Slashdot Mirror
Five Reasons Not to Use Linux
UltimaGuy writes "Linux-watch has a humorous article about the top 5 reasons for not using Linux. It does provoke some thought aside from bringing a smile to our lips :)"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Reason number one: Linux is too complicated
.conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux.
:) Maybe they have the sense of humor! :)
Linux *is* too complicated for a good many people but it doesn't have anything to do w/the system design or how it works. It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home.
Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years.
Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.
You know, I consider myself knowledgeable with computers. I run multiple OSs at home and have run many more over the course of my life. You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever.
You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a
I love Linux. I use it on my servers, I use it on my desktops, and I use it on my entertainment center, where it powers my HDTV TiVo and my D-Link DSM-320 media player, which turns my network into a media library with terabytes of storage. Heck, I even run Linux on my Linksys WRT54G Wi-Fi access points, which hook the whole shebang together.
When was the last time you had to edit a configuration file with a text editor on your Tivo? I never have. When was the last time you had to fire up your WRT54G and wonder what all the fsck messages were? Never. Just because Linux is being used to power the device does not mean it wasn't designed to be user friendly. Most people don't surf the web and write research papers with a remote control or by hitting a recessed hard-reset button.
I realize that this was a tongue-in-cheek article and I realize that it was mildly humorous but I just really felt that it was just as bad as Microsoft claiming that Linux costs more. This bullshit where Linux users fault non-Linux users for not switching because of the lack of difficulty is just bullshit.
Linux isn't easy and it does have a learning curve. Most people just don't care to take the time to learn it.
I wonder if Microsoft just releases their "research" to give us stuff to make fun of
It's a pity we can't moderate stories as flamebait
It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home.
Then how come OSX is so freakin' easy for everyone to use? It only takes a few minutes.
Most slashdotters remind me of this guy.
More
Articles that repeat the same thoughts, with the same juvenile tone as this one, will be the one reason I will leave this site, for the simple reason that they attract the same people, with the same juvenile attitudes as the author of this article.
Games.
Also, when trying to discuss the benefits of alternative operating systems, it does not help the argument if you (by this, I mean the writer of the article) come off as being sarcastic and condescending.
My $.02 anyway.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Ive tried several different linux distros on computers including my homebuilt Asus A7N8x-e deluxe AMD system and pentium 4 dell's at my lab. Ati 9600 level graphics on them.
None of them boot DSL properly. Mandrake Move no. Gentoo liveCD works, can install gentoo, but massive pains in getting the bootloader to work with drive due to the existance of SATA.
Your mileage will vary, until Linux gets better simpler support for hardware, especially with regards to X, ive yet to get X to run without having to abuse myself relearning conf files, don't even compare them to windows.
Most Windows users have never even heard of it even though it's on their Start Menu, never mind the registry which requires you to type a COMMAND into the command line.
This guy is saying what? That he can ignore the blindingly obvious truths of why "Linux sucks" for a basic user by pulling the "it's free and this distro can boot without you touching it and that distro comes with programs installed"?
Don't think he's stroking the userbase hard enough.
And there it is... I know it was an attempt at sarcasm, but until you can give me BF2, SWG, WoW, and HL2 without sacrificing a crap ton of performance (cedega I'm talking about you), I'll stick with Windows. Linux can power my webserver like no other, but I have no use for a linux desktop.
I don't see reasons 1 & 2 as being particularly far-fetched from the point of view of your average consumer - the usability experience still needs a lot of work before it's completely ready as a Windows replacement, and although the site is taking this point to extremes, there's still a germ of truth in there.
By being pre-installed on the majority of PCs, Windows does indeed appear to be free to the buyer, in that it's seen as part of the whole package and doesn't cost any time to install (time is money after all).
Linux would gain a significant boost on the desktop if more OEMs pre-installed it alongside same spec'd machines with Windows installed.
Then the price difference would become noticeable, and the cost in time needed to install it would also disappear.
Then there's GNOME: I'd love to try out the latest stable release, but I really don't see why I have to a) install a newer version of my chosen distribution to try it, or b) work my way through a horrid packaging effort to build it. And yes, I tried Garnome as well. Still not nearly as good as KDE for packaging source.
Yeah and every time you want to try the latest version of Windows Explorer without updating the distribution you... err... err...
The article is trying to be facetious, but his first three points are actually dead-on.
1. Linux is too complicated.
He claims that you "occasionally" need to edit a configuration file in Linux, and implies that this is no more frequent than doing so in Windows.
Bullshit. Since I've installed XP, I've never had to edit a configuration file OR registry data. Ever. I can install pretty much any PC-compatible hardware on the market and have it running quickly. Why? Because parts vendors make damn sure their stuff works in Windows.
2. Linux is a pain to set up.
The author claims that modern Linux distros are easier to install than Windows. This may be true, but he neglects the fact that BOTH OS's are a pain to install for multiboot.
