http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.no...he.desktop.html
I found this article pretty good. After reading it, what is your opinion?
Full Version: Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
It might not be ready for *their* desktop, I know a couple million people whose desktop it's fine for, including my own.
And for anyone that says "it's not millions", the registered users of the Ubuntu forum count 800,000 + , not including people who haven't signed up, or use any of the literally hundreds of other distros out there.
The ending of this video comes to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_VFKqw1q2Q
They can claim it's not ready all they want, people will still use it, just like Windows/OS X.
And for anyone that says "it's not millions", the registered users of the Ubuntu forum count 800,000 + , not including people who haven't signed up, or use any of the literally hundreds of other distros out there.
The ending of this video comes to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_VFKqw1q2Q
They can claim it's not ready all they want, people will still use it, just like Windows/OS X.
There are some advanced desktop features that "Desktop Linux" doesn't have but most pc users don't use it every day.
So, Linux is ready for the basic desktop usage if your hardware is supported well.
So, Linux is ready for the basic desktop usage if your hardware is supported well.
But the author doesn't just say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, full stop.
He lists a few reasons and some are quite good, IMHO.
It is difficult to deny, for instance, that the sound system is unreliable, to say the least.
Sometimes in order to have sound I need to do the following:
1)Open a terminal
2)# alsaconf
3)# alsamixer
4)# gamix (possibly)
5)# alsactl store
It is easy enough for me, but not for Joe User. Besides, even after doing that sometimes I don't have reliable sound in all DEs and applications.
It seems also true to me that fonts are quite often ugly.
He lists a few reasons and some are quite good, IMHO.
It is difficult to deny, for instance, that the sound system is unreliable, to say the least.
Sometimes in order to have sound I need to do the following:
1)Open a terminal
2)# alsaconf
3)# alsamixer
4)# gamix (possibly)
5)# alsactl store
It is easy enough for me, but not for Joe User. Besides, even after doing that sometimes I don't have reliable sound in all DEs and applications.
It seems also true to me that fonts are quite often ugly.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 19 2009, 12:14 PM) 
But the author doesn't just say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, full stop.
He lists a few reasons and some are quite good, IMHO.
It is difficult to deny, for instance, that the sound system is unreliable, to say the least.
Sometimes in order to have sound I need to do the following:
1)Open a terminal
2)# alsaconf
3)# alsamixer
4)# gamix (possibly)
5)# alsactl store
It is easy enough for me, but not for Joe User. Besides, even after doing that sometimes I don't have reliable sound in all DEs and applications.
It seems also true to me that fonts are quite often ugly.
He lists a few reasons and some are quite good, IMHO.
It is difficult to deny, for instance, that the sound system is unreliable, to say the least.
Sometimes in order to have sound I need to do the following:
1)Open a terminal
2)# alsaconf
3)# alsamixer
4)# gamix (possibly)
5)# alsactl store
It is easy enough for me, but not for Joe User. Besides, even after doing that sometimes I don't have reliable sound in all DEs and applications.
It seems also true to me that fonts are quite often ugly.
The only issue I've had with Pulseaudio is outputs between the headphones and speakers going at the same time, which is an easy fix, I'm just too lazy to do it.
Sometimes having too many choices (ESD, Pulseaudio, ALSA, OSS, OSSv4, etc) is what makes Linux frustrating to work with, because everyone has different choices/opinions/experiences with different options and no one can agree as to which one to use as a 'default'.
I think this is article is very immaturely written.
Most of the problems they are having are exaggerated by their rants and raves of opinions and annoying use of "full stop".
"Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support. "
"Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real."
"Problems stemming from low linux popularity and open source nature"
"Huge shutdown time. "
"Slow (libraries) linker. Braindead slow linker. Intolerably slow linker. Win32 OpenOffice being run from Wine starts in a less time than native Linux OpenOffice. Microsoft Office 2003 starts from Wine in a matter of few seconds even on 1GHz CPUs with a slow HDD."
I mean this is ridiculous how ignorant this person is being. It a waste of a read unless you are mad at linux and you would like to read about someone else who is frustrated with it.
I have migrated an entire family over to Ubuntu 9.04 because of XP's slowness and virus problems. Ubuntu shuts down and starts up faster than XP (or even Vista but Vista sucks all around so I wont mention it in comparison again) on any machine.
This article has no evidence to back it up, just opinion after opinion. I would like him to look at how "ready" Windows is for the desktop and how "ready" Mac is for the desktop user. I'm sure he will find some similarities in his list.
It seems just to be another article comparing OS's in this on going OS battle. This is what it should boil down to. If it works for your needs use it, if it doesnt dont. Its that simple, not everyone is going to agree on one OS or the other. Some people love Windows, some people love Linux, some people love Mac, not everyone is going to love just 1 and thats the way it is going to be and it always has been for ANY other subject in life.
So as a editorial its ok, as an informative article it fails.
Most of the problems they are having are exaggerated by their rants and raves of opinions and annoying use of "full stop".
"Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support. "
"Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real."
"Problems stemming from low linux popularity and open source nature"
"Huge shutdown time. "
"Slow (libraries) linker. Braindead slow linker. Intolerably slow linker. Win32 OpenOffice being run from Wine starts in a less time than native Linux OpenOffice. Microsoft Office 2003 starts from Wine in a matter of few seconds even on 1GHz CPUs with a slow HDD."
I mean this is ridiculous how ignorant this person is being. It a waste of a read unless you are mad at linux and you would like to read about someone else who is frustrated with it.
I have migrated an entire family over to Ubuntu 9.04 because of XP's slowness and virus problems. Ubuntu shuts down and starts up faster than XP (or even Vista but Vista sucks all around so I wont mention it in comparison again) on any machine.
This article has no evidence to back it up, just opinion after opinion. I would like him to look at how "ready" Windows is for the desktop and how "ready" Mac is for the desktop user. I'm sure he will find some similarities in his list.
It seems just to be another article comparing OS's in this on going OS battle. This is what it should boil down to. If it works for your needs use it, if it doesnt dont. Its that simple, not everyone is going to agree on one OS or the other. Some people love Windows, some people love Linux, some people love Mac, not everyone is going to love just 1 and thats the way it is going to be and it always has been for ANY other subject in life.
So as a editorial its ok, as an informative article it fails.
