Kane Adams Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Linux netbooks face an uphill road, according to makers of one such machine, MSI. Their director of U.S. Sales, Andy Tung, noted that returns of Linux netbooks in general have been "higher than regular notebooks...the main cause of that is Linux." Wired carried the story, along with DesktopLinux and a number of other outlets. Still, I wouldn't throw in the (penguin-monogrammed) towel just yet. To me, this isn't a condemnation of Linux on netbooks per se as much as it is a comment on people's expectations. Most people, especially those who only think of the PC as a way to get things done and aren't interested in the politics of OSes or software, may not even realize they're buying a Linux-based machine. They pick one up (you'd be amazed at the number of people who make a big-ticket purchase and yet don't read the sales draft), take it home, and then discover to their dismay they can't run Photoshop. If, as Mr. Tung stated, "People would love to pay $299 or $399 but they don’t know what they get until they open the box," that's in my eyes more of an indictment of people's expectations than Linux itself. I don't doubt for a minute that Linux isn't yet a drop-in replacement for Windows -- not just because of the software itself, although that's certainly part of it, but because of people's expectations. Most people are still married to the idea of turning on a PC and getting Windows, or buying a Mac and getting Mac OS. And because "Linux" isn't any one thing but a whole plethora of possibilities, there's even less of a sense of what they'll get when they open a box and take out a computer running Linux. The closest we get to that right now is Ubuntu, about the most broadly recognized version of Linux there is right now. There also is the question of how Linux itself is implemented on those machines, and in this case the consumer is definitely not to blame. If it's implemented badly -- if the distro in question has been thrown together in a hurry and many things simply don't work as they should -- then not even a Linux sophisticate is going to have the patience to figure it out. And frankly, they shouldn't have to -- no more so than a Windows expert should have to debug a machine that comes fresh from the factory, even though I find myself doing that a lot more than I really should. Linux on netbooks is far from being a dead end or a bad idea. You just can't spring Linux on people where and when they expect Windows -- and you have to make it work without excuses. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/a...st_enemy_o.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m16 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Linux is returned because it is an archaic os designed for obsolete hardware that has no use today beyond servers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Linux is returned because it is an archaic os designed for obsolete hardware that has no use today beyond servers When you utter such nonsense one can't help wondering if you have ever tried any recent Linux distro (and if you did, did you have a clue?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m16 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Compared to Mac OSX and Windows Vista linux is about the equivilant of windows 3.1... Yes I tried latest xubuntu... dumb layout made no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detosx Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Uh-oh, we went back in time ten years and someone forgot to tell me? If you're about getting a productive days work done, these days, you go for Mac OS X or a Linux Distro. Microsoft voluably acknowledge that are hoping to see a fightback with the next version of Windows, principally bootup times and snappier performance and less virus/trojan worries. Amen to that. I think what you guys are talking about is analogous to the kind of brand loyalty that we all suffer from. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that it leaves us blinkered to what the updated alternative brand may or may not be offering. For instance, how long does it take to install Windows XP and all the programs the average person needs? First you have to install the operating system and then, one by one, the programs. Who has the time and patience? With Linux distros, all the brand-name programs that you would normally use install at the same time as the operating system, OpenOffice, and so on. Let's not even get started on SP3 and other XP and Vista updates. And then, with Microsoft Windows, there's which internet security package to buy? And then you get angry at how much it slows down your computer. The last time that installed XP, it wouldn't see the computer's SATA hard drive. I had to slipstream updates and burn a new XP installer DVD. No problem, at least for me, but Ubuntu installed without a hitch and recognized all of the new hardware. I know that didn't used to be the case but I have never had that miracle happen with XP, whether the original release or updated. Vista is a vast improvement, there, very impressed, but even with two gigs of memory I find it so sluggish I end up yelling at the screen and uninstalling a load of bloatware, programs that I don't really need, services settings, tweaks, and so on. I don't have the patience for Windows anymore, though I do sometimes miss Windows 2000/NT and I will give the next version a try, but... I concede I can't live without XP. Leaving games aside, there simply isn't a Linux equivalent of Photoshop. Not even close. The point, there, though, is that where Linux was one a niche product, now MS Windows/Photoshop are the niche. Just another tool in the tool shed and one that I rarely have to resort to. Thankfully. I very much look forward to the next version of Windows. I am open to new things. If you're a student with no money, Linux, as a productivity platform, is an astonishing joy. Ubuntu, as I understand it, was designed to look spartan and minimalist, almost the Google of operating systems. Also, it would help if it would play Divx/Xvid out of the box... It's easy enough to customize the GUI, though. OpenSUSE is a little prettier. Most of my friends are using Mandiva - along with Leopard and, yes, sometimes XP and Vista. One thing I will say, though, because I'm not a fan boy of any one operating system. When the Acer Aspire One sub laptop was first released, Linux hadn't been fully optimized and road tested on it, according to the reviews. In PC World I powered up OpenOffice - and the Acer Aspire One crashed. Nice... But then, it was the first time I had seen a Linux distro crash in a long time. I think it reflects badly on Acer, though. My only concern, re Linux on a laptop as opposed to Windows XP, would be battery life. Also, I prefer the way MS Windows renders screen fonts. But I suspect Alessandro17 could bring me up to speed on those things? Is there a Linux distro out there that, out of the box, without any additional phaffing around, can give me XP-like battery life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Adams Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Linux is returned because it is an archaic os designed for obsolete hardware that has no use today beyond