Slashdot Mirror
Exploring Linux Desktop Myths
Krafty Koder writes "Over at Newsforge (Part of OSTG, Slashdot's Parent) there's an interesting article that attempts to dispells the myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop or that Windows still beats Linux.
Three myths are explored - that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps ."
damn yeah...
# emerge cubase-clone protools-clone
... kicked the living *ass* out of Windows. And that's in spite of the fact that she didn't have working email...
Precisely the sort of gibberish one is used to from Linux weenies. In English:
"This Linux thing didn't actually work, and Windows did actually work, but my religion tells me that Linux was still better, even if the end result was totally and utterly useless for the specified task."
(Email under Windows? Go find a free email client, whether Microsoft's or someone else's, who cares, download, install, It Just Works.)
Wow Amazing. I was able to install linux and use it in under 2 hours on my machine (suse). I guess I must be a genious!. I never thought I was of above normal intelligence but after seeing how many people could not even install linux and get it working I am now convinced that I am super duper smart.
Whoo Hoo. I rule.
evil is as evil does
I know you can watch videos and stuff on Linux, but I've had terrible times trying to get various codecs etc. to work. I'm no computer-illiterate fool, either - I regularly set up linux boxes at work for various things (samba3/cups print servers, file servers, routers, etc.), yet it's still hard to install such things. You also don't get the sheer range of codecs and variations available for Windows.
Games. I know you can play games on Linux, but you don't have the selection of games available to Windows users. I also know wine can play many games, but you don't get full-on D3D hardware acceleration. Every layer you add between your desktop and the software you use slows things down. On Windows, there is only D3D.
File structure. Try explaining to your gran what your average linux path means. I've been using linux for years and I still get lost. That's something needlessly complicated (even if you understand it, you have to admit it). Expecting Joe Average to deal with it when he just wants to write up his report for work is asking a bit much. Even if it turns away only one person in 10, that's still 10% of the prospective market denied.
Standardisation. There is none, whatsoever, on linux. Even apps from the same people can look ridiculously different. People don't want to forgive their OS for looking "diverse" by taking comfort in the ideologies of the producers, that matters not to the average user. Windows, however much you hate it, has had a very tight GUI for years. I know you can get themes and styles for the various GUIs on linux, but it doesn't matter how well you paint a bit of poo, it's still a bit of poo. Until there is a tight, pixel-perfect GUI that has hardware acceleration on Linux, it's going to be playing catch-up to Macs and Windows. People who want eye-candy are going to be going elsewhere.
Bloat. Linux is huge. Again, I know there are various distros that have different numbers of CDs with them, and that each CD has lots of different bits of softwre on them, but I don't want that. I want a sub-600-meg install, and that's it. The extra software? I'll choose that myself, and get the latest versions from the manufacturers myself, instead of using which ever version is on the CD. I don't appreciate having to download 4 ISOs to only install 2 ISOs worth on my computer (especially if the same features can be had on windows in less space, which I find quite frequently - Linux installs requiring more space than comparable Windows ones).
I know I'm going to get modded down and flamed and called all-sorts for this post, but I read so much ass on /. about how bad Windows is supposed to be. I'm an open-source developer (and proud of it), but reading all this stuff makes me feel ashamed to be included in the OSS scene. We're supposed to be objective, taking each piece of software at face-value, judging it on its merits, not by what's cool to say about it.
On my windows boxes, I run Apache w/PHP, MySQL, SSH, CVS and all my windows stuff. It's all independent on the system, and there are no dependencies I might break by upgrading one or the other. They all come with graphical installation packages (which, funnily enough, can be run silently over a network, with no interaction), so deploying them is no drama at all.
Breaking. In my experience, when linux breaks, it can take a lot of work getting it right again. With windows, you can just re-install the software that is affected, and you're sailing