QUOTE (shavex @ May 19 2009, 04:20 PM)
I mean this is ridiculous how ignorant this person is being. It a waste of a read unless you are mad at linux and you would like to read about someone else who is frustrated with it.
It has been commented by over 200 people, many of them developers, and they didn't find it such a crap:
http://www.osnews.com/comments/21510
Example:
QUOTE
This article is very accurate from a developer's point of view (which I am one).
I am not going to waste my time porting my software to Linux when not only are the user's hostile to me feeding my children (charging for it) but when also the binary compatibility and library landscape is so inconsistent.
I am not going to waste my time porting my software to Linux when not only are the user's hostile to me feeding my children (charging for it) but when also the binary compatibility and library landscape is so inconsistent.
QUOTE
I have migrated an entire family over to Ubuntu 9.04 because of XP's slowness and virus problems.
I have always had zero virus problems. XP is an 8 years old OS. I have migrated myself to Windows 7, which is snappy, responsive, and has plenty of great, modern features. I have tried every Ubuntu release since the early alphas, always buggy as hell.
QUOTE
It seems just to be another article comparing OS's in this on going OS battle. This is what it should boil down to. If it works for your needs use it, if it doesnt dont. Its that simple, not everyone is going to agree on one OS or the other.
So every discussion is a waste of time. That is basically what you are saying.
I'm gonna chime in cause this is just insane, even tho the forums have the term insanely in the URL. I'm a *nix developer for the past 17 yrs, and this article, editorial, crazy rant or whatever you wanna label it, is a more than a little misleading.
First off this article is completely useless and invalid for the simple reason that the author doesn't give any system specs. Why is that important you are asking. Without that information we have no way of knowing what flavor of GNU/Linux is being used with this high level of frustration (though its sounds like Ubuntu), 'cause if its slackware and someone said it was insane, well doh, its geared to developers and cli freaks, casual users need not apply. Nor do we know if the setup was representative of the global pc market, or was it a crazy off brand thing, which would require a disc of drivers, and bios updates for M$ to do anything more than boot?
Also what GNU/Linux flavor is being used important since there is NO mythical generic LINUX OS. In fact just to clear up a point that many including the over 200 comments from software developers seemed not to grasp, Linux is not an OS, it's merely a kernel (others include HURD).
Of the 14 and some odd sub points, if one was to drop the baseless, inaccurate ones I'd say im my opinion they're are perhaps 4-5 valid complaints ,depending on hw/flavor, and end user level of computer ability.
I would like to point out something lacking from this article:
If your a "sheep" user who would purchase a prebuilt/preinstalled system from one of the major brands, then you can just buy a machine with GNU/Linux on it preinstalled that works 100% with the machines hardware.
If your a "power user" who purchased parts and built they're computer, then I don't see how the few things one might need to do to get your system up and running being sooo daunting. Lets face it if you installed M$ then it didn't just work 100% out of box, more than likely you have to use a driver disc to get online, for your video, sound, and perhaps even more. Also if you built the computer and it can POST, then the hard part is over, and you should trust in the fact your more than capable of installing a major GNU/Linux desktop flavor on your machine.
If you a "developer"/"I went to college for computers" please see "power user" and then promptly smack yourself across the face for been that big a wuss to even think about ranting like that.
People said this several years ago when D3LL and H9 released lines that came with GNU/Linux preinstalled. It was claimed it'd never work. Jump to '09, not only are those computers for many the fastest growing lines they have, but the first line of the latest and greatest toy --- netbooks released in 08/09 came with lets see....GNU/LINUX OMG.
The two most iconic video games makers not only run all they're games on linux servers, but they actively use code that works in GNU/Linux, and release they're major titles to run in GNU/Linux. Infact the biggest game in the pc world, runs perfectly in GNU/Linux.
In the end is any OS perfect ...nope look at the problems with Vista and drivers upon its release. Is the GNU/Linux desktop here, yep, and its here to stay no matter how the haters feel. If you don't like the *nix movement in general please turn off your MAC, your internet, since they run on *nix and enjoy your day.
First off this article is completely useless and invalid for the simple reason that the author doesn't give any system specs. Why is that important you are asking. Without that information we have no way of knowing what flavor of GNU/Linux is being used with this high level of frustration (though its sounds like Ubuntu), 'cause if its slackware and someone said it was insane, well doh, its geared to developers and cli freaks, casual users need not apply. Nor do we know if the setup was representative of the global pc market, or was it a crazy off brand thing, which would require a disc of drivers, and bios updates for M$ to do anything more than boot?
Also what GNU/Linux flavor is being used important since there is NO mythical generic LINUX OS. In fact just to clear up a point that many including the over 200 comments from software developers seemed not to grasp, Linux is not an OS, it's merely a kernel (others include HURD).
Of the 14 and some odd sub points, if one was to drop the baseless, inaccurate ones I'd say im my opinion they're are perhaps 4-5 valid complaints ,depending on hw/flavor, and end user level of computer ability.
I would like to point out something lacking from this article:
If your a "sheep" user who would purchase a prebuilt/preinstalled system from one of the major brands, then you can just buy a machine with GNU/Linux on it preinstalled that works 100% with the machines hardware.
If your a "power user" who purchased parts and built they're computer, then I don't see how the few things one might need to do to get your system up and running being sooo daunting. Lets face it if you installed M$ then it didn't just work 100% out of box, more than likely you have to use a driver disc to get online, for your video, sound, and perhaps even more. Also if you built the computer and it can POST, then the hard part is over, and you should trust in the fact your more than capable of installing a major GNU/Linux desktop flavor on your machine.
If you a "developer"/"I went to college for computers" please see "power user" and then promptly smack yourself across the face for been that big a wuss to even think about ranting like that.
People said this several years ago when D3LL and H9 released lines that came with GNU/Linux preinstalled. It was claimed it'd never work. Jump to '09, not only are those computers for many the fastest growing lines they have, but the first line of the latest and greatest toy --- netbooks released in 08/09 came with lets see....GNU/LINUX OMG.
The two most iconic video games makers not only run all they're games on linux servers, but they actively use code that works in GNU/Linux, and release they're major titles to run in GNU/Linux. Infact the biggest game in the pc world, runs perfectly in GNU/Linux.
In the end is any OS perfect ...nope look at the problems with Vista and drivers upon its release. Is the GNU/Linux desktop here, yep, and its here to stay no matter how the haters feel. If you don't like the *nix movement in general please turn off your MAC, your internet, since they run on *nix and enjoy your day.
