As I’m sure many have noticed, there’s been a flurry of articles recently regarding the Linux desktop and the direction it “needs” to go in. A few have been insightful and offered up valuable information regarding the future of desktop computing. Most, however, have been painfully ill-informed or even confrontational. After sitting back and watching the fighting break out in the trenches, I decided to pen something from the opposite side of the fence.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com. Some of the claims below don’t sound fair to our ears, but an opinion is an opinion and we respect that.
It’s the Design, Stupid!
Perhaps one of the greatest sources for the general confusion among critics and ire among the Linux community is that many of the critics are suffering from a case of what psychologists call “projection”. The projection hypothesis basically states that a given person will perceive in a project the goal that they themselves value the most. It’s a form of identification that is basically derived from the internal assumption that we are normal. If I am normal and I feel a project should progress in a given direction, any normal person should feel the same. Thus, a developer who is involved in the Linux movement typically believes that the unstated goal of the movement is to create an OS perfectly suited to his or her needs. It’s a subconscious fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless. Similarly, many who envision a Linux box in every home wrongly perceive that as the Linux community’s primary goal.
So what is the goal of Linux, exactly? Well, that’s the fun part… Linux itself is merely a general use kernel designed for high performance, scalability, and a certain degree of modularity. Alone, it’s not very useful. The Linux that most people refer to when they write their usability articles is actually known as GNU/Linux and is a whole suite of applications that surround and complement the kernel. These can be packaged and distributed in an almost infinite number of combinations with very different ends. The core of Linux is choice, and nothing illustrates that more than its design. By being almost completely modular, Linux offers users the unique choice of being able to pick the very best for their specific situation. These “pre-rolled” bundles of programs, settings, environments and kernels are called distributions. There are more distributions out there than I would care to enumerate. Suffice it to say that there’s one for you out there. If in the extremely rare case you find there’s not a distro to suit your needs, Linux affords you the flexibility to create your own operating system from the ground up, or merely alter a pre-existing OS. Neat, huh? Of course it is.
One thing that Linux is *NOT*, however, is centralized. Linux, the OS, doesn’t exist. Linux, in the general sense, is so broad and far-ranging that it cannot, will not and does not share a common goal between its specific distributions, with the one exception that it must be free (as in speech). Thus, it is completely reprehensible for any critic, reviewer or well-informed computer user to ever utter the words “Linux should…” The people that speak these words are suffering under the delusion that the entire Linux community is backing a single philosophy or goal (in this particular case, the march to take over the desktop) and that they have a way to improve it. This is most definitely not the case. There are more Linux boxes out there without monitors than there are with GUIs, so we’re going to check that misconception at the door right now.
Now, with that done with, let’s move on to the meat of the meal: why Windows is unfit for the desktop and how desktop flavors of Linux beat the pants off of Windows any day…
Hardware Compatibility
That’s right, I said it. The first words out of any Linux critic’s mouth are usually these two. The Linux community typically reacts violently to the frequent charge that “there’s no hardware support” in Linux. This is due mainly to frustration. The fact is, hardware manufacturers aren’t going to go through all the trouble of allocating resources to port their drivers to each OS on the internet. At least, not unless it’s worth their while (read: $$). This leaves Linux floundering in a chicken-and-egg quagmire. See, hardware manufacturers will only write drivers for Linux if it’s popular and will benefit the manufacturer, but the only way for Linux to reach this critical mass is to have the drivers that users insist on. It’s a vicious cycle, but the Linux community has a little trick up its collective sleeve: will. By sheer dint of effort, developers and hackers have created an awe-inspiring heap of open source drivers that, while occasionally not as featureful as their proprietary counterparts, still deliver where functionality is concerned. The only real areas where driver support is still lagging is in the rare goods arena. It’s simple logic; if there aren’t many people using a product, it’s a lot harder to find people willing to write the code to make it work. But then again, your average desktop user tends to use relatively standard, off the shelf components. The people who have the most trouble with drivers are, for the most part, not your typical desktop user.
A lack of drivers, however small it may be, is no strength, though. It’s a weakness that will persist as long as hardware makers are led to believe it’s more profitable to just write for the top two proprietary operating systems. So how could hardware compatibility possibly be a *strength* of Linux? Well, pop your Windows XP installation disk into your best friend’s Apple G5 and tell me what happens.
… nothing…
No new Windows installation. Heck, without an emulator, there’s just no Redmond OS on Cupertino hardware. And why is that? Hardware incompatibility, my friends. Windows is compatible with only one type of processor. In fact, because the closest thing to a desktop-ready OS that has come out of Redmond is Windows XP, the only type of processor that will support Windows is an i686. Furthermore, you need a hefty load of RAM to run the beast, but that’s another article in and of itself (be on the watch for a Longhorn rant… coming to a news site near you). Linux, however, is able to run on a dizzying array of platforms. In one incarnation or another, chances are there’s a penguin for your processor. Got a Tivo? That runs Linux. Wanna harness the awesome number-crunching power of your PS2 or XBox? I see Tux in your future. And if you’ve got a bunch of old, dusty, slow grinding 4/586s, I’ve got good news for you: Linux can breathe new life into those old boxes. They’ll be snappier than ever with a smaller base install and a relatively tiny memory footprint. Now that’s what I call hardware compatibility. After all, what’s the point of paying $1,500 on a good computer if it can’t even boot the OS in three years? Linux gives desktop users the unique option of actually being productive for longer by extending the functionality and life of their machine. And by being nearly universally compatible, it allows those in the market for a new system to resurrect old hardware or buy less expensive systems and still guarantee performace and stability. After all, a PS2 would make a great desktop computer: sleek, functional, fast and internet-ready… all for under $200. A PC with a similar feature set would cost much more (and lack the necessary element of style!). Try doing any of that with Windows.
Best of Breed Apps
The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS. This is desktop computing we’re talking about, not genomics. If Joe User is running some special app, chances are high that it’s already been ported to Linux (and probably a good number of other OSes, too). When it comes to common, uncommon, or even outright bizarre tasks, Linux has the bases covered. There’s so much free desktop software for the Linux platform it’s almost an insult to even pretend you’ve got some magical app that has only been designed for Windows and has no Linux counterpart. Why is it so unbelieveable? Because the current generation of Linux developers and contributors are users just like everybody else. They have needs. They have wants. They have time. And if they needed or wanted that program or that functionality, they’re the type of people who would build it. If a couple of people have a can’t-live-without application that hasn’t been ported or written afresh, it’s typically because those people belong to a niche group lovingly referred to as “the fringe”, or they simply haven’t done their homework. Basically, nobody has needed that app or all the Linux users have found a way to get by (or prosper) without it. Typically, this argument is made by those without the capacity for research.
