digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Changing operating systems requires a change in mindset

itwire.com — In a continuing series of articles highlighting that GNU/Linux is a viable replacement operating system, today we're exploring how to do things the "GNU/Linux way".

show profanity settings
expand all
  • guerraum, on 10/04/2008, -1/+15Good idea for an article, but too slim for my taste... a little more depth would be nice
    • tvanwyk, on 10/04/2008, -8/+5True, there's more to the differences than package managers and drivers, but it's a start.

      Partly it's also how things are done in *nix versus Windows. In Windows, if you want to do something, you mash on F1, put in a search pattern, and it spits out a sequence of mouse clicks to get to that end.

      In *nix, you usually have a handful of utilities but no "road map" - it's more like "here's some tools; use them (and hit the man pages if needed)!" So, adminning a *nix box is more about knowing what the commonly-available utilities are and knowing how to use them.
    • debuggercll, on 10/04/2008, -5/+20That's what she said.
  • osvik, on 10/04/2008, -9/+20I find the Mac to be more different from Windows than Linux.
    • bandola, on 10/04/2008, -19/+8Clarity FAIL

      Is Mac more different from Windows than it is different from Linux?
      • r00tus3r, on 10/05/2008, -3/+4Dunno why they're digging you down, the sentence is ambiguous.
    • tnoy, on 10/04/2008, -6/+35yes, it costs a lot more than both of them.
      • solidus636, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Since Windows isn't a PC Manufacturer, and niether is Linux, it'd be unfair to say Mac costs a lot more. The OS is only 100 bucks, a lot cheaper than Windows(the retail versions, not the OEM ones), and it costs more than Linux, of course.

        But yeah, Macs do cost a lot more than both, which is why I still do not have even ONE Apple product.
      • Atomic1fire, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4thats because windows does not come with hardware,
        macs do.
        you have to own a mac in order to use Macintosh, which means that if you are buying a mac, your not just buying a os, your buying a new computer.
        windows/linux can be standalone, so its more diy friendly.
        whereas macs are just designed to be mostly work proof.
        with some minor hinderances to a full windows user who uses say microsoft products only.
        safari/internet explorer
        itunes/windows media player
        ect
      • tnoy, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2@solidus636

        There is no "full-retail" version of OS X--and this is according to Apple themselves. The copy you see on the shelf is an 'upgrade version" they're using this in part of their argument against Psystar in the original lawsuit.

        That upgrade version of OS X is $129 just like Vista Home Premium. Home Premium gives what 99.99% of the consumer population needs, for most of them the only reason to buy Ultimate is if they fall victum to marketing easily.

        I'm amazed that people have been using the price of OS X as an argument against the price of Microsoft products while saying you have to use the "full retail" price, and then just gloss over the fact that Apple themselves even say that there is no "full retail" copy of OS X.
    • ajb2015, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1and its worth it!!!
  • colonels1020, on 10/04/2008, -9/+3mmmm gnuey
  • HarryRag, on 10/04/2008, -12/+46It would be easier to convince people to switch to Linux if some in the Linux community did not insist in calling it GNU/Linux all the freaking time.
    • sirhomer, on 10/04/2008, -1/+14Pick from: "Linux" or "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" - and for specifically referring to Ubuntu as: "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Linux", or "Ubuntu GNU/Linux"

      Once you pick one lets work together and codify it in international law that anyone who uses any of the other terminology be kicked in the face as punishment.

      Yeah I am being sarcastic. Or am I?
    • maz2331, on 10/04/2008, -0/+11It's not the whole community, only the really hard-core Stallman followers who worry about it.

      Many of us just use it and don't care WHAT the name of the damn thing is.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5Linux sounds better
      you can call it gnu when hurd finally works out.
      but linux is pretty much the generalized name for all those distros
      • pyrates, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Well hurd has been around for 25 years or so, so my question is, wtf is taking them so long? I say poor leader ship where the most important part of it is that it is free and open source, not that it works.
    • RaulMuadDib, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I pick ArchLinux.
    • reconsldr74d, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure why you think that would make it easier for people to switch... in any case. I use both terms depending on who I'm speaking to and what I'm speaking about. Linux to non users or beginners who don't really care and Gnu/Linux if I need to differentiate it from the kernel for some reason. Justifiable enough if you ask me.
  • Gutterpunk, on 10/04/2008, -4/+34In the case of OSX, you don't need a new mindset, you cheat sheet for every apps to determine what the ***** is happening with the cursor controls.