More comments on the article:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...08&from=rss
Picking one:
And another:
And yet another one:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...08&from=rss
Picking one:
QUOTE
First let me say the I'm not anti-Linux. Any competition to MS is good, as it (you'd think) makes them strive to make better software with better features and reliability. And I have no animosity towards Linux supporters/users.
However, I do have a hard time understanding why many Linux Lovers have such a hatred of Windows, and why they continually claim that Linux is better and can do EVERYTHING that Windows can do and more.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'm really not trying to be a troll (even though I'll most likely be modded as such), but Linux is worthless to a LARGE amount of end users for simple reasons (whether or not the end user is simple themselves doesn't really matter) :
A) Installation IS a pain in the ass for anyone who isn't a geek with a decent amount of experience. Hell its a pain in the ass for those who DO have a decent amount of experience, especially when trying a new distro for the first time that has a wholly different install experience.
B) Driver support sucks. Oh, sure, a lot of the big hw companies have usable drivers for Linux. But does that driver work well with your distro? Do all the features work with your distro? And what about the non-juggernaut hw companies. A vast majority of them don't have native Linux drivers, making it a super-headache to get the item to work in Linux.
C) Software selection leaves a lot to be desired. As pointed out in TFA, Open Office vs MS Office is just one of many instances where FOSS really takes a back seat. And most of the industry-standard software either doesn't run on Linux at all or works partially and only in a VM (which kind of defeats the purpose of using Linux).
D) Games. I don't think I really need to expound upon this one. We all know (even if some of you can't seem to admit it) that gaming on Linux SUCKS ASS because most games don't work on Linux.
Ok. Now I know that some of what I touched upon can be band-aided by using Wine and such, but come on. That's cheating. If the OS can't natively run the software, and has to do so in a virtual-Windows environment, why not just use Windows?
Oh, I already know what a lot of the answers to that question will be. "Windows has viruses and isn't secure!" or "Windows doesn't have good driver support either!" or even "Because MS is EEEEVVIILLLLLLLLL!!!!" Well, guess what. Windows SHIPS insecure, but once installed by any competent person who knows how to tweak the system, Windows can be as secure as any other OS out there. I've used almost every iteration of Windows, and starting with XP have never had a virus infection or security breach (and I download a LOT of crap from unreliable sources). That's not to say that a virus has never actually physically been on my system. Just that I've never had to format, reinstall, repair, or anything. Just delete the offending file, and maybe a registry entry or two. And I've had some virii show up that could have screwed me over royally. But because I tune my system the way I do, not much damage can be done, even if I intentionally download a virus (which I have tested several times). Now, I'm not saying I'm invulnerable. I know my system can get FUBAR'd by this or that virus or breach. But it's a safe bet that I'm more secure than any Linux distro out there (which I've proven via a friend who runs Debian, by betting his system would get FUBAR'd before mine after 3 consecutive days of surfing and downloading from some very disreputable sites. His system was tanked in two days, mine never got touched.)
Now, that whole paragraph above leads to the main point I'm trying to make. An average end user will not understand/like/want to go through the massive learning curve of Linux. Nor will they be happy with the horrible compatability. At the same time, they will not be happy with the virus-fest and crash-athon of Windows. But they will put up with Windows because 95% (I'm guessing) of software works with Windows, as well as 99.99% of games (not taking into consideration that many games don't work when shipped due to crappy coding and rush-rush-rush mentallity). And it is much easier to tweak and tune Windows to be more secure than it is to tweak and tune Linux to run everything and to be able to use all of your hardware. Not only that, but if its made for Windows then it works with Windows. With Linux, if its made for Linux then it works with Distribution B/C/E but not A/D/F or only with G. And only certain kernel revisions. And woe be to he who has a custom compiled kernel.
Now, having said all of the above, I'd like to point out that I would LOVE to see Linux suddenly start kicking ass and taking names. I'd love to see full interopability and compatability, ability to play all the games natively, driver support at least on par with Windows, etc. etc. I'm not looking forward to shelling out 200 bucks or more for Win7. I'd much rather have the same features and usability for 30 bucks for a distro package or for free even.
Ok. I'm done. And I have a suspicion that my karma is done too.
by blackholepcs (773728) on Monday May 18, @10:46AM
However, I do have a hard time understanding why many Linux Lovers have such a hatred of Windows, and why they continually claim that Linux is better and can do EVERYTHING that Windows can do and more.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'm really not trying to be a troll (even though I'll most likely be modded as such), but Linux is worthless to a LARGE amount of end users for simple reasons (whether or not the end user is simple themselves doesn't really matter) :
A) Installation IS a pain in the ass for anyone who isn't a geek with a decent amount of experience. Hell its a pain in the ass for those who DO have a decent amount of experience, especially when trying a new distro for the first time that has a wholly different install experience.
B) Driver support sucks. Oh, sure, a lot of the big hw companies have usable drivers for Linux. But does that driver work well with your distro? Do all the features work with your distro? And what about the non-juggernaut hw companies. A vast majority of them don't have native Linux drivers, making it a super-headache to get the item to work in Linux.
C) Software selection leaves a lot to be desired. As pointed out in TFA, Open Office vs MS Office is just one of many instances where FOSS really takes a back seat. And most of the industry-standard software either doesn't run on Linux at all or works partially and only in a VM (which kind of defeats the purpose of using Linux).
D) Games. I don't think I really need to expound upon this one. We all know (even if some of you can't seem to admit it) that gaming on Linux SUCKS ASS because most games don't work on Linux.
Ok. Now I know that some of what I touched upon can be band-aided by using Wine and such, but come on. That's cheating. If the OS can't natively run the software, and has to do so in a virtual-Windows environment, why not just use Windows?
