Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: walte...@iname.com (walterbyrd) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: Date: 27 Sep 2002 09:42:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 67 Message-ID: <2fe7b80f.0209270842.7198b5b5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.36.200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1033144940 898 127.0.0.1 (27 Sep 2002 16:42:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 2002 16:42:20 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:317724 Too bad the efforts to put Linux on desktop wasn't directed at improving Linux as a server. Linux has great potential as a server, but on the desktop, it's a dud. 1) Software compatibility. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two computers, using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. 2) Hardware compatibility. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. WinModems are especially a problem. 3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. A full version of a desktop Linux usually costs about $90 - some cost less, some cost more - but it is an additional expense. Support must also be figured into total cost of ownership. 4) Performance. MS tightly integrates the GUI with the OS, which improves speed. Linux GUI is based on the X-Windows model developed in the 1970s. The X-Windows model used a separate computer to manage the windows. So now, Linux systems must run TCP/IP internally to operate the GUI, which will always slow things down. 5) Hostile Linux community. Linux enthusiasts will usually accept nothing but glowing praise of their favorite operating system. Linux advocates often hype Linux as a superior to MS-Windows in every way: cost, reliability, speed, etc. When a newbie tries Linux, and has all sorts of problems, then goes to the Linux community for help: the newbie will typically be greeted with anger and insults - but no help. 6) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed, anywhere. Applications are also easy to find and install. Practically no retail establishment carries Linux applications. None of the major PC manufacturers - Dell, Gateway, Compaq, Apple - sell PCs with Linux installed. 7) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker. 8) Difficult to use. Linux is improving in the regard, but still is not as easy to use MS-Windows. 9) Availability of applications. For some MS applications, there are Linux compatible solutions - such as OpenOffice as an alternative for MS-Office. But many applications, especially games, have no Linux alternative. 10) Internet. The most popular ISP in the world - by a mile - is AOL, and AOL will not work on Linux. Win-modems which come standard with most PCs, may not work with Linux. AT&T broadband will not support Linux. MSN will not support Linux. The most popular browser, MS Internet Explorer, will not work on Linux. I could go on. For example, Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: walte...@iname.com (walterbyrd) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: Date: 27 Sep 2002 19:06:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 76 Message-ID: <2fe7b80f.0209271806.66ab49a9@posting.google.com> References: <2fe7b80f.0209270842.7198b5b5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.36.200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1033178782 31857 127.0.0.1 (28 Sep 2002 02:06:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 2002 02:06:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:318029 I am impressed with the responses that I got from original posts. Seems like a knowledgable and sensible group on this board. Still I think their is some validity to my point about a hostile linux community: I have seen posters flamed mercilessly for posts that I thought were innocuous enough. A few hours after I posted that article, I read on slashdot.org that AOL will start distributing their software for Linux. So that particular point is moot. BTW: AOL has about 35 million users, I would think at least a few them would be more receptive to linux, now that they don't have change their ISP. Let me clear up a few things. 1) Software compatibility. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Basic office applications usually have linux equivalents but: 1) some people have invested a lot of time really mastering various microsoft applications like powerpoint. 2) A lot of specialized software like course-ware or software to run a particular business is MS only. Considering that MS controls about 95% of the desktop, who would write software for first? 2) Hardware compatibility. I have found this an issue many times. Yes, you can get around it. But, the average computer user wants a computer to work out of the box. He/she doesn't want to have to take out the win-modem and replace it with a real modem. I have also had problems with various video cards. 3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. Yes, you can download if have tons of bandwidth and lots of time. Or, you can buy from cheapbytes, if you know about cheapbytes.com. Again, what about the average CompUSA shopping computer user? The average shopper is going to think: why throw away the installed OS, buy linux, and hope it installs okay? 4) Performance. Whatever the reason; I have always found linux GUI a lot slower than ms-windows. I have done many tests trying both linux/windows on the same machine. I have also tried some of the more obscure, supposedly super-fast GUIs. 5) already addressed. 6) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed, anywhere. Yes, I think this is a big deal. Why do you think so many people use AOL? There is always a CDROM in your mail, it is easy to set up. It's not a big deal to me, maybe not to you; but to the computer buying public - I think it matters. 7) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker. - Please note: that statement was directed towards end users - not developers. I'm sorry, but linux lags windows badly in this area. With windows, installing a driver, or an application is a cinch. With Linux, there are several different ways to install - you may even have to compile. That may be fine for the posters on this board, but it is entirely unacceptable to most computer users. I remember mandrake 7.2 boosting about having 11 GUIs to choose from, unless you want to endless tinker with all of those GUIs: what's the point? I want one good standard interface. 8) Difficult to use. Linux is improving in the regard, but still is not as easy to use MS-Windows. Maybe there has been some great improvements made lately, but linux doesn't have stuff like a device manager. As I said earlier: installing applications, and drivers is usually easier with windows - more standard also. Finally, I have XP and 2000 installed in PCs in my home. Both have been installed for months. Haven't had any trouble with either of them. Never had much trouble with NT or ME either. I have found 95 and 98 to awful.