servers Spoken from someone that has their Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDRacer48 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Spoken from someone that has their Ahahahahahahha! But cereally. Each OS is just as good as the next. The only differences are the users and the users' individual preferences. Saying Linux is an archaic OS that only runs efficiently on legacy hardware and servers is ignorant, and the previous statement by m16 proves that argument true. m16, xubuntu runs the Xfce gui (interface, desktop environment, etc.) which is only one of a number of choices (Gnome, KDE, Flux, etc.). Therefore, your problem with the layout of Linux (acutally Ubuntu, but I am being general for m16) is not actually the fault of the actual system, but the interface developed for you to interact with the system. True Definition of Linux (in my opinion): a usually free, open source operating system that can be installed on a variety of architectures. One of it's key attributes is usally the ability to choose between a number of desktop environments, applications, and options by default (with out major system modification) to suite an individual's wants or needs better than any other operating system available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Yes I tried latest xubuntu... dumb layout made no sense Try openSUSE with KDE3.5 (NOT KDE4). It should make much more sense to you. SDRacer48, well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m16 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I am quite familiar with Linux DEs. I have used Fluxbox, XFCE, GNOME and KDE all as my main desktop computer at least for a few weeks each. I am not satisfied with the way Linux is evolving however. Its too hard to do simple things on Linux... And every time you switch distros you need to relearn things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakyMac Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I am quite familiar with Linux DEs. I have used Fluxbox, XFCE, GNOME and KDE all as my main desktop computer at least for a few weeks each. I am not satisfied with the way Linux is evolving however. Its too hard to do simple things on Linux... And every time you switch distros you need to relearn things. Its not really that hard to use Linux, 2 days ago I Installed Ubuntu Linux 8.10 on my dads desktop, Has used Windows for YEARS and never even heard of Linux and he has no complaints. Its just a matter of preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Linux on netbooks is far from being a dead end or a bad idea. You just can't spring Linux on people where and when they expect Windows -- and you have to make it work without excuses.http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/a...st_enemy_o.html No it isn't a bad idea, but you're right about expectations. People EXPECT Windows on any system. Anything other than that (less than that in some minds) is something intolerable. Also, while Linux is good for someone who knows what they are doing, in the hands of a Windows Zombie it just can't be used. Where's the start menu? Why can't I install this .exe? What's Synaptic/YUM/etc? Why can't I install this .rpm on my Debian box? Why can't I install this .deb on my Fedora box? What the (bleep) is a .tar and what the (bleepity bleep bleep) am I supposed to do with this piece of (bleep)? (I really do love Linux, but those questions always seem to come up when a Windows zombie switches) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Linux is returned because it is an archaic os designed for obsolete hardware that has no use today beyond servers Archaic? Linux was first released in 1991. Windows first came out in 1985 and MacOS in 1984. None of them bear much resemblance to their initial versions, but Linux is indeed the youngest of the three. As to "designed for obsolete hardware" - Dell sells brand new systems running Linux flawlessly, as do virtually all netbook manufacturers. It also runs flawlessly on virtually any system Apple currently produces. And as you point out, it's used heavily on servers, many of which are top of the line new machines. Are ALL these machines "obsolete"? The simple fact of the matter is that Linux supports a far wider variety of hardware than Mac OS X does, and when going into non-x86 environments, beats Windows in that regard too. Is it without faults? No, but the same holds for ANY OS sold these days. Most people simply aren't familiar with it. As to comparing to Windows 3.1? Please. Linux has full multi-user capability, security, journaling filesystem, protected memory support, 3d graphics acceleration implemented for both game and desktop use, a full networking stack + firewall (heck Trumpet WinSOCK was an ADDON for Windows 3.1), and tons of other features that leave Windows 3.1 looking like the outdated hack it was. Technically, visually, and functionally, Linux is every bit the modern OS that Windows or MacOS is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishduck Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The biggest flaw and benefit of Linux is that it's open. Without strict guidlines on building applications, many developers stray too far from the flock and end up making really stupid decisions (KDE, Xorg, XFCE). Ubuntu is really trying to create consistency within the OS, but I fear it may all be in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The biggest flaw and benefit of Linux is that it's open. Without strict guidlines on building applications, many developers stray too far from the flock and end up making really stupid decisions (KDE, Xorg, XFCE). Ubuntu is really trying to create consistency within the OS, but I fear it may all be in vain. You realize there is Kubuntu (KDE), XUbuntu (Xorg), and several other 'buntu flavors all supported by Canonical, right? If you really wanted to say "stupid decisions" you could have pointed to Red Hat vs Debian package systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishduck Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 You realize there is Kubuntu (KDE), XUbuntu (Xorg), and several other 'buntu flavors all supported by Canonical, right? If you really wanted to say "stupid decisions" you could have pointed to Red Hat vs Debian package systems. Firstly, Xorg is not a WM or DE. Secondly, support has nothing to do with my argument. Canonical can't stop developers from ruining their own apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Firstly, Xorg is not a WM or DE. Secondly, support has nothing to do with my argument. Canonical can't stop developers from ruining their own apps. While what you said about Xorg is true (my bad), you just went through, I do believe, a list of things you personally dislike and then called them mistakes. That's not the way to call something a mistake or a bad thing ("Windows isn't bad just because it's Windows" argument). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 you just went through, I do believe, a list of things you personally dislike and then called them mistakes. That's not the way to call something a mistake or a bad thing ("Windows isn't bad just because it's Windows" argument). I am under the same impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts