The Next Leap for Linux

The New York Times ^ | 10/04/2007 | Larry Magid

[abt87]

LINUX runs the Google servers that manage billions of searches each day. It also runs the TiVo digital video recorder, the Motorola Razr cellphone and countless other electronic devices.

But why would anyone want to use Linux, an open-source operating system, to run a PC? “For a lot of people,” said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, “Linux is a political idea — an idea of freedom. They don’t want to be tied to Microsoft or Apple. They want choice. To them it’s a greater cause.”

That’s not the most compelling reason for consumers. There is the price: Linux is free, or nearly so.

Unlike Windows from Microsoft and OS X from Apple, Linux is not owned, updated or controlled by a single company. Thousands of developers around the world work on Linux, making improvements and issuing new versions several times a year. Because the core Linux software is open source, these developers have the right — some would say responsibility — to borrow from one another’s work, constantly looking for enhancements.

But Linux has always had a reputation of being difficult to install and daunting to use. Most of the popular Windows and Macintosh programs cannot be used on it, and hand-holding — not that you get that much of it with Windows — is rare. But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing.

Until recently, major PC makers shied away from Linux. Now the industry is watching as Dell is selling two Linux-equipped desktop models ($549 and $870, including a monitor) and a $774 notebook PC. (Hewlett-Packard offers Linux systems to businesses, and Lenovo, the Chinese company that bought I.B.M.’s PC division, sells Linux machines in China and says it will soon offer Linux-based computers in the United States.)

[jimt]

The only things I remember about Linux from several years ago was 1) Xwindows could not properly control a simple 1024 X 768 laptop screen, 2) every version I tried, including Red Hat, was painfully slow compared to Windows,, and 3) installation was extremely complex compared to Windows.

Hopefully those problems have been solved. Vista is an incredible dog and MS needs some viable competition.

[ShadowAce]

The only things I remember about Linux from several years ago was 1) Xwindows could not properly control a simple 1024 X 768 laptop screen,

I'm currently runing Xwindows on a Dell laptop at 1920X1200, and have had no prolems on this or my old laptop

2) every version I tried, including Red Hat, was painfully slow compared to Windows,,

I actually find Linux to be fairly quicker than Windows in responsiveness

... and 3) installation was extremely complex compared to Windows.

Plug in the disc (CD or DVD), chose all the defaults, and you're up and running--with only one reboot to get from the CD system to the hard drive. That includes installing not only the OS, but also all the applications you'll likely be needing.

[Señor Zorro]

Nowhere did I say that YOU did, and it was not even said in a way or context to imply it.

Like I said, I wasn't sure what you did mean. No offense, but that sentence was constructed rather awkwardly.

Do you agree that there are some who do/

Yes, though they are a vocal minority.

I was going get sarcastic about your FYI, but I will assume you didn't mean it to come across as the way it did.

Nowhere did I say that YOU were a pointy-haired boss and it was not said in a way or context to imply it.