Blogcritics Comments on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Comment by mark on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:49:36 EDT

I think the linux world is a bit confusing in how many varieties there are. Installing software can be confusing even in ubuntu where if you search you will get not only application but all the dependencies. The list can be very long with limited descriptions of which app to use, however this is improving. The number one issue is drivers, whether they be video, audio, network, wifi or support for usb devices such as mobile broadband. These things often don't work out of the box if they are newish (released in the last year or so) so you have to spend hours and hours finding and implementing a solution. Basically Windows just works because you always get drivers so that everything built in or you buy. Lastly with windows I can control the power management better than I can with linux, like reduce the brightness of the LCD display, turn off network cards or other built in devices. I find linux much harder to do this. Linux will only become mainstream with consumers when it is the default operating system on a new device.

Comment by Chris Lees on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:59:11 EDT

If Linux is not on the desktop, why do I use it? Why does my father and my workmate use it? (neither three of us work in IT). If Windows makes a better desktop, why does Linux adoption keep growing amongst personal users? @Mark Dean: Those are all reasons not to switch to the Mac OS, either. People are smarter about software compatibility than you'd think; do you know of anyone who has bought a Wii game and tried to play it on their PS3? Or tried to buy Office for the Mac to use on Windows? Or bought a natural gas cooktop to use with bottled propane?

Comment by tripleii on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:08:10 EDT

Mark, you speak the truth. I OEM lots and lots of Linux machines, and get to one on one explain the software repository, etc. The dam is about to burst though. How long can Apple ignore the UMPC market. When that hits 10M Linux units sold by end of the year, the demand for iTunes client will be loud enough. With SLED being a VERY VERY well received completely compatible to the Active Directory shop, especially in Europe, shrink wrapped and downloadable mainstream applications will follow. MS has done an admirable job developing and enforcing an MS only economic ecosystem, had a good run, but with Apple, the Web, iTunes, Google, UMPCs, more and more OEM support for Linux, losing the MID and Mobile space, etc... they don't really get to tell the world how they will compute anymore. TripleII

Comment by Mark Dean on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:57:02 EDT

OK, lots of old, outdated stuff here-definitely a lot of silly arguments. I've been running Linux as my main OS on my desktop and laptops for the last 8 years. I'm a Unix Engineer so it makes sense and that makes me biased very much. There are two main reasons why Linux adoption, although growing, is not what it should be: 1) Hardware vendors have only recently starting shipping with Linux and it is still hard to find on their sites. The reason why this is a problem is the vast majority of users buy a computer and "it just comes with Windows". Now if when they were configuring their systems the choices were to include Linux, it may be very different. But even if it did, problem two will most certainly cause a lot of problems. 2) Application compatibility/interopability. Think about this: the vast majority of computers are purchased at Best Buy, Wal-mart (who did have a Linux system for a while), Comp-USA, etc. At many of those types of places, especially the electronics and computer stores, there is a corner for Macs, and then there is the rest which is Windows. Where is the Linux? Who knows. Now, let's say a user, Joe User and his wife Jane User is able to buy a computer and it has, let's say Ubuntu since it's so popular. They get it home hook it up, it's easy, no driver issues, after all it came bundled with the computer. So far, no difference with the end user experience. Until... Jane goes to a web site and it doesn't work. Why? Apperently the moron web designer has some sort of ASP or whatever and it REQUIRES IE and some Active X control. BAM! we got a problem. Jane doesn't know what it up. Well, strike 1! Joe decides he wants to start doing his own taxes and while at Wal-mart he picks up a copy of Turbo Tax and throws it in the cart (when is the last time any user ever looked at the edge of the box for minimum requirements?). He gets it home, and guess what? No autorun. He notices a CD showing up on his desktop, opens it up, finds a file called setup.exe, double-clicks it, and, guess what? If Wine was not installed, he'd get an error. Strike 2! Strike 3 is just any other software or file that 80% of their friends will share with them that simply will not work or will have problems. Now before everyone jumps on me, I happen to know that Ubuntu comes with Wine installed, at least I believe when I evaluated it did. That's a good thing. But if it is not, can't you see the problem is not about freedom, not about crashing it is about interoperability and compatibility. Now I'm not one of those who posts a problem without its solution so here's the solution: What needs to happen is, now that virtualization has been added to the kernel, we need to have a low level driver of some sort or program, that uses that technology to shim not just the Windows library like Wine, but a complete VM, but hide the OS. In other words, if John inserts the Turbo Tax CD, the kernel looks at it, sees it as a Win32 CD, sees the autorun.inf and proceeds to launch, without any display a Windows XP or Vista VM-with the only thing visible being the Turbo Tax windows. To John and Jane, they can use ANY x86 software! You see, it's not about alternatives, it's about running the software the USER wants, be it Windows or Linux based. The other solution, and much more likely due to licensing, to actually work, is to make Wine if not part of the kernel, at least part of a "standard" desktop build. In other words, a user should be able to double click on a setup.exe and it install successfully. And if Linux was purchased with a computer, the OEM should install Wine and get some basic codecs as well other things to mitigate that. My friends, until those two main problems are solved, Linux adoption will be great for many, including business (Novell is doing great work in that area) but not for home/soho users.