    "Apple key + arrows" is treated differently in every apps. Apple key + shift + arrow? Even worse.

    I don't understand why a company that has such strict standard for the UI across applications, but you need to learn how to use the arrows/home/end in every damn one of them.

    And don't get me started on the lack of a proper taskbar. Say what you want about Window, but taskbar > dock. (ANY taskbar, not the Windows' taskbar in particular)

    And this is not an anti-OSX rant. The find function is amazing, and everything is beautiful, but as a programmer who dabble in is own art and sound editing (ie : I often have 3-4 XCode window open, as many Gimp and 2-3 Audacity, getting lost between all those windows pisses me off every time)
    • leamanc, on 10/04/2008, -5/+5Apple really had GUI consistency in the classic OS days, but they hardly follow their own guidelines anymore. Part of the reason is that using OS X is using a mix of Carbon, Cocoa, Java, X11 and (for some still) Classic. The keybindings are different for each API, and third-party developers have a lot more leeway in implementing things than they did with the classic OS.

      It's a shame, but I still think OS X is the best desktop OS for everyday users. It's stable and, for the most part, stays out of your way and lets you run apps. I like the usability improvements in Linux as a desktop OS (I spend my computing time about 50/50 between Leopard and Hardy Heron), but still think Apple sets the standard. (XP and Vista have resolved a lot of Windows' stability issues, but I can't say they stay out of your way...)
      • srg13, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1None of the Apple apps are X11 or Classic (X11 isn't even installed by default, is it?)... And I doubt that they are using much Java either - almost everything is Cocoa or Carbon, and they're gradually moving everything to Cocoa.
      • redwallhp, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1@srg13, X11 is preinstalled in Leopard at least. And there are some Java apps, though they're not too common (Java is the much-touted language that went nowhere, it seems...).
    • pixeldust, on 10/04/2008, -5/+3Some buttons do different things in different programs? OS X has system wide defined combinations and application specific combinations, "Apple key + arrows" is in the latter category. Do you really expect programs, regardless of the operating system, not to have some proprietary key combinations?
      • Gutterpunk, on 10/05/2008, -2/+1Nearly every text edition box in Windows uses the same control.

        I can pick up an IDE or Notepad or most other apps with a text edition box, and I know that control + arrows will jump to the next word.

        I expect them to have proprietary key combinations, but I also expect them to be somewhat consistent between applications.
      • pixeldust, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2option + arrows jumps to the end of a word in most, if not every, program in OS X? I am still failing to see your problem,
    • redwallhp, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4What are you talking about? I find that Dock > Taskbar. I got a MacBook after 7+ years on Windows, and I have to say the Mac OS kicks Microsoft's butt overall.
  • jantzenw, on 10/04/2008, -21/+2My favorite summary is from IanRG at builder.au.com.au:

    "Linux's strengths are largely its weaknesses:
    - there are two major plus many more minor GUIs - all less USER friendly and more inconsistent than Windows and OSX. The flexibility, adaptability, cutting edgeness of Linux GUIs leave the proprietaries in their wake but fail to give users what they want.
    - So many applications are on daily build. To a developer this shows that the product is being continually improved openly and in way that we can choose to see or contribute to. To a user this is bad - it shows it is incomplete and indicates that you will have to reinstall it later
    - The open source alternatives are too often not as good - OpenOffice should be as good as Office 2003/04 soon but wait there is already Office 2007/08. Gimp should be as ... - no wait it will never be .... If it ever gets close it or parts of it will be absorbed by the proprrietaries just like Paintshop. We all when we get the latest distro first test which of the bundled apps work, partially work or just don't work on our computers. Imagine how much trouble the proprietaries would get in if users need to do the same to their products
    - Open source licenses handicap extensibility. The most popular audio formats are Apple's and Microsoft's - it does not matter why to the user - they just want their iTunes or WMA songs that work fine on their "MP3" player to work on their computer without having to rely on hacks, additional downloads etc. The user does not care that a program handles these myriad open source formats of files (document, audio, graphics, AV etc) - they just want it to handle the "normal" formats out of the box. Open source being more extensible is good for the developer but where it excludes the normal proprietary formats is bad for the users.
    - There is no box. Most open source software is downloaded, they rely on dependencies that still today may need to be sourced from another site and installed first. Downloaded proporietary software exists but generally it can also be bought in a box - either way it is all there.
    - The proprietaries look professional - the OpenSource community frequently feels unprofessional. It does not matter that many of them are the same people or whether the perceptions are right or justifiable.
    - M$ Windoze - everytime we write this we are saying I'm a zealot fanboy who is part of some gnostic belief system therefore I am superior to mere users. Users are put off by this just the same as they were put off by audiophiles & tyre salesmen. The lesser position is when we say I don't know why users all just don't agree with me or if only they knew as much as I know.