However, the truly beautiful thing about free software is that one has full license to create an application to fulfill a need. If, by some freakish cosmic oversight, an application addressing your needs doesn’t exist, you may create or propose an idea and start a project. And if you aren’t a proficient coder, it’s ok! Developers are always on the lookout for a good idea and any kind of help, from design to documentation or artwork, is greatly appreciated.
That said, productivity and desktop applications in Linux are mature, standards-compliant and feature-rich. In contrast, Microsoft has been releasing the same Office suite since 1997, with the only visible changes residing in the formatting of documents and the creation of an increasingly crowded workspace. Native documents are often incompatible or inconsistent accross the major iterations of Office. You still can’t export to PDF format from the Office suite. Standards compliance and interoperability aren’t even on the radar. Heck, Outlook just got a “real” mail filter in late 2002. Compare that to Linux mail applications, such as Evolution, that can operate quietly and comfortably in any climate, even a hostile Windows-only office environment. OpenOffice can import and export into every format imaginable (and a few most people didn’t even know existed). Even the most basic office tools on the Linux desktop provide powerful functionality and are simple enough for grandma to use. Most of them (Gnome Office, Koffice, OpenOffice, etc) possess the capability to operate in a tightly integrated manner with no extra fuss. And many of them possess features that can be downright revolutionary at times (ex: Abiword automatically scales your document to fit its window by default. For those with lots of screen real estate, poor vision, or a comfortable bed or chair further from the computer, this is invaluable).
Ease of Configurability
What if you want to fiddle with the settings of your operating system in regards to that hardware we just talked about above? Here’s the catch: you don’t want to touch the command line. As far as you’re concerned, a desktop user should never even know that such a thing exists. I agree, and so do many of the latest Linux critics. But most are convinced you can’t do it. Many even contend or imply that configuration is easier in Windows. I can’t believe this. It hurts my head when I hear this argument made. The graphical tools are right there in front of you! KDE has so many configuration utilities, I’m convinced they’re violating child-labor laws just to code the stuff. Gnome has a painfully simple to use set of System Tools that is not only intuitive, but it packs a punch as well. This stuff is virtually grandma-proof. The tools are full-featured, flexible and incredibly powerful. And with new innovations in hardware abstraction, compatibility and configurability will get even easier! Yay!
With Windows, I must concede, the user is presented with what seems to be a rather complete set of utilities in the Control Panel. But, as any experienced Windows user or admin will attest, Windows’ configuration utilities suffer from a chronic case of wizarditis. The process is GUIfied to such an extent that only typical, average cases are accounted for. The wizards will simply not allow for “strange” or unconventional configurations. And they certainly won’t let the frustrated user enter in their own settings. One must ride the wizard merry-go-round armed with grit, information and determination, or drop down to do some low-level hacking. But wait! That’s not allowed.
I can already hear the grumbling, so to those naysayers out there, I have a challenge for you: have a computer illiterate (your stereotypical “my grandma” case) perform *any* configuration task in one of the Big Three Linux distros (SuSe, Fedora and Mandrake). If grandma absolutely cannot perform the task with the graphical tools these distros provide, I’ll pay her $10. Now, have her try to perform the same configuration task in Windows. Choose something easy and then something involved and complex. Run through a whole bunch of scenarios. Try to set each computer up on a network. 9 out of 10 times, I guarantee it will take at least twice as long to accomplish the same configuration goal in Windows as in Linux, if it’s even possible at all. The truly ironic thing about Windows configuration is that, to do it right the first time, you do have to be an expert. Or at least you have to know what each generalized, cryptic setting truly means. The prompts in most Linux configuration utilities are actually clearer and easier to follow, in my experience, than those in Windows. They accomplish this by not dumbing down the interface too unnecessarily. If a user has begun playing with Samba shares or DHCP settings, it’s safe to assume they know enough to get by without having to “idiotify” the descriptive names of settings and elements. Simple explanations tend to suffice. Windows developers could learn a few lessons here.
Ease of Installation
This is another sore spot for Linux critics. Linux, they argue, simply does not have a single, integrated, simple-to-use package management tool. And they’re absolutely right. Of course, look though I might, I can’t seem to find anything even remotely resembling such a tool for Windows, either. In fact, the OS barely ships with anything worth using (“I paid $300 for this? Where are the programs?”). No productivity software, a couple of games and a swiss-cheese, featureless, non-compliant web browser. And certainly no package management. I’m not sure where the theory originated that this is necessary for a successful desktop OS (or that Add/Remove Programs and Windows Update are in any way related to this), but if it were true, most distributions of Linux would already qualify as very, very successful. There are at least half a dozen fully mature tools for package management already in existence (apt, yum, emerge, pacman and red carpet come to mind), but I can’t seem to find too many of these kinds of tools for Windows.
Many will say that this is because most programs compiled and distributed for the Windows platform have significantly fewer dependencies (well, they’re actually distributed with the OS, contributing to the collossal bloat), so dependency resolution is largely unnecessary. Although this may be true to some degree, Windows distributed binaries are no easier to find than their Linux counterparts. There is no one-stop-shop in Windows. There is no organized distribution method by which a user could browse or search for a program by task and install it with the click of a button. Such entities exist in Linux.
As a result of an almost complete lack of standardization or cooperation, Windows installation files are typically scattered throughout the filesystem. And because there’s no guidelines dictating Start Menu entries, a user’s Start Menu can begin to resemble a waterfall of words and tiny icons. Many apps in Windows don’t register with the Add/Remove utility during installation, necessitating an uninstall from the included uninstallation program (which involves more hunting). With the above package management systems, this is all taken care of transparently. They’re certainly not perfect yet, but considering the complex role they play, it’s clear they’re a far superior tool to anything Microsoft offers.
Toolkits and UI
Interface inconsistency is another accusation frequently leveled at the Linux community. After all, the argument goes, how can one be productive with all those different toolkits on the desktop.
I contend that Windows is no better. In fact, it’s significantly worse. There is almost no consistency *at all* on a fully loaded Windows desktop. Case in point: fire up your favorite Windows burning app, word processor, pdf viewer, video app, audio app, chat client and web browser. Now, unless you’re using Media Player for both the video and audio functions, you should see 7 (count ’em) different toolkits staring you in the face. Heck, even if you limited yourself to strictly Microsoft offerings, you would still have to reconcile a different toolkit for each release of Office and other products. And don’t forget that your administrative panel still looks like it did almost 10 years ago.
With Linux, though, you can achieve consistency through the miracle of choice. Want a GTK-free desktop? Chat with Kopete, PIM with Kmail, be productive with Koffice… it’s all there. Your Qt hating friends can IM you via Gaim or email you with Evolution or Balsa. Browse the web with Konqueror. They’ll use Galeon or Epiphany. There are too many more for me to continue, but if you want to get a real grasp on just how vast and varied the offerings are, check out KDE-Apps.org and Gnomefiles.org. And of course, the beauty of open source is such that, if you like the guts of a program, but hate the interface, you’re allowed (even encouraged) to port it. And it’s so much easier than starting afresh!