Comment by Robert Pogson on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:46:44 EDT

What a load of nonsense. GNU/Linux is on about 70 million desktops this year and will likely be double that number next year. Just look at the web stats. In the most M$-popular regions, M$ is on about 90% of PCs. According to Apples's 10Q, they sell about 3% of the PCs sold, globally. That leaves 7% for GNU/Linux. Even NetApplications shows more than 50% per annum growth of GNU/Linux on the client. Apart from the primary thesis being wrong, TFA is wrong on most points. Even one of the points TFA attempts to debunk is enough to convert one user to GNU/Linux. There are a lot of points so a lot of users are migrating to GNU/Linux. The biggest motivation, globally, to move to GNU/Linux is that it works, and is inexpensive. Billions of people around the world can afford the new low-end machines that shine with GNU/Linux. They are not locked-in to M$ and will happily accept GNU/Linux. Countries like Brazil, China, and Russia are actively promoting GNU/Linux for schools, government offices and the general population. Look at the ASUS eee PC. It is widely accepted by kids/women/students/mobile folks because it works, is convenient and they do not care what OS is on it. ASUS has been limited in production due to shortages of components, not buyers. Many retailers are sold out. There are a dozen makers of similar products within a year after ASUS breakthrough. GNU/Linux is less expensive. The growth in the PC market is not with rich folks who already own 1.5 PCs but with the emerging markets for whom most of TFA's arguments are irrelevant. GNU/Linux works.

Comment by dca on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:34:18 EDT

Geez, where was this article four years ago??? What, you mean it wasn't written in 2004? Nevermind then...

Comment by Brian on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:52:00 EDT

Good Post and your 100% right. All I use is Linux but I don't expect others to also...Linux is a choice if it works for you then great. I do have the time to (make) things work and the knowhow.

Comment by tripleii on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:06:30 EDT

"Because you see, my friends are not converting all of their music to OGG., and they are not going to re-rip all of their music in non-DRM format." Forgot to mention, my condolences on your purchase of DRM infected content. I bet the folks who bought from MSN music are thrilled. As will billions of iTunes songs once the transfer to 5 machines is exceeded. MaybePlays was a HUGE success, never causing millions lost time and money. I hear it's making a comeback. Seriously, use whatever OS you want, never invest in DRM infected content. Music has been freed, movies will be next, but only if people refuse to be treated as criminals first, revenue second and customers 45th. TripleII

Comment by Alvare on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:16:02 EDT

People *THINK* windows is easier, but reeadin 10 manpages and making a script isn't harder than looking the web for a program , the crack, the patch, etc. They just startded wrong, let them start using linux and they will notice, people is already used to do windows stuff and they think that linux stuff is harder, but it's totally relative !!!

