| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
7 reasons why Linux won't succeed on the desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 19:40 EST/00:40 GMT | News Source: EETimes | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
I know that, in years past, whenever I was ordered by my bosses to do a "state of Linux" article, I'd call the usual suspects and ask them if "this'll be the year." They always told me it would be. Twelve months later, I'd repeat the whole process. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 347 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:21:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 11888 (64.231.3.191) at 9/21/2007 7:50:03 PM |
|
I think XP, Vista, and OS X are reasons enough why Linux won't succeed.
I've been trying it time and time again since 1997 and while it's better, it's not a Windows or OS X replacement. This post was edited by MrRoper on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 19:50. |
| #2 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 9/21/2007 9:15:18 PM |
|
Hey,
I really like Linux so I keep a live MEPIS DVD distro around to screw with when I'm using my computer as a toy. Only one question - Why are the type fonts soooooo ugly? |
| #3 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 9/21/2007 9:36:16 PM |
|
Linux is looking good lately and getting easy to use too, especially with the forthcoming release of GNOME 2.20 which contains a high level of polish. But the primary issues remain, compatibility, application support, hardware support and integration with existing Windows environments.
http://news.opensuse.org/?p=264 And the fact that there are over 300 distributions. It needs to be cut down to he best 10, with at least five being OpenSource projects similar to Fedora and OpenSUSE. People want to open their Music or Video libraries or insert and CD or DVD and it just plays without the need to search for an appropriate codec. As for good looks, Windows looks good too, especially Windows Vista. |
| #4 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 9/22/2007 9:55:34 AM |
| Mr. Roper nailed it. Bonus points for him. |
| #5 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 9/22/2007 4:57:17 PM |
|
My biggest issue with completely switching to Linux is lack of equivalent applications in Linux for some of the less often used stuff, like Quicken, good CD / DVD burning suites like Nero that just work, etc., and lack of hardware support for many peripherals. I have a scanner that is several years old, with an ability to scan transparencies, slides, negatives, etc., but only the flatbed scanner portion is supported under Linux / SANE. At least with Windows XP, I know I can purchase a cool piece of hardware, and know that there is driver support for it, even if I have to download the latest driver version from the manufacturers web site.
Linux has made some huge strides in the last few years, but it is not Linux that is the problem. It is all the other software makers that are not making their software available in Linux versions that are holding it back the most. Once Linux is being used by enough people, the ISV market will start to support it more, and then it will take off like crazy. Of course, this is a classic Catch-22 situation, as the growth won't be there until the apps are, and the apps won't be there until the number of installed seats is great enough to make the effort worthwhile. And once Linux is a suitable platform for game makers to start porting popular games to Linux, that will help greatly as well. Until then, it will remain a niche OS, just like all the other non-Windows OSes are. It is unfortunate, but that is life in the IT sector. |
| #6 By 26839 (74.192.0.199) at 9/23/2007 1:44:24 AM |
|
>My biggest issue with completely switching to Linux is lack of equivalent applications in Linux for some of the less often used stuff, like Quicken, good CD / DVD burning suites like Nero
Linux accounting http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linuxacct.html Nero for Linux http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-version-of-Nero-released-742.shtml Linux/Windows equivalents http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/23/2007 12:17:22 PM |
|
I was talking to a neighbor the other day. He was trying out Ubuntu. He had nothing but troubles and finally gave up. I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell.