Ease of Use
The last resort of the exasperated critic and the first card played by the computer newbie is this: Linux is just plain hard to use. It’s a tricky argument, because it’s too powerful and inflammatory to leave alone, but too vague and subjective to pinpoint. But what it typically boils down to is not that Linux desktops are hard to use, but that they are merely different. Change is hard on people, and it colors their opinions. Much of computing, especially desktop computing, is about expectations. And if things aren’t where users expect them to be, many people aren’t willing to expend the extra effort. Various usability studies (ref: Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug) have confirmed that most people don’t perform computing tasks in the most logical way, but simply in the way that first worked for them. If, for example, a Windows user had first gotten a program to run by opening My Computer and hunting around the filesystem for the program, the whole concept of the Start menu is completely lost on them. And getting them to change their habit, despite the clear advantage to the transition, will typically be met with considerable resistence. Now, if they’re going to be that entrenched about firing up a simple program, imagine how offputting a whole new desktop layout can be. For newbies and experts alike relearning can be too daunting.
That said, the Windows desktop is a mangled trainwreck where usability is concerned. Simple settings are often duplicated in different configuration windows. Many specific settings are just plain hard to find, as the design team wisely “dumbed down” the control panel into a handful of generic categories, each capable of housing a number of disparate settings. Internationalization is mediocre at best and downright nonexistent in many cases. The newest versions of Office, as has been mentioned before, assault the user with so many menus, toolbars and options there’s hardly enough space to work. Open up Outlook 2003 and see what I mean. It hurts the eyes. Buttons and prompts are placed and worded with no particular order or logic throughout the operating system, as if calculated to confuse the average user. And when a user finally breaks down and asks for help, the help files are useless, offering one or two vague options before referring the user to another help category or even more cryptic web support.
Many in the Linux community, on the other hand, have adopted a page from Apple’s book and are making usability a top priority. Both the KDE and Gnome projects have standardized much about the way their desktop environments operate, providing a consistent look and feel across the board. Gnome has gone a step further, however, and has pioneered the adoption of a common interface. The rules governing this advance, dubbed the HIG (Human Interface Guidelines), specify everything from icon themes and keyboard shortcuts to button placement and menu layout. All of these improvements have contributed to Gnome’s rising appeal to the corporate IT world as a replacement for corporate desktops. It’s rapidly becoming an out-of-the-box solution for ease of use and productivity.
The Verdict
As has become increasingly clear over the course of the past two years, Linux is not only ready for the desktop, it’s a better contender than Windows ever was. It’s sleeker and faster, often easier to install and setup, and it’s simple to operate. But perhaps the most impressive bit in all of this is the price tag: free. The TCO of Linux is a big smile. I know, that’s not what some consulting firms say. They claim Linux will eat up corporate budgets with user training, but I’m not impressed. Training is a one time deal, a single expenditure that proves its worth over time. How can that cost even compare to exorbitant licensing fees levied twice yearly to the major corporations or the pocketbook hit for every upgrade a user commits to?
There’s something romantic to the idea of an underdog. But when that underdog is clearly better fit for competition and *free*… well, I would have to say the race has already been won. Look out desktops everywhere, here comes Linux!
About the Author:
Brian Davis is been using Linux for five years now, and he still prefers the GUI. He doesn’t particularly dislike Microsoft’s products, but he does heavily prefer Linux’s features, stability and price tag. This is his first article.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
hehe much non-MS software there, MS windows can be secured, tcp/ip filtering, turn of ports etc, I can setup a box you can`t hack, cause any port open will be 1, however, I did learn this after I started playing with windows, netstat -a etc, cause MS is a poor Unix version made easy..
And with XP they started getting the piont, but in terms of stability it`s getting better, and win2k2003 is pretty good, but the problem as I see it, is the gui and telinit 2 etc you can do on linux to bring the gui down or do admin work on it–> then in runlevel 1 🙂 there are so much more software,admin tools free and in terms of themes,tweaking etc I like linux for a desktop and I can handle it! However it`s not as easy for a “joe schmo” to start using it, cause it`s different and sometimes to much, MS you get the gui,some small apps and you have had the time to have learned em, and there ARE always a gui there for you, even if you have to run in safe mode, or you have you`re IT guy over wich can`t much, but you think he can, and he fixes you up.. Linux will surpass MS in 2-3 years, just wait for kde 4 series and Gnome 3.
Problem is that Linux users give MS users the long finger and think they know everything, just ssshhh and let`s not give perls to pigs, no seriously there are to much bassing of MS users, and if you can IT you can run MS without firewall, know a 10 000 company who do, cause they secure it right, have policies in order and CA checking etc.
So I give MS and Linux:
35% and 65% as of now,why?
MS: price vs what you get (apps,config,support)
Linux: you can have a box run a webserver on 11 mb you can install ( not shure here, tho 12-14 cd`s) 11G from debian for FREE
you`ll find a lot of MS free to, but uurrggh even IRC has a thing to it on MS, that uggly guy popping up…
you see my point I hope
each and every windows nut who responded to this is a raging idiot. ITS A TROLL. a very well written, and extremely funny troll, but still a troll. he is writing the same thing as all those useless linux on the desktop articles that come out every few weeks.
if you like windows, then use it. if you dont like linux, then dont use it. just dont write articles about how much linux sucks cause your too stupid to use it, and have the balls to replace this nebulous “joe user” with your own name.
After reading this article and the multitude of comments that were slewn shortly after, it really bugs me that the majority is so strong-opinioned and uninformed about this Windows vs. Linux stuff. The article was biased, yes… but so is almost every comment I have read. Hell, I have a Linux bias, and have acted on it.
So what do we do about this? A lot of users absolutely LOVE using Microsoft Windows for whatever reason. In contrast some users prefer working with a unix-like OS like GNU/Linux or FreeBSD for their own reasons. Both choices are perfectly fine! I can be prodcutive with Windows, and I can also be productive with Linux. Let it be. If Linux becomes attractive enough to them, hopefully they will switch to what you, the Linux user, and what they feel is the best choice. On the other hand, if Microsoft makes a great OS with Longhorn — will you not even give it a chance?
For those who prefer Linux:
The attitudes that I’ve seen that I personally think are best and are the attitudes of the developers that are actually making changes that will improve Linux (from what I’ve seen: KDE devs and Keith Packard share this attitude). You don’t see them writing what Linux should or shouldn’t be because they are the ones who are making it what it is. Instead of zelotry, and bashing everyone who makes a comment about how Windows is better in one way or another, why not take the high road and simply ignore it, or at least be kind or courteous when you correct them.