Comment by tripleii on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:13:28 EDT

"People want it to work, end of story." If Linux is not for you, that's more than fine, however, and I quoted from your summary, you just described what is wrong with Windows. I will give you that it CAN be a bear to install Linux, however, in 30+ friends and family, not one, ever, has come back to me saying this app stopped working, I lost my printer, I got a virus, it is slow slow slow. Endless support of endless Windows problems forced me to go with Linux only support. My life (and phone calls to family and friends) is my own again. Does it have the games, no, dual boot (and keep the Windows machine off the web, no AV to bog you down and no updates to hose things up). Answer me this, if Windows really was a "just works" proposition, why does Geek Squad, hundreds of 3rd party repair applications, and literally, a many many billion $ industry? Of all the geeks reading this, do you take a weekend a year to re-install to restore speed? Why is an estimated 40% of ALL my companies IT time spent fixing Windows laptops and desktops? Windows requires constant maintenance to remain running smoothly (by Windows I mean the complete desktop and application suite) So, in summary, buy a pre-installed Dell, System76, Lenovo with SLED, etc to bypass the SAME heartache that is a Windows install, and you get a truly just works and works experience. 3 years down the road, it is as fast as the day you bought it. TripleII

Comment by lefty.crupps on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:43:55 EDT

Eh, your users can have their MSWindows, but how good is the tech support for their software? IMHO, its generally pretty poor unless its for an enterprise that paid a lot for it. Otherwise, the support is me, and for that I want them on Linux. Check this blog post out, it tells a LOT about the pain of Windows that no one seems to remember when they're MS supporters, but he rest of us know all too well. As for 'sharing the knowledge' that you say these people do when they cannot find the support, are they ever putting these solutions online, in forums or blogs? Without reporting bugs, how do they expect this stuff to get fixed, magic? I don't expect most Windows people to do either these things, but maybe that is because they've been trained to be accepting of not having control, and willing to just be kinda stupid about going about fixing things? These days its never "my job", let someone else do it? It amazes me what people don't even do a google search to resolve.

Comment by Joe on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:25:23 EDT

Funny article, It seems to be written from an elitest egocentric point of view with a touch of ethnocentricity (as in group terms not racial). Not everyone can afford new computers and update their software every couple of years as you elude to the habits of you and your friends. Hey, go ahead and plug in that win98 box and see how long it will last without coming to a screeching halt hooked into the internet. For those that cannot afford anything else but an old computer, linux may be the only option. When is the last time you looked at a modern linux distrobution? No command line is needed to install and use. Really. I agree that change is hard for some but as Will Rogers once said " Even though you are on the right track - you will get run over if you just sit there". My very young children (10 and 5) and wife use my hand me down computers loaded with Ubuntu. My kids do not know the difference between Windows and Ubuntu. I was raised on Vax/vms and eventually x-windows. Windows was always a toy for me. I was forced to use it for the government in which I work. I have been frustrated with it ever since....so that's my view of the world and I am in no way a "super nerd". The children are happy looking at educational material online and my 10 year old is able to type her school assignments. Their school system is looking at using Ubuntu since they cannot afford the constant upgrades of computer hardware that is forced by os upgrades and older os sytems getting eat up by viruses. I've actually slimmed down to a sub notebook that runs linux in which I use for work. Everything I do is tunneled through the internet connected to a mainframe (Vax/vms - standard gubment issue). My wife does not even realize she uses Ubuntu. She gets online every day to do her work. As long as my family can get on line and/or do their work they are happy. Games are played on the playstation. That's what it was made for. Computers are for work that's what they are made for. It's actually cheaper to have both a cheap a computer and a playstation instead of buying some $3000 tricked out windows game computer with all the bells and whistles. I will leave with another Will Rogers quote: "People's minds are changed through observation and not through argument". If you show your friends an older linux distro they may run for the hills. Oh yeah, I've used the command line numerous times in windows to reset network connections that could not be reset through the gui. It was either that or reinstall the os and call to let them know I am not a pirate and to please activate my computer. I even had to shell out bucks one time to MS for for telling me how to fix their built in errors as they hid the problem so deep I could not find an answer on their website or anywhere on the net. Smart boogers aren't they. Instant lesson -- Left click on gnome desktop--low and behold a window pops up and you can easily chage the background, fonts, etc., etc, etc.... Okay one more words of advice from Will Rogers: "A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people". :) Are you trolling? You tossed out numerous nuggets of flame bait in this article.