I decided to try out Linux, so I downloaded Ubuntu and ran the boot disk. Unfortunately, both my hard drives are NTFS, and Ubuntu doesn't know how to partition them. After half an hour looking around the net for a way to partition an NTFS drive without endangering the data on that drive, I gave up. No Linux for me, because I'm not willing to endanger all my system files or buy a new hard drive just to play around with another OS. "Insert disk and press Enter" my ass.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications.
The author points out that there are a bunch of freeware programs for Linux. Of course, almost all the ones he lists have equal or better counterparts freely available for Windows. Is the argument that those Windows programs aren't packaged with the OS? Guess what, quite a few of them are, when you buy from a big vendor like Dell. And since you're gonna have to download or purchase your Linux distro anyway, it's not like you're saving install time by running Linux.
In any case, he's missing the real "killer app" for a lot of us nerds: games. Yeah, it's been said before, but that doesn't make it less true. I regularly run maybe three apps on my computer that AREN'T games, and those work about equally well for Linux or Windows.
Oh, and on top off all of that, the premise of the article is stupid. I don't need reasons NOT to run Linux. Linux doesn't come pre-installed on my computer; Windows does. I need reasons TO run Linux, and they better be damn good reasons to overrule my apathy. If I'm going to go through all the work of switching to a new OS and learning its foibles and features, there better be some real motivation for doing so.
Frankly, I ain't motivated yet.
Until Lunix gets to Mac-like levels of user friendlyness, one can only assume that the Lunixists actually enjoy the spurious complexity of their toy OS.
Actually, I *do* enjoy the complexity of my Linux operating system. Not for the sake of complexity, but because of the sheer flexibility it gives me.
Oh, sure, I like the MacOS X interface; but it has a few problems as well. It's not the Utopia most Mac fiends claim. (For instance, my wife's laptop keeps complaining it is no longer connected to the internet (through a wireless connection), even when all other wireless devices are working just fine. It's definitely not the network's fault.)
But your post is just plain wrong. Very rarely do I have to "fire up . . . vi" to get an internet connection to work. In almost *every* case, it Just Works.
The only times I have to fire up vi is when I am installing an odd network card and have to muck around with installing proprietary network drivers. And even *that's* getting less frequent these days.
And lastly-- that 35-year-old editor is *still* more powerful than most other editors out there, save Emacs. It's not like vi has been sitting still for 35 years.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So, do Linux users around here take particular delight in ambushing people trying to switch to Linux and having trouble? It's funny to see people post things like:
I had trouble using Linux and making it do X, Y, or Z.
To which 10 people respond with one of:
- You're a loser, I use Linux every day and it works fine.
- You must be using an old Linux
- You must be using distro X, it works fine in Y
etc, etc.
Perhaps you guys haven't realized that maybe people don't *know* these things? I mean, come on. "Feature A doesn't work in distro X, you should have used Y"? How the heck are people supposed to know that. And the sheer delight in the responses as if the person was a complete moron for not knowing that!
Yes, Windows has more than it's fair share of problems, but at least there's just one place to look for all the features. Is there a way for non-Linux people to discover all the pitfalls *before* they fall in them?
Do you know how your car runs ? Do you care? When you switch cars, do you switch to a manual transmission just for shits and giggles even though you don't know jackshit about shifting gears (supposing you use an automatic)? I would think you would look for a car that's as simple as the previous one, but faster, cheaper - better! People view their computers as their do their cars - goods beyond their comprehension that they can USE.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
``Why aren't more people using Linux?
That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream.''
It's not too difficult to see, really. Even if Linux really were a better operating system for everyone now using Windows, people would still not switch. Why? Well, the keyword is "switch". Switching costs effort, installing the new system, familiarizing yourself with it, figuring out what applications to use, etc. etc. etc. Why bother if you can get your work done on Windows?
The situation would be entirely different if people grew up with Linux. They would be familiar with how it works, what applications to use for what tasks, and so on. Linux would just be another operating system, instead of one you had to switch to.
That, and the lack of availability of certain software (various businesses need some specialized software that isn't available for Linux, and many games won't work on it) is why people aren't using Linux, even in settings where it would be superior.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
5) still have to meddle with .conf files. not good enough for normal users
4) slow. it used to be that one argument for linux and against windows is that linux is faster, but not anymore, it seems. on my old pc, winxp is clearly faster than linux (with kde/gnome) of any distro. response in graphical linux is not snappy enough.
3) fonts. either it's fat and anti-aliased or skinny and aliased. in other words, it's plain ugly compared to windows.
2) desktops (kde & gnome) and menus are still crude. as much as i hate windows, i find the xp interface is nicer than kde and gnome. their windows, toolbars and buttons are proportionately sized by default. you don't get dialog boxes shooting beyond the bottom of screen. and normal users tend not to know where to find what in the menus.