Am I just shooting stuff our of butt here, or does anyone agree this idiotic flaming-poop throwing needs to settle down?
> You would be amazed how many non x86 Linux computer are uot there. win2k is not great It can do absolutly nothing LInux can do not so what is you point?
Where are all the non-x86 Linux DESKTOP machines? Who are using them? I would be curious to find out. I don’t understand the last sentence.
> OpenOffice is free ,powefull and can save to PDF. I have written a lot of documents using OpenOffice.org and had absolutly no problems with Word compatebility. Anyway you can use Word under LInux or Apple so no need for Windows i your REALLY need it for some strange reason.
But why run Word emulated in Linux when OpenOffice runs native in Windows? As long as OpenOffice is not 100% compatible, then it can’t be used for some. I gave an example when Office is needed. Sure, OpenOffice would have been fine for her, but she did not want to take any chances.
> Every administrator knows that a command line is about 1000x more powerfull if you know what you are doing, scripting/piping command etc. is all not possible in a GUI and a GUI is always sucking more mem and cpu cycles. Even MS admits it they are wrking on a full replacemnet for the CL in their nest server OS.
But how many DESKTOP users are admins who know how to do all that?
> I will, apt-get, yum, urpmi , alien, dpkg, cnr etc. LInux is king here.
I was refering to OS installation. My bad.
>Oh you must be joking right?. tar, cvs, apt-get.
You must be joking if compiling from source is your solution for DESKTOP users.
> For Gnome you could use the built in burner from Nautilus. Besides that that are dozen GOOD burn utilities from Gnome look: http://www.gnome-apps.org. You could also use GearCD for LInux.
And none are as good as k3b or nero.
> Why should it vbe solved i like different looks for different programs.
Good, then the problem described by the author is not actually a problem for you.
Look at all these perturbed Windows users. It’s no fun when somebody writes an article ridiculing your OS of choice, is it? Hope you bear that in mind next time you go on one of your anti-Linux rants. Remember it’s not that Linux is not ready for the desktop, it’s that YOU are not ready for Linux.
>> It [the article] was about the Desktop, that
>> mythical home- and corporate-user experience
>> where only general use applications are needed.
If you’re going to so limit the definition of “Desktop,” you should have said so in the article. Not doing so invited attack.
Personally, as someone absolutely dependent on extremely sophisticated niche market software (legal profession) and with a LOT of time, money, and effort invested in high-end use of word processing and related legal profession software, it’s stunningly frustrating and insulting to hear folks claiming that Linux and OOo are ready for “the Desktop.”
I know because I’ve studied and tried both that OOo is designed for the “lowest common denominator” user, the user you concede is “mythical,” and that the advantages of Linux are wasted if I can’t get the applications I need to earn a living in a fiercely competitive market.
In my opinion, OOo would achieve its designers’ goals much more quickly and efficiently if OOo were developed specifically for a specialty niche market like the legal profession. As Bill Gates said, if your word processor meets the needs of the legal profession, it’ll meet nearly all the needs of the rest of the world. Furthermore, the legal profession has the necessary wealth to subsidize such development. After all, it was the legal profession that predominately underwrote the development of WordPerfect and crowned it king of the word processors.
But any such effort would have to address the need for other software that’s needed by the same niche market. That’s because Windows has the developed application advantage. Unless a niche market can obtain all or at least most of its software needs on a given platform, no one will make the switch. At the same time, developers of the specialty apps know that developing for Linux is a waste of their efforts (it won’t be used) unless all or most of the other specialty niche market apps make the transition first or simultaneously. So there’s gridlock.
And that’s the curse of anyone developing a competitor to Windows, as the court recognized in the Microsoft anti-trust litigation. As much as many of us would love to make the transition, we still have to earn a living and we can’t do so on Linux.
What’s needed is better technology that bridges the transition. Just maybe if the Wine developers, for example. concentrated their efforts on making Wine work for most specialty apps in a given niche market, taking it one niche at a time, you could begin to see a mass exodus. Certainly if the specialty app developers saw a total Linux/Wine solution developing for their niche market, they would be far more inclined to begin porting their apps to run natively. By the same token, you might also see FOSS developers beginning to develop competing specialty apps.
But barring that approach or something equivalent, we’re going to see packages like OOo being aimed at the folks with simple needs, home users, folks who only need to bang out an occasional letter, etc. And to that extent, the entire FOSS movement is misdirected; after all, we are all in reality niche users.
What Linux lacks, for me, is a web browser that is full of security holes and can’t be uninstalled.
Now, if the Penguin boys could add that (and sound support) I would switch.
Talk about a killer app. IE has killed a running Win session for me more times than I can count and I only use Windows for gaming and downloading game patches anyway.
MS-Windows doesn’t even do a competent job of scrollbars.
It requires that you manually supervise the job of moving the scrollbar-slider up and down, keeping it within the itty-bitty narrow slot provided for it. <IT>If you let your mouse-cursor slide the least bit outside that slot, you lose</IT> !!
I have used apps based on many X-Windows toolkits, and I <IT>don’t know a single one</IT> with that sort of misbegotten misbehavior. Having to use apps under MS-Windows from time to time is an absolute PITA!
Definitely not ready forthe desk-top!
this guy has made some valid points in my opinion, but often went on a rant to support his claims and those I agreed with were already known to me..
Just in my opinion…. you can’t compare windows and linux.
I’m a fan of linux but you cannot game on them yet and I miss my BSOD…. 🙂 but on a serious note my gentoo server runs great but windows will always be on my second partition just because its mainstream and I would rather run the programs like photoshop natively that emulation like through linux… because it’s still on my pc.
I am a user that is willing to learn a new system and would rather not use warez.. so free linux progs are great for that!
but an article like that is not gonna make windows users swarm over to linux overnight or maybee never…. leave them alone and let them make the choice themselves.
my friend asked me one time to “install the penguin” to test it but has never asked me to again. BECAUSE THAT’S HIS CHOICE and I repect that. if he’s ever willing to try it again I will help him…. period!
I have an out-of-box Dell Dimension 4550. Upon a clean installation of Windows XP, I must use the Resource CD to install graphics drivers, sound drivers, and network drivers. However, all distributions of Linux I have tried only miss the sound drivers (because my card is OEM).
Fixing the sound problem in Linux (as a complete newbie to Linux) required going through hell. I could not find a single thing that worked – ALSA, the included configuration interfaces, mixers, and so on. Finally I stumbled onto a forum where a poster recommended opensound, and that works fine. For Windows, I had to go to ati.com, creative.com, and intel.com and download and install the drivers. Windows was by far a faster setup in that respect. My point is that Linux has great potential. Its hardware support and software offerings are immense. But, this is one reason I do not use Linux: because of this lack of vendor hardware support.