Even if you only keep the PC for 3 years, that works out to less than 5 cents a day. Was all the hassle worth it to save 5 cents a day? Not a chance he said. |
| #8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/23/2007 12:28:13 PM |
| #7, Very powerfully and well stated! Equally sobering. |
| #9 By 11888 (64.231.3.191) at 9/23/2007 7:39:53 PM |
| I'm not sure an upsell that is at least double the cost of a retail box of Vista is powerful or well stated. |
| #10 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 9/23/2007 8:07:23 PM |
|
#9: Ketchum kisses anyone's butt when they're praising Microsoft. Of course, parkker talking to a neighbour about Ubuntu is a nose-stretcher (to put it politely) to begin with. What's that? You're having trouble with something free on your existing system? Why, the obvious solution is to spend a grand on a new PC loaded with Vista and have problems of a whole different nature. Typical Microbot thinking -- the solution to any problem is to give Microsoft more money. Meanwhile, the WSJ, normally a cheerleader for MS, says this:
"Microsoft is a frequent target, of course. But the Business Technology Blog can't remember companies taking on the giant at this rate before. They seem to sense weakness. The most obvious explanation is slow adoption and widespread discontent with Vista, the latest version of Microsoft's flagship operating system. Only 7% of companies plan to deploy Vista this year, according to a recent Journal article. Thirty-eight percent of companies say they have no plans to move to Vista at all." Edit: Wow, I just read this over at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin They seem to think that the EU antitrust decision that the Microbots are decrying as the end of civilization is a good thing. Interesting. This post was edited by Latch on Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 20:27. |
| #11 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/23/2007 10:20:16 PM |
|
"Why, the obvious solution is to spend a grand on a new PC loaded with Vista ..."
He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor). It was a much better choice for him than wasting his time trying to make Ubuntu work on his older PC. 11$ a month if he only keeps his PC for 3 years. 40 cents a day for the PC and OS to save him years of frustration dealing with cryptic command line crap trying to make Ubuntu work |
| #12 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 9/23/2007 10:33:06 PM |
|
Gee, I am glad you are not my IT go to guy. Do you tell everyone with a software problem to go and buy a new PC so they can run Vista? What am I saying? Of course you would, and probably do. And it is telling that one simply can't upgrade from XP to Vista on an older machine, but upgrading from XP to Ubuntu is very doable. Want to upgrade to Vista? Forget the actual shelf price. It is irrelevant. You need to purchase a new PC with it pre-installed in order for anyone who hadn't bought a new PC in the last couple of months to use it anyway.
Simply amazing. But, we have come to expect no less from you. |
| #13 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 9/23/2007 10:38:34 PM |
| #6: Thanks for the links! They have been duly bookmarked. Though I mentioned software as an impediment, in a general sense, my biggest impediment often becomes one of hardware driver support, as I tend to get oddball types of add-on hardware, like scanners that Linux drivers (such as SANE) don't fully support. At least with Windows, I can look on the back of the box and know if it supports Windows XP, and which service pack level, minimal hardware, etc., is recommended. There is no such information easily available to me when looking at stuff in a store, short of finding an internet connected PC, and doing a web search for Linux compatibility issues with each piece of hardware I might be interested in. This is the sort of thing that helps Windows maintain their installed base, and prevents Linux from growing more. |
| #14 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/23/2007 11:34:27 PM |
|
#10, You're getting pretty loose with the intensely personal insults young man.
Notparker presented a very strong argument opposite a value proposition that is too often overlooked... to which the best you can offer is to call me an ass-kisser and Notparker a liar. Try presenting an argument that refutes the value and cost effectiveness notparker simply, and as I said, powerfully, articulated. #12, What?!?!?!? Upgrading to Vista is about as stupid proof as installing a new OS can get. We've done it on so much hardware that I can't begin to recall them all. Vista is many fold better than XP. I still don't get what you are speaking to in this context. |
| #15 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 9/24/2007 12:05:38 AM |
|
#14 "Notparker presented a very strong argument..."
Woah... hold on there cowboy... "I was talking to a neighbor the other day..." is now considered a very strong argument? Really? Hearsay? A strong argument? Perhaps you should spend a little more time learning to debate rather than worshiping everything that is Microsoft or supportive of Microsoft. NotParkkker didn't present any argument of any kind - he completely ignored everything that was written above, specifically point #6, and instead told us an amusing story of how he recommended that his neighbour upgrade to Vista to fix some mythical issues that they were having. Then to top it off he once again informed us all of his deep knowledge of operating systems with his comment - "years of frustration dealing with cryptic command line crap trying to make Ubuntu work". As for the cost-effectiveness - what's cost effective about purchasing a brand new pc (just to run Vista) just to get some discount on the cost of the operating system when he already HAS a pc and HAS an OS that was... absolutely free? That's right... there is none! |
| #16 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 9/24/2007 12:17:29 AM |
|
If you have a fairly modern machine, buying a new machine to use Vista is never necessary. I am running Windows Vista Ultimate x86 on a Dell Dimension 8300 I acquired in March of 2004. Of course, it initially came with a P4 3.2 GHz, 512 MBs of RAM and an nVidia Geforce FX 5200. I upgraded the RAM to an additional 2 GBs in late 2005 and its running Vista like a champ ever since. Spent like about $170 on the memory. Better than buying a brand new machine and I get to use the latest OS and use my existing applications.