    The complete list of important people in the computer industry is as follows: The user, that is all."
  • kd420, on 10/04/2008, -0/+32He's right about the software thing. When I moved to Ubuntu, sometimes I'd find the program I wanted online, but they'd only have the source, so I'd have to compile it myself and it would never work. I'd get frustrated and give up, only to realize that it was available in Synaptic already. I'd then facepalm and install it in 10s, instead of the 20+ minutes I wasted trying to get the source install to work.
    • databeast, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3dugg, because this exemplifies things quite accurately, and because you're inadvertantely promoting my favorite distro - Debian..

      At last count, debian had 28,000 software packages available for easy apt-get installation. No, remember that most piece of software come in three packages... app code, dev code, and docs. still, that's 8000 piece of software, installable at the level *you require* via a single commandline entry.

      Yes, I think that requires somewhat of a change in mindset to deal with. But once you're happy with it, you never want to go back..

      I'm still happy with .MSI, I'm still happy with compiling things from source.. but the bar has been set for my expectations since I first installed Debian in 1997
    • redwallhp, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Linux: Compile it yourself, or spend time hunting for a binary.
      Windows: Run an installer wizard and wait for it to install.
      Mac OS: Drag the app into your Applications directory.

      I have experience on all three OSes, the most on the latter two, and I have to say that the Mac OS trounces Linux and Windows in many ways, such as the installation department. As for variety of software, Windows is far ahead of the other two, and Linux is third. There are plenty of free and open source apps that run on Macs, and there are plenty of commercial apps as well.
      • KingCritter, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2I take issue with "...or spend time hunting for a binary."

        I don't see how opening up Synaptic and clicking on the search button equals out to "hunting."


        But yes, I do love how applications work on Macs -- having files spread out everywhere makes everything so annoyingly complicated. I wish we could have that for Linux. The interesting thing is, I think it could be done -- without any changes to the default Linux file system.
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/04/2008, -6/+8So, basically, the message to the typical computer user is "Linux would be viable for you if you weren't you"?
    • srg13, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4No, the message is that "Linux is not Windows". People go in expecting everything to be exactly the same, and get frustrated and agitated when they find it's not - even if the Linux way of doing things is better than what they had for Windows (package managers, for instance, are a far superior way of distributing software than Windows installers that require the user to update manually, or for the application to implement its own updator)
      • pyrates, on 10/05/2008, -3/+1Package managers are NOT a better way of doing things. They are normally used in something that is considered to be embedded. And normally any embedded OS doesn't have a lot of apps available for it. Because for an embedded os, you have to compile for that platform and then test it making sure to fix any unusual quarks that come up along the way. And then that software developer has to then compile it for another distro and test it their. Hence making their work a lot more work then it needs to be. And then that programmer has to make sure their app gets included in each repository that they compiled their app for.

        Package managers never will be able to replace the ease and use of going to a website to download a program and have it installed like you can in windows and OS X. There is just far too many applications out there that are available and software developers in windows and os x aren't use to having to compile their app multiple times for each version of an OS where the kernel appears to be the same but everything else is different about it.

