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.
Zero games? Tell that to World of Warcraft, which seems to work fine for me on Ubuntu, straight out of the box, through wine. Also, the idea that Linux has no virus purely because it isn't popular ignores the fact it is very popular for servers which are bigger targets for crackers.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The Real Reason Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop? Microsoft is fighting it.
You're full of shit.
Buy a gaming console. These days I consider it much more likely that commercial PC gaming will go down the drain, then that Linux actually will be getting some decent native support.
Thats not to say that there aren't plenty games in Linux, especially taking Wine and emulation into account and there are plenty of indie titles that get Linux versions, but in big commercial gaming there really hasn't been any real progress in a long long while.
Lack of games is one of the main reasons why I am still on Windows.
Or you could buy a Wii and a Linux box: the Linux box for work and for Free games, and the Wii for major label games. A Wii console is even cheaper than a Windows Vista Ultimate license.
I mark the article TROLL as soon as it tries to force Linux to become windows.
First and foremost on his point of Word vs. OOo;
Try this for size, get 2 identical systems and load both with the same version of XP the, slower the system the more noticeable and evident it becomes. On one load MS Office on the other not. Reboot. The slowdown on boot with MS Office system is due to fact that it loads Office even when you don't need it.
Now almost everyone is doing this. The result? A system that was fast is now crawling.
I don't want this Windows sh1t on Linux. I don't want Linux to become Windows. I have serious work to do and don't have time for AV, adds and reboots.
First and foremost I will not buy any hardware that is not or does not support standards The short term gain means long term pain. I will not buy hardware / software that is not multiplatform. It needs to run on more than one OS which normally means my business is not dependent on the success of my supplier or their supplier. It also means that (as can be proven by experience) that support continues past EOL of the product. I have old equipment that are essential, they could be replaced but I have no NEED to, which are no longer supported on the Windows platform. As time goes on there are more and more reasons why NOT to chose Windows and how it gets very expensive if you do.
For the last 14 years I am not dependent on any one OS and I find the TCO of Windows to be 2 to 3 times the cost of alternative OS's.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
No. Someone saw some files that related to the Linux server and jumped to conclusions. Then, as usual, Linux users started running around flapping their wings and squawking like the silly little parrots they are.
Wow. I find this very interesting since I *DID* actually use Vavle to install some native linux titles through their beta linux program. And not the server stuff either. Full fledged client. But well I must be jumping to conclusions here. I do like flapping those wings of mine like a silly parrot.