Posted on 03/17/2009 7:16:55 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Nobody questions whether Mac OS X is ready for the desktop. Never mind that switching to it involves learning different assumptions and tools and a new desktop. It has a reputation for being user-friendly, and is backed by a proprietary company, just like Windows.
With GNU/Linux, however, the story is different. For over a decade, columnists and bloggers have been explaining how GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop -- and, despite all the progress in the operating system over the last ten years, the arguments haven't changed much. Moreover, increasingly, they're outdated when they're not based on complete ignorance. In fact, I often get the impression that those who pontificate on GNU/Linux's inadequacies have never tried it.
Often, of course, the criterion for desktop-readiness is subjective. What is a bug to one user is a feature to another: for example, having to log in as root to install software is an inconvenience to inexperienced users, but a security feature to those with more knowledge.
Often, too, complaints about GNU/Linux are actually complaints that it is not exactly like Windows. Never mind the fact that, unless it did things differently, there would be no reason to switch in the first place. Or that anyone who expects to use a new application or operating system without a learning period is arrogantly provincial. The fact that GNU/Linux is not completely familiar is more than enough to damn it in the eyes of some critics.
Then there are arguments that involve a rubber ruler. That's where someone claims that GNU/Linux will never be ready until it has a certain feature, then, when the feature is pointed out or developed, changes directions and insists that another feature is essential. You can never win against such arguments, because the criteria for judging them keeps changing.
However, in addition to all these arguments are the ones that invalidate themselves primarily because of error, incompleteness, or misrepresentation. These are nine of the most common factually incorrect ones:
1) Distros are too forked for easy compatibility for developers
This claim is popular among software vendors explaining why they don't make versions of their products for the operating system. It is based on the fact that all distributions do not follow efforts at consistency like the Linux Standards Base, and often put files in different locations. In addition, distributions use a variety of package systems, so that widespread support can mean building packages in several different formats.
These problems are real, but the claim exaggerates the difficulties they create. Universal installers like InstallBuilder and Install Anywhere offer vendors installers that are similar to those on Windows. As for building several different packages, if community projects have no trouble doing so, why should a software company?
But, really, the largest problem with this claim is that it attempts to impose the Windows way of doing things on an existing system. In GNU/Linux, the creators of an application don't support different distributions or packaging formats -- the distribution does.
This system works because, with free software, the distribution can make whatever changes it needs to make the software run. It is only a problem for proprietary vendors. If they aren't willing to work with the system and release their code as free software, that is their choice -- but then they shouldn't complain that the system isn't set up for them.
2) No migration tools exist
True, GNU/Linux might benefit from a wizard that would import e-mail, browser bookmarks, IRC channels and other personal information from Windows. But the same could be said of Windows. At least GNU/Linux co-exists with other operating systems and can read their formatted partitions so that you can manually migrate some of this information.
3) There's no hardware support
In the past, hardware support for GNU/Linux was spotty. More often than not, it existed because of efforts by the community, not the manufacturer, and its early stages were incomplete.
However, in the last three or four years, community drivers have matured, and more manufacturers are releasing GNU/Linux drivers along with Windows and Mac drivers. The manufacturers' drivers are not always free software, but they are free for the download.
Today, cases of incompatibility for basics such as hard drives, keyboards, and ethernet cards still occur, but are rare. The problem areas are likely to be peripheral areas like scanners, printers, modems, and wireless cards. However, you can hedge your bets by a few tactics such as choosing a postscript printer, which always works with the generic postscript driver, or buying from companies like Hewlett-Packard, which has a long history of supporting GNU/Linux printing.
Some people even maintain that, because GNU/Linux generally retains backwards compatibility, it actually supports more hardware than Windows. I wouldn't quite go that far, but, on the whole, driver problems on GNU/Linux seem only slightly more common than the ones I used to find on various versions of Windows.
Today, too, you can sidestep hardware compatibility entirely by buying GNU/Linux pre-installed from companies such as Acer or Dell.
Did you try the builtin drivers? Most distros come with foomatic, which holds drivers for hundreds, if not thousands, of printers.
Oracle is welcome to state that it will only support certain versions. That's a licensing issue and they don't need to be expending support resources to try to figure out why a database keeps crashing on a Gentoo box.
That's a support issue. That doesn't mean they have to try to make it difficult to install on other-than-officially-supported distros.
As I said, since Linux is pretty much Linux, such attempts are dumb, since a knowledgeable sysadmin can MAKE it work with a lot of skull sweat. As a sysadmin, I have better things to do with my time than try to figure out what little idiotic system check I have to defeat to get my test database (about which I have no intention of calling Oracle for support) to install on CentOS.
The production servers, running RedHat, those are fully supported. The test servers are not. That's fine. But having to hold your tongue just right and wait for the right phase of the moon to install an app on what is basically exactly the same OS is just an irritation. It serves no useful purpose except to make the sysadmin's life difficult.
You have hit the nail on the head. A cheap Linux box with a crappy HP laser printer is exactly what my mother in law needs. Then, she can click on anything without worrying about screwing up the computer. One printer cartridge lasts for years.
She surfs the internet and sends email. Linux is excellent for that purpose. She can even use Open Office writer if she ever decides to type something.
The only hard part is finding a dial-up modem that works with Ubuntu.