        And if people get frustrated that it's not the same, perhaps it's because the way they were doing things was best for them and linux should be adapting to how the user works with it, not making the user change how they work with it.
      • srg13, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3"Package managers never will be able to replace the ease and use of going to a website to download a program and have it installed like you can in windows and OS X."

        Yes, because going to Add and Remove programs, searching the name and clicking Install is so much harder than opening a browser, searching for a program, looking for a download link, downloading a binary, running it, clicking next to a bunch of questions. Not to mention that a package manager will automatically update anyway.

        But of course, if they so wish, software distributors can make binary packages for downloading off web sites as well (usually they're the same as the package managers use actually), and if you statically link the libraries you use, it will just work on pretty much anything you throw it on, unless it's another architecture (which requires a different version for any operating system - except x86_64 which has a compatibility mode to run x86 apps)
  • Prototek, on 10/04/2008, -3/+23Summary:
    Linux might seem more difficult to use, but it's just different. The kool-aid might taste funny but it's really just better.
    • MrZee, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Or you inadvertently stumbled into Jonestown.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I think there is a way to balance familiarity with improvement
      cars are still the same concept, and same inner setup (one wheel to turn, meters for gas and stuff, ect) , but have improved in other ways as well.
  • minhaaj, on 10/04/2008, -11/+3linux is just plain fabulous, but the point is you need to be fabulous yourself to figure out how fabulous it is.
  • IronDonut, on 10/04/2008, -26/+4Linux is probably the only OS that is actually worse than Windows Vista. We get it you hate Microsoft. But there is a reason why Linux on the desktop amounts to much less than 1% of the desktop market. Here is why;

    1. The device driver support is terrible.
    2. There is very little good software available for it. You want to use Quickbooks to run your business? Tough.
    3. It's hard to use. So your employees will spend less productive time doing their jobs and more time futzing with the computer.
    4. There is no decent support. You want support you have to buy it and the support cost more than Windows. So what did you save?

    If you hate Microsoft and can't bring yourself to use Windows buy an Apple. But don't go though the torture of using Linux as a desktop OS. Leave it to run servers where it belongs.
    • sirhomer, on 10/04/2008, -4/+17Anyone who goes through the "torture" (emphasis the quotes) of using Linux as a desktop OS will gain a much expanded understanding of computers and a improved skill set that can transfer to many fields of endeavor. Linux broadens horizons. Both the underlying philosophy or the technology.
      • IronDonut, on 10/04/2008, -13/+3Oh you again? I've used virtually every type of computer and OS during my career. Many variants of Unix, the IBM mainframe OSes, OS/2, DOS, several variants of Linux, every variant of Windows. My horizons are already broad. Broad enough to know that Linux has it's place and it's not on the desktop. It's a decent cheap server OS if you don't mind the hassle.

        It's a terrible desktop OS and the fact that it's total market penetration is less than 1% bears this out.

      • bluechild, on 10/05/2008, -5/+5IronDonut it's not even an OS, it's a kernel. You fail miserably.
      • sirhomer, on 10/05/2008, -1/+9IronDonut,

        Linux belongs anywhere someone chooses to run it.

        It sucks that Linux hassles you so much. Fortunately it doesn't hassle me, so I'll continue using it (currently running Ubuntu 8.04 and OpenSuSE 11), and I'll also continue to help other people switch over who choose to.

        But really, cut it with the flaming. This is like the fifth time you come into a Linux article to attack it, and what do you know, you keep getting dugg down mercilessly. Basically you should really stop trying to ruin the party for everyone else. It just makes you look like an *****.
      • reconsldr74d, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4@sirhomer

        Hey if it walks like a duck and talks like duck...