With Linux, I would spend more time tinkering, configuring, relearning, adjusting, which could take time which most persons don't have. We need to stop always looking at cost as a number 1 factor to stop using Windows, but then again, its a number 1 factor when it comes to sticking with Windows. If you have invested in a number of Windows based software over the years, throwing them out just to make Richard Stallman, the OSS Community and Linus Torvald happy will only leave you frustrated. |
| #17 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 7:59:33 AM |
|
#14: Yes, a Vista install is pretty simple, but I have also installed every installation of Windows prior to Vista on several different machines, as well as various flavours of Solaris and several different Linux distributions. Many of the Linux distributions have been quite painless to me to install and configure. I occasionally had a few difficulties with DHCP and cable modems back when those were still considered to be a new thing, but not in any recent distro.
The point I was making, since you seemed to not get it, was that NotParker had to recommend that his neighbour upgrade to a new PC, just to get a cheap copy of Vista, and a system that it would run on, rather than use his so called expertise to help his neighbour get what he already had running. I have to agree with Chris Kabuki that what NotParker gave was anything but a strong argument. A personal example, yes, but a strong argument? Not even close. If you consider "My neighbour had some sort of problem with a Linux OS on his system, so I recommended he buy a new PC with Vista pre-installed" to be a "very strong argument", then you definitely need some lessons in the finer points of debate and logic. Here is a strong argument against Vista from me: "I once had a friend who was having problems with a Windows system, so I recommended he keep his existing hardware, and install Linux on it, overwriting his Windows partition." Since I recommend keeping his existing hardware, thus lowering the cost to him, my argument must be much better than NotParkers, by your definition. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 8:16:57 AM |
|
#14: Poor Ketchum. You can certainly dish it out when it suits you, but you can't take it. How does it feel to get spanked in public, huh? That's what you get for standing with a crackpot like parkkker, no matter how idiotic he's being.
|
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 8:36:50 AM |
| #15: Keep in mind that NotParker would recommend purchasing a new car to get a discount on a new fuel filter, if the old one was causing problems. |
| #20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/24/2007 8:43:24 AM |
|
#18, head of bone... mond of clay... please pay attention...
The strength in his arguement is in the cost analysis.... Neighbor aside... subject aside... the simple, clear cost analysis is too powerful and accurate to ignore. Now... pop your littel pill and go make some fresh coffee. |
| #21 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/24/2007 8:43:52 AM |
|
#18, head of bone... mind of clay... please pay attention...
The strength in his argument is in the cost analysis.... Neighbor aside... subject aside... the simple, clear cost analysis is too powerful and accurate to ignore. Now... pop your little pill and go make some fresh coffee. |
| #22 By 12071 (203.158.38.187) at 9/24/2007 9:09:51 AM |
| #19 *laughs* Now THERE is a very strong argument! :) I might need to purchase a new car soon... |
| #23 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 9:19:15 AM |
| #21: If it was really about cost analysis, then why didn't NotParker simply suggest getting XP to run on his current hardware, rather than buy new hardware to get the newer OS? That would have been the more cost effective alternative suggestion, if that was in fact what NotParker was aiming for, rather than just shilling for Microsoft. |
| #24 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 9:21:53 AM |
|
OSS fanatics: too cheap to spend 5 cents a day to save themselves years of trouble.
Most people don't want to waste years of time hunting down drivers that don't really work well. The argument that there are free alternatives to commercial software (#6) is kind of blunted by the fact that almost all open source software runs on Windows. There is no economic reason to switch to Linux that makes sense when Windows is so inexpensive. |
| #25 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 10:18:11 AM |
| Microsoft shills: more interested in giving more money to Microsoft and Intel than to reusing existing hardware. What is the cost per day of using the existing hardware and putting XP on it? Over 3 years, I suspect it is way less than $0.05 per day. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 347 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:21:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
