As a user of Microsoft products since pre-DOS days, and as a Linux user since Slackware 0.99pl11A, I have many times heard rationales for switching to Linux from Windows. Mostly, I have heard the same arguments over and over again. I will address a couple of these, and hopefully some can understand my question of "Why?" has still not changed.
Linux is secure/Windows is not.
This is really an unfair comparison for M$. How so? Well, first consider how many years has XP been out? Now consider how many installs of XP there are. Also consider how many people have tried in many ways to break XP. The point is, do this. Take a distro that came out the same time as XP. Now, consider that you are still running that same exact distro to this day. The multiply that by the order of XP uses versus the user base of afore mentioned distribution. Again, multiply that by the order of people trying to break that distro versus XP. Now compare numbers for security holes. That is a more fair assessement of security holes. If someone would kindly run those numbers...... Which leads me to the next point.
Drivers.
*Blank* distro supported all my hardware out of the box. XP did not. Again, use the point above. Consider that same question above. Here is a more fair question. "Did RedHat 7.2 have the same driver support as Win XP?" Answer - not even close. They were released within 3 days of each other. XP, in a sense was fixed (as in a fixed state, not as in fixed - now working) at that time. And in a sense, has been since. To say that a Linux distro today has more drivers than something released almost 4 years is meaningless. If Longhorn were released today, it's driver support would be greater than any Linux distro released about the same time. Furthermore, the hardware made since then, again, for drivers, Windows blows Linux out of the water.
Ok, was that a couple? Ok, one more.
From a certain point of view (to quote Obi Wan) IT is only as valuable as worth provided to the organization it helps to support. For example, if a an insurance company determined that it could run the company just as efficiently without computers, then the IT staff becomes useless. While this is rarely the case, it is none the less true. An IT guy in a law firm is not even to close as valuable as the Lawyers themselves. Same goes for Doctors, engineers, etc. IT is only made useful by enabling those people to do their tasks more effectively.
With that in mind, why should Bob the Lawyer give a flying rats ass about whether or not he can get something to run under Wine? He shouldn't. In fact, he can't. As a result, why not just stick with what he uses now, if it gets the job done? The main reasons is that from their point of view, don't fix what isn't broken. I have been in many professional offices where the secretaries have learned how to download updates, even fix the web pages (with data sources). To change to Linux has absolutely no benefit. In fact, it is a step backwards. With XP on a PC, it allows them to do what they need, hence fulfilling the usefulness that the computer offers. Changing to Linux, in effect, for these people, diminishes the promises that computing offers.
I have more, but that alone is food for thought. While I have been pro-Linux for at least 10 years, for most people, it just doesn't make sense.
I can remember back downloading all the little Slackware sets, stealing all the floppies I could find, and installing it. I think it was back in 94, maybe. It was different back then. Linux has come a long way, and I have many memories of Linux doing something better than Linux, then talking shit for a few weeks each time. Now, older, with 25 years in IT, I would NEVER consider or recommend Linux as anything but a server in an office. Oddly enough, the most interest I have had in Linux on the desktop has been in garages, by the mechanics themselves. To me, thats weird.
Now go ahead and label me a troll, and send my post to the barrel of doom for making some sense.
I guess we already knew C3P0 is running Windows Mobile. It's the only explanation.
I guess Macs would have to be..... The Ewoks. Cute when you first look at them, if you have 4000 of them you can get some work done, and the only ones who understand them is other Ewoks.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen these numbers and predictions before about something else. Wonder what ever happened to it.
Now I remember.......
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/02452As a user of Microsoft products since pre-DOS days, and as a Linux user since Slackware 0.99pl11A, I have many times heard rationales for switching to Linux from Windows. Mostly, I have heard the same arguments over and over again. I will address a couple of these, and hopefully some can understand my question of "Why?" has still not changed.
Linux is secure/Windows is not.
This is really an unfair comparison for M$. How so? Well, first consider how many years has XP been out? Now consider how many installs of XP there are. Also consider how many people have tried in many ways to break XP. The point is, do this. Take a distro that came out the same time as XP. Now, consider that you are still running that same exact distro to this day. The multiply that by the order of XP uses versus the user base of afore mentioned distribution. Again, multiply that by the order of people trying to break that distro versus XP. Now compare numbers for security holes. That is a more fair assessement of security holes. If someone would kindly run those numbers...... Which leads me to the next point.
Drivers.
*Blank* distro supported all my hardware out of the box. XP did not. Again, use the point above. Consider that same question above. Here is a more fair question. "Did RedHat 7.2 have the same driver support as Win XP?" Answer - not even close. They were released within 3 days of each other. XP, in a sense was fixed (as in a fixed state, not as in fixed - now working) at that time. And in a sense, has been since. To say that a Linux distro today has more drivers than something released almost 4 years is meaningless. If Longhorn were released today, it's driver support would be greater than any Linux distro released about the same time. Furthermore, the hardware made since then, again, for drivers, Windows blows Linux out of the water.
Ok, was that a couple? Ok, one more.
From a certain point of view (to quote Obi Wan) IT is only as valuable as worth provided to the organization it helps to support. For example, if a an insurance company determined that it could run the company just as efficiently without computers, then the IT staff becomes useless. While this is rarely the case, it is none the less true. An IT guy in a law firm is not even to close as valuable as the Lawyers themselves. Same goes for Doctors, engineers, etc. IT is only made useful by enabling those people to do their tasks more effectively.
With that in mind, why should Bob the Lawyer give a flying rats ass about whether or not he can get something to run under Wine? He shouldn't. In fact, he can't. As a result, why not just stick with what he uses now, if it gets the job done? The main reasons is that from their point of view, don't fix what isn't broken. I have been in many professional offices where the secretaries have learned how to download updates, even fix the web pages (with data sources). To change to Linux has absolutely no benefit. In fact, it is a step backwards. With XP on a PC, it allows them to do what they need, hence fulfilling the usefulness that the computer offers. Changing to Linux, in effect, for these people, diminishes the promises that computing offers.
I have more, but that alone is food for thought. While I have been pro-Linux for at least 10 years, for most people, it just doesn't make sense.
I can remember back downloading all the little Slackware sets, stealing all the floppies I could find, and installing it. I think it was back in 94, maybe. It was different back then. Linux has come a long way, and I have many memories of Linux doing something better than Linux, then talking shit for a few weeks each time. Now, older, with 25 years in IT, I would NEVER consider or recommend Linux as anything but a server in an office. Oddly enough, the most interest I have had in Linux on the desktop has been in garages, by the mechanics themselves. To me, thats weird.
Now go ahead and label me a troll, and send my post to the barrel of doom for making some sense.
Asbestos off, funny hat and leisure suit back onHow many people working at the DMV do they have to liquify to make an ounce of this stuff?
I guess we already knew C3P0 is running Windows Mobile. It's the only explanation.
..... The Ewoks. Cute when you first look at them, if you have 4000 of them you can get some work done, and the only ones who understand them is other Ewoks.
I guess Macs would have to be
The TIE was running Windows.
So I guess we now know what really happened to the Death Star. A gaping security "hole" + a special download.
I guess it follows that the Rebels used Linux (solid X-Wings, but not enough drivers for them). But no matter how patched they kept flying.
As opposed to the two-bit versions they have been selling for years?
The still sell Microsoft Works? What version is it up to now?