Oh, I already know what a lot of the answers to that question will be. "Windows has viruses and isn't secure!" or "Windows doesn't have good driver support either!" or even "Because MS is EEEEVVIILLLLLLLLL!!!!" Well, guess what. Windows SHIPS insecure, but once installed by any competent person who knows how to tweak the system, Windows can be as secure as any other OS out there. I've used almost every iteration of Windows, and starting with XP have never had a virus infection or security breach (and I download a LOT of crap from unreliable sources). That's not to say that a virus has never actually physically been on my system. Just that I've never had to format, reinstall, repair, or anything. Just delete the offending file, and maybe a registry entry or two. And I've had some virii show up that could have screwed me over royally. But because I tune my system the way I do, not much damage can be done, even if I intentionally download a virus (which I have tested several times). Now, I'm not saying I'm invulnerable. I know my system can get FUBAR'd by this or that virus or breach. But it's a safe bet that I'm more secure than any Linux distro out there (which I've proven via a friend who runs Debian, by betting his system would get FUBAR'd before mine after 3 consecutive days of surfing and downloading from some very disreputable sites. His system was tanked in two days, mine never got touched.)
Now, that whole paragraph above leads to the main point I'm trying to make. An average end user will not understand/like/want to go through the massive learning curve of Linux. Nor will they be happy with the horrible compatability. At the same time, they will not be happy with the virus-fest and crash-athon of Windows. But they will put up with Windows because 95% (I'm guessing) of software works with Windows, as well as 99.99% of games (not taking into consideration that many games don't work when shipped due to crappy coding and rush-rush-rush mentallity). And it is much easier to tweak and tune Windows to be more secure than it is to tweak and tune Linux to run everything and to be able to use all of your hardware. Not only that, but if its made for Windows then it works with Windows. With Linux, if its made for Linux then it works with Distribution B/C/E but not A/D/F or only with G. And only certain kernel revisions. And woe be to he who has a custom compiled kernel.
Now, having said all of the above, I'd like to point out that I would LOVE to see Linux suddenly start kicking ass and taking names. I'd love to see full interopability and compatability, ability to play all the games natively, driver support at least on par with Windows, etc. etc. I'm not looking forward to shelling out 200 bucks or more for Win7. I'd much rather have the same features and usability for 30 bucks for a distro package or for free even.
Ok. I'm done. And I have a suspicion that my karma is done too.
by blackholepcs (773728) on Monday May 18, @10:46AM
And another:
QUOTE
That wooshing sound... (Score:5, Insightful)
by sean.peters (568334) on Monday May 18, @11:16AM (#27997115) Homepage
... was the point of the article going over your head. The key phrase (from your own post) "hobbyist operating system". The point of TFA was that Linux isn't ready for the masses, not that it isn't ready for geeks. Sure, it "flies in the hands of a master". The point is that very few people are masters, and very few have the time or inclination to become masters.
Its not supposed to work straight out the box, because you are supposed to find the way to use with in symbiosis
Right. Which is why it's not ready for the desktop (at least for ordinary mortals).
by sean.peters (568334) on Monday May 18, @11:16AM (#27997115) Homepage
... was the point of the article going over your head. The key phrase (from your own post) "hobbyist operating system". The point of TFA was that Linux isn't ready for the masses, not that it isn't ready for geeks. Sure, it "flies in the hands of a master". The point is that very few people are masters, and very few have the time or inclination to become masters.
Its not supposed to work straight out the box, because you are supposed to find the way to use with in symbiosis
Right. Which is why it's not ready for the desktop (at least for ordinary mortals).
And yet another one:
QUOTE
Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Informative)
by purduephotog (218304) <{moc.tibroni} {ta} {hcsrih}> on Monday May 18, @08:10AM (#27993775) Homepage Journal
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.
by purduephotog (218304) <{moc.tibroni} {ta} {hcsrih}> on Monday May 18, @08:10AM (#27993775) Homepage Journal
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.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 19 2009, 09:45 PM)
Ah, and here's a perfect example of how outdated / out of touch the author and people are with what GNU/Linux is and how it works (or how well it really functions as a desktop).
NOTE: To me Win Vs MAC, or Win Vs., Linux, etc etc., is mute, you should an OS that you like to use and does the the things you want end of story. But the misinformation parading around as fact or whatever in that rant is just driving me up the wall.
The comment you quoted broken down:
a.) All personal useless opinion. I can upload video of a 66 yr old man not only using Ubuntu LiveUSB on his IBM Thinkpad (100% working out of box with bluetooth and wireless, no monkey'in around), but he can install it too, and he's not computer savy at all. He's a retired Union worker.
b.) WTF mmmm drivers for meant to be used in Linux will work across all flavors (distros) of Linux, the only difference maybe were they install but they work across the board. And all the major brands that matter (ie., Nvidia (including chipsets), ATI, Intel, AMD) are supported.
c.) OO VS M$ Office is a skewed and false positive example. The complaint is that its slower in GNU/Linux than run natievely in Windows, let alone vs M$ Office. This is due to using the Linux Kernel in the GNU, and the way it implements JAVA. This is the reason that Big Blue doesn't use that Kernel in its GNU, and they offer a free kernel patch for Linux to change how that relationship works and give an end user noticeable gains, enough to make this a mute point. Though since you have to monkey around to get it working I'd say its a win, but not for the reasons the author thinks.
d.) This is another one like "c". In the end no, you can't just play any game willy nilly on a GNU/Linux box, but that's true of Windows too. The reason being is there is now a vast title selection that isn't put out for the PC, but the console only. But the largest (in renvenue) PC game maker fully supports OpenGL and works in GNU no problem, and the most iconic not only releases games with linux use in mind, but are the people credited with why Leo has such great gameplay potenital (aqua, quartz).
So again I'm lost at the reason we are quoting these people commenting on this article or the article itself.
There are so many boundaries I don't even know where to start.
1. The community: full of zealots who reject beginners.
2. The programmers: so fond of code splits that the thought of OS consistency is laughable.
3. Hardware management: In some areas linux is years behind, graphics in particular is simply terrible.
To the poster above. Drop the M$ and grow the {censored} up.
Secondly, DO NOT refer to it as GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman may be trying to once again take credit for something he has no part in, but Linus Torvalds made it very clear he is not affiliated with GNU.
1. The community: full of zealots who reject beginners.
2. The programmers: so fond of code splits that the thought of OS consistency is laughable.
3. Hardware management: In some areas linux is years behind, graphics in particular is simply terrible.
To the poster above. Drop the M$ and grow the {censored} up.
Secondly, DO NOT refer to it as GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman may be trying to once again take credit for something he has no part in, but Linus Torvalds made it very clear he is not affiliated with GNU.
QUOTE (scottishduck @ May 26 2009, 09:12 AM)
There are so many boundaries I don't even know where to start.