The second problem is program installation. If I go to the gaim.sourceforge.net website for my SuSE install (because I dislike kopete quite a bit), I am presented with source code being my only option. I wish that there were an automated installer, or at least that there were a download with the name of my distribution on the package, but still, I download the source, under the impression that I’ll simply have to perform a ./config, make, make install. It’s not so simple. I receive errors, and it doesn’t compile. Why? Some cryptic message. I don’t care what it said, or what it means. All that matters is that I can’t install my instant messenger. For Windows, I download it and double-click the installer. I could care less where the program is on my hard drive, how many dll files it places in my Windows system directory, and so on. All that matters is that the icon is on my desktop and it works.
Better hardware vendor support (not the fault of Linux) and easier installation of programs and drivers from web downloads, without using the terminal. I’d certainly be a Linux user if these two issues were solved.
“Look at all these perturbed Windows users. It’s no fun when somebody writes an article ridiculing your OS of choice, is it? Hope you bear that in mind next time you go on one of your anti-Linux rants. Remember it’s not that Linux is not ready for the desktop, it’s that YOU are not ready for Linux.”
I dont mind someone writing an anti Windows article, as every OS has its faults. However, this one is just plain horrible. This seemed like just a three page rant defending Linux with half baked arguments given throughout. Its not that I am not ready for Linux, but rather it is NOT ready for me.
Endnote does work under Crossover office. I use it every day. At least, version 5
Versions 6 and 7 do not. I doubt they would let me downgrade.
Additionally, Kaspaliste is actually more powerful than Endnote. I am planning my switch to it. Built on top of a full-relational database, it allows you to link texts, context with bibliographic information and search it in an awesome number of ways.
And bookcase is coming along very nicely and has many of the pieces to make it a future endnote replacement already there.
Obviously, you have not looked very far.
Obviously, you have not looked very carefully. Kaspaliste looks like a nice database of references, but that’s about it. I need to search for references remotely and download them (from PubMed), and then format them within an OpenOffice Writer document in one of more than a dozen different journal-specific formats. Can Kaspaliste do any of that? I do not think so. You have to insert the references manually (this is 2004, for Chrissake), and I see no way to format an OpenOffice document with them. The only thing it can do is export the references as BibTex. I do not need that, nor do my colleagues. The same goes for Bookcase, which has several other export format that OpenOffice cannot do too much with.
Conclusion: nothing to replace EndNote yet. Sorry.
while he hit a lot of things squarely on the head he also exaggerated many of his points so badly that he hurts his creditablity. example, when he says that windows only supports one architecture. nt4 supported alphas, some kind of ppc, some other ones i can’t remember, and xp is eventually going get 64 bit support. the point is the idea of a linux desktop is strong enough to support on its own merits, it is not neccessary to over exaggerate windows weaknesses to prove your point.
“Until someone designs and OS (and particularly apps to go with it) that are an order of magnitude better than what I use on a daily basis, why would I bother to switch.
…..
I am simply not going to invest a bucket load of time learning, installing etc etc a new system unless it gives me more than 100% improvement over what I use today.”
Ah, you mean a binary order of magnitude, not a decimal one.
I suspect many Mac users would claim that their OS is at least twice as good as Windows or Linux.
If grandma absolutely cannot perform the task with the graphical tools these distros provide, I’ll pay her $10.
Get out your wallet. Here’s the rub, sonny-boy.
Get grandma to try SuSe, then get her to set up a Samba server using user level security and a Windows style PDC.
You lose. I’ll take those $10 please.
How can I be so sure? Simple: there are experts that have difficulty sometimes. This is one of those cases.
/now all I have to do is come up with about 60 more ideas and I’ll just have to mail me a new GeForce 6800…
This guy sounds like he actually knows what he’s talking about! He’s not trying to get the OSS community to make another windows, but an alternative! One qualm though, why is it assumed that a “desktop user” isn’t knowlegable about computers? I am a desktop user, and I would rather have a bunch of configuration files than a seperate GUI config editor for each and everything that needs to be configured. I realize that some would rather have a GUI, this is why there’s choice in Linux which the author seems to understand. However, Linux being ready for the desktop doesn’t mean it needs to be 100% gui, three-click install, don’t have to use the command line, etc etc. It means there need to be powerful, compatable applications/drivers available that make people productive, even if it’s only the people that know a bit about computers, and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. Linux is there, I know because I’m a desktop Linux user! The only things I need to go to windows for are the latest games, and Visual Studio (required for some classes I’m taking, I use KDevelop for personal projects). In fact I agree with the author that since I have grown comfortable with Linux as a desktop, I can barely stand using XP to do hardly anything! XP has a long way to go until it’s as ready for the desktop as Linux.
Now as a seperate topic: is Linux ready for the novice user? I would say not quite yet, but it’s getting there. Most of the articles titled “Is Linux ready for the desktop?” should be titled “Is Linux ready for the novice user’s desktop?”
Also some people have posted talking about how XP is obviously ready for the desktop because it’s there, people are already using it. For awhile Windows was the best (not to be read good) solution for the desktop system. This combined with Microsft’s incredible markeing smarts has thrust Windows to dominate the market. Now Linux is becoming a viable alternative, and for all but novice users, a technically superior alternative, but doesn’t really have any marketing force, and windows continues to dominate.
I am not a zealot because I don’t want to overthrow Microsoft, or anybody for that matter. I just want something better for myself, and if others want to use it too — great! That just means more developers! developers! developers!
~Jake B
6 billion heads are better than one head
Show me the equilevent of these applications on Linux:
Maya, 3dStudioMAx, SoftImage XSI, Visual Studio.Net equilevant programming environment, Quicken, QuickBooks….
Linux has none of them…
>Show me the equilevent of these applications on Linux:
>Maya, 3dStudioMAx, SoftImage XSI, Visual Studio.Net equilevant
>programming environment, Quicken, QuickBooks….
>Linux has none of them…
Maya, Softimage XSI, Houdini, Quicken, JBuilder,
Linux has all of them…
Why do you not try and dig into something before stating something completly idiot.
ps. discreet (3DMAx is builing a LInux version of 3DStudioMax sstt..)
Maya for Linux? Native on Linux
http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/maya_complete/index…
Softimage XSI? Native on Linux
http://www.softimage.com/corporate/press/pressreleases/010914_ibc_x…
Visual Studio.NET? Mono is a clone of VS.NET
http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html
Quicken/Quickbooks: ther is no equivilent that I know of. But intuit doesn’t really have much competition on Window either. Perhaps you might want to try crossover office?
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/compatibility/browse/cat?app_id=73
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/compatibility/browse/cat?app_id=72
i put @Ralph for some reason… it was at the Emre “BS” comment
Your first three paragraphs were brilliant. I was just about to send this link to my GNU-bashing, windows-hugging friends because I finally found an intelligent article that didn’t resort to outdated windows-bashing and preaching to the choir.