1) no equivalent _and_ compatible applications. especially outlook. i can overlook this outlook thingy, but many many people cannot.
The fact that support for ACLs isn't as universally implemented in Linux as it is in Windows is flat out embarrasing.
Not if you compare them to the defaults they misconfigured in windows. Writeable \Windows\system ? Come-on! Those default ACLs are a complete utter fuck-up.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
These "articles" aren't helping linux - they aren't funny, they aren't informative, and they aren't going to sway any windows users to linux. It looks pathetic, and desperate. I am a linux user, but have a lot of family members and friends who use windows. You can be quite sure that they have never had to enter in to the registry to make system changes.
The fact is that anyone with a bit of knowledge can probably bring down their windows system, or their linux system. Its quite easy to delete or change important system files by thinking you know more than you do. An old systems guru, when I was just starting out in the world of IT but it to me this this: "It is ok to have no knowledge, and ti is ok to have a lot of knowledge. You can walk on either side of that road and be safe. If you walk down the middle of the road though, you will probably be hit by a truck." Is very true. Newbies generally won't destroy systems.. linux/windows/whatever... they just can't figure out how.
I'm not sure why CmdrTaco says that the article provokes some thought, as the article is shouting the same thing some of the lesser informed linux zealots have been for years.
1. Linux is too complicated
/. about a million times, but as you don't seem to be aware of it:
/.
"Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work."
Ehm, install it and choose KDE as the default session the next time you see a login screen. Not really hard.
2. Linux is too complicated
"How many patches must you apply to SuSE right after install for all the security fixes? Dozens. Windows? Dozens. Hmmm... Seems about even there. To be safe, you ought to be behind a firewall in either case. I've never found a recent Linux distro that didn't have patches ready to install as soon as I finished installing to OS."
Jesus...
For starters having to download security updates doesn't really have that much to do with what the guy you are answering wrote and with ease of setting an OS up.
Second, this has been discussed right here on
Comparing Suse, which comes with thousands of programs with Windows, which comes with barely anything and then pointing out that you also have to download updates for Suse is pretty dumb, as you compare Apples and Oranges here.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications
"Let's compare apples to apples here. Windows is an OS, not a set of applications."
Why now and not before?
"You Linux fanatics get on Microsoft for bundling apps with their OS"
Small correction, most of the time it's not us Linux fantics, whoever this may be, but law enforcement agencies that get on MS for abusing their monopoly.
"Windows as an OS isn't inferior just because your open source app doesn't run on it. If you are so big on choices and freedom, why don't you write your app to run on both? "
Well, everyone is free to choose to take the source code and port it to windows and as you pointed out yourself, many people port or devlop open source software for Windows. So what exactly is your point here?
"Finally, the price you pay for Microsoft Office is worth the money, if your time is worth anything."
Ouch, sounds like the latest MS marketing blurb and no, though my time is worth a lot, MS Office certainly isn't worth the money for me, sorry kiddo.
4. Linux isn't secure
"And frankly, applying patches in Windows is easier than in Linux. Linux is pretty easy, but Windows is still ahead, I'd say. Argue all you want. But a properly configured Windows box will successfully apply patches to itself better than a Linux one will. At least for me. And if you disagree, just know that most users don't know how to configure Linux like you do, and so your opinion doesn't matter to 98% of the computer users out there."
Jesus...
Press on the little update notification on your panel and have _all_ your apps updated. Now that's incredibly hard, you are right.
About your other drivel. You are aware of sudo and acls, aren't you?
And you are aware that you can share folders on modern linux distros by simply clicking, just like you described for windows?
5. Linux is more expensive
"For the common user who just wants to be productive, and just wants their computer to work the way they want, Windows is faster, and faster means cheaper!"
Please show me the study that a) supports your conclusion b) finally shows me who this common user is
To sum it up, your blog entry is probably one of the dumbest things I read recently. Not one good point, only senseless drivel.
But the worst thing is that a tongue in cheek article, that sets out to debunk some myths about linux let you into a francy that drove you to write your stupid blog post and the proudly anounce it on
Relax kid, nobody's going to take your Windows away from you, even if some prefer an other OS.
1) Inconsistant copy/paste behavior between apps.
Self explanitory really.
2) Horrible audio support
(Every card I've used on windows has done multi-open fine, but none do it on linux. at best I can get two DSP interfaces on one card which means hard configuring apps. Don't get me started on surround sound.)
3) Major lack of applications/stuck with bad ports or buggy emulation
(Port of AIM completely lacks features, and no third party client supports direct ims with the same content types as the official client. eg, no animated gifs, bitmaps, or just inserting a file-- No official yahoo client, stuck with third party clients that dont do webcams. No IDE comparible to visual studio, or debuggers/disassemblers that can compare to whats common on windows (IDA, w32dsm, olly, softice), etc.
4) More of an extension on #3, but lack of games.