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: walte...@iname.com (walterbyrd) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop - revised Date: 1 Oct 2002 13:02:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 69 Message-ID: <2fe7b80f.0210011202.2e8f430c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.36.200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1033502534 5162 127.0.0.1 (1 Oct 2002 20:02:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2002 20:02:14 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:319993 Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: 1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal. 2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can read right on the box which windows versions will work with the peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want to do. 3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs. 4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS. 5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker. 6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux. 7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need. 8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough. 9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice. 10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu! paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!columbine.singnet.com.sg! not-for-mail From: Lee Wei Shun <see...@pacific.net.sg> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop - revised Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 07:59:19 +0800 Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Lines: 144 Message-ID: <andchc$dd0$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg> References: <2fe7b80f.0210011202.2e8f430c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.125.85.253 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:320091 walterbyrd wrote: > Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: > It really depends what you define as your "desktop". > 1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the > desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that > many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two > computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know > lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they > wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular > application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard > PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal. > This is true for any specialised application and you are "stuck" with whichever OS the particular app. supports. I find it strange that a dual-boot system or an emulated environment would be inadequate for your purposes. The most common scenario would be a gaming setup vs. an office setup. Often-times, too, people confuse "work-alike" with "accomplish the same task" when they spec out the "must have" apps. > 2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the > desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are > not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will > always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers > included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux > box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful > planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically > pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can > read right on the box which windows versions will work with the > peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a > driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may > also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want > to do. > You don't get out much do you? These days, it's almost difficult to come across a pice of HW that *isn't* supported by Linux. Many manufacturers *don't* need to supply drivers for this reason. The pre-installed argument only works if you buy a new PC everytime you want to upgrade your OS, and then good luck to you when you try to add items (whatever it says on the box) to your nicely pre-installed setup. There is no guarantee that the system as a whole will work properly after that. Then, it's back to the web for an "update" or new drivers (not necessarily for the said item you installed). > 3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. > PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. > Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to > buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition > magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but > none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most > people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs. > And this helps me when I want an upgrade how? The fact that you have no choice[*] but to pay for an upgrade to stay with Windows is a given, but again, it is likey that your existing HW will not be supported fully under the upgrade, and again a trip to the web (good luck if it's your modem) may be necessary. We have not begun to talk about your existing applications and the upgrades they may require. That pre-installed Linux PCs don't come from established vendors is another topic, and is deemed by many to be an artificial "barrier to entry" and not a real reason to be discussed here. * there are always people that take advantage of warez, but I'm talking legit desktops. > 4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with > minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is > much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but > they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and > certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS. > The argument doesn't follow from 2) and 3). If you are not upgrading from an earlier version, and buying a new PC, it doesn't matter, and if you are, then Windows will suffer a far worse performance hit. As I type this happily on a Celeron 400, your position seems untenable. > 5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, > no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or > applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who > like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast > majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker. > Whose standards? You mean the standards that Win95 users have to relearn when they switch to NT/XP? or Office97 -> OfficeXP. Duh. Perhaps you mean the "standards" that makes it soo difficult for me to add a new drive and move my apps over? > 6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the > level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a > peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware > manufacturer to you if you are running Linux. > Support for Linux has always been community based. "Official" $upport is always available if you really require it. For certain things, e.g. orphaned hardware, where the original manufacturer has gone bust, you may only be supported under Linux. > 7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed > at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also > easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular > peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the > web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows > you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need. > You really have lots of money to spend. Many don't have that luxury. There is also no guarantee that what you pick up from the store isn't "crap". > 8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems > are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 > and XP seem reliable enough. > The things that this paragraph speakes about your "expectation level" is horrifying. Windows 2000 and XP "seems" reliable enough? > 9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all > the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free > software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications > that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice. > This is one app. Please tell me where to find the others for Windows. Many distributions come with pre-installed version of them too. Does the Windows PC come with all that? What, I still need to download stuff? How inconvenient. > > 10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still > lags MS. But you just said that you don't have to bother because it's pre-installed for you. IMO, a windows install is much harder than a Linux install on OSless HW. Regards, Wei Shun -- Change to leews to mail