        I've never understood flame wars myself. Some people like Windows more and that's fine. I like GnuLinux more (Slackware and Debian mostly) and that works great for me. Why do people get all wrapped up in what other people like or don't like?
      • czeman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@reconsldr74d

        The OS wars are ALMOST as bad as politics.
    • thevoiceless, on 10/05/2008, -0/+12I've had none of the problems you speak of...
    • srg13, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4Are you using a computer with some kind of non-standard Asian-exported imitation hardware? Because I run Linux on three different computers (one laptop, two desktops) regularly, and all their hardware worked out of the box - no driver installation or anything (except for one proprietary nVidia driver - two clicks in the 'Hardware Drivers' box.)
  • killtrocity, on 10/04/2008, -10/+4where fabulous=gay

    I kid I like Linux too.
  • BradOFarrell, on 10/04/2008, -18/+9Aaaaand that's why no one wants to use Linux.
  • vladimirp00pen, on 11/13/2008, -4/+23Buddy of mine just gave me his girlfriend's stinky T22 (thinkpad). Has 500mb of ram and Windows 2000. She's getting it back with Ubuntu Hardy. Sorry, but I asked you for a recovery CD. I'm not in the mood to track down cracked versions of Windows... plus your laptop was infected with trojans and malware. She's gonna have to get used to using Linux. Not like she was using a lot of software. Her files consisted of hundreds of mp3s and word documents. Open Office will suffice and I'll just install the 3rd party software to support decoding mp3 files.
    • maz2331, on 10/04/2008, -2/+11Ouch.

      I'd just give the thing back as-is. I won't reload anyone's machine against their desires.

      Just charge for 3 hours of troubleshooting and return.
    • RaulMuadDib, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1You need to run some Live CD on there that has Kapersky Antivirus at least. Followed by the Panda one and maybe Spybot Search and Destroy. Geesh, not every little virus or problem in Windows requires a re-install.
    • pmichaelson, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Install VLC; it handles virtually any media file and it's an easier transitional software for someone used to WMP.
  • MuffinFlavored, on 10/04/2008, -2/+5I disagree. Changing operating systems from Linux to Windows is NOT like moving your fingers differently.
    Sure, things may seem the same on the front-end, and you may just install a few different applications and have to do minor things mildly differently.
    But the overall operating system, how everything is done, the back-end, the philosophy on top of it all, is not as "mild".
  • Sokkratez, on 10/05/2008, -4/+13It took me 30 minutes in Google to figure out what I needed to do to get my wireless card working in Linux when I had no experience. The same card that works by just plugging it in with Windows. Maybe my card was in the wrong mindset.
    • macewan, on 10/05/2008, -1/+12Printers 'just work' in both OSX and Linux... you plug them in hit print and all is good. My experience with Windows and printers is similar to a Dentist visit.
    • r00tus3r, on 10/05/2008, -1/+9It took me days to get my onboard soundcard to work in Windows XP and it "just works" with Linux. I actually flashed my bios and had to replace it trying to get the bloody thing to work and don't get me started on Apache, MySQL and PHP vs LAMP. Some things are easy with linux, some things are hard with linux. Some things are easy with windows, some things are hard with windows.
  • macewan, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6Utter *****. Mostly it comes down to attitude. Downloading and compiling software is rarely required. After 10 years of Linux I bought a MacBook Air. VMWare was purchased the same time at Apple.com to allow use of Vista, XP, and differing flavors of *nix mostly Ubuntu. In today's ever changing world you simple can not pan out as the dud which only understands Windows.
    • andreusboy, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2"Downloading and compiling software is rarely required."

      Tell that to wireless chipsets manufacturers.
  • Subvexer, on 10/05/2008, -3/+5My computer should change to suit my needs, not the other way around.
  • lazydrumhead, on 10/05/2008, -4/+5A change of mindset, like one that says, "Hey, even though my system supports 64-bits, and is running a 32-bit system, Flash takes 3 hours of typing and searching to install because it's confused about your freaking architecture"