I don't care how many different toolkits you can put on tetris, its never going to compare to a game like HL or WOW
5) No reason TO switch
Really, this is the reason why I started dual booting and ended up never bothering to boot out of windows. Theres nothing I can do in linux that can't be done in windows. Task wise, all I do is chat, game, browse the web, program, listen to music/watch movies, aquire them, and general remote administrative stuff.
On linux: firefox, mplayer, openssh, gaim
On windows: firefox, mplayer, putty, winaim.
That point goes even further-- Anything worth running is worth someone porting to windows, off the top of my head: The entire cygwin project (which includes about as much stuff as your standard distro), firefox, mplayer, gaim, nmap, netcat, ettercap, etherreal, vim, and im probably missing a few.
--Sorry for the bad formatting, HTML inside a tiny slashdot comment box is a pain to write.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
One point you make that is dead wrong in my experience is when you say, "And frankly, applying patches in Windows is easier than in Linux." Now this may be true if you're actually manually applying kernel patches and recompiling the kernel or something, but actually if you're just talking about normal (binary) system updates, one of the big reliefs for me about switching to Linux was that updates are so much less painful.
If you have a system that uses the apt package manager, then updating your system is as simple as typing 'apt-get update; apt-get upgrade;' at the command line. Or if you don't like that, you can use several of the graphical tools (like synaptic) where it's just a matter of two or three clicks. On the distro I use, Ubuntu, there's actually an applet that periodically checks for updates and allows you to install them with a few clicks. In short, it's quite similar to Windows. Certainly, it's no more difficult.
Where the advantage comes in is that every damn update in Windows comes with its own EULA. Sure, you could randomly accept legal obligations without trying to figure out what you're agreeing to (though you still have to sit around and click "I agree"), but if you're actually trying to be responsible, it's a real pain. In Linux, updates to the OS, and most of the applications, are covered by the same license, the GPL, and you aren't confronted with a new EULA to accept every time you want to do an update. What a relief! In addition, the updates in Windows would often request a reboot, which never happens in Linux. Even if I update the kernel, I know I can keep using the system (with the old kernel) until I feel like rebooting.
If you're using a modern package management system, then updating in Linux is no more difficult than in Windows. In addition, there are a lot of things about the updates in Windows that may actually make the Linux process a lot easier.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
linux has no gaming capability.. HAHA!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I use a PC 99% of the time. Mostly Windows, because of my line of work, but also Linux on some of my home systems. I have such a difficult time everytime I try to do something on the one Mac we keep at my shop. I don't hate the machine, but I really don't enjoy using it, either. The one thing I do like about it is the launch bar, but I've been using objectdock for quite some time on my PC, also. Like to have the taskbar free for running apps.
I'm also not trashing OS X, but it isn't for me, either.
rm -rf
I fail to see what OSX has to do with a discussion on Linux.
OS X is a good role model for good user interface designs. Every now and then you'll notice that many linux desktops will use aspects of OS X. I think Linux should strive for OS X ease of use and stability and security.
Linux has the security down pretty much. A little too good though... I had downloaded the Unreal Tournament 2k4 to my desktop and not only did Ubuntu warn me about running it, but would not let me run it until I actually set the properties of the file to execute. Rarw!
On OS X, it would warn me and maybe ask me for my password to install as admin, but on Ubuntu I'm lucky if I open an executable script and it doesn't open a text editor (I fixed that, but it wasn't like that out of box).
Secondly, I found that to get UT2k4 to run I had to run root console and then install.
And to install Flash on an out of the box Ubuntu install on Firefox? It wasn't a problem for me since it only took 10 minutes of looking on Ubuntu's forums (which I will say are pretty extensive in getting information on how to do this), but I couldn't just open Firefox and install missing plugin like on OS X or Winxp. I had to actually edit my repository list and then run "sudo apt-get install flashplayer-mozilla" from command line...
I can do that without any problem, but I don't really want to have to research 10-20 minutes on how to get something to run every time I need to install an app.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Linux configuration files: they are all in different formats, and follow different rules. (case sensitive? headings? comments? whitespace significance?)
A huge exaggeration. There are a few different formats, yes, but this allows config files to be better suited to the program.
Very often configuration file changes do not take affect until you restart whatever program you are configuration.(sic)
This is also true in Windows.Take a look at Apache. A server widely acclaimed for its up-time, and yet you can't even change a single setting without restarting the server!
That's simply untrue. Send it the right signal and it will reread the config file and act on it with no trouble.
Compare this now with Microsoft IIS. A nice GUI that lets you change almost any setting or add an entire web site with a few clicks and you're already live. No restart, no downtime.
Apache is a server program designed for servers, which are often headless, so it simply makes more sense to have it configured with a text file. And when you are experienced - as a server admin is expected to be - it's simply quicker to use a text file. It's not a representative "desktop linux" application.
