Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop
An anonymous reader writes "Every now and then a new- or old-media journalist tries to explain to everyone why Linux is not yet ready for the desktop. However all those men who graduated from their engineering universities years ago have only superficial knowledge about operating systems and their inner works. An unknown author from Russia has decided to draw up a list of technical reasons and limitations hampering Linux domination on the desktop." Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating especially that while many seemingly more esoteric things work perfectly, sound now works only in part, and even that partial success took some fiddling.
I've heard and read that mantra ten years ago. The future is not web-based because no large corporation will put/send/store their sensitive stuff (as in trade secrets) on any other corporation's web servers. Not even email. Ever.
It took almost 3 months to get the sound working on Ubuntu (TOS-link). Even to this day I'm scared that if I lose the system I'll lose the configuration- it required editing different accounts, adding new packages, modifying them in a non-standard fashion, adding options that weren't documented...
Windows XP? Put it in and the sound comes out.
I'll say the same thing about hard drives too- while the support is built in I still had to do some 20 commands to add, mount, locate, format, automount, edit the UUID manualy, fdisk....
Nothing better to kill 2 hours of your precious life.
I would add that when I tried installing Ubuntu a month or so ago on the same laptop, it said my wi-fi card was working, but it would not work. It also would not let me install the proprietary nVidia driver. When I ran the nVidia installer, it broke X.
You say you want a revolution....
US prices and coverage are truly that high.
Verizon and Sprint have equal prices:
If you stay under 5 GB per month, you pay $720 per year, plus multiple various fees and taxes[1].
For 10 GB per month usage, you pay $3792 per year (plus plus).
Add 20 cents for every text message and 25 cents for every picture sent *or* received.
And a voice plan, if you need that.
For that, you get a service that covers around 2% of the geographical area. I.e. if you stay near large cities or major highways, you will likely be covered, if not, forget it.
Unlike in Europe, where coverage is measured geographically, in the US is measured as percentage of the population. Assuming that the population has zero mobility, live at work, and never ever go anywhere else.
The coverage in the US today is on par with what it was in the early 90s in Europe.
Heck, people over here still use pagers and cheques, and as recently as last year, you could still find prerecorded cassette tapes for sale in major stores. We're a 3rd world country, really. We just won't admit to it, because we live in a glass bauble and don't look outside.
[1]: Quoting Sprint: Monthly charges exclude taxes, Sprint Surcharges [incl. USF charge of up to 11.3% (varies quarterly), Administrative Charge (up to $1.99/line/mo.), Regulatory Charge ($0.20/line/mo.) & state/local fees by area]. Sprint Surcharges are not taxes or gov't-required charges and are subject to change. Sprint chooses to collect Washington State B&O Fee of 0.471% of your monthly billed charges to recover its costs.