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu! newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net! dyke.uk.clara.net From: "lordy" <spa...@gmx.co.uk> Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop - revised Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 01:46:06 +0100 User-Agent: Pan/0.13.0 (The whole remains beautiful) Message-ID: <pan.2002.10.02.00.46.06.552661@gmx.co.uk> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy References: <2fe7b80f.0210011202.2e8f430c@posting.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: ab...@clara.net (please include full headers) X-Trace: c513930047461f9001480020340a4060d67180082b88004135a8218a3d9a41cd NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 01:46:05 +0100 Lines: 211 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:320136 On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:02:14 +0000, walterbyrd wrote: > Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: > > 1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the > desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that > many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two > computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know > lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they > wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular > application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard > PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal. True. The converse applies too. I would say if you have a "must have app" then that is more important than your operation system anyhow.. Couls you cite some "must haves". I know it depends on the user a lot. eg things like Reason etc. > > 2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the > desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are > not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will > always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers > included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux > box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful > planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically > pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can > read right on the box which windows versions will work with the > peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a > driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may > also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want > to do. My Mandrake installed my Canon S600 printer and my Epson perfection scanner without me having to get a single driver CD or do a single download. Can XP do that? Granted I deliberately bought *mass market* peripherals to increase the chances of compatibility but must users will be buying mass market stuff & compatibility has imporved a lot. and its getting better year on year. > 3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. > PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. > Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to > buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition > magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but > none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most > people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs. There is a vase difference between 1. Home Desktop 2. Business Desktop. Truth is, now and for the next many yeats. most users will be happy with windows. Meanwhile MS are introducing more invasive EULAs becuase the users are blissbully ignorant. As long as the PC does what you want - cool. But different people have different needs. A recent MS EULA gives them permission to disable SW on your machine. Copying MP3s (freely :) will be quashed. If this is OK with you then that is fine. But that is what WILL happen in less that 5 years IMO. As for the business desktop, I have addressed this in other posts. Microsoft is using their near monoploy to hold corporates to ransom. I think this may have backfired and actually pushed Linux forward. Big corporations are seriously considering Linux desktops (These will be restricted to core business functions - browsing & email & office) Of course this all depends on wether they have a core MS killer app as part of thier core business AND relative ROI between MS or a support Linux (net PC type) environment. > 4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with > minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is > much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but > they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and > certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS. Programs start up a bit slower on my system but not too much. No big deal. They can usually be left running (Linux swaps out idle applications better than Windows) > 5) Lack of standards. From a desktop/GUI perspective I see what your getting at. Maybe Linux has too many standards. But in reality it is now just two KDE or Gnome. That gives standard with flexability. > No standard distribution, Again depends on your definition of standard. But source code is ubiquotous (sp?) but a pita for dependancies. rpm is more or less a standard and remenber that Linux is cross platform. Your definition of "standard" really means "no choice/one supplier". In the long term MS will (and has) exploit this. The real definition of "standard" is one protocol for many different instances. If I only looked at Mandrake then guess what - there are standards by your definition. Similarly if I only looked at Debian - there are standards. Your standards work to your advantage but also monopolise you. Then when MS slaps restrictive/invasive EULAs on you (which they have - you just haven't noticed yet) - you have nowhere to to. no standard interface, > no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or > applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who > like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. The effort in upgrading modern Linux distributions is the same as for Windows. Except is doesnt cost more. Discussing that is the context of standards is a bit silly, to be honest. You put in the CD and hit upgrade. >But, the vast > majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker. The Linux at home is not for you. Keep Windows. > > 6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the > level of support a windows user would get - not even close. Somewhat irrelevant since most ISPs provide an *internet* connection, networking being native to Linux and a late add on to Windows. The only real issues are if the ISP provides USB modems with windows only drivers. My Mandrake installation connected to my ISP before it had even completed. If a > peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware > manufacturer to you if you are running Linux. Granted. > > 7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed > at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also > easy to find and install. True. You never have to wonder if a particular > peripheral will work with windows. Not