And you don't need a fat "Apache Unleashed" manual for IIS to figure out how to do this or that.
Funny, I've seen just as many of those books for IIS, and I never needed one for my Apache setup.
Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work.
That's a total lie. Even slackware, the most old-fashioned distribution, gives you a straightforward gui, two menu choices and you can choose which WM to use. Of course, if you prefer to you can use the command line. And even if what you said were true it would still be far easier to change in linux than in windows.
True, if you buy SuSE Linux on DVD at the store, you can drop it in and have it all set up for you. Windows XP brags about the same convenience and ease. How many patches must you apply to SuSE right after install for all the security fixes? Dozens. Windows? Dozens. Hmmm... Seems about even there. To be safe, you ought to be behind a firewall in either case. I've never found a recent Linux distro that didn't have patches ready to install as soon as I finished installing to OS.
While flaws obviously do need patching, I've left "stock" linux boxes for month with a direct net connection with no ill effects. There simply aren't the mass-reproducing worms you get on windows, the only way you will get cracked is if some cracker picks you out as a specific target. You can make whatever excuses you like in terms of marketshare, but it's still the case.
Let's compare apples to apples here. Windows is an OS, not a set of applications. You Linux fanatics get on Microsoft for bundling apps with their OS, and then here you get on their case for their lack of apps. So I won't even address the software bundled with each OS, since that is not comparing the OS but the packaging, which can easily be changed for either OS. Let's use our time wisely by looking at apps available to be installed later.
I haven't criticised MS for bundling apps with their OS. The fact is that MS couldn't change to including them, either because they charge a lot of money for them or for political reasons. So you get far more apps with your typical linux install. If MS did offer a version with its apps bundled you might have a point, but they don't.
Virtually every app available for Linux has a Windows counterpart. The reverse is also true. But the fact of the matter is, you open-source Linux fanatics choose to ignore this. OpenOffice is as much available for Windows as it is for Linux. S
I am trolling
Actually, you do have to restart the servers. It's just possible to do it without completely shutting down Apache.
Your example there uses your server's Apache init script with a command called reload, but one would actually send 'graceful' to Apache, which restarts all of the servers one at a time after they are done processing the current requests. So they do restart, just in a 'graceful' manner.
For example, on Apache 2.0 one would sent 'httpd -k graceful' to do it.
I could not find a download site on the 'Net for it, so I went to a local shop to get a copy, which actually cost you money. When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened. Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.
After an hour I managed to install it, but first of all, it was all so different from RedHat, and secondly there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.
I may be stupid, but I just stick with what I know. I know that there may be smarter choices, but my computer came with the system and that is all I need.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
No fair, you stole my joke! But I was going to say Notepad, which everone knows would be much funnier.
Seriously though, they did leave out two very important points in Windows favor.
1. Games. Yes, PC gamers much prefer the selection of Windows games over the selection of Linux games. It's not that Linux doesn't have a few gems, just that I had to use the word 'few' in this sentence.
2. With Windows, you get to have the exact same warts as all of your friends and family. a) misery loves company and b) there's a much better chance your brother in law is going to be able to help you with a Windows issue than a Linux issue. Market share alone will fix this problem just as market share alone caused it, but until then the social networking of Windows users helping other Windows users with should not be underestimated.
TW
P.S. I know there's this whole internet thing with lots of friendly people just waiting to help you with your Linux issues. Grandma will not use it. She will ask her husband, then her son, then every other family member until someone can help. If none of those people use Linux, she'll be out of luck. If some of those people use Mac or Windows, they'll try to convert her to a "better" OS.
In summary, your whole article was hilarious, based on Linux distros that are apparently five years old, and more frequently attacked the Linux culture than the software. All in all, you had one good point, but even that one point is moot for the normal desktop user. Basically, you, sir, are an ass.
Another one bites the dust
With Fink and Darwin Ports, I can get most of "Linux" software on a Mac. I can't wait for WINE for OSX86. 3 major OSes on one desktop... yum!
Dude, ever hear of sarcasm?? The article is making fun of people who give bullshit reasons for not switching.
This doesn't make sense to me. I've used solaris, AIX, Windows 9x/NT4/2000/XPpro, various Linux distros, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and OS 10.1/.2/.3/.4. Linux pissed me off at first. (actually Linux still pisses me off for many reasons) If I had only used Linux for a day, I would be bitching at having a lost day. In fact I lost many days trying to get hardware and systems to work together(granted this was in the days of Slackware 2) (For the record I prefer BSD for many reasons. Including the ultimate license in Free-Beer and Free-Speech) My first mac was an iBook. I was leaving the country for an extended period and I needed a laptop that would just work for Office apps, email, and web browsing. I had to get used to a one button mouse when using the touch pad on the road, but if I was at home, I just plugged in my MS optical mouse and two buttons work fine. After about two weeks I got used to the one-button mouse. I have a friend that is a sales rep for Coke and I am a fan of Pepsi products. He once said, "Doesn't matter. Drink coke for a week and you'll prefer coke. Drink Pepsi for a week and you'll prefer Pepsi". I think the same thing applies with any computer system. Give it a couple weeks and then see. Why I like OSX is because all my Unix goodies I was used to under BSD, Apache/MySQL/PHP/Perl, were all extremely easy to install, especially since I was able to find package installers that did all that work for me. I had to edit the Apache conf file to enable php, but no matter what system I've installed apache on I've had to edit the conf file at least once. All of my custom BSD apps took minor, if any, changes in code to compile on OSX as well. I found the Dock extremely easy to use and the best part of OSX: Applications everyone else uses. I was able to buy MS Office (which was a charm to use on the Mac because it actually works), dreamweaver, Quickbooks pro, Quicken, Photoshop, illustrator, fireworks, Quark Xpress, Lightwave 3D, and a few Apple only applications like Final Cut Pro. I also have to admit I hated Word for mac (v.x) for the first 3 months I used it. Powerpoint on the other hand is a different story. PowerPoint just seems to work better on the Mac. Not only that but I have found OSX to be incredably stable. The system crashed to the point of restart 4 times in 3 years. Two of those times were while running OS 9 applications in the emulator (Quark). Most of the time, I just shut the lid and would open it and the system would spring back to life for weeks on end. I once had an uptime of over 100 days until my battery died on a long trans-atlantic flight. It is for those above reasons that people have really fallen for the OS X platform. A number of engineering depts I know have purchased PowerMacs with OSX, especially after the intro of the g5 processors, to replace DEC, SUN, and SGI workstations. Those workstations often cost USD 20,000+ when they were orginally purchased. Suddely $8,000 for a maxed out machine with 8GB of Ram is a bargin for those people. Saying I don't like _________ because I used it for one day and it was different isn't a good arguement. Its an argument, just not a good one. Saying I don't like Linux because no two distros are exactly the same and compiling binary programs for every platform is time-consuming and expensive is a real pain in the ass, not to mention Linux geeks tend to customize installs further adding to hassles with emails like "this won't work on my custom hacked 2.6 Kernal with a mixture of Fedora/Slackware/and Debain I cobbled together and for those reasons is why I prefer developing for *BSD or OSX because I know where the dependancies will be on a standard installation is a much better argument.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
This is exactly the same situation you'd have with Linux or BSD: OS X uses the popular CUPS printing system.
That's exactly what I like about OS X. Where it makes sense to do so (Kerberos, CUPS, KAME, etc) OS X uses familiar open source tools.
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
Having RTFA, it would probably have given you much more knowledge on the topic than you previously had, right? Because it gave you sooo much insightful information that wasn't previously covered...
I sometimes wonder if it's possible to moderate articles "flamebait"... Because bashing windows without any objectivity to that rate is not considered editorial anymore in my book. It's easily made in 5 minutes (2 if you don't have any formatting), and will bring cash to your company by being sure posted on slashdot.
Next, since when does my grand mother needed to use a freaking command line to do any of her stuff? Granted, for server stuff, you need a command line on Windows, and that grounds (servers) is owned by Linux more and more (Unix-flavored OSes too).
Also, want to talk about games runned full rate? I don't know many power Unreal or Battlefield 2 players who use Transgaming...
call me troll, or overrated, but I really think I've made my point, and instead of just giving the traditional "ooooh aaaah" or "boooh", you should try to make a discussion.
Of Code And Men
I like to distinguish between OSX and Aqua. OSX itself is a breeze to use on a laptop, if any GNU or BSD flavour is. Aqua, on the other hand, is a mixed bag. It is slick and streamlined (compared to Windows) and has a few nice features (expose comes to mind), but I would give anything to be able to run a good WM, like WindowMaker or XFCE, without sacrificing Quartz. IMO, it all comes down to the fact that proprietary components of OSX will always suck, if only because we have absolutely no control over them.
Just an example: there is no way, bar writing a script which will traverse the filesystem tree, to change view options in all folders. This is not OS/9, I am talking Tiger. Sounds stupid? It does to me, and so my non-techie friends never fail to be entertained when they see me opening the command line to "drag and drop" a few files.
Another great example is the printer setup. It is abominable, I cannot do anything there. After a while I just gave up and started using CUPS' web interface, which is enabled by default. This again shows how sane the underlying OS is.
Linux itself is a reaction to draconian software pricing.
Anyway, Western society tells people they must experience rather than think. We've become an entertainment culture rather than a productive one.
MS has been coddling windows users for 20 years, and doing it in such a way that the user simply can't be insulted by it: they're too busy being intimidated. Apple users generally aren't clueless, and they're not treated that way. The people who use Linux are those who have sought it out (frustration), been exposed to it for practical means, or think of and use a computer as a tool. The key words there are think, use, and tool: the basis of human civilization.