I think you’re right. Linux has been under 3% market share for years and years, in spite of being free.
I agree with you that lack of drivers is a problem, particularly printer drivers. In fact, the only distro that I have gotten to work at all with any printer is Ubuntu. When Ubuntu does detect and recognize a printer, it is automatically configured — that is easier than Windows. But if Ubuntu does not have a driver, you are SOL.
“And for every FOSS user who thinks people that disagree are idiots I can find at least 10 windows users who think FOSS users are losers living in their mothers basement..”
That’s because...
1) There’s more than 10 times as many Windows than there are “FOSS” users; and
2) The number of “FOSS” users who actually ARE losers living in their mother’s basement is roughly equal to the number of FOSS users who think non-FOSS users are idiots.
Very, very well-said. Like creepy political and religious movements, it’s often difficult to separate the product from the agenda of the product’s cultish devotees. And as such, a normal person’s inclination is to avoid the product altogether, even when the product itself has nothing wrong with it.
Fair Enough.. I get it.. you make money on your efforts. But to call everything Free as communist.. Not sure what you mean.
"Software can add Great Value to a business. Therefore the business decision is to pay a less than Great Price to get an ROI or Open new markets."
Oh come on now.. because you are a developer.. you making the business decision for the owner of the business? Most business owners do pay for packages such as Office. Your worried about a small segment of the world that uses Linux?
"There is just no incentive in our system to produce Free anything. Nothing is free ever."
So.. All the people who work on the Linux distro's for nothing are wasting their time and not making a DIME on their efforts.. you spend a good amount of time on your product and get paid for your efforts.. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Somehow I am lost on your whole premise here.
The author calls them “myths” and then proceeds to state that most of them are true to some extent.
Unzipping and compiling software IS beyond the abilities of most people.
Using the exact same software as family members and friends who can help IS of critical importance to most users.
Since hard sectored floppy disks, Dell Rainbows, Zenith Z100’s and CP/M, the most important thing in desktop computing has been standardization. Microsoft and IBM figured that out with the first IBM-PC and Bill Gates rode that horse to incredible success. Users do not want to learn new operating systems or software. They will do it slowly, over time, but they won’t tolerate having to relearn everything at once.
People resist change. They like what they know. Windows is what they know. It’s standard. So is its software.
Yep.
The lack of viruses for Linux has little to do with any sort of alleged innate security or the competence of its user base. Trust me, with a little social engineering it’s just as easy to get a single-user sysadmin to install an infected package as it is to get a Windows user to install an infected MSI.
However, desktop Linux is such a tiny part of the marketplace today that it’s not worth it from a virus writer’s perspective to waste time on a Linux variant of some trojan. This is especially true if you’re writing a worm distributed via email; yes, you *can* write an OpenOffice worm, but why bother with all that effort when it’ll only pwn a tiny handful of boxes? In fact, the *density* of targets is so low that you can’t even achieve reliable viral transmission; even if you succeed in getting your virus onto one Linux box, the likelihood of it successfully *finding* another Linux box to spread to is very, very low.
Of course, if people start buying fewer Windows boxes and more Mac or Linux boxes *because* of the virus threat, then the total population (and population density) of Linux boxes will increase, while the population and density of Windows will decrease. This will cause the virus-writer to be more willing to write viruses for Linux and Mac, and we will see a commensurate spike in viruses for those platforms.
In the study of biological infections, this phenomenon is called the “Red Queen” principle. When an infectious agent optimizes itself to attack a particular common variant of some species, the agent’s success is dependent on the commonality of that variant; yet its very success causes a decrease in the occurrence of that variant. This in turn forces the agent to re-optimize for an alternative variant, which leads to cyclical patterns of variation over time.
“Unzipping and compiling software IS beyond the abilities of most people.”
Its also not needed on modern desktops which use either RPM or APT.. In Fedora for example if you download an RPM a box pops up that says ‘would you like to install’ you click yes, it ask for the admin password, and the installs..
“The lack of viruses for Linux has little to do with any sort of alleged innate security or the competence of its user base. Trust me, with a little social engineering it’s just as easy to get a single-user sysadmin to install an infected package as it is to get a Windows user to install an infected MSI.”
That’s a Trojan, not a virus..
Or--you just choose "Add/Remove Software" from the menu and choose what you want. It does everything else for you.
Your very post here on FREE republic would suggest otherwise. It cost you nothing to read it, nothing to post it, nothing for me to respond. Yet it works. Enough people send money in voluntarily to make this the 7th highest rated conservative site. So much it for being a commie idea, don't you think?
Yeah, But I’ve found that most people are familiar with windows, and just don’t like or want anything new. Also, a lot of older devices don’t have drivers readily available, and lots of people don’t want to buy new stuff, when their old stuff is still good.
Science is free. You never hear of a single company owning the science of batteries, or storing electricity. Think about it. What would our world look like if scientific knowledge weren’t free, open-source information. When a scientific discovery is made, it’s peer reviewed, reproduced, and added to the pool of science. You could argue that some science is not free, i.e. patented drugs, etc. But even those have patent expirations.
Why should software code have to be any different? We live in a free society (supposedly). If you want to patent or keep your software closed, that’s your choice. But for those of us who want to develop software openly, that’s our choice also. So what’s with the “COMMIE” attacks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.