1. Linux may not be a nightmare to install, but it is still a nightmare to configure.
I have to partly agree to this one, as it took me a few DAYS of fiddling with the XFree86Setup horror under Xfree 3.3.6 to get my monitor to work. However, there is no reason to believe that things aren't getting better. When I upgraded to Xfree 4.01 there was no need anymore to fiddle with the scan frequencies in a poorly documented text file.
2) Linux multi-tasking.
You said that the windows multitasking feels smoother, though I personally doubt most people can tell the difference betweeen 20 msecs and 50 msecs. What I am more concerned about is overall system stability which is abysmal under Windows 9x and not quite perfect under Windows NT, while Linux systems are known to go on for years without crashing.
3) Linux IS too huge
Heh, I doubt Windows 2000 is much better. I agree that X is a bit of a mess and so is Mozilla, but KDE or Gnome along with the Linux kernel and modules don't seem to use more than 10 MBs or so of RAM on my machine. This lives room for X, Netscape, and a few other things to run quite comfortably on a 64 MB system.
4) Linux IS playing catch up
It may be true that Linux is in the process of implementing some functionality that has been lacking, but at least it's not quite hanging off the same ancestral x86 MSDOS code like the "consumer" Windows versions do.
5) Other OS kernels do NOT load everything at the same time.
I have nothing against Windows' dynamically linked libraries model, except when those DLL files royally screw up your system by being replaced and corrupted by random programs.
6) Linux DOESN'T take full advantage of hardware.
Again, there might be a little truth in this, but the main problem here are the closed standards. For example, I am forced to run on a alpha version of a reverse-engineered CLM driver for my winmodem, which happens to be slow and a bit buggy. Yet because the driver was open source, I was able to go in and work out an annoying bug myself (which locked up the whole system on a modem retrain) instead of having to pay $50 to M$ support just for the privilege of dialing their number.
7) Linux threads aren't all they are cracked up to be.
I personally can't argue much here as I am not an expert in the Linux vs. Windows vs. BeOS thread architecture...
8) Linux really isn't that fast, depending on what you do.
I agree with you that X is a speed bottleneck, but that is because of its client server model. Also as I said before, my Internet experience with Linux has been somewhat slower, but probably because of the driver I use. My machine feels just as fast or faster for pretty much anything else.
9) The Linux desktop IS clunky
I wouldn't exactly call it clunky, a little less intuitive perhaps. Overall it offers the same functionality, and much more (i.e. multiple virtual desktops) over the standard Windows desktop. I am sure that a few years (or months) of evolution can fix that.
I wonder: what if someone markets sandals with "illegal" code printed on the soles? I never quite heard of offensive sandals breaking decency laws... For one thing, it would be rather hard to spot the "undecent" part.
Slashdot Mirror
So dinosaurs are next!? Darn, I thought those mainframes will become extinct once and for all.
1. Linux may not be a nightmare to install, but it is still a nightmare to configure.
I have to partly agree to this one, as it took me a few DAYS of fiddling with the XFree86Setup horror under Xfree 3.3.6 to get my monitor to work. However, there is no reason to believe that things aren't getting better. When I upgraded to Xfree 4.01 there was no need anymore to fiddle with the scan frequencies in a poorly documented text file.
2) Linux multi-tasking.
You said that the windows multitasking feels smoother, though I personally doubt most people can tell the difference betweeen 20 msecs and 50 msecs. What I am more concerned about is overall system stability which is abysmal under Windows 9x and not quite perfect under Windows NT, while Linux systems are known to go on for years without crashing.
3) Linux IS too huge
Heh, I doubt Windows 2000 is much better. I agree that X is a bit of a mess and so is Mozilla, but KDE or Gnome along with the Linux kernel and modules don't seem to use more than 10 MBs or so of RAM on my machine. This lives room for X, Netscape, and a few other things to run quite comfortably on a 64 MB system.
4) Linux IS playing catch up
It may be true that Linux is in the process of implementing some functionality that has been lacking, but at least it's not quite hanging off the same ancestral x86 MSDOS code like the "consumer" Windows versions do.
5) Other OS kernels do NOT load everything at the same time.
I have nothing against Windows' dynamically linked libraries model, except when those DLL files royally screw up your system by being replaced and corrupted by random programs.
6) Linux DOESN'T take full advantage of hardware.
Again, there might be a little truth in this, but the main problem here are the closed standards. For example, I am forced to run on a alpha version of a reverse-engineered CLM driver for my winmodem, which happens to be slow and a bit buggy. Yet because the driver was open source, I was able to go in and work out an annoying bug myself (which locked up the whole system on a modem retrain) instead of having to pay $50 to M$ support just for the privilege of dialing their number.
7) Linux threads aren't all they are cracked up to be.
I personally can't argue much here as I am not an expert in the Linux vs. Windows vs. BeOS thread architecture...
8) Linux really isn't that fast, depending on what you do.
I agree with you that X is a speed bottleneck, but that is because of its client server model. Also as I said before, my Internet experience with Linux has been somewhat slower, but probably because of the driver I use. My machine feels just as fast or faster for pretty much anything else.
9) The Linux desktop IS clunky
I wouldn't exactly call it clunky, a little less intuitive perhaps. Overall it offers the same functionality, and much more (i.e. multiple virtual desktops) over the standard Windows desktop. I am sure that a few years (or months) of evolution can fix that.
I wonder: what if someone markets sandals with "illegal" code printed on the soles? I never quite heard of offensive sandals breaking decency laws... For one thing, it would be rather hard to spot the "undecent" part.