We wouldn't be where we are now if our ancestors had just sat around laughing at the other jungle animals and staring up at the stars. We'd still be doing that now.
Oh shit, we are. Except that our big, unused brains that give us the skill of language allow us to refer to these activities as "reality TV" and "Dukes of Hazzard on the silver screen".
When people re-learn how to think for themselves, Linux usage will rise. That's just one change for the better.
I've used solaris, AIX, Windows 9x/NT4/2000/XPpro, various Linux distros, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and OS 10.1/.2/.3/.4
Might I recommend you try the latest ParagraphOS.
One reason and one reason only. Most vendors do not ship Linux pre-installed on computers, and for those that do, Windows is the default. It takes a lot of effort and time to change the course of such a large ship. If and when most of the vendors are customizing and supporting Linux pre-installs just like Windows pre-installs, you will not only see more widespread desktop usage. You'll also see less hardware compatibility issues.
Because bashing windows without any objectivity to that rate is not considered editorial anymore in my book.
Actually, I felt it was bashing the tired old arguments being spewed out by Microsoft. It was basically showing that everytime Microsoft points a finger at the problems with Linux, they have three fingers pointing back at their own problems.
Next, since when does my grand mother needed to use a freaking command line to do any of her stuff?
Did you *really* read the article? You are reiterating one of the arguments that the article attacked. The truth is, your grandmother wouldn't need to use the command line for anything on one of the modern "desktop-friendly" distributions. At least, not any more than she would have to drop to a command prompt or run the registry editor on a Windows system.
Also, want to talk about games runned full rate? I don't know many power Unreal or Battlefield 2 players who use Transgaming...
Yeah, I guess your grandmother will have to be a lot more careful about what games she chooses.
call me troll, or overrated, but I really think I've made my point
I don't think you're a troll, but I also don't think you read the article carefully enough. Or at least you didn't fully understand the spirit of the article. However, there is one point we probably agree on. At the end, Steven says "When you really think about it, you can see why there are lots of reasons not to use Linux. There just aren't any good ones." I don't agree with him. I think there are some legitimate reasons not to use Linux. It's just that the ones he listed and poked fun at aren't very good ones anymore.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
For the same reason people feel the need to force their preferences in religion... they need to have that comfort level in believing they are not the only ones and that thier beliefs are in tune with the beliefs of others.
Although I enjoyed and agreed with the article, they glossed over Plug-n-Play. That IMO, more than anything, is what keeps Windows ahead of Linux in usage. Plug in a USB device and it works. Plug in a device, and pop in the CD when prompted. I have had more problems with USB devices on Linux -- even USB storage -- that it is a major detractor to widespread acceptance. I do like the selection of Linux apps (for the types that I use) though.
Have Keyboard, Will Travel
Transgaming is good if you are a Linux user who wants to play Windows games that you would otherwise be completely unable to play. I've used it myself to do that, and am probably going to soon in order to play WoW. Since I'm never going to use Windows again, some level of Windows gaming support is better than zero. Yet suggesting that it would allow someone who is primarily interested in playing games for Windows to ditch Windows is unjustified.
Even the officially supported games have many problems that Windows users don't have to suffer. Bugs, crashing, performance divits, non-working features even in "officially supported" games like WoW and Counterstrike. Even if it does work more or less flawlessly on one release, that is no guarantee that it will work on the next (in fact WoW is apparently just such a case).
And that's still ignoring that there are probably thousands of games that aren't even in the transgaming database, or are there but have no playability rating and don't work at all if you try. You are at best limited to a small sampling of the total number of games available for Windows .
Cedega is a fine way for a Linux user to expand the number of games they can play. It does not in any way allow a Windows gamer to ditch Windows.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hmmm... I read, and re-read your post, and couldn't help thinking "why in the world did you pick Slackware for a quick 'git-r-done' job?"
Ever heard of Ubuntu?
"that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry"
Not too true. I havent touched the command line in XP for a long time. Except for quickly checking the network settings (ipconfig). Come to think of it, theres no 'quick' way to view the full network settings in KDE or GNOME either.
"you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account"
As a heavy knoppix user, I can tell you I frequently run into hardware for which Linux has either no drivers or crashing drivers. Thats because hardware vendors write drivers only for windows. But the point stays, that you'll probably have to massage Linux more post-installation for your hardware than Windows. Think ATM, arcnet, tokenring or simple VPN settings. Think switching resolution, refresh rates and the plethora of USB hardware.
"with Windows, all you have to do is put in a CD or DVD, do all the above, and then immediately download all the available patches"
For most Linux distributions I've had to add some kind of patches after installation. For most other UNIX OS too. Patches come with any OS. For windows doing that is more critical, but can I dare say less painful? It takes at least me less time to patch windows.