Comment by Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide) on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:06:22 EDT

correction... you do need the package manager to install rpm's and deb's but like windows it's just a double click and follow the directions... meaning not at all different from using an exe.

Comment by Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide) on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:00:29 EDT

Reason #7 sorry you can install rpm and a deb without a package manager... avg antivirus provides rpm's not in pms and so does cedega etc... most people think make --configure is the only way. when really it depends on the disro, and whether the software maker supports that disto. Yes you don't have a download.com for linux, but that's what repositories are for, download.com is just a windows version of a repository, that doesn't automate things for you.

Comment by Bill Bukowski on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:49:25 EDT

All those arguments aside, I think the biggest thing holding Linux from taking over is games. Your not going to get the old people to change, you have to hit them young. If Linux had any where near the game support that a Windows PC can offer, most of the younger people wouldn't care about the OS. Wine and it's more focused child Cedega gets you closer, but it is not as easy as 1. drop disc in, 2. click on install.exe, 3. play to hearts content. As a gamer and heavy Linux user I always hate having a Windows machine around just to do gaming. Grab the youth, screw the people who are already ingrained.

Comment by Aleks on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:23:23 EDT

My responses: Reason #1: Sure. Viruses aren't a problem IF you want to install anti-virus and use system resources, which affects your entire system. Reason #2: Instability is a bit of a misnomer. There may be more crapware for Windows, but a smart user on Windows won't download said crapware, and neither will a smart Linux user. But if they do, guess which OS remains more "stable" in the end? Reason #3: Agreed, but what about direct attacks? Most crackers are familiar with a Windows system. Reason #4: Have you tried installing any of the Linux distros today? Installation is just as easy, if not easier than installing Windows. So yeah, you can shell out $300+ for an operating system if you'd like. Reason #5: Only someone ignorant of what software "freedom" means would say what you just said. The simple fact is that no closed source application like Photoshop (the app you mentioned) or even Windows can make the claim that they aren't spying on you for market research or something like that. An open-source and free application CAN make this claim. And please, re-compiling the kernel? Are you serious? I don't think I've ever seen a user have to recompile their kernel to fix a problem. Especially with how easy Linux is to use today. Reason #6: True, but variety is the spice of life, no? I'd rather have a choice of 20 different text editors, than a choice of 5. I'm sorry that choice makes your life "difficult" Reason #7: Again, ignorance is bliss. If you install all your software from a package manager, and most users will find that they do, then upgrading is indeed simple. But for those programs that weren't in the package manager, chances are if they're not in there and you have them, that you know how to upgrade and install them. I don't know why you bothered compiling an application in your example, when chances are more likely than not that a binary would be available for you to use. Reason #8: Actually, the level of tech support is about equal, if not bending towards the Linux community side of things if you want support. Communities, IRC channels, mailing lists, and more. Reason #9: See my #7. Reason #10: Really, now? I haven't seen one person that wasn't impressed by wobbly windows, spinning desktops, desktop cubes and more. They all blow Windows and Leopard out of the water. In fact, I remember one of your non-techie friends asking on a YouTube video that showed this awesome stuff, "how much does Linux cost?" Only if they knew the side of freedom. Reason #11: That's because your mac is based on Unix. But I thought time was valuable to your friends? Why would they waste time defragmenting when they could get a system that doesn't require it? It seems that your friends don't know what they want themselves. Reason #12: Fair enough, but what about stuff like conky, scripts, and other neat stuff you can make your desktop have? For example, I wrote a script for my desktop that changes my wallpaper every 10 minutes. Oh, and you can customize it because I give it away for free on forums. Whereas to achieve the same affect your friends would have