entirely true but more true than with Linux. (Not Linux's fault but...) >You don't to search all over the > web for drivers. If drivers are needed at all the are either on the distribution or on the vendor website same as Windows. Remember when XP first arrived, how many devices DIDNT have XP drives and there were big stickers on the box telling you to go to vendor web site to get drivers.. No? > You don't even have to install the OS. Do you know why this is? Have you read up on the business practices of MS when vendors try to provide Linux or OS free boxes. > With windows > you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need. > > 8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems > are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 > and XP seem reliable enough. True. > > 9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all > the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free > software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications > that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice. True. No a reason to favour one over the other but true non the less. Thanks mostly to the OpenSource community of course, who are not so spiteful as to deliberately not port to Windows. (Or maybe they like as many people using the software as possible) > > 10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still > lags MS. Over the last week I have (unfortunately) installed BOTH Mandrake & W2K/XP several times. I can honestly say Mandrake is slightly ahead (for me) becuase I didnt have to install printer & scanner drivers seperately, and it detects my DSL router more gracefully. The several installations was due to a partitioning error I guess but frigging around with Partition Magic & HardDrake fixed it. Try Mandrake 9.0 & see if anything changes... Or am I wasting my breath ? You know MS is commited to maximising revenue :) Wait and see..... In any case. It is a matter of a few years before you PC has Digital Rights Management stuff built into the bios or whatever. Enjoy it while it lasts! and Linux matures.. Lordy
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: walte...@iname.com (walterbyrd) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop - revised Date: 2 Oct 2002 06:16:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 92 Message-ID: <2fe7b80f.0210020516.2ba54634@posting.google.com> References: <2fe7b80f.0210011202.2e8f430c@posting.google.com> <andchc$dd0$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.36.200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1033564593 30722 127.0.0.1 (2 Oct 2002 13:16:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Oct 2002 13:16:33 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:320305 > > > > This is true for any specialised application and you are "stuck" with > whichever OS the particular app. supports. > But windows has 95% of the desktop market, so who do you suppose the developers want to develop for first? > > I find it strange that a > dual-boot system or an emulated environment would be inadequate for your > purposes. > Not *my* purposes. My post was an opinion piece about why Linux isn't gaining more acceptance on the desktop. Instead of considering what I have to say, most linux advocates just flame. Frankly it is too inconveniant for most to boot back and forth, or go back and forth between two computers, or fuss with emulators. Especially since, with windows or MacOS, you don't have to bother with that sort of thing. > > You don't get out much do you? These days, it's almost difficult to come > across a pice of HW that *isn't* supported by Linux. Many manufacturers > *don't* need to supply drivers for this reason. > My Xerox Workcenter 470cx isn't supported. > > The pre-installed argument > only works if you buy a new PC everytime you want to upgrade your OS, and > then good luck to you when you try to add items. > As I understand it, this is just what most home PC users do. Every two or three years they just go to CompUSA and buy a new computer. Windows usually stays downward compatible for about 5 years. > Whose standards? You mean the standards that Win95 users have to relearn > when they switch to NT/XP? or Office97 -> OfficeXP. Duh. Perhaps you mean > the "standards" that makes it soo difficult for me to add a new drive and > move my apps over? > No, that is not what I mean at all. With Linux there is no standard way to install a driver or application. There is no standard interface: when you go from one system to another - everything looks different and works different. It has been half-jokingly commented that Linux is only OS that has more distos than users. > > Support for Linux has always been community based. "Official" $upport is > always available if you really require it. For certain things, e.g. > orphaned hardware, where the original manufacturer has gone bust, you may > only be supported under Linux. > Communities may not be able to resolve some issues. For example: the only broadband I can get in my area is MSN DSL. Recently I had an issue where I had to have my dsl-modem firmware updated - if I had been using linux I would be SOL. If you are having a problem with your attbroadband, don't tell them you are running linux, or that will be the end of the conversation. > > You really have lots of money to spend. Many don't have that luxury. There > is also no guarantee that what you pick up from the store isn't "crap". > Is it really that much? A computer with ms-windows pre-installed costs about $75 more. Then you upgrade office every three years. All in all, maybe $200 year? Or you could buy an openoffice for windows cdrom for about $10 with shipping. > > The things that this paragraph speakes about your "expectation level" is > horrifying. Windows 2000 and XP "seems" reliable enough? > Horrifying? On my own home network, I have an XP system, a 2000 system, and (surprised?) a linux box. Both the XP and 2000 systems have ran for serveral months at least, with no problems. Not long ago, I worked as systems admin in a shop that had about 50 NT 4.0 desktops. The NT 4.0 systems were reasonably stable - they were not blue screening every 10 minutes, as linux advocates like to claim. > > > This is one app. Please tell me where to find the others for Windows. Many > distributions come with pre-installed version of them too. Does the Windows > PC come with all that? What, I still need to download stuff? How > inconvenient. > Oh come on now, are you telling me there isn't enough freeware for ms-windows? There is tons of it.
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: walte...@iname.com (walterbyrd) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop - revised Date: 2 Oct 2002 06:35:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 11 Message-ID: <2fe7b80f.0210020535.5751e398@posting.google.com> References: <2fe7b80f.0210011202.2e8f430c@posting.google.com> <pan.2002.10.02.00.46.06.552661@gmx.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.36.200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1033565709 31805 127.0.0.1 (2 Oct 2002 13:35:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Oct 2002 13:35:09 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:320311 > Try Mandrake 9.0 & see if anything changes... Or am I wasting my breath ? > Actually, I am considering Mandrake 9.0. I presently have a slackware 8.0 box on my home network, and I am finding it difficult to upgrade to slackware 8.1. I was waiting for redhat 8.0, but when I read the reviews, I was not that impressed. Mandrake seems to have the most "bang for the buck" all sorts of apps and all right out of the box, and for a reasonable price. I tried Mandrake 7.2 some time ago, but I found that to be an unstable release. Because of that, I am little sceptical of mandrake.