are turning people away from Linux and FLOSS in an attempt to silence them.
Then again, you clearly contradict yourself in the next post, saying that games were the reason you went back to Windows. That makes more sense. Of course, I have my dual-boot machine at home in case I want to play PC games, but like the vast majority of gamers nowadays I play games on game consoles.
BTW, in five years of using Linux I’ve never used awk, and I’ve never written a perl program. There are plenty of “easy-to-use” programs for Linux as well.
I don’t mind that you prefer Windows, that’s your loss, but pretending that you used Linux just to diss it seems a bit dishonest to me. I guess for many people the end justifies the means.
I call shenanigans. I don’t believe that you really used to use Linux. I honestly can’t believe someone would actually switch OSes because of Internet trolls, that just doesn’t make any sense.
Of course not anun he moos. You have a hard time believing there are linux trolls.
I’ll have to agree with you here. Windows 2000 isn’t the worst OS in existence. It’s actually a pretty decent OS (though I much prefer Linux).
The worst OS in existence would be Windows ME.
Meanwhile, I’ll add my voice to those who say that Anonymous posting should be removed.
If you’re really using only open source applications, then there’s really no reason not to use Linux – unless you have some weird hardware.
With a distro like Ubuntu or Mandriva, most of your configuration will be done automatically (moreso than with Windows), and software installation using RPMdrake or Synaptic is actually easier than using Windows.
You should at least download a Ubuntu or Mandriva LiveCD and try it out…you’ll be surprised at how much of your hardware is automatically configured.
Uh, no. You should see the look of envy on people’s face when they see my Kubuntu Compaq laptop. Especially when my xscreensaver GL screen savers start.
I think your bias is tainting your perception of how people view Linux.
I guarantee you that if you had a machine running Linux in such a store you’d get quite a few people who’d want to try it – especially if you were giving out Live CDs along with it.
This guy tries to manipulate in everything he says, to an extent that gets to say really stupid lies that are completely opposite to truth.
He’s trying to use the odd points of having a customer/volunteer supported OS as if they were really advantages to get hardware support!!
Linux is good enough to not need this kind of false support “a la fanatic” which really hurts to the newbies that are trying to make a decision when thay get informed.
If windows kills Linux for Christmas it must make Linux a Turkey.
Hey, Lumby, long time no see!
For anyone who doesn’t understand why Lumbergh calls me a nun, he moos, check my profile. You’ll understand the depth of Lumby’s maturity (i.e. very, very shallow).
Now, to answer your weak jab, of course I believe that there are Linux trolls. In fact, if you read my last couple of posts, you’ll see that not only do I acknowledge the existence of Linux trolls, I put them on the same footing as Windows and OS X trolls. I’m also adding a new category: “everything sucks” trolls. Those are the posters that will attack a particular OS, then defend themselves from criticism by saying that they will also criticize other OSes as well – not realizing that what makes them trolls is not the alleged neutrality (which is just a facade more often than not), but rather the aggressive, negative tone in which they make their comments.
In other words, trolls focus only on the negative, never on the positive. I’ve been around computers since 1978, back when the Apple II was the top-notch PC you could get. My first PC was a Sinclair QL. I’ve owned 8 computers over the years. I’ve followed the development of the PC industry closely. What those nay-saying trolls don’t understand (because most of them are still in their early 20’s, when they’re not outright teenagers) is that computers don’t suck. Computers are still evolving, but already what you can do with them is amazing!
I’d rather focus on the positive, and leave personal attacks and strawman arguments to the likes of Lumby and Linux is Poo. Life’s too short, and there’s still too much to discover in the computing world to let oneself be bogged down in sterile shouting matches.
Grow up, please. The sooner the better.
Hi Anun he moos.
you’re a one trick pony and always have been. You throw a tantrum anybody is critical of Linux, but as always lie by claiming that you’re “above the fray”. You have no idea if the guy you were replying to is “always focusing on the negative”.
We all know what your motivations and agenda are. The only difference between you and the other linux zealot/trolls is that you do your best to try and conceal it – the majority of them are out in the open about it.
Not in my household, nor in my business will WinDoze ever replace Linux…. Sorry Bill, you suck.
All of my newly built desktops come installed w/ (k)Ubuntu. My custom built servers usually run Gentoo. My refurbs all run (k)Ubuntu (with the exception of budget systems sold to a local NPO; those run Puppy).
Granted the refurbs (mostly Deskpro En’s – 1 GHz PIII’s and Netvistas – 1.8 GHz P4’s) also include a COA for those interested. Otherwise, Windows costs extras.
In fact, after a test drive, most of my customers choose Linux — after, at least, some hand holding and friendly guidance.
The only “I must have Windows” customers I have are:
1: Gamers
2: Application specific Clients (Access, Photoshop and InDesign/Quark being the biggest reservists — and most of the Photoshop/InDesign’ers are really coming in for a mere consultation on which new Mac to buy).
’nuff said.
you’re a one trick pony and always have been.
I find this quite amusing, considering that it’s coming from someone whose idea of rhetoric is limited to strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks.
You throw a tantrum anybody is critical of Linux,
No, I don’t. I correct innacuracies and denounce FUD when I see it. I’ll leave the emotional reactions and personal attacks to you.
but as always lie by claiming that you’re “above the fray”
Are you calling me a liar? Please show proof of where I’ve actually told a lie. Proof, Lumby, not allegations and personal attacks.
Put up or shut up.