Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Failures Of Desktop Linux

Posted by timothy on from the fails-to-play-well-with-bully dept.

PDAJames writes "Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop after all. After an earlier, very positive evaluation of SuSE Linux Desktop, ZDNet UK has carried out a more in-depth review, running the system in a production environment for two weeks, and found it wanting. A key problem area was interacting with the corporate Windows network. When will this stuff finally be ironed out?"

2 of 882 comments (clear)

  1. This makes sense. by crashnbur · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    On one hand, this article highlights why I don't run Linux at home: I do all my productive work using Windows software. My employers use Microsoft Windows and Office products, and my school requires any electronic work to be done on Windows machines (unless you're one of the few who have a non-Windows machine that can generate Windows-compatible outputs -- good application software should do this without much problem).

    On the other hand, I don't believe Linux needs to revolve around Windows. For a competitive market, Linux can and should stand on its own and effectively divide the market. Will productivity sag? Certainly, but only at first. The operating system software does not need to be compatible -- the networking and application software does.

    I'm not anti-Linux, and I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft. Sure, some of the rules have been abused and others perhaps broken, but a large part of what Microsoft has accomplished is simply because it used the resources provided (fairly) to earn a superior position in the market. Make your arguments about browser bundling, insider deals, and so on, but I think disallowing those things is antithetical to the idea of free trade and a free economy. Microsoft earned its position naturally; inferior competitors are supposed to fall from the market until they can put up a competitive product.

    Think about it: Microsoft has been accused of abusing market power by (1) artificially inflating prices when its prices have been set "too high" and (2) undercutting its competitors when its prices are "too low", and (3) Microsoft has been accused of price-fixing and collusion when its prices are on par with the market price. Antitrust laws are both good and bad, because while they break up bad abuses of market power, they also break up natural mono-/olipolies that may actually be better for the market.

    My point is that Linux, Apple, Netscape, and some of Microsoft's other competitors may be pursuing some angles antithetical to their principles. Some accuse Microsoft of anti-competitive practices, when they themselves would prefer to restrict Microsoft's ability to compete with them. I wouldn't accuse Linux of this, but other corporate entities are in it for themselves, not the other competitors in the market, and they would love nothing more than to be the next ones on top. (I get the idea that Linux supporters are a bit more socialist in their approach, not wanting to hoard the benefits, but only wanting nominal credit for their contributions.)

    Sorry if this message doesn't make too much sense. I tried to cram a lot of ideas into only a few paragraphs...

  2. Re:Doesn't play well with Windows boxes? by sheldon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    NOBODY switches after using the solution for 90 days (and no that's not our guaranteee period), or wants to.

    Really?

    Everybody I switched over to Linux back in the mid 1990's has given up on it and moved to Windows XP.

    I can't see any reasonably intelligent person wasting their time with Linux these days.