Slashdot Mirror
Freep Column: Can Linux Overtake Windows?
TheInternet writes "The head/subhead of the article sum it up very nicely:
'Can Linux crash Windows?
That's the goal of the upstart operating system. Installing it, however, is just too difficult for most of us.' Note that 'crash Windows' means 'overtake Windows' in this context. It's a stretch. "
Pretty typical piece.
First he writes:
"Even the most dedicated supporters don't claim Linux is ready for the average user who wants to use a word processor, collect e-mail, surf the Web and use a CD-ROM encyclopedia."
Then later, in describing his VArStation experience and playing around with KDE, he writes:
"The computer came with the Linux version of
Netscape Communicator, providing a Web browser and e-mail program, and an office suite called Applix for word processing and related tasks. But there wasn't much else I could do."
I guess that lack of a CD ROM encyclopedia is what really was holding him back from accepting Linux! I mean, first say the apps aren't available and then admit he was using them, but then say, "there was nothing else." Come on! Whatever it is he does when he says "I do this for a living," it isn't editing.
I guess, among other things, that this demonstrates how slow the Detroit Free Press is in publishing syndicated columns.
9 .htm
I saw this column over three months ago up on the San Jose Mercury site.
http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/05032
Scroll just past the halfway point on the page to find the article.
The publication date on that page is March 13.
I would hope that the people with a propensity to flame columnists would refrain from sending the author a second barrage of unnecessary vitriol for this.
-- P.J.
Since you asked...
... actually, I think Linux is just fine for 'ordinary users' ... if they get it preinstalled. My GF uses my Linux box without a problem, and she borders on computer illiterate. (Or claims she does, I think she's learning something, against her will ... :))
... uh... sure. Can't do graphic design with GIMP, can't play Quake. Why didn't I notice that. And of course, 'normal users' probably wouldn't want to write programs in Perl,Python,C/C++,Java,etc, or raytrace in Povray, or listen to their e-mail in the Festival Speech Synthesis System or set up their home box with a static IP address as a web server or do IP Masquerading so more than one person can be on the net at the same time or ... well, so none of that counts. Naturally.
... you asked. :)
1. It says absolutely nothing that hasn't already been said and shows no insight whatsoever.
2. 'I do this for a living' implies he's a computer professional. His comments clearly show that he's no such thing. Using a word-processor in your job hardly makes you a computer expert, anymore than you would expect a columnist two decades ago to be able to repair typewriters.
3. Stupid install complaints. Have to partition? Need to do that for windows. Need to know what com port your modem is on? Need to do that for windows. Need to know if you have scsi or ide? Either know that for windows or risk locking up your machine during an 'autoprobe' for every scsi under the sun. The -real- install complaints were glossed over, making them sound even worse than they actually are.
4. Unsubstantiated claims about linux advocates, 'most of whom have never tried to install linux' (paraphrased, because I don't want to re-read the article). How else -do- you run Linux besides installing it? Linux (mostly, barring VAResearch and a couple others) didn't come pre-installed until recently. More accurate to say Mac and Windows users haven't tried installing their favorite OS's - may not be true, but at least it's -plausible-.
5. With KDE, WordPerfect, and Netscape
6. It is, an earlier poster pointed out, an article from -March-, re-published with a June date on the heading. If true, (I didn't check) it's incredibly misleading. I'm a Debian user, so I don't know, but I'd expect that RedHat 6.0 is easier to install than Redhat 5.2. If this article -is- current and the other poster was wrong, then it's even worse - shall I criticize the Win3.1 install to say why Windows is no good? Whichever way, it's a question of who did something wrong, not whether anything is wrong.
7. 'Can't do much else'
Oh, and there -was- one thing write with this article.
1. Accurately points out that printing under Linux is difficult. We really should have streamline the printing process, but really - I don't even have a printer. Don't ever print anything except my resume - which I just dump to a floppy as postscript and take to my local copy-shop. Yeah, well. We all know this. Nobody's started the Central Unified Streamlined Printing Project (CUSPP) yet.
