Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Has Failed on the Desktop
SlinkySausage writes "Linux is burdened with 'enterprise crap' that makes it run poorly on desktop PCs, says kernel developer Con Kolivas. Kolivas recently walked away from years of work on the kernel in despair. APCmag.com has a lengthy interview with Kolivas, who explains what he sees is wrong with Linux from a performance perspective and how Microsoft has succeeded in crushing innovation in personal computers."
Just a few short months ago, this very site proclaimed this was "The Year." Now a sad reality is creeping in ..... this isn't the year either. We've been let down again.
RTFA! The article is about the kernel not the support for apps. Next time please read the article.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
isnt it weird that the linux fanboys claim that xp crashes alot, and the xp fanboys never say anything about linux because they couldnt care less..
allow me to say something as a BSD user... linux crashed for me far more than xp did, and xp only ever crashed once, and that was my fault, but since BSD is by far the most powerfull OS of the 3... this is where i lie for now.
portfolio
In other words, that is why Linux isn't as successful on the desktop as it should be. Tech support consists of 10,000 fanboys, each shilling for their own distro. Makes any IT manager run want to run screaming out of the room.
Why bother, when one can write one check to GatesCo and be done with it?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Funny...FreeBSD has been able to adapt to these "competing" priorities very smoothly for a dog's life.
How many times have the "smart" people developing Linux completely swapped out the scheduler wholesale? The Linux developers would do themselves, and their users, a huge service by adopting FreeBSD's scheduler design if not the implementation outright.
It's my biggest pet peeve with Linux: Under any load whatsoever, interactive response goes down the drain. And really, it always has. This is a historic issue with Linux that a great many accept simply because they don't know any better. They don't know what a quality Unix system actually is like. "It's better then Windows" is their benchmark...
The Linux kernel devs should be smart enough and humble enough to know when they are out of their league and clearly, writing a scheduler that's even just better then Windows 95 used is beyond their abilities. It's high time they leveraged the open source model and actually borrowed the code that works instead of thinking they have the brain cells to fix it. But they won't, ever, because as smart as they are...they aren't smart enough to know when they are dumb.
My
The initiative towards a widespread Linux desktop has been around a few years, max.
I can remember them pushing for it back in at least 1998 (it was not uncommon to see Redhat boxes on store shelves), so I have to disagree.
Be quiet, be schooled, thank the nice man as he leaves.
Sorry, kiddo. I don't do things without question, and experience has taught me better than to believe crap that's being spewed by rabid fanboys. As for being schooled, like I said, I've already been a voice in the community.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Poor linux guys. the only thing for which Microsoft is not being blamed is invasion of iraq!! The opensource has been cheering everyother guy who tries to standup to MS only to see them biting dust. latest fad is to tom tom apple. But as the figures of appple iphone sales show having nice idea is different from executing them. This is not to berate job's achievement. But you guys in ur enthu to play two minutes fame under the sun contest forget the realities of business.