Then I read the remaining contents of page 1.
Oh well, maybe next year…
Just so you know, I know it is spelt wrong.
It is actually a inside joke with my friends.
I think you are not judging thing subjectively here. Windows has a rather large user base mainly because it is pushed ahead by a company that has some rather shady marketing strategies. True so far.
I have been using both GNU/Linux and Windows for quite a while now (6-7 years) and I really can’t make up my mind which one to use as my main desktop. I am a bit biased towards win32 tho. No matter how much progress the people at Nvidia made lately with their drivers, X.org is still slower than the win32 gui. On my machine (barton 2500+ w/ 512 megs of RAM) windows xp does a better job simply at rendering windows on the screen. Of course the performace in Linux might be dependent on the wm used, but I’m not willing to use fluxbox/openbox type wms. The windows gui is pretty solid and fast. It’s also inflexible and doesn’t provide much eyecandy.
As for the software, nobody is actually forcing you to use IE or other crappy M$ software just because you’re running windows.
Windows gets the job done. On the other hand so does Linux. I definetely wouldn’t run a web server on windows and i would not run Photoshop in wine. It all comes down to performace in the end and using the right tool for the job. Users will make their choice and developers will have to constantly improve both os-es. It’s a free world, isn’t it great?
Anyway i’m running windows right now w/ 6 puttys
>UI consistency is broken in Microsoft’s own applications. At least in of them and that’s enough to piss me of everytime I fall for it. Which one? MS Office 2000. I mostly use Word and Excel. Both have two rows of the minimize, maximize and close buttons. One on the title bar, one on the menu bar. Those on the menu bar, of course, work only for the current window, as expected. From experience (Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, Word, Mozilla), I expected the buttons on the title bar also to affect only the current window. If I press the close button, I expect only the current window to close. It works so for all the applications I listed, but not so for Excel. It closes ALL Excel windows. Plainly incosistent.
Problem is that you are comparing behaviors from MDI applications (Word and Excel) to SDI applications (Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer).
“After sitting back and watching the fighting break out in the trenches, I decided to pen something from the opposite side of the fence”
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7894&offset=15&rows=30
has a post that seems to contain the idea, but not the level of “knowledge”
Had a great tool from digital (i think) that allowed the execution and translation on the fly of x86 opcodes to Alpha opcodes… and… the program would run faster with each interaction!!!
That is what i would like to see implemented in current trend OS. For the CPU/Arquitecture and for the OS (if at all possible).
Thus, it is completely reprehensible for any critic, reviewer or well-informed computer user to ever utter the words “Linux should…”
It’s that kind of attitude that has made the linux such a miserable excuse for a desktop operating system. The underlying technology has nothing to do with it.
Read it again. Only Excel does it. Word behaves as expected (closes only one window).. So I AM comparing oranges to oranges.
Why is it that when articles like this are presented both the Linux and the Windows camp start acting like children? Yes, Windows has flaws, and many of them. Yes, Linux (and all associated technolgies, like KDE, Gnome, etc) have flaws, and many of them. It the eternal thing called software, and all software contains bugs and can benefit from tweaking. Do not be under the allusion that just because you personally think your system is right and the other’s is wrong, that your system is actually right for everyone! This applies to both camps.
“Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction — from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn’t work.“
“Its not that I am not ready for Linux, but rather it is NOT ready for me.”
It’s all relative, isn’t it? I know plenty of people using Windows who can’t even change their wallpaper, much less install their own software, set up their email boxes, and sure as hell don’t understand the concept or the need for patching. Even Windows isn’t user friendly enough for them. So then what? Is the author right then, since Windows is too complex or tedious for some users? Does that make it not ready for the desktop? Or do we simply say that even Windows requires a certain amount of knowledge to use, a willingness to learn. And so does Linux. There will inevitably be some problems with Linux, just there are problems with Windows, simply different sorts of problems.
When I was first thinking of looking at Linux, I was imagining some shining cure-all that would just take a little work to get going, and then I would have perfection.
Looking back, that was a really stupid thing to assume. Since then I’ve pretty much learned that there really IS no perfect OS.
On the one hand, I’m more comfortable with Windows, and know my way around the system fine. It doesn’t crash (much) either thanks to what I’d like to think was careful attention on my part…
On the other hand, I miss being able to call killall -9 on some stupid program, and having to wait for Windows’ task manager to decide to do it after a minute or two. And I also miss Xine media player for a few things (no doubt there are Windows apps that can do its stuff and better.
But then there’s the botched install of OpenOffice my Gentoo box just did (first time ever it’s messed up like this) and the hour or two I spent trying to mount my USB key drive, and the way XMMS doesn’t play completely nice with the KDE or XFCE4 sound servers even with ALSA.
Oh no, neither are perfect. But my philosophy is now that unless you really have to change, or really want to, stick with Windows and be happy. If you want to look at Linux, try a Knoppix CD, Mozilla Firefox, Gaim… But Linux isn’t for everyone.
I cannot believe how many blind comments on the side of Windows’ there are here. Especially contrasted to the actual constructive criticisms to the article. I think all the points were well formed, not necessarily all _entirely_ true. Good article, especially for a first; I look forward to more.
Go with the OS that suits you best. I think it is a given that many are not happy with Microsoft or its Windows OS–simply by the fact that there are literally hundreds of Linux distributions, Apple OS, BeOS, and others.
Here’s the one thing I disagree with, from the otherwise good article:
“It’s simple logic; if there aren’t many people using a product, it’s a lot harder to find people willing to write the code to make it work.”
Now, while this is generally (physically) true, I am more inclined to side with the “Build it and they will come” philosophy; or at the very least, build what your heart desires, and if you happen to be in the position to sell what you’ve built, it’ll be there for those who are like minded. In the end, people CANNOT use a product that others haven’t built. It’s what killed Amiga, in my opinion. It’s almost the Fear-Uncertainty-Death (FUD) meme.
He who dares…wins. Maybe, simply, because he dares (maybe not because what he’s built is much good). People can’t buy or use what isn’t there.
Like someone pointed out in the thread of responses, it doesn’t have to be perfect to be on the desktop; it can be a little ratty (though, mind you, this is far from my own preference). It at least has to be there.
Windows is there on the desktop. So is Linux. In fact, as stated above, so are a LOT of Linux distros.
At the end of the day, just go with the OS that suits you best. Whether you judge an OS by price or performance, speed or stability; if it does what you want it do do, and all of your rationalizations are justified, good.
If you still can’t find one you like, build your own 😛
–EyeAm
“Finger to the status quo!”
http://s87767106.onlinehome.us/mes/NovioSite/index.html
… as I said before, it’s all about the apps. People will forgive all sorts of inconsistencies and fallacies in the OS if the apps do what they need well. (Witness MS>Apple).