Anyway, remember,
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
You make some good points about the dangers of overactive Linux advocacy, but I'll disagree with you on one point: doing the computing thing for a living does not mean that you can type up a paper and browse the web with the hood of your box welded shut. You don't see Formula-1 drivers who do the driving thing for a living keep their hoods welded shut, do you? Sure, a racing pro doesn't change every tire or spark plug (they've got a pit crew for that) but they have to have a good understanding of what hardware is under the hood and what tradeoffs can be made in order to get the most out of it. Professional drivers who never think about what's under the hood (or on the axles, etc.) won't make much of a living at it.
So it should be with computer writers - if the computing thing is your living, then you should at least be able to discuss the pros and cons of the innards of a system even if you are reviewing it for those who don't need all the details. Just because his audience may not need to get under the hood doesn't mean that an author can't mention that there is more to the story - like the IP address of your ISP. And if you only do the computing thing for a living in Windows, then why are you reviewing Linux? You don't see Formula-1 drivers taking a spin at a NASCAR race, for example - if you are an expert on only one type of system, your opinion of a different system isn't any more reliable than the average guy on the street. I would certainly agree that this author does the writing thing for a living, but saying that he does the computing thing for a living is a stretch.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think you're only looking at it from one side... I, too, support several thousand users -6000- (on my server's side THANK GOD :), I understand that the user is, for the most part, an Idiot. Realize, however, that most of my ( I don't know your) users get a computer with a "Build" suited to their job and never get out of that build. They don't do installs, don't log in to netware as the supervisor, and don't log into my machines as root. They just do a job. Unfortunatly, they have to reboot all the time to do their job. I querried my helpdesk stats and discovered that last year ( assuming 30 seconds for a reboot), my company paid it's employees to sit and support a microsoft product for 4563.125 work days. Now assume each one of these people get paid $10/hour w/ an 8 hour work day (10 is very conservative), we spent $365,050 just puting up with a finicky OS. This cost doesn't take into account revenues/person that were lost because the user wasn't working and earning revenues. Also, this only notes where the help desk reported having the user reboot, not where the user, having run into this problem before, decided to reboot and that fixed the issue.
Basicly, what I'm saying is this:
Users do what the company tells them to do and on what os to do it on. You don't have to be a Guru to use a computer in the way Users use it. You just have to get paid. Now, if my company wanted to save $350K a year, they would switch to Linux and spend the $350 to get their 3 Windows locked apps ported (chances are, they'd get change back.)
They could easily reduce support costs as one (or a team of) administrators could log into their box and fix any issues except hardware, which could then be diagnosed more quickly and save money on the support costs again. Bottom line, if you tell them too, users will.
-sonic
>Linux has no printer and scanner support?
No, its not true. Did the article say this? I must admit I just started skimming after the "I chickened out but I'm going to write that its too hard to install anyway" comment, but I didn't see that one.
Hell, no - its not true. I had a little fun trying to get a postscript/ghostscript filter to work, but my little cannon bjc 600e is more than happy to print anything I send it. Hell, I use samba to allow the wife's windows box to print to it over my LAN, couldn't get windows to do it the other-way-round.
Scanners are supported, though I have no experience here. My HP scanner is USB to my wife's Windows box until Linux has better USB.
But, there are tons of scanners listed in the hardware HOWTO.
"Can Linux Crash Windows? That's the goal of the upstart operating system."
Man, I have a HUGE problem with statements like that. The goal of Linux, IIRC, is to provide a Free Unix-like operating system. If Microsoft looses marketshare to such a system, so be it. If Free Software developers seek to make Linux more usable for Windows users, so be it. To say that THE goal is to crash Windows does nothing but give ammo to people who characterize Linux as a taillight-following reaction to Microsoft. If you care, it also gives credibility to Microsoft's DOJ defense.
Also, am I the only person who cringes when a journalist writes that Linux rhymes with "cynics"? I first saw that in Newsweek and attributed it to their "cutesy" style of mock journalism. I don't like the subtle implication that Linux users are cynical. I'm sure the writers in question will claim that it's innocent and unintentional, but how hard is it to just include ("LEH-nucks") instead of saying "rhymes with cynics"?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.