[tonybradley]

MikeFreeman0717, on 24 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Tony, I really enjoyed your 30 Days articles. That said, I think you are making some big, and very wrong assumptions in this article. Here are the "Myths" you seem to have fallen into:

1. Linux needs a market share to succeed.

This assumption is false. Being free open source software, Linux exists outside of the market forces that define success for Microsoft and Apple. Success for Linux is measured by whether it is useful for somebody. As long as those who use it are happy using it, it is successful, and is perfectly alive and well, not dead by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't matter how much market share it has. That has no relevance to Linux.

2. Linux needs to be tweaked more than Windows to be useful.

Back when Windows Vista was first introduced, I purchased a new laptop. Vista seemed unstable, and did not recognize my printer and other hardware. So instead of buying new hardware, I bought a copy of XP. After installing it, many things just plain didn't work. It had no drivers for my laptop's hardware. I had to plug my laptop into a hardwired internet connection, search out the appropriate drivers, install-reboot-install-reboot-install-reboot-etc., and then purchase or download all the software that didn't come with Windows and do the install-reboot dance again. It took forever to get it all put together. Linux, on the other hand, installs cleanly, comes with most drivers built-in (for both new and old hardware), and finds drivers it didn't come with for you, and installs everything with minimal effort, and very little rebooting. It comes with tons of software preinstalled. With a bare Linux install, in a very short time you get a really well-put-together OS with minimal fuss, compared to a bare Windows install. Where most people get this stupid misconception is that Windows comes preinstalled and neatly optimized on most machines. Guess what: Buy a machine pre-installed with Linux, and you get the same nice configuration and optimization.

3. Everyone has the same OS/software needs.

The way I use my computer, Windows would be a dismal failure. It annoys me, and I cannot get anything done on it as cleanly and efficiently as I do in Linux. In fact, after using Linux for a number of years, I personally cannot find any reason at all to use Windows, although I do have Windows 7 on a separate partition. LibreOffice meets my needs just as much as MS Office ever could, and I like it better and would have it installed anyway, no matter what OS I used. I'm not a gamer. There are great audio/video/music creation tools that run nicely on Linux and do exactly what I need at a much better price (free as opposed to many hundreds of dollars). The lesson here: USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU! If Linux works great, awesome! If Windows works great, perfect! If MacOS works great, wonderful!

4. Ubuntu defaults define Linux.

Each Linux distribution is designed with a certain use in mind. Ubuntu does ok for many, but its biggest reason for being so popular isn't because it's good. It's because it's got name recognition. Try other distributions that are tailored to what you use it for. I highly recommend Linux Mint as a good transitional Linux for a Windows user. That said, I personally wouldn't recommend Linux Mint 12, just because it's in a sort of flux due to all the desktop designers scrambling to move their design to the mobile/touchscreen world. I'd stick with LM 9, 10, or 11. I wouldn't recommend Windows 8/Metro for the same reason.

Basically, you're advising people to steer clear of Linux, without knowing their needs or level of experience. You are using falsehoods based on relatively little personal experience on the platform (30 days just doesn't make anyone an expert on anything). You are bashing an OS you have little real experience with for reasons that are mostly invalid, based on your own limited usage and bias.

While I don't use Windows or MacOS (although I have in the past), I will not say that Windows sucks or that Apple is evil. That's just not true. But they are run from a completely different philosophy and business model than Linux, and therefore cannot be compared like you have compared them.

I want to ask you the following:

1. What purpose does it serve to impose market force measurements on something distributed for free?

2. When you want to use MacOS, you have to buy Apple-approved and MacOS-compatible hardware. I prefer to think of Linux in the same way. I wouldn't purchase MacOS and expect it to run nicely on my Gateway laptop without some amount of difficulty. Why would you expect Linux to be compatible with hardware that is not specifically made for it (like you iDevices) instead of being happy that it is indeed compatible with a TON of hardware anyway?

3. What is the purpose of this article other than to unfairly berate an OS you obviously don't like, or to invite flaming from the Linux fanboys who will tell Windows sucks and Apple is evil? Other than that, I see no purpose for this article.

I understand that you intend this article to steer people clear of "headaches" from trying Linux. But rather than trying to give concrete things to look out for should they try it, which would be fair and acceptable, you simply bash it unfairly, and belittle those who use it. That is not acceptable.

This article, and the content on Net Work in general, is aimed at business use of technology: SMBs, IT admins, IT decision makers.

I agree with most of your points. Linux is "successful" as long as those who use it are happy with it. I think it is a perfectly suitable OS for the those who think its a perfectly suitable OS--and apparently the market for hackers and hobbyists who think its a perfectly suitable OS for the desktop is somewhere around one percent.

For business use, Linux is a great server OS and I highly recommend it. But, as I state in the article, I don't believe Linux should be considered as a desktop OS replacement for a business.

[ML]

"Post OS world"

Hahahaha. Riiight. On mobile devices, sure. But there is no technology on the forseeable horizon, capable of being put into a palm sized device that is also affordable which will supplant the PC in the users' life. The mobile option is very much supplementary to the desktop necessity at this point.

[waldojim]

tonybradley, on 24 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

This article, and the content on Net Work in general, is aimed at business use of technology: SMBs, IT admins, IT decision makers.

I agree with most of your points. Linux is "successful" as long as those who use it