Linux will succeed on the desktop once it gets a full range of mature, 1st class desktop apps. IMHO none are there yet except a few music listening apps and maybe a couple of the burner apps. It has to support the full range – friendly prosumer level db’s like FileMaker and Access, graphics, artistic, audio, office, prosumer and pro-level video, creative, web dev, home finance, small business finance, etc.
To be honest, I think it’s the prosumer level apps that need targeting. Anyone can make a bunch of Broderbund junk.
The rudimentaries are there, and everyone can point to examples in all of those fields, but none are very mature. Maybe people should concentrate on the top 3 best of breed apps in the major categories and push them up.
This is such a biast article its pathetic and the writer wasnt ready for such an article. The reason XP especially has succeded as a desktop os that is on so many pc’s (what is it over 90% of desktops?) Is because it truely is simple, i have rarely ever had to look for a driver no not for new things but for old outdated things. So whatever pc you have makes me really wonder beyond that getting specific drivers has only happened when i’m tweaking such as those new superfast nvidia drivers etc.
As for linux i am a linux user i have it on my laptop and 3 of my servers. The fact of the matter is in the first week of having the darn thing installed on my laptop i managed to kill X 2 times and screw up the xorgconf and then managed to kill glibc during an upgrade when power failed and guess what computer was inoperable and instead of bugging one of my linux guru buddies i said screw it and did my own stage 1 gentoo install since i wanted to try to do one anyway, sure took alot of help but its up and running, sure its fast and working great but MY DAMN CD WRITER DOESNT WORK, wtf is with linux and wanting to use scsi and dao drivers, its not exactly the easiest thing to get working i have had to ask people to ssh into my box to get it working properly. Thats what makes windows a DESKTOP OS… the fact that its not “it works well or it doesnt work at all” its IT WORKS. It Just WORKS. sure it has spyware and viruses, but sorry i have xp sp2 installed on 3 of my desktops and in my internet cafe on 6 terminals with avast antivirus have had 0 spyware for the last 4 weeks and no viruses all boxes on continuous usage, no kernel crashes, no compiler errors, nothing just machines that work.
Another typical Linux geek that thinks linux is the end all be all solution for all computers.
People use linux because can meets there needs, Windows users use windows because it meets there needs, Mac users use Mac OS because it meets there needs….
You following what I’m saying here?
It’s not all about which one is better, or which one has better interface… It’s more about 6 of these and 1/2 dozen of the other… perhaps at some point we’ll figure out that different people have different needs …
Some people need a free OS just to get a simple system going and don’t want to worry about all the licensing hassles and don’t need a great GUI, and don’t care if they use command lines, and sift through lots of log files and text files..
Some people need something that has a very hardened OS and nothing will break it … and no linux doesn’t seem to be there yet, ever see the SecurityFocus Vulnerbility List Feed? Linux Kernel is in there a lot.. as well as other linux applications..
Some people need a familiar user interface for end users such as Windows and Mac… Linux hasn’t been in the Retail Home User market for long, and it typically doesn’t get used by just anyone… Ask your Mom,Dad,Grandma and see if they even know what Linux is?
People do what works for them, and do what is familiar with the, and when it comes time to change… it typical takes a long time…
I really think a lot of people missed the entire point of the article. This was an answer to the issues raised in similar, though contrary articles on the the same subject. It was meant to showcase the absurd standards Desktop Linux is being held to as well as show how no OS currently lives up to those same high standards. This was not a sales pitch or a call to arms. I highly recommend reading more than the title before posting. I firmly believe that the user’s choice defines their experience and there is no such thing as the “average user”. Linux is not “The Answer” because there are so many different needs and applications. There is no one answer. Relax and do what you want. Nobody’s forcing anybody to change anything. It’s good for a laugh, no?
A top article and long overdue, it puts things in their proper perspective. it is only because the great majority of us (myself included) started with Windows that we judge OS’s by the MS “standard”. (I use the term very loosely)
Linux is way more ready for the desktop than Win 2000/XP is in my opinion and I have had substantial experience with Windows and 3 linux distros.
Good on you Brian, an excellent article.
Don’t worry, those who really read the article did enjoy. Nice article and a fun read.
Why is everybody always talking about that Linux-thing? Why is it such a hype? FreeBSD is much more reliable and stable?
You want to install Gnome? You only need to “cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2 && make install clean”. You want to have Gnome with Lame-support? Just do “cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2 && make WITH_LAME=yes install clean”.
All applications there are for native FreeBSD and Linux can be installed with one command. The ports-tree houses over 10000 applications. The “new technology” 5.x branch has a performance like Linux 2.6.
What is that, which forces its way into my brain via my everseeing eyes? An article that dares to try to tell us that we turned “Desktop Linux” into a wishfest and have forgotten that everyone is just cooking with water, and that even the famous holy grail of computing, Microsoft Windows, is far from what we want “Desktop Linux” to be?
There can only be one reason for this article: the author is medically insane.
No really, think about it and it all makes sense. One day, he started up his $199 Dell PC (Dualboot) and had to realize that his Windows-installation had a longer one than his Linux/KDE-installation. Start Menu, that is, not what those people (hint: they rhyme with reeks) think. Of course, being the paranoid (look it up) person that he is, he felt a large dose of manic depression and wrote it down. Maybe drinking those 10-12 beers the other day wasn’t such a good idea either. In any case, he then wrote this piece of – let’s call it as what it is – shameful text, truely believing some of us would read it and understand the intentions. How absolutely laughable!
For “read->think”-zealots like him, there can be only one treatment. Sadly, it has been outlawed by 134 countries and I don’t have that much marmelade anyway. So I can only leave this article, head shamefully sunken, sobbing silently to myself while the Sounds of Silence play.
In any case, we soon need another half dozen “Linux isn’t ready for the desktop, because the default background is green and I don’t like green plus my cat does not jump on the keyboard when I use it”-articles so we can finally go back to the regular Linux/X-bashing.
(Everyone who finds sarcasm can keep it.)
ROFLMAO!
This sums it up pretty well!!!11!!!11!
Do you know an average user who will want to use another platform than i686? They don’t even know what Sparc, Mips, or PowerPC mean nor do they know where to buy it.
Now, try to have linux detect Winmodems, Silicon Image Raid controllers and all the stuff that Linux won’t detect and automatically configure. Average developper wants to mount himself devices, configure thinks, compile software, port applications, read forums to install Flash plugin, Real Audio plugin and spend days doing so. Average user wants to put the CD, click install, read a book, come back and having everything installed, configured, and ready to use. Put a USB key, and you see the content instantly, go to a web page with Flash, and it works, open a .doc document, and OOo should display it properly like it should be. Why Firefox doesn’t display web sites correctly? Web sites that are optimised for IE (non standard) should be readable perfectly. Don’t expect webmasters to redesign their millions of web sites just for a minority. This is reality: The majority don’t comply with standards. Live with it, open your mind, and adapt to reality, or stay underground.