to download a program to do the same. And they better find an open sourced FREE one, because a closed app might be "spying" on them. Reason #13: It could be that after you uninstall stuff, stuff is still left over. It could be that registry keys are all over the place. It could be that fragmentation slows down your system. It could be that Windows is just crap. Linux has a better way of handling programs, so even crapware would be handled amazingly well on Linux. Oh, and since a user has already moved to Linux they're aware of what freedom and open-source means. Chances are they're more educated than their Windows user counterpart and won't download closed-source crapware. Because open-source crapware is really rare. If not, non-existent. Reason #14: Agreed, but it may help the extreme tree hugger switch. Reason #15: I already gave a list of where you can get support. If they want real-time support they have IRC channels. And what's so cryptic about copying and pasting into a terminal? Because that is what I'm assuming you're referring to. Reason #16: Yep. Reason #17: I don't know about you, but workspaces are awesome. Reason #18: "If you don't pay for software, I suppose you can't have that expectation" Excuse me? I didn't know that open-source developers stopped giving a damn about bugs. Please, this claim is completely untrue. More bugs are fixed in an open source and free environment than with a closed Windows one. What's more is that you can communicate DIRECTLY with the developers and bug fixing teams instead of some hierarchy of sales and technical support staff. Reason #19: Yes, but put a Linux box beside a Windows box and we'll see which one requires booting first. Oh, and btw Ubuntu will only reboot if something system-wide is changed. Most of the time, Linux doesn't need to reboot after an update because there is a method in place that distributes patches system-wide while the system is currently working. Reason #20: I don't want clutter either, lol. Reason #21: Ah well, the availability of Windows programs on Linux is a bit of a problem. But as the gradient shifts, we'll be seeing more stuff on Linux. In fact, it's already begun. Rumours have it that Steam (the game platform) is coming to Linux. Until then, we'll just have to settle with WINE, which is a pretty good way to run most Windows programs natively on Linux. WoW, Guild Wars, Counter Strike Source, and many popular games run amazingly well on Linux because of WINE. Reason #22: Agreed. Reason #23: Well iTunes DRM is a bit of a problem isn't it? But we can blame closed source standards on that one. And secondly, Amarok, Banshee and Exaile (and MANY others) play things just fine. Oh, and they look better than iTunes, sync with an iPod and ANY other device. Oh, and they have more features. But I guess that doesn't matter, right? Oh, and installing MP3 codecs with a single click isn't that hard to do (it's a single click on Ubuntu), and it doesn't require a restart. Reason #24: Yes, that is kind of lame. I don't know who wrote that, lol. Reason X: Agreed, but Linux does "just work" too, you know. It just takes some time getting used to. Change isn't something your friends can take easily from the looks of it, but they would be better for it if they had.

Comment by Marco Fioretti on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:18:34 EDT

About #20, that is ""Let your old computer have a second life- My friends already do this... Otherwise, they would have bought another computer. They don't keep old computers lying around anyhow. They toss them. Yeah, really, they don't want the clutter": please tell your friends that the environmental problem caused by the wrong software is much more than the waste caused by CDs and boxes. To know more, please read "Does software pollute? of course!". This said, most of your other reasons are refreshing reading: many FOSS zealots should read them to remember that, wrong or right, 95% of human beings do look at software the way you describe, so they'll never adopt Free Software for the reasons stated in the GNU Manifesto (for more on this, see the "Opinions" section of Digifreedom.net) Marco

Comment by Damijan on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:17:32 EDT

Thank you for making me laugh. Really entertaining article. I am glad that I got rid of Windows disease 7 years ago. Never regretted and never looked back. iTunes? Which idiot is using iTunes anyway? DRM crippled songs. No thanks. I want to play songs which I bought WHERE I WANT AND WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS. I am glad for Apple that people are (still) stupid enough to embrace DRM crippled stuff. Good for them. Maybe I should buy some stocks from Apple it looks that there is enough stupid people around ...