1. The community: full of zealots who reject beginners.
2. The programmers: so fond of code splits that the thought of OS consistency is laughable.
3. Hardware management: In some areas linux is years behind, graphics in particular is simply terrible.
To the poster above. Drop the M$ and grow the {censored} up.
Secondly, DO NOT refer to it as GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman may be trying to once again take credit for something he has no part in, but Linus Torvalds made it very clear he is not affiliated with GNU.
1. The community: full of zealots who reject beginners.
2. The programmers: so fond of code splits that the thought of OS consistency is laughable.
3. Hardware management: In some areas linux is years behind, graphics in particular is simply terrible.
To the poster above. Drop the M$ and grow the {censored} up.
Secondly, DO NOT refer to it as GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman may be trying to once again take credit for something he has no part in, but Linus Torvalds made it very clear he is not affiliated with GNU.
For once I mostly agree with you, except for "zealots who reject beginners", which is not always the case. I used to go to great lengths in order to help, years ago. Now I do it much less, but I find plenty of helpful people in Linux forums.
Otherwise when I see a mature OS like Windows 7 I despair Linux can catch up in the foreseeable future.
QUOTE (Alessandro17 @ May 26 2009, 01:51 PM)
For once I mostly agree with you, except for "zealots who reject beginners", which is not always the case. I used to go to great lengths in order to help, years ago. Now I do it much less, but I find plenty of helpful people in Linux forums.
Otherwise when I see a mature OS like Windows 7 I despair Linux can catch up in the foreseeable future.
Otherwise when I see a mature OS like Windows 7 I despair Linux can catch up in the foreseeable future.
While I admit that the term zealots was a bit far, it is always the case that the loudest people are the ones you notice. When you look at ubuntu they have a good thing going in their forums, they help people on ANY OS and they are patient with newbies. Problem is that Linux is an OS that as you become accustomed to it, you begin to try and get a taste of that "customisation". For me that led to Arch/Gentoo. For Arch I have nothing but praise, the devs are friendly, the community is patient and all-in-all, if you can follow instructions you can do it. Gentoo, on the other hand, poor documentation, hostile devs and forums. You will find with the gentoo crowd that they simply tell people to "go use Ubuntu or Fedora or some {censored} newbie OS".
Now obviously you might say that theres not a lot of people going to gentoo, but the fact is that people do and they meet these zealots and they tell people Linux fans are idiots.
We nerds are a fickle bunch and it doesn't take a lot to start an argument.
As for your words on Windows 7. As far as I see it, Linux has abandoned it's full-on push to support the server market and instead seems to be playing a game of catch-up with Apple and MS. It's sad to see the developers basically waiting to see what comes out of Redmond and Cupertino so they can copy it. Linux needs to refind it's revolutionary flair and make an OS that is different and with thing people actually want, rather that saying "its open source" and thats it.
I agree with a great deal that's been said here, but honestly I think the article takes way too many low blows. In my opinion, if Linux is too difficult, if you cannot live without a GUI configuration tool for every option, if you think its ugly, etc.. then just don't use it and stop complaining. I love OS X just as much as I love Linux; I know that OS X seems much more put together because there are people dedicated to the OS, and being paid to do so. With Linux being a sort of "spare time" project for many, of course it will not be as developed as its competitors. But that doesn't mean it isn't ready for the desktop.
I manage about 300 computers at a computer science department at the University I attend. About 50 of those are Mac Pro's, but the rest are desktops that run Ubuntu. In my opinion, the Linux machines are almost easier to administer than the Macs. If something doesn't work the way I want it to, I can simply re-write it, or make a script that does exactly what I want it to. I know Linux isn't everyone's cup of tea, but why the constant bickering? Linux has its places just as OS X and Windows do. Why not leave it at that.
I manage about 300 computers at a computer science department at the University I attend. About 50 of those are Mac Pro's, but the rest are desktops that run Ubuntu. In my opinion, the Linux machines are almost easier to administer than the Macs. If something doesn't work the way I want it to, I can simply re-write it, or make a script that does exactly what I want it to. I know Linux isn't everyone's cup of tea, but why the constant bickering? Linux has its places just as OS X and Windows do. Why not leave it at that.
Through all of the debate and passionate sides of this discussion...
The fact remains that for the majority of e-mail/web/document computer users, Linux isn't a viable option. I'm a pretty computer savvy person, and I'm running two installations of Mac OS X, Windows Vista, Windows 7 RC, and Ubuntu 8.10 on my machine. By far my least favorite of all is Ubuntu. I've tried some other distros, Redhat (is that still around?) and whatnot. I've tried some different GUIs, like KDE and Gnome.
The simple reality is that Linux is a "techie's OS." If you aren't really into computers and don't know a thing about the command line, Linux isn't very approachable. Ubuntu has gone leaps and bounds ahead of some of the rest of the distros in making it easily accessible and "out there" for users, but it's still a pain in the butt to get running. I installed Ubuntu only to find that I booted to a black screen every time. Apparently, getting the graphics card running is one of the most common problems people encounter, and I did too. Took me quite a while and a lot of fiddling with the command line to get it up and running. That is not something I would ever recommend for any but the most tech savvy of my friends.
Then, once it's all up and running, I found that for some programs there's no simple automated installation, or even any simple way to get it installed.
Linux lacks a lot of things we need for it to be "desktop ready." Of those, I think the most serious offenses are the lack of standardization, the difficulty in setting up a machine on a variety of hardware, and the unnecessary complications with processes that are always much simpler on Windows or Mac (simply installing a program, for instance).
As always, there are examples of easy program installations or computers that some flavor of Linux can install on "flawlessly," but that's not what it's about. It isn't about showing someone the ideal situation and saying, "See? It can work!" If that's what we're doing here, than I can show you the infinitely easier and more user-friendly process of getting Windows up and running and installing new drivers for new hardware.
In the end, the computer savvy techies out there will generally like their personal favor of Linux and harp on its good sides, but that doesn't change the reality that for the average user, it just cannot offer the ease of setup, ease of use, and ease of maintenance that Windows or Mac OS X offer.
And consider that getting people to switch will require more than just showing them that it's "possible." You can't expect someone to make a huge operating system change just because you can show them that, "you can do it on Linux, too." That means that if they switch, they may only at best break even... and still have to deal with the unfamiliarity of a new system. We would need to show people that Linux has clear, viable advantages over Windows or Mac OS X. So far, for the average home user, the possible advantages are all greatly outweighed by the disadvantages. The only true "selling point" to the average user is, ironically with pun intended, the fact that it's free.