    grumble grubmle
    • Frosty122, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I had this problem, some guy on Ubuntu forums wrote a script, that fixes the problem......
      • garmarfr, on 10/05/2008, -5/+2funny, you NEEDED a guy from an UBUNTU forum to WRITE a SCRIPT to INSTALL Flash.... XD
        That it´s the reason because people don´t change their OS. Linux is free, but with problems like this, don´t exist for the average user.
      • srg13, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4@garmarfr: Flash isn't supported on 64-bit Windows or Mac OS either... It's Adobe's fault, and it happens on all platforms.
      • pyrates, on 10/05/2008, -1/+1I can still install flash on my 64-bit windows vista as easily as I can in 32-bit windows vista. Now if linux had a common package format that works across all distros, maybe this might not be a problem like it is right now.
  • aserer511, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1this article didn't elucidate what I am guessing are some inherent subtleties and features of package managers, but they sound very neat. who compiles and updates the database of software that they allow you to search through? also, don't software managers cancel their ease of use out if the user is invariably going to go to the software's website to get more info on it? although it is nice to have a unified interface where one can download all the software one wants
    • reconsldr74d, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1In many (if not all, but I haven't used them all so I can't say) package managers information about the program or component is displayed to let you know what it is, what it does, and sometimes other things you may want to install with it to get the most from it.
      The methods of organizing the repositories of software (what you see in the package manager) vary from distro to distro but the big ones (like Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandravia, Debian) often have a clear set of programs that they support personally while the rest are supported by whomever releases them.
      There are drawbacks to some package managers but odds are you can find one that you like.
  • Cherubim, on 10/05/2008, -1/+5The fact is, GNU/Linux distro's detect more hardware out of the box than XP or Vista. The only downer is that wireless card detection can be troublesome. This is mainly because a lot of arrogant companies (I'm looking at YOU Broadcom) won't make their hardware transparent or release proper drivers. In those cases NDISWrapper is needed or one can wait for a reverse engineered driver.
    • pmichaelson, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Getting the Broadcom adapter on my laptop took a couple downloads, but thanks to the community all the questions I had were answered and step-by-step instructions were there.
  • Nephersir7, on 10/05/2008, -1/+7Dugg for not generalizing linux to ubuntu
  • nickpick, on 10/05/2008, -2/+1Show her Compliz Fusion and she'll ask you to install Linux on her machine. Happened to me twice in the past six month or so. :)
    I'm not sure I'd be all right with somebody installing a totally different OS than I requested, without my consent, though. :P
  • ethana2, on 10/05/2008, -1/+5One day I thought "you know what, I just want to buy a machine, have everything Just Work and not have to screw with anything. I think everyone gets to that point sooner or later.

    ..and I am /loving/ my 1420n.. Getting my mom a 1525n soon!
    Dell. Yours is here.
  • pyrates, on 10/05/2008, -3/+1The most important part of the article I think is this:

    Most Windows users are quite happy to find out about some software that they want, go to a website, download it and install it. Or buy it on a CD/DVD and install it from that media. However, this approach usually doesn't work that well in Linux.

    That can apply to OS X users too. Here's another point:

    Most (but not all) software is already available if you use the Package Manager included in your Linux distribution.

    This is why linux is still not ready. You can't expect the repository for your distro to include very piece of software you might want to use. What about software that is only sold or that the author didn't bother to compile a version for the distro you're running? The only thing you can do then is hope that they distribute the source code and if they don't, you're stuck. This is why I support a distribution neutral format that does exactly what msi does in windows, for linux. There is one called autopackage. We can keep the deb and rpm package formats for system level files, but not for ordinary applications. It is just too much of a burden for a linux software developer to make 18 different versions of his one application for 18 different distributions. Of course we all know that number is much higher, but you get the point. But it seems this hasn't taken off among the linux community, due to it not locking the user into that distro of linux.

    Here's another point:

    The same can be said for driver installations. In a modern Linux distribution, drivers for most devices are already included.

    And if they are not included, if the manufacturer doesn't want to provide the source of the driver, ur up a creek without a paddle. Of course many would be fine with providing a binary version if linux would just provide a stable abi for drivers. But the linux community doesn't like that idea much either, because it would give the manufacturer's a reason not to open source their drivers. So the result is those manufacturer's don't even bother creating a linux driver, and the community has to make one instead which could be worse or better then the one provided by the actual company who designed the hardware in the first place and knows it inside and out.
    • databeast, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I dont worry about this.. I use Debian

      (yes, Debian even has a few wrapper packages in its repository, for installing commericial software with)
  • pmichaelson, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1The only major frustration that I've ever had with Linux is the software-compatibility issue, and I blame that on developers, not on my OS. If they choose not to support me, they can eat it as far as I'm concerned. My PC still has a Windows partition for the stuff I really just can't live without, but as time goes by I get more and more used to not having it. Most of the stuff I need I've been able to get working with WINE, or found an alternative in the open-source community.
  • bipolarruledout, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Not nessesarily, it might however require a change in applications.
  • servnhim, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I thought this was a well written article. While I can agree with you on some of your statements, I really have to disagree with much of what was stated. First, just to talk about the OS. While it can be stable and secure, the GUI's (KDE and GNOME) are a great reminder of Windows 3.1. I am sorry, by windows and OS X have us beat by a long shot. Some may say that the look does not matter....think again. In a truthfulness, it is a part of the package. Yes you can flounder around to get it to look like one of the 2 OS's, but the average person does not wish to.

