| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 83703 | 2007-10-10 07:23:00 | "Linux is not ready for the desktop"!! | johnd (85) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 600114 | 2007-10-11 18:57:00 | The reason that Linux is not ready for the desktop market is that the vast majority of users are not like me. People go to Dell/Noel Leeming/Hardly Normal/Apple and buy integrated systems because they just want to sit down and use their computer - not manage it.Righto.. i have to tear this apart, or atleast the assumption that those running linux MUST spend more time "managing" thier computers than windows users, or mac users for that matter. Yes it's easier to tweak and modify the system. Why is this seen as a bad thing? We don't generally NEED to tweak a running desktop system, it's just some of us choose to. and that applies to users of any OS. I suggest that after the half hour it takes to set up a fast computer with any basic install there will be little if any futher tweaking needed. As a linux user have no antivirus, or any other add-on extra cost safety features. The reason is that i don't need any. I stay up to date by opening a command window once every few months, and typing "su - " (to make me the all power) giving my root password when asked, and typing "apt-get update" and then letting the machine do it's stuff. while i get on with using the machine as if nothing is going on. I do close the window when it's finished, i could watch all the downloads and installs progressing, but there's no need to. I think that's alot easier than downloading a patch CD, or "service pack" and going through the whole cursed installation routine complete with no dought several reboots and the rest of it. I have spent far too much time fixing default windows installations that have gone bad, and know several compulsive tweakers who are constantly trying, and often failing to repair the damage the kids have given the computer. By comparisn, linux issues are far fewer even for family machines. Yes, dial up modems can be an issue, but not always, and this is not an issue that effects a whole lot of people these days anyway. Either way, i'd rather get a good modem than change my OS to suit a difficult one! Games are also an issue at times, but not everyone is a gamer. A very clued up tech once told me that 90% of the issues that clients assume to be hardware failures are in fact software. I believe this to still be true in windows world, but if anything fails for me, or 90% of us linux users it really is hardware, usually. and i might mention that this is posted from a rock solid linux box running far too much on a machine saved from the dump :) Cheers :) |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 600115 | 2007-10-11 19:13:00 | Righto.. i have to tear this apart, or atleast the assumption that those running linux MUST spend more time "managing" thier computers than windows users, or mac users for that matter. I agree 100% and would add that for an old retired bloke it is the VOLUNTARY tweaking and poking in to the inner workings that make Linux good for me.On the other hand it will do anything Windows will do in an office situation or a home where a reliable basic and safe puter is called for. |
kjaada (253) | ||
| 600116 | 2007-10-11 19:30:00 | .On the other hand it will do anything Windows will do in an office situation or a home where a reliable basic and safe puter is called for. I support a corporate envionment running thousands of PCs, and I run Linux very successfully at home on variuos machines. I would hate to have to support the corporate environment if it was Linux, it would be a nightmare. It is not ready for the wider market desktop - End of story :p |
Pacifier (2821) | ||
| 600117 | 2007-10-11 19:32:00 | Ok - let's hear from the Linux defenders how many non-enthusiast users they know who are using Linux. By "non-enthusiast" I mean the type of people who call the case the "hard-drive" and know how to double-click - but not necessarily right-click. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 600118 | 2007-10-11 19:43:00 | I support a corporate envionment running thousands of PCs, and I run Linux very successfully at home on variuos machines. I would hate to have to support the corporate environment if it was Linux, it would be a nightmare. It is not ready for the wider market desktop - End of story :pThat almost sounds like an aguemment for home user and servers being linux but corperate machines being windows? I would have thought corperate linux would be easy as you could, with the right knowledge shh into anymachine, just as Bletch does with meinserver for CF1, even tho it's at my home in a different city. It's set up was largely done by Bletch remotely. I just hasd to put in a CD and let him guide me through the set up by phone for 10 minutes (?) till he took over. Can you do that with windows? Ok - let's hear from the Linux defenders how many non-enthusiast users they know who are using Linux. By "non-enthusiast" I mean the type of people who call the case the "hard-drive" and know how to double-click - but not necessarily right-click.I could quote the case of my friends computer that i set up as a dual boot, and whose kids killed windows with viri, and through there own lack of naus became linix users as this was the only system they couldn't kill.... |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 600119 | 2007-10-11 19:58:00 | There is also one big disadvantage with having linux in a corperate workplace - As we all know you can change linux to your liking to do many different things, thats not so bad , in fact in some cases its may be a security measure, or a good thing. But The oppersite can also apply - I know of several cases (never delt with them before because I only "play" with a linux OS) where the local IT person has changed a linux server then left disgruntled or moved on and no one else knows how or what he/she has done. Personally I have had around half a dozen calls for