"most Linux systems only come with secure Web browsers, like Firefox; e-mail clients, like Evolution; IM clients, like GAIM; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0; Web page editors, like Nvu; and on, and on, and"
OK you cannot use this. Like AT ALL. Application base is the single biggest reason why the market isnt 100% Linux. It is the single biggest reason why Gates isnt a pauper. Its the single biggest reason why I am and probably you are running Windows (at least on another partition). There are countless little apps that you NEED and have to boot back into windows. Ask the mac people the pain in the ass it is when that critical tax or real estate software doesnt run for them. This is the single biggest reason why mac lovers switch to PC too. Dont use this.
"with Windows you get so many more choices of software, don't you? Like Lotus 1-2... oh really? I didn't know that. Or, WordPerfect... oh, pretty much dead too"
Lotus is one of two reasons why my company cannot goto Linux. Lotus isnt dead. In the corporate where it matters so much, and where IT guys know about Linux, Lotus is a major force for Windows. Maybe youve been working at all those companies where they use Outlook, and hire an extra hand to disinfect machines.
"Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure
If Microsoft says so, it has to be true!"
I dont care what Microsoft says. A Linux box of mine was broken into. It was a default install of redhat 7. Taught me NEVER to blindly support an OS. Leave both weak theyll be broken into. Leave both secure, youre good. For Windows it takes much less time, but the rules are the same for both. Linux is popular enough for crackers to scan IPs and attack Linux. FWIW:they had used samba and sendmail overflow bugs to crack in. All because I hadnt patched the OS right after I installed it.
"Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive"
How much does an IT guy get paid per hour? How much time does it take to install, patch, configure Windows on one machine? How much time does it take to install,patch,configure Linux on one machine? Consider hardware that might not be supported, or beta drivers present. Now multiply the time difference with the IT hourly pay.
Next take the $$ difference between that Linux distro and Windows. Which one is bigger?
Does this mean the more the IT guy is getting paid the more he should choose Windows?
I first used Slackware in 96, and have been finding ways to get Linux to live with Windows, or to replace Windows everywhere. However, I've grown out of the fanboy stage. Experience with all kinds of Linux, OSX, BSD, Windows weaknesses have taught me things. I now consider only the OS that fits the bill and gets the job done for the minimal $$$ for the company/customer. Yes I did once try to shove Linux down a customers throat while it was not ready for prime time. It blew in my face. Experience teaches you things.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Some oddities I'd like to point out:
.tgz, which I believe still (and intentionally) don't have dependency checking. So the MySQL rpm(s) wanted the things that mysql depends on (as it should), but those dependencies hadn't been installed in rpm format so it didn't think the dependencies were there.
1) I don't think Slackware was meant to be an "easy" distribution. Why did you select that particular distribution?
2) You installed rpms? In slackware? Of course you had problems. Slackware doesn't support rpm's natively. Slackware supports
3) I recall that the slackware devs were dropping gnome from the main distribution (or something along those lines). Even if they hadn't dropped gnome yet, I believe they're still planning to because they were having some trouble with gnome. So I would expect the gnome experience under slackware would be less than seamless.
I'm not pointing this out because I'm yet another GNU/Linux zealot. I'm pointing it out because I would've expected you to have these problems with the choices you made. I think it's very good to hear stories about people having trouble with Linux to show us that Linux isn't perfect in every way, because we can fix the weaknesses that we know about. Knowing about such issues also keep us grounded with the realities of Linux; however, I don't think your particular anecdote suggests much one way or the other.
If you just wanted something up and working quickly then you shouldn't have used slackware. Its package management system deliberately doesn't have dependencies, so its up to the user to determine for themselves what other packages a package requires. The time taken to determine dependencies for something like X and GNOME would be massive and not trivial for mysql either. Not to mention that you downloaded RPMs off the MySQL website which probably weren't even meant for that distro - especially since it doesn't even use RPM packages!
At this point I have wasted most of my free weekend futzing around. I decide to install onto Windows Server 2003 just to "git 'r done" before Monday. The mysql graphical install goes without a hitch, enter my port and root password info in to the nice dialogs, and the service starts right up. Same with the apache install. Same with the Perl install.
If you really had used lots if different Linux distros consistently for years you'd have known that installing mysql, apache and perl on a modern Linux distro (such as Ubuntu/Debian, Mandriva, Fedora/RHEL and others) is as simple as:
$PKGMANAGEMENTPROGRAM mysql apache perl
where $PKGMANAGEMENTPROGRAM is one of apt-get, urpmi, yum etc.
This would automatically resolve and install dependencies and install those programs in a working state. You would even have saved a few minutes extra versus Win 2003 on the time it would take you to navigate to each of those program's web site, download and install through the install wizards on that system. You could then have spent your 2 hours on bugzilla config and been done - free to enjoy your weekend.
If you chose the wrong distro for your task then its not a fault with Linux but a problem between your chair and your keyboard.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.