    Secondly, I agree and disagree with the package manager. Yes, there are loads of software listed, but they are not Photoshop or Microsoft Office 2007/2008. While GIMP and Open Office offer alternatives, they are not on par with their commercial counterparts. Maybe that is opinion, but I have tried getting people to switch to GIMP...it lasted less than a day. Open Office currently has nothing to compete with Outlook in it's package. Evolution is not an alternative since it does not work with Exchange 2007. Regardless, people will also have to get used to some unfamiliar software that is listed in the package manager to see if they work from them.

    Third, drivers. While there are drivers out there, depending on what you are looking for, it can be a chore. With that, the distro of Linux also plays a role, as well. Ubuntu on a Dell Precision T7400 with NVIDIA 290 video card could not find any drivers and would not extend the desktop. After about 2 hours of fiddling with xorg.config, we did a work around. The network printer was the same experience.

    While I love Linux and all that it offers, it is not a strong contestant for the desktop machine. For a change to happen, the Linux community needs to get a clue on the end user. Many will say that it supports more hardware, among other things....no one cares. What they want is to sit down, plug in a device, install their software and for it just to work. Bottom line. I know the arguments and I can see them coming. Linux users tend to have bigger heads than the Mac community. The people wanting to sit down and compute are very intelligent, but their time is valuable. Fighting to get devices and software they want to work is not an option. Again, this is why people use windows and mac. They work. (Don't start with the blue screens of death or viruses. I have not see a blue screen in 5 years and no viruses. Doing a hard shut down of Linux brings back those blue screens that are talked about.)

    One last note, I do think that one big problem is that there are way too many distros. This is distracting and can be counter productive. I have found this myself. One distro falls short where another shines, etc. All in all, Linux can be a great tool only if the community begins to understand the computer user. We are not there yet.
    • databeast, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I've never found the 'driver problem' to be an issue.. It's called 'do your ***** homework and dont buy generic junk hardware'

      Desktop? yea right, Vista looks better than a desktop running Compiz.. sorry bud, it doesnt matter how far you reach up there, the quality of ***** you pull out of your arse isnt going to improve any time soon.

      Not on par with alternatives.. maybe for one particular tiny tiny sector of usage you find particularly useful, granted. Personally, windows will never compare to linux for me, for development, network and security tools. by that measure, I've been waiting for windows to be 'ready for the desktop' for the last ten years.
    • servnhim, on 10/05/2008, -0/+0ahh.. I have found one of the linux elites. I love linux too, but my job requires people skills. You my friend talk like a geek. Again, I challenge you to give someone you know (hopefully you have friends) that is not a computer savvy, but an everyday "business" user and have them configure linux.

      Secondly, the Dell Precision T7400 is a beast of machine (8 core Intel Xeon at 3.02ghz). This machine has been configured to run EMC simulations and well as 3D modeling. The NVIDIA 290 is not junk hardware my friend.

      I am very glad that Linux has worked for you, but take my challenge above. I guarantee that they can get windows, or better yet OSX functioning cleaner and that any linux machine out there.

      Guess you are so violent cause the truth hurts.
    • redwallhp, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1I agree. GIMP is in NO WAY a replacement for Photoshop. It just isn't.
  • kibbledbits, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1Here's the thing, I use Windows at work because I have to (C# programmer in a Microsoft shop). I've used Linux both professionally and recreationally and I think it's great. At home I use a Mac. The whole point of technology is to meet the user where they are at. You shouldn't have to think in a Windows or Linux (Gnome or KDE) way.

    Technology is the means not the end.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.