Comment by Sandaruwan on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:15:55 EDT

Reason #19... In fact, most distributions aimed at the desktop user do frequent updates that require rebooting. Just take a look at Ubuntu. Seriously, have you used ubuntu? You only have to restart on rare occasions like upgrading the kernel. Reason #20 - "Let your old computer have a second life" and Reason #15 "Enjoy free and unlimited support" Does proprietary software gives support to older versions? They'll simply tell you to pay more and upgrade the software. And of course as a side effect you'll have to upgrade the hardware as well. If your friends doesn't mind paying for support, you can always get paid support for linux. That's a tiny fraction of what you pay for windows. Reason #6 "When the system has installed, why would you still need to install stuff" amd Reason #7 "Update all your software with a single click" Yes, linux world has so many software. I party agree with argument here. That's where distros come in - they ship with reasonable choice of software that you can carry on your day-to-day activities. In reason #7, you are claiming that people will have to recompile stuff if that software is not in repositories. Yes, true - but if they hate choices that much, why would they want to install so software out of repositories. For example, ubuntu repositories contains tons of software. Reason #10 - I really don't understand your point here. You are saying that Leopard is amazing to your friends, but since they haven't heard about compiz fusion, they should move to Leopard? They are not amazed by compiz and don't want to hear about it. Reason #4 - buy a laptop pre-installed with linux. Reason #24 - yeah, weather is lame.

Comment by Rachel Tomlinson on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:10:01 EDT

You have weird friends. That's not a personal attack, more of an observation.

Comment by CAMCAM on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:09:34 EDT

Ok, I will just copy the entire article because I think people won't use the URL I gave : (Linux is Not Windows) [Camcam, I'm not sure what makes you think people would be any more likely to read the article in the form of a comment than to follow your URL. For copyright reasons among other things, we can't let you copy and paste the whole thing here. I think that more people would have been likely to go to the original article if you had used a properly formatted, clickable link, rather than just giving the URL in plain text. I have now fixed this for you in your earlier comment. Carry on. ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR]

Comment by Daniel on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:00:30 EDT

Well, don't think windows users would have such a satisfactory experience if we, us, geeks, keep helping them with their problems, so... PLEASE, STOP GIVING FREE SUPPORT TO MS WINDOWS!!!! PS: Want help? switch to linux.

Comment by Middy on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:50:53 EDT

I don't know why I am responding to this but I couldn't resist. Okay #13, WRONG. This is one of the most over used Windows Zealot statements out there. Viruses work in Windows because of the fundamental architecture flaws in the Windows design not because it has a larger install base. Windows and Linux on the web are near parity, yet Windows still has more security issues around it. Next you base your arguments on some pretty weak baseline of what your friends do. I have friends, they could use Linux if I set them up with it, they wouldn't have an issue pinging me from time to time with their questions, but I figure leaving windows on the machine keeps me out of being tech support for more people. And how many times have your friends actually tried to talk to Microsoft. The last time I called Microsoft for free was in the early 1990s. Their phone support is horrible and expensive. 99 times out of 100 someone else has posted a response to a question I would have anyway without going to Microsoft. You can buy the same level or better of phone support for Linux if you want. As a person who almost exclusively uses Linux (I do have a couple Windows virtual machines kicking around an one Windows partition on one of my machines for doing some special video editing using software I have owned for years), I think what you wrote is why you don't want to use or recommend Linux on the desktop, it has nothing to do with why a vast majority or even some select minority don't use it. The main obsticle to Linux on the desktop is install base. People stick with what they already have even if there is something better out there for them. Comfort is what it is all about. Oh and I can't remember the last application I compiled on Linux, but it was probably back when I was using Gentoo which was about 3 years ago now.