So again, I have nothing really to "offer" the common people to persuade them to switch to Linux. "It's free!" "Yeah, so, I get Windows/Mac OS X when I buy a computer." "It can more efficiently run servers or always-on processes!" "... what?"
Linux is still the realm of server admins and techies. It'll take a lot of change to bring Linux to the home user, and I think Linux developers will find that some of the things they need to do are not things they traditionally consider "Linux."
The fact remains that for the majority of e-mail/web/document computer users, Linux isn't a viable option. I'm a pretty computer savvy person, and I'm running two installations of Mac OS X, Windows Vista, Windows 7 RC, and Ubuntu 8.10 on my machine. By far my least favorite of all is Ubuntu. I've tried some other distros, Redhat (is that still around?) and whatnot. I've tried some different GUIs, like KDE and Gnome.
The simple reality is that Linux is a "techie's OS." If you aren't really into computers and don't know a thing about the command line, Linux isn't very approachable. Ubuntu has gone leaps and bounds ahead of some of the rest of the distros in making it easily accessible and "out there" for users, but it's still a pain in the butt to get running. I installed Ubuntu only to find that I booted to a black screen every time. Apparently, getting the graphics card running is one of the most common problems people encounter, and I did too. Took me quite a while and a lot of fiddling with the command line to get it up and running. That is not something I would ever recommend for any but the most tech savvy of my friends.
Then, once it's all up and running, I found that for some programs there's no simple automated installation, or even any simple way to get it installed.
Linux lacks a lot of things we need for it to be "desktop ready." Of those, I think the most serious offenses are the lack of standardization, the difficulty in setting up a machine on a variety of hardware, and the unnecessary complications with processes that are always much simpler on Windows or Mac (simply installing a program, for instance).
As always, there are examples of easy program installations or computers that some flavor of Linux can install on "flawlessly," but that's not what it's about. It isn't about showing someone the ideal situation and saying, "See? It can work!" If that's what we're doing here, than I can show you the infinitely easier and more user-friendly process of getting Windows up and running and installing new drivers for new hardware.
In the end, the computer savvy techies out there will generally like their personal favor of Linux and harp on its good sides, but that doesn't change the reality that for the average user, it just cannot offer the ease of setup, ease of use, and ease of maintenance that Windows or Mac OS X offer.
And consider that getting people to switch will require more than just showing them that it's "possible." You can't expect someone to make a huge operating system change just because you can show them that, "you can do it on Linux, too." That means that if they switch, they may only at best break even... and still have to deal with the unfamiliarity of a new system. We would need to show people that Linux has clear, viable advantages over Windows or Mac OS X. So far, for the average home user, the possible advantages are all greatly outweighed by the disadvantages. The only true "selling point" to the average user is, ironically with pun intended, the fact that it's free.
So again, I have nothing really to "offer" the common people to persuade them to switch to Linux. "It's free!" "Yeah, so, I get Windows/Mac OS X when I buy a computer." "It can more efficiently run servers or always-on processes!" "... what?"
Linux is still the realm of server admins and techies. It'll take a lot of change to bring Linux to the home user, and I think Linux developers will find that some of the things they need to do are not things they traditionally consider "Linux."
Good post, MithrilFox 
Only, I want to add a simple consideration: Ubuntu has done more harm than good to the Linux "cause".
It is "popular", so every clueless computer user believes he can install and use it without problems.
Nothing could be further than the truth. Installing an OS takes a minimum of knowledge.
But then Ubuntu is also one of the buggiest Linux distros out there, which in turn causes even greater frustration.
When I was still a noob, I installed Red Hat and Mandrake (now Mandriva) with very few problems.
All I had learned was how to burn an iso and how to partition a Hard Drive.
Fast forward to 2009, Ubuntu still causes me a lot of aggravation every time it is released and I give it a spin.
Not the case with openSUSE, a lot less buggy when released. Or Debian. But I realize the latter isn't exactly aimed at
new users.
Only, I want to add a simple consideration: Ubuntu has done more harm than good to the Linux "cause".
It is "popular", so every clueless computer user believes he can install and use it without problems.
Nothing could be further than the truth. Installing an OS takes a minimum of knowledge.
But then Ubuntu is also one of the buggiest Linux distros out there, which in turn causes even greater frustration.
When I was still a noob, I installed Red Hat and Mandrake (now Mandriva) with very few problems.
All I had learned was how to burn an iso and how to partition a Hard Drive.
Fast forward to 2009, Ubuntu still causes me a lot of aggravation every time it is released and I give it a spin.
Not the case with openSUSE, a lot less buggy when released. Or Debian. But I realize the latter isn't exactly aimed at
new users.
QUOTE (scottishduck @ May 26 2009, 09:12 AM)
1. The community: full of zealots who reject beginners.
I have to admit that they do exist although they're a small minority. I find the uber geeks especially at Ubuntu quite helpful. At least there's always a genuine effort.
What I find much more discouraging is when you ask a simple question that is obviously not coming from an expert, all you get in return is some alien looking commands along those lines:
#!/bin/sh
sox -q -c 2 -s -w -r 32000 -t ossdsp /dev/dsp2 -t ossdsp -w -r 32000/dev/dsp &
soxpid=$!
sleep 0.5
tvtime
kill $soxpid
Not exactly knowing what you're doing you copy/paste this stuff and get stuck in errors like 'command unknown' or nothing seems to happen but your machine won't reboot anymore because the original poster has forgotten a point or a blank somewhere. What gets me is when you then return to the forums with this you either won't get any reply, or somebody taking the mickey or another, even more arcane collection of commands.
However you can encounter the same thing also with Windows or OSX.
btw I know I'm definitely not alone in this. The difference is that when I want to make something work I do make a genuine effort too (within my limited knowledge). Many others though (probably the majority) won't.
id like to add that there is too many distros and thats what hurts linux the most, i dont want to compile anything !! nor do i know how or want to know how, but i do like ubuntu ( with ubuntu studio added on to it ) it would be nice if they had something like wine, but for mac software to work such as logic though, like i said TO MANY DISTROS, to many cooks spoil the stew!!!
