Red Hat Topics - When Will Linux be ready?

Author

When Will Linux be ready?

Cheeseman

2005-07-27, 5:47 pm

I'm not a computer geek nor do I work in IT anymore. I have no axe to grind
about Windows or Linux etc. etc. Linux has been around for a good while now
10+ years (and is free) yet still seems to be severely lacking when it
comes to a desktop OS role compared to Windows.

I was wondering if Linux is ever going to become a big time desktop OS or
forever remain an OS for geeks and computer nerds. Don't get me wrong there
is much about Linux that I like over Windows trouble is it just never seems
to work as well. Why cant people just concentrate their efforts into one or
two versions that way they might have a break though.

I really do try to use Linux as a desktop OS but I find myself going back
to Windows after a few months just because it is such hard work under Linux
being so buggy and un-integrated. This is an OS which is always in beta.

I would love to find an alternative OS but really there isn't one if you
are a desktop user, shame really.

Rincewind

2005-07-27, 5:47 pm

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:49:57 +0000, Cheeseman mumbled:

> cheese and more cheese

He must be a mouse...

--
Rinso
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jan Gerrit Kootstra

2005-07-28, 2:46 am

Bruce Coryell

2005-07-28, 7:46 am

Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:

> Cheeseman wrote:
>
>
>
> Cheeseman,
>
>
> Have you asked this question on a HP-UX, Solaris or AIX newsgroup?
>
> Linux is more or less a kind of Unix, not a kind of Microsoft Windows
> clone.
>
> For me it works well as a desktop, for do not do much more then
> Unix/Linux management.
>
> Use the OS you need and do not complain about things you cannot use.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jan Gerrit Kootstra

You just have to be realistic about your expectations. Windows is
always going to be the premier eye candy desktop OS, but its virtually
useless for everything else. That's where Linux comes in - with its
configurability and built in programming capabilities, it leaves Windows
way behind in the dust.

Jean-David Beyer

2005-07-28, 7:46 am

Cheeseman wrote:
> I'm not a computer geek nor do I work in IT anymore. I have no axe to grind
> about Windows or Linux etc. etc. Linux has been around for a good while now
> 10+ years (and is free) yet still seems to be severely lacking when it
> comes to a desktop OS role compared to Windows.
>
> I was wondering if Linux is ever going to become a big time desktop OS or
> forever remain an OS for geeks and computer nerds. Don't get me wrong there
> is much about Linux that I like over Windows trouble is it just never seems
> to work as well. Why cant people just concentrate their efforts into one or
> two versions that way they might have a break though.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "big time." The paradigm of Linux
marketing is such that it does not get heavy advertizing, the developers do
not pressure hardware vendors into delivering Linux-Only systems, they do
not engage in illegal monopolistic trade practices that only their political
connections enable them to circumvent court judgements against them. Lacking
those tools, it is not to be expected that Linux will take over the desktop
market soon, though it is making steady progress.

I got so disgusted with Windows that I switched to Red Hat Linux 5.0 in mid
1998, and never looked back. I have rues RHL 5.0, RHL 6.0 and 6.2, RHL 7.3,
and RHL 9 over the years. On my old machine I run Windows XP Home from
time-to-time so I can use Quicken and TurboTax. Otherwise, I would never run
Windows. I switchet to W XP from W 95 because those programs would not run
properly with W 95.
>
> I really do try to use Linux as a desktop OS but I find myself going back
> to Windows after a few months just because it is such hard work under Linux
> being so buggy and un-integrated. This is an OS which is always in beta.

On the off chance that you are not a troll, you might wish to use a version
of Linux that is not a bleeding-edge nearly-beta version. I had to reject
Fedora Core 2 because of this.

On this machine I am running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 (RHEL 4 is available
now, but I am not upgrading soon; one of the advantages of RHEL
distributions is that they are guaranteed to be supported for 5 years,
IIRC). It is definately _not_ a beta release, nor is it bleeding-edge. Now
RHEL3 is pretty expensive because it includes (nearly) automatic updates as
they become available (_nearly_ because you can refuse them, or put them in
when you want instead of automatically).
>
> I would love to find an alternative OS but really there isn't one if you
> are a desktop user, shame really.

GNUY/Linux is not Windows, so you will need to invest the same effort to
learn it as you did learning Windows.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:50:00 up 43 days, 43 min, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.19, 4.05

Jacob

2005-07-28, 5:47 pm

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:49:57 +0000 (UTC), a posting issued forth from Cheeseman...
> I'm not a computer geek nor do I work in IT anymore. I have no axe to grind
> about Windows or Linux etc. etc. Linux has been around for a good while now
> 10+ years (and is free) yet still seems to be severely lacking when it
> comes to a desktop OS role compared to Windows.
>
> I was wondering if Linux is ever going to become a big time desktop OS or
> forever remain an OS for geeks and computer nerds. Don't get me wrong there
> is much about Linux that I like over Windows trouble is it just never seems
> to work as well. Why cant people just concentrate their efforts into one or
> two versions that way they might have a break though.
>
> I really do try to use Linux as a desktop OS but I find myself going back
> to Windows after a few months just because it is such hard work under Linux
> being so buggy and un-integrated. This is an OS which is always in beta.
>
> I would love to find an alternative OS but really there isn't one if you
> are a desktop user, shame really.

<feeding the troll>

Linux has been ready for desktop use since 1999. The biggest problem with it is
hardware support, and that's not really Linux's problem. Manufacturers need to
write drivers for their hardware, just as they do for other operating systems.
In fact, it's shocking just how many different hardware configurations Linux
supports, and supports well. At home, I have Debian running on:

a P4 from Dell
a PIII laptop from Compaq
an AMD K6-2 from NEC
2 UltraSparcIIis from Sun
a DEC Alpha
an SGI Indy
a PowerPC based IBM RS/6000
an Intel Celeron
something else that I can't remember right now...

The point is, most of these manufacturers haven't bent over backwards to help,
like they have for the respective operating systems they came with. I'd love to
see what you thought of a Windows OS that only came with drivers Microsoft had
had to reverse engineer. *shudder*

</feeding the troll>

This ranks is a 2.2 on the troll-o-meter.

--
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`

Erwin Moller

2005-07-29, 5:49 pm

Hi Cheeseman,

My advise:
Go try some preconfigured GNU/Linux, like UBUNTU.
Or some distro that is tested heavily, like Debian Sarge.

DO NOT TRY BLEEDING EDGE DISTRO!
They will only frustrate you in the long run.

And one other thing that is really important: Buy and read THE BOOK:
Running Linux, by O'Reilly (fourth edition now, I think)

I learnt so many things from that book: It is really the best place to start
for a newbie, really.

AFTER that you can run every Linuxdistro, because you understand where to
look for what information.
That is the bottomline: Where to look for what. :-)

Do you REALLY think the geeks where born with that knowledge?
No man, they all got it from O'Reilly!

;-)

Regards and good luck and ENJOY,
Erwin Moller