If I’m unable to pass the first page of my bank website, sorry but I’ll go to a WinXP machine with IE.
I have used various flavours of Windows over the years. For many of those years I did not have many problems until recently. Win98SE served me well for many years but started crashing no matter how many times I re-installed it, Win2K would not work with any internal modem I could get and played the odd video frame upside-down !!, WinXP had a nasty habit of opening back-doors on my router (Thanks UPnP !) , file / printer sharing would break for no reason that I could see. That is just the problems I had, my friends and customers had it much worse than that.
Moving to Linux and FreeBSD has been hard work but well worth the effort. I still get anoying problems but nothing serious. I can surf the net with care-free abandon while my Windows using friends complain constantly about the latest virus and spyware infestation on their PCs.
I have even converted a few people over to Linux and a few more are just about ready to convert out of shear desperation.
I still use Windows but not for anything serious.
find me a linux app that can do what Tag and Rename by softpointer does! I hate to say it but I have a 500 meg partition on my laptop for W2K(laptop purchase registered copy) and Tag and Rename. I’ve been looking for a linux replacement for 3 years, and while no linux app has been able to replace it, the original keeps getting better.
This has led me to my oft-hated-by-linux-zealots arguement that its fine to have multiple programs that “do the same thing” but not when none of them does it right or does it well.
Someday I may try and get Crossover to run it, but why bother, I can dual boot into W2K for a few hours, get the work done and boot back into linux. It sucks, but so does the lack of a linux native replacement.
This guy is an idiot. I haven’t even finished reading the ‘article’. Not sure I want to.. I’m not windows fan but this is ridiculous.
Well, pop your Windows XP installation disk into your best friend’s
Apple G5 and tell me what happens.
… nothing…
Well lets flip this around, Pop your OSX installation disk into your best friend’s athlon PC and tell me what happens..
… nothing… WOW! windows isnt the only OS DESIGNED and meant to work on a particular type of cpu.
the only type of processor that will
support Windows is an i686.
wtf? You can run xp or any other x86 version of windows on an i586 and if I’m not mistaken an i486. He has no clue what he is talking about.
Furthermore, you need a hefty load of RAM to run the beast
And you don’t for a GUIized linux distribution? I’m sorry, but a clean install of xp with all updates runs in less than 90 mb of ram.
blargh, this isnt worth my time.
I agree with a few things from the article, most notable exception:
“The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS.”
Uhh, Photoshop? And do not suggest The Gimp. I tried to use it in production work for 12 months straight without straying back to photoshop. The productivity drop-off was horrendous, and the usability just isn’t there.
Secondly, Rhino3D. No other app exists which can duplicate its rich feature set / price / target industry, not even on Windows. There are other NURBS/CAD packages out there for Linux, but they are incredibly immature at best.
I’m sure I can think of others.
Next most notable exception is the claim that Windows does not work on any processor than the x86. Do your research here, it has been ported to Itanium/2, Alpha, MIPS, and many others.
Nevertheless, I am mainly a unix user (not necessarily linux yet).
Great article. I’ve written my response here: http://www.ensight.org/archives/2004/08/10/yes-windows-is-ready-for…
great response
I enjoyed your article very much. Keep up the good work.
Are you saying you have multiple instances of Excel running. and closing one instance closes all?
… if everyone used OS X, there wouldn’t be a need to argue if Windows or Linux is better because we wouldn’t need them.
The article raises some points but there are some problems:
* You can’t just state “ready for the desktop” without defining “desktop”.
* You can’t define “desktop” because everyone’s “desktop” is different. Not everyone has the same needs.
* You can’t easily criticize a defacto standard without factual points. E.g. you’d point to other resources which proof your point.
I like the topic of the article, but i guess i don’t like the idea behind it. I’d rather see one in a subversive way which tries to make the reader more think instead of convincing him/her. That can be done with more objectivity and less subjectivity; something which is balanced in favor of subjectivity in this article.
When you use that way, you go in depth in such way that:
* Trolls or ignorant people don’t understand the discussion or simply aren’t adding anything interesting.
* People with different opinions are stating their in depth opinions, leading to quality literature
* When both (or multiple) sides respect each other a quality discussion and more literature follows.
* Remember that there are always more readers than writers. Just because someone doesn’t appear to agree you might still be making a difference to a reader, even resulting in something productive.
Those are very basics for starting and developing a quality discussion or literature; it is my opinion that an article like this does not keep the above in mind because you appear to have flown too much from one side instead of writing a more in depth and (appearing to be) objective / comprehensive writeout on the subject; if you did you could still reach the same or a similar end conclusion, but more convincing or thought-provoking.
—
@ Dennis C. on Ports collection:
You want to install Gnome? You only need to “cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2 && make install clean”. You want to have Gnome with Lame-support? Just do “cd /usr/ports/x11/gnome2 && make WITH_LAME=yes install clean”.
Ehm, no. What you are explaining me here is how i COMPILE _and_ INSTALL Gnome. That’s something different than e.g. apt-get install gnome which takes far less time and works Just As Well as the CFS-fans (Compile From Source — red.) argue. Better yet, want LAME support? apt-get install gnome-sound-lame. Such is also possible, you know. And if it ain’t, you use apt-get install -b source gnome-sound-lame and you start compiling it yourself which is about just as simple as what you describe.
What i want is my binaries. I don’t have time to wait for some compile to finnish. I only want to compile when necessary, and that ain’t necessary very much. If it _is_ then APT allows me to, in an easy manner.
You’re also not comparing FreeBSD with Linux, you are comparing package managers. The Ports collection already runs on Linux (e.g. Gentoo) and the FreeBSD kernel already works with APT (e.g. Debian GNU/KFreeBSD).
The ports-tree houses over 10000 applications.
So does Debian’s Sarge (soon new stable). It actually has a lot more than 10000.
The “new technology” 5.x branch has a performance like Linux 2.6.
Wake me up when the performance is significant better
I’m serious on that as Linux user: when you’d like to have a Linux user to FreeBSD you’ll have to argue why FreeBSD is better (not only on performance), not why it is as good. Same counts for Windows vs Linux or MacOSX vs Windows.
As for Windows users who want to use a different OS and chose Linux over FreeBSD, i actually hear you. I think one reason for this is that the whole damn OS -while it isn’t the same as the “other” brother or sister- is named Linux while Linux is merely a damn kernel. Same like “You need to run Windows in order to run this app, so i install Windows 3.11”. Think about “BSD” as well. Another reason would be that Linux lead to massive development of open source software.