That article actually had me sort of upset, and there's quite a few of those arguments I could prove wrong I'm sure. I can't believe it's written in 2009, it talks like it was made in 1997.
And the most funny thing: some of those problems can very well be applied to windows or mac OS...
And still they keep forgetting "linux is free as in free beer"...
And the most funny thing: some of those problems can very well be applied to windows or mac OS...
And still they keep forgetting "linux is free as in free beer"...
I agree with fedexnman.
There are TOO many distros of Linux (Ubuntu,openSUSE,Mandriva,Red Hat,Fedora,... to infinity and beyond....) and as a Linux newbie it's difficult to choose one.
But anyway I think that Linux is ready for the Desktop if you at least know the basics of Linux.
Actually I have it running on an old PIII and it is perfectly doing its job on it (Webserver and other small things)
So basically,Linux is not yet completly (but very closly) ready for everyday use on a Desktop.
Adam
P.S.: The best community is for OSx86
There are TOO many distros of Linux (Ubuntu,openSUSE,Mandriva,Red Hat,Fedora,... to infinity and beyond....) and as a Linux newbie it's difficult to choose one.
But anyway I think that Linux is ready for the Desktop if you at least know the basics of Linux.
Actually I have it running on an old PIII and it is perfectly doing its job on it (Webserver and other small things)
So basically,Linux is not yet completly (but very closly) ready for everyday use on a Desktop.
Adam
P.S.: The best community is for OSx86
QUOTE (adamsalac @ Jun 3 2009, 12:38 PM)
I agree with fedexnman.
There are TOO many distros of Linux (Ubuntu,openSUSE,Mandriva,Red Hat,Fedora,... to infinity and beyond....) and as a Linux newbie it's difficult to choose one.
But anyway I think that Linux is ready for the Desktop if you at least know the basics of Linux.
Actually I have it running on an old PIII and it is perfectly doing its job on it (Webserver and other small things)
So basically,Linux is not yet completly (but very closly) ready for everyday use on a Desktop.
Adam
P.S.: The best community is for OSx86
There are TOO many distros of Linux (Ubuntu,openSUSE,Mandriva,Red Hat,Fedora,... to infinity and beyond....) and as a Linux newbie it's difficult to choose one.
But anyway I think that Linux is ready for the Desktop if you at least know the basics of Linux.
Actually I have it running on an old PIII and it is perfectly doing its job on it (Webserver and other small things)
So basically,Linux is not yet completly (but very closly) ready for everyday use on a Desktop.
Adam
P.S.: The best community is for OSx86
Or maybe people just aren't ready for linux. It takes very short time to learn how linux works granted that you want to know how it works. Some people are even having struggles with changing the wallpaper on windows xp, they should be ready for the computer, not the other way around. Computers shouldn't be gimped down to 3 big buttons on a screen so the most illiterate people can use it, people should just use their brains instead.
But of course, that's not exactly how the industry works..
/rant
Linux is for people who want to control the machine, not being controlled by the machine.
If there are productivity suits for Linux? Yes, there are... How many books written in TeX/LateX? Thousands... How many books written in Microsoft Word? Er... People are not that stupid right ?
The software is present, the hardware is present, the drivers are present for 90% of the cases... what isn't present is Linux at schools from the very early start. It might be a dificult OS for starters, but it's common logic into play... It's not a mouse operated OS, it's a keyboard operated OS, but does exactly what you demand from it.
For desktops... sure it works... if software houses do publish or not their products for Linux, thats another story, so you might not play EA Sports titles on Linux, but you can for sure play ID titles and most EPIC titles... You can not have Microsoft Office, but you can have OpenOffice which actually if we ignore the eye candy, it's a bit more powerfull than Office.
If people had to pay for all the software they use at Mac or Windows, Linux would grow easilly.
Some years ago a study conducted in Finland took 10 year old kids taking Linux to use and Windows, at the end of the study the higher majority choosed to continue with Linux
Linux is a great working tool at any instance, it's not a toy OS for dummies.
If there are productivity suits for Linux? Yes, there are... How many books written in TeX/LateX? Thousands... How many books written in Microsoft Word? Er... People are not that stupid right ?
The software is present, the hardware is present, the drivers are present for 90% of the cases... what isn't present is Linux at schools from the very early start. It might be a dificult OS for starters, but it's common logic into play... It's not a mouse operated OS, it's a keyboard operated OS, but does exactly what you demand from it.
For desktops... sure it works... if software houses do publish or not their products for Linux, thats another story, so you might not play EA Sports titles on Linux, but you can for sure play ID titles and most EPIC titles... You can not have Microsoft Office, but you can have OpenOffice which actually if we ignore the eye candy, it's a bit more powerfull than Office.
If people had to pay for all the software they use at Mac or Windows, Linux would grow easilly.
Some years ago a study conducted in Finland took 10 year old kids taking Linux to use and Windows, at the end of the study the higher majority choosed to continue with Linux
Linux is a great working tool at any instance, it's not a toy OS for dummies.
QUOTE (nmarques @ Feb 3 2010, 11:38 AM)
How many books written in TeX/LateX? Thousands... How many books written in Microsoft Word? Er... People are not that stupid right ?
I'm the author of literally 20 trade-press books on computers. Most of them are about Linux or other open source technologies (Samba, FreeBSD, etc.). All but one of my books were written in MS Word.
The reason has nothing to do with my intelligence; it has to do with the demands of the publishers. Most require MS Word files, and use specialized MS Word templates. This way, they can move the text from the word processors used by authors and editors into the page layout programs used to prepare the book for press with relatively little fuss. Yes, I know that TeX/LaTeX can do this at least as well; however, most editors, proofreaders, and others in the publishing chain aren't comfortable with those tools.
That said, at least one publisher (Sybex) now has OpenOffice.org templates. Even before then, OO.o could be used, although the Word templates didn't work well for some purposes, so publishers discouraged authors from using it. (Once I had no choice; a file got corrupted and could only be rescued by OO.o!) One publisher (O'Reilly) accepts both MS Word and their own custom XML variant; I wrote my one O'Reilly title in XML.
I'm an Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X user. I've sadly to admit that compared with Windows or OS X, Ubuntu -or every other distro- still have big lacks.