help over the last year with this exact problem. In a windows server at least there is more of a "standard" set of operations you can do to get things working, and more IT people know how to work it. Okay - any person who is well skilled in linux may be able to sort out a linux problem, but sometimes finding those people can be damn right impossible. As for using linux in the home - most people simply want a PC to work. The command prompt that you sometimes still have to do is to much for some users. One last thing - if Linux is so much better than windows, then why is each upgraded version of any linux distro always trying to get closer and closer to work the same way as Windows in the interface ? |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 600120 | 2007-10-11 20:16:00 | There is also one big disadvantage with having linux in a corperate workplace ......... where the local IT person has changed a linux server then left disgruntled or moved on and no one else knows how or what he/she has done. Having the server(s) secure so only the sys admin(s) can **** with them is generally considered a good thing, is it not? Okay - any person who is well skilled in linux may be able to sort out a linux problem, but sometimes finding those people can be damn right impossible. Granted, but changing. Also a matter of knowing where to look. One last thing - if Linux is so much better than windows, then why is each upgraded version of any linux distro always trying to get closer and closer to work the same way as Windows in the interface ??????? |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 600121 | 2007-10-11 22:21:00 | To answer the above "quotes and post" Yep secure servers are good, I fully agree, in fact you wouldn't want just "anybody" playing around with servers. Maybe some of the tech's that know about linux should be "more available" I know lots of service people, but none of them know any more about linux than I do - Personally I 'm quite happy sevicing windows OS's - and thats my choice. The last one with the ?????? Exactly as it says - in fact I have actually seen it stated in various linux sites that the distro ( what ever one it may be) is upgraded to work more like the windows interface. Here (www.wired.com) is a classic example, and This article (www.linux.com) Mentions it several times. And here is a quote from the site above in a link to ELX Designed to suit the Mind-Map of a Windows user, so no re-learning required Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Linux one little bit - Every one has a free choice as to what OS they wish to run. There is nothing stopping a Windows user down loading Linux, and installing it on their PC. But its really a case that People who like / use linux are going to say its the best and others should do also, people who dont want to change from Windows wont no matter what any one says, then people who use MAC's say they are the best. We all have the choice to use what ever OS we want, and what I spose annoys me the most is others trying to be forceful and say you HAVE to use this simply because they think its better. Why doesn't Linux have as many virus problems, well 1 because of the way it works of course not so easy to infect as Windows, but also because there dont appear to be as many Linux PC as Windows - now if it were reversed and there were MANY MANY more Linux PC,s, then the people who write the viruses certainly would make sure those systems could be infected. While no where as many as windows, that stands to reason - and dont say there are none - people who say that have their heads in the sand - Example (en.wikipedia.org) as linux is used more there numbers will increase. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 600122 | 2007-10-11 22:29:00 | As for infighting among Linux distros, yes there is, and yes, it will always happen so long as you have newbies who think the sun shines from pathetic distros like PCLOS and a few others (IMHO), and long term users who prefer the older distros (Debian, Slackware etc) Just curious as to why you think PCLOS is such a pathetic distro. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 600123 | 2007-10-12 01:47:00 | And here is a quote from the site above in a link to ELX Designed to suit the Mind-Map of a Windows user, so no re-learning required.This is something i feel dubious about, the fact one has to offer the fimiliar to encourage people try something different. Tis a little sad.... We all have the choice to use what ever OS we want, and what I spose annoys me the most is others trying to be forceful and say you HAVE to use this simply because they think its better.That's what annoys me about posts like the one that strated this thread. I think the reality is not that ""Linux is not ready for the desktop"!!". It has been the desktop of many people for years, BUT isn't the choice of many (yet?). All OS's have their strenths and weaknesses, all of the 3 main strains are "ready for the desktop" and have been for many years. While no where as many as windows, that stands to reason - and dont say there are none - people who say that have their heads in the sand - Example (en.wikipedia.org) as linux is used more there numbers will increase.True there aren't as many Linux desktops machines out there, but it appears that most of the WWW's is served from Linux machines, allthough the actual count of the machines will be just over half, and yet these are largely left alone, even tho their position, bandwidth capabilities and so forth make them PERFECT targets. My server got attacked a few months ago. A programming weakness was exploited, the weakness being my bloody stupid root password. so for 3 days meinserver moved 40Gb of data trying to find other bloody stupid root passwords, hopefully without success, untill it was switched off and reformatted. i'm not sure if strickly speaking that was "viral" activity, but it's close enough. It does happen, but it is rare. |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||