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 Moreover, increasingly, they're outdated when they're not based on complete ignorance.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.
“But I’ve found that most people are familiar with windows, and just don’t like or want anything new.”
Most of the people I know who are clueless Windows users really don’t care. You can interchange them with a Mac and they never have a problem. All they need is their email and web brower. Everything else is just too hard to use.
“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.”
Actually, legacy products are usually OK with Linux. The problem is the new stuff. Chances are that the only thing they have is a printer.
I deal with a lot of older people and their #1 problem is viruses and spyware. Their other problem is their ability to screw up their system which is easy to do in Windows. An Linux box or a Mac would work just fine.
I suppose the webmaster has no bills to pay either. I suppose that if you watch tv it is free(You only pay with your time watching commercials). I suppose you only pay 30% income tax (no everything you buy is taxed and taxed).
Just because the cost of something is absorbed by someone else or hidden doesn’t mean it is free to everyone. It may appear to be free to you. There are always strings attached.
Debunked years ago, yet some people don't seem to get it.
Linux viruses are less common because the design does not as easily lend itself to being compromised by malware.
There are more Linux web servers than Windows web servers yet Windows web servers are still compromised more often. Given your debunked premise, please explain how an operating system with a LARGER footprint than Windows is LESS vulnerable.
No, there aren’t. I contacted the manufacturers and was told the models she had were not supported in Linux.
I realise there are drivers for most devices, just not the one’s she had.
She wanted XP back, so that’s what I did.
Excellent point.
Linux is supported in the same way this web site is supported. By donations from volunteers.
It may appear to be free to you. There are always strings attached.
Quite true. The strings on Linux go like this:
1. You can USE it all you want. No cost.
2. If you take Linux code and use it to build a new software product, your software product must also be given away without cost.
3. If you don't like that, don't use Linux to build your software product.
That’s true, most don’t really care, they want what they are most familiar with. The few people I help, are familiar with windows.
There is a difference between "supported by the manufacturer on Linux" and "works with Linux."
The only piece of hardware that I've ever not gotten to run under Linux was an antique TDK 5-disc CDROM changer. It used a proprietary interface (that is, not IDE or SCSI) and while the standard non-ATAPI driver would see one drive, it wouldn't see the others or shuffle the disks.
That said, getting unsupported hardware to work under Linux often isn't worth the effort. It's better to buy hardware that is already known to work out of the box. See your distro's hardware compatibility list.
Perhaps the next time this situation comes up, I will. Right now she has a system like she used to have, and is happy.
That’s the beauty of capitalism, it creates so much wealth that free rides become part of the mix, just to get you on the ride!
One program I really liked back then I used Ms-windows was ZoneAlarm. i liked the fact that it would notice if a given program wanted to send traffic external to your system, and you have the option of allowing or denying the access. Are you aware of anything similar for linux? I realize you can use iptables to allow or deny traffic in or out, but I'd like to see something a little bit more interactive.
That only works with packages included in the distro (yes there is allot there but that is besides the point). NVU (for example) is not there..
“There are always strings attached.”
Lets nip this bud right now
1) When a church runs a community food shelf is that ‘with strings attached’
now that we have that out of the way I will concede with FOSS there are some strings. Namely that if you modify and distribute FOSS software you have to pass along your modifications. Thats it, thats the ‘cost’.
nothing wrong with that, every system has its time, place, and target..
NVU is now called Kompozer and is in the Ubuntu repo.
knitebane@laptop:~$ apt-cache search kompozer
kompozer - Complete Web Authoring System
kompozer-dev - KompoZer development files
nvu - Transition package for Nvu --> KompoZer fork
nvu-dev - Transition package for Nvu --> KompoZer fork (development files)
Can you tell I have been living in the AIX / WAS world for awhile ;)... While it is in Ubuntu it was not on Fedora Core6 (last time I checked..)
Yeah, one of the many reasons I stopped using Fedora as a desktop.
Fedora is RedHat's development arm. Since RedHat is a server software company, Fedora has always seem to be a bit behind the curve with desktop functionality.
It's a philosophy thing, I guess. I keep Fedora around for development purposes to keep up on what RedHat is up to since I sysadmin a bunch of RedHat and CentOS machines.
But for desktop happiness I moved to Ubuntu a while back.
"Firewall Builder is a GUI firewall configuration and management tool that supports iptables (netfilter), ipfilter, pf, ipfw, Cisco PIX (FWSM, ASA) and Cisco routers extended access lists.
It's very Checkpointy. :)
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.