I think that the main problem is the different point of view of the various components: a Linux distro is actually like a puzzle, it's not a solid bundle but it's a big, messy composition of different pieces put all together. A simple e.g. of this, is the desktop enviroment: gnome, KDE, XCFE, and so on...every one of these, have different features and different advantage/disvantage. Gnome is simple, clear and I like it so much, because it's full customizable, even if something is not so simple.
Unfortunately, softwares like Open Office, doesn't reach the full compatibility at all with GNOME, and if you try to use a theme far different from HUMAN, you'll get strange behaviour or ugly widgets.
Also I don't agree with the thought of some "Linux fans" who says "I don't like it, because it reminds me OS X too much" or "This sucks, because it's too much Windows inspired". Well, let me say that if there's something good in a O.S. instead of another one, and if there's the possibility to re-use the idea successfully, why don't use it?
OS X is undeniable getting inspired by some of Linux DE features, like the multi-desktop view. A good and full working DE is, IMHO, the base for a great user experience (not for a great OS, it's different!). Another problem is that sometimes there are too softwares (and none of them is complete) for do something (e.g. the IM...pidgin, aMSN, eMeSeNe...or the audio players...banshee, rhythmbox, amarok, evince...and so on) and no good software for others purpose (e.g software development tools like XCode, music making, video and image editing...).
And, at last but not at least, the necessary friendship with the terminal. Not only for the "advanced operations" but sometimes even for the simpliest things.
And as I get the list of anything, for me, have to change in Linux distro to give a better user experience, in the same way I can easily find things that I definitely don't like in Windows and even in OS X.
I'd like to finish my post saying that my family uses Ubuntu and Windows, my girlfriend and my sister wrote their degree thesis with OpenOffice, so I don't think that Linux is not ready for desktop usage...but not every people can feel comfortable with it. Forgive me for any grammar error
Regards,
Maurizio
I think that the main problem is the different point of view of the various components: a Linux distro is actually like a puzzle, it's not a solid bundle but it's a big, messy composition of different pieces put all together. A simple e.g. of this, is the desktop enviroment: gnome, KDE, XCFE, and so on...every one of these, have different features and different advantage/disvantage. Gnome is simple, clear and I like it so much, because it's full customizable, even if something is not so simple.
Unfortunately, softwares like Open Office, doesn't reach the full compatibility at all with GNOME, and if you try to use a theme far different from HUMAN, you'll get strange behaviour or ugly widgets.
Also I don't agree with the thought of some "Linux fans" who says "I don't like it, because it reminds me OS X too much" or "This sucks, because it's too much Windows inspired". Well, let me say that if there's something good in a O.S. instead of another one, and if there's the possibility to re-use the idea successfully, why don't use it?
OS X is undeniable getting inspired by some of Linux DE features, like the multi-desktop view. A good and full working DE is, IMHO, the base for a great user experience (not for a great OS, it's different!). Another problem is that sometimes there are too softwares (and none of them is complete) for do something (e.g. the IM...pidgin, aMSN, eMeSeNe...or the audio players...banshee, rhythmbox, amarok, evince...and so on) and no good software for others purpose (e.g software development tools like XCode, music making, video and image editing...).
And, at last but not at least, the necessary friendship with the terminal. Not only for the "advanced operations" but sometimes even for the simpliest things.
And as I get the list of anything, for me, have to change in Linux distro to give a better user experience, in the same way I can easily find things that I definitely don't like in Windows and even in OS X.
I'd like to finish my post saying that my family uses Ubuntu and Windows, my girlfriend and my sister wrote their degree thesis with OpenOffice, so I don't think that Linux is not ready for desktop usage...but not every people can feel comfortable with it. Forgive me for any grammar error
Regards,
Maurizio
As a semi-user of linux I personally think it is VERY ready for the desktop. I personally use it on several old computers as there not capable of running smothly under windows. We are seeing linux absoutly everywhere eg desktops (dell sell them with Ubuntu on them) on PS3's and servers, well at least on all of mine Yes there is lots of distros of linux but at the same time it gives us choice, and that could be key for certian setups! Even as a complete n00b like myself you pick it us as you go along learning, im playing with it and im always learning.
Yes there is lots of distros of linux but at the same time it gives us choice, and that could be key for certian setups! Even as a complete n00b like myself you pick it us as you go along learning, im playing with it and im always learning.
QUOTE (Simon19 @ Feb 7 2010, 08:53 PM)
As a semi-user of linux I personally think it is VERY ready for the desktop. I personally use it on several old computers as there not capable of running smothly under windows. We are seeing linux absoutly everywhere eg desktops (dell sell them with Ubuntu on them) on PS3's and servers, well at least on all of mine Yes there is lots of distros of linux but at the same time it gives us choice, and that could be key for certian setups! Even as a complete n00b like myself you pick it us as you go along learning, im playing with it and im always learning.
Yes there is lots of distros of linux but at the same time it gives us choice, and that could be key for certian setups! Even as a complete n00b like myself you pick it us as you go along learning, im playing with it and im always learning.If you use your computer for basic tasks only, as your use of old computers, unable to run Windows, (not even Windows 2000?) suggests, almost every OS is ready for the desktop.
But if you need specific apps, only available, let's say, for Windows or OS X, then not every OS is ready for the desktop.
I won't even mention poor quality drivers, bugs, "lack of coordination", as user Maury84 suggests, or, worse, cavalier attitude towards users (I'll never forget the "who needs users" attitude by KDE4 developers).
With other words: are you a user or a "geek"?
If you are a user, meaning you need your computer for daily work, you are more likeky to choose Windows or OS X.
I agree with most of the points. But I still love linux.
yes. that's the reason why I still dual boot with windows. 
I have Ubuntu (Hardy Heron) on two of my hard disks. I usually use it mainly when I am trying to figure out why Windows isn't working right. I don't have a problem with command lines, but some things just don't work (mainly because they are proprietary and have not been released to Linux). As an example, I still can't get samba to work correctly with my AirPort Extreme and network drive which has a FAT32 and HFS+ partition. I also could not get WPA2 to work with wireless. It is a good thing I am using this on my desktop which is directly connected to the AirPort Extreme, otherwise I would have Linux without internet, which wouldn't be terribly useful.
There is only a couple valid points. Like this:
and this:
Everything else is a complete BS. Full stop.
QUOTE
Bad backwards compatability
and this:
QUOTE
No games
(There is certainly only a handful of big titles on Linux)Everything else is a complete BS. Full stop.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.