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
Then how come OSX is so freakin' easy for everyone to use? It only takes a few minutes.
Actually, I find OS X the most difficult to use at times probably because it's the most "different" for me.
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)
Familiarity is by far the largest factor in ease of use.
Anything can start to feel comfortable given enough exposure. Why is popular music popular? Because they play it over and over and over. (People often confuse cause and effect in this one: it's usually popular because of the repetition, not the other way around.)
Use nothing but OS X for a year and everything else will seem awkward. Same goes for any other OS.
OSX is polished and has a singular top-down vision from Jobs and his unholy cult. There's no scattershot design by committee of blind idiots which is but ONE of the things hobbling Linux.
The biggest obstacle to Linux is that it is ruled, dominated, infested and infected with a "difficult is beautiful and better than easy or correct" mindset. There is active resistance to any sort of architectural framework promulgation beyond the kernel and even that is challenged by people second-guessing Linus. Never mind that easy to use GUI design is eschewed by Linux writers who seem to be inherently unable to grasp that what is easy for a techie geek is NOT the thing that the common end-users need or want.
The arrogany egocentric attitude of introvert geeks still rules: it should work the way I say and not the way those n00b lusers say. Microsoft doesn't work that way and look where they are today. Look where Linux is by comparison. EASE, not FREE or OPEN should be the buzzword of Linux.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
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
"The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned".
I forgot who said that, but it was some UI designer a few people have heard of.
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.
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
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.