Comment by rob enderle on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:52 EDT

Ah, the haters come out in full force. Weather widgets? You must be confusing Linux with Vista who used widgets (like Konfabulator has had for years) in their OS as a revolutionary move. Maybe some person somewher thought this was a selling point, who knows, but I have to admit that was a first. My friend uses Linux to cook his meals (actually he uses the calculator to measure his intakes) so you could add another one like that if you want. > I think Linux and it's community should focused >on making one good opensource O/S together, and >not splitting into so many different flavors. Great, people keep saying that all the time but NEVER offer the solution on HOW you are going to force people to work on their own time on a project they dont want instead of one they want. Are KDE developers going to drop everything to go to GNOME or XCFE? Is some Debian coder going to go work for a SUSE project? If I want tomorrow to take a distro and work on changing some superficial things by myself and repackage it as YippieLinux, who is going to stop me? How are you gonna stop me? Youre gonna tell me not to do it? Its my free time buddy, even the wife doesnt tell me what to do with my free time. I've seen some people make Muslim, Jewish and Christian versions of Ubuntu. I dont care about these, not interested in what some people who believe in the bogeyman use or even see a need for these. I find them and the people using them: stupid. Can I stop them? No. Can anyone stop them? No. Please move on if you have no idea.. Btw, Im going back to see my family in Brazil next month for the first time in 5 years and theyre tech turn is based in Linux. 50,000 computer labs built by end of 2009 (about 30,000 by the end of 2008) which will serve 50 MILLION students on KDE desktops which were localized for the market. Needless to say, my young cousins will soon be able to give me tips. disclaimer: I use Linux/WinXP on most of you machines. My two boys are running old hardware (we dont waste money here) and what they can do with that P3-800 my brother installed for them is visually stunning. Ive used my brothers laptop often and finally felt confortable 18months to switch at home. (actaully, my bro saved my data that was stuck in a crashed Windows machine with a LiveCD and decided to dual boot everyhting with PCLinuxOS) Considering we use OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, VLC, Skype, IM, it wasnt a hard switch. Throw in the FF extensions and web based services like Gmail, Yahoo, Facebook and on and on....it has barely caused a ripple. We have two gaming consoles at home so that Chessmaster game is the only one the kids ever boot into now. Virus, malware, updates, trojans, etc? Dont know them anymore (not true, I still have to make sure the WinX partition on my desktop is up to date) I've used a computer since our first Tandy machine (I was the cool kid on the block because ours had TWO 5 inch diskette slots!) so I've tried every OS Microsoft has had and even used Macs during those dark days of OS 8 and 9 when the fanbois were trying to make themselves believe that those werent horrible OS. Since my brother installed our first Linux 18months ago, I have done it myself a few times, made mistakes adn learned from them. Just like I did with Windows for years, spending hours and hours troubleshooting things, learning how things work. Which is why I was always the guy friends would ask help. Linux is no different. But yes, there is choice and there are ways to diffentiate them. Desktops i think are more important than the distro final touches. If I have old hardware I use XCFE based desktop. Windows friends want to switch? I give them KDE based desktops. I think the differene between KDE distros like PCLInuxOS and Kubuntu is smaller and should be the main ingredient when you are choosing your Linux pie. Will I delete my Windows partition? Why should I? To spite myself? But our Windows usage has dropped drastically over the past year, that is undeniable. Linux is ready for soccer moms, grandparents and kids. It works. It is fun and configurable. It is cutting edge technology which isnt bound by sales needs and released when ready (Compiz,Beryl, Fusion are heads above their competitors). Its safe. What else do I need? Im only surprised there was no command line mention, using these kinds of pieces include that. Yeah, but the weather one more than makes up for it. If youre gonna troll for hits, make sure to bring out the old gems.

Comment by Felipe on Why Linux is Not on the Desktop

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:39:20 EDT

I think you're wrong on all of 24 reason. Some are ridoculous, the others..... no comment. Ciao from Italy