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 ."
On a good Linux distro, none of these things are necessary. They usually come with firewalls pre-configured, the mail reader doesn't execute attachments, there are no real-world Linux viruses, and, while browsers do sometimes have security holes, they are rare and tend to be less severe than IE holes. Also, there is nothing like VB which infests every "productivity" application on Windows and also means that all these apps are vulnerable to VB viruses and malicious attachments.
So... it seems pretty clear that MS Windows is ready for a non-networked desktop. Buy the box, take it home, plug it into the power, turn it on and use it. But it's clearly not ready for networked desktop use, unless it's in a big corporation with professional network staff to keep the thing safe.
Linux is ready to turn on and plug in without any major worries.
It also comes in multiple flavours and is not as compatible with as much software and hardware as previous versions. Plenty of people are picking Windows 2000 over Windows XP.
If you count not blindly picking a suboptimal choice just because I think "newer is better" as a problem, then yes, I have a problem.
I am ignorant, a problem-causer and have a big ego, just because I dared point out that there are multiple versions of Windows to choose from? That's a pretty big leap of logic.
"Newbie" is simply shorthand for "new user", and I don't consider it pejorative. You'll go much farther without making rash assumptions about a person's attitude based upon the jargon they use.
What paragraph? You buried "unified interfaces are better" in the middle of a paragraph about "looking like Windows" (sounds like consistency to me) and lack of innovation.
Yeah, I missed those four words to begin with, but Redhat was making GNOME and KDE work alike a couple of releases ago, and since then things like GTK-Qt have come about.
That's funny, users have been happily using them for years. And, in comparison to Windows, it's far, far better than *nothing*.
At the risk of repeating myself, what about Looking Glass?
Ah. Typical biased response from a Linux faithfull.
One piece of hardware having issues with one persons specific hardware configuration and software setup does not constitute proof of anything.
Let's see, if what you say is true, that Linux is just awesome with hardware compatability then why does this site exist?
http://www.linux.org/hardware/
Why do similar sites not exist for windows? Oh, because ALL hardware is compatabile for windows and hence there is no need to create lists of it.
OK, I call bullshit. Tons of hardware doesn't work well or easily with Windows. People just never have to deal with it because Windows gets preinstalled.
Really? Would you like to provide some proof? Other than your lame camera and wifi example, which only suggest that you either got some bad hardware, or lucked out with a bad setup.
Consider the fact that you may be an outlier point in the scheme of things and that for 99% of people windows works just fine. Where is my proof you ask? How about the absense of *millions* of complaints about faulty hardware. If there really were *tons* of hardware that didn't work with windows, you'd hear about it all over the news. People don't just buy hardware and then leave it on their floor when it doesn't work.
you spin some shameless FUD, my boy.
:
Yesterday you removed some spyware. It was 297 items, mostly cookies from doubleclick. I see it all the time.
If you'll recall, yesterday there were also a flurry of exploits announced with libpng. I want you to tell me, with a straight face, that it is easier for joe sixpack to fix this on a linux box, than it is for him to reboot XP when automatic updates tells him to. Remember, joe sixpack has to
1) read the security bulliten
2) locate and download the specific files that patch or replace the library
3) install them with what will likely be a CLI package manager
4) determine and re-compile each app that has a dependancy on that library
5)(optional) take the time it takes to apply the 'many eyes' principal to the resulting patched source and contribute any fixes he writes.
on xp:
1)reboot when automatic updates tells you to
2)re-install the latest mozilla
You certainly can't tell me anything about FOSS superiority in this instance. You just might try, but it'd be lies and distortions from an open source apologist desperately seeking validation of his allegience. nothing more. the sooner you admit that to yourself, the sooner we can get down to brass tacks and lift this sorry mess up into the 21st century.
That was a mistake by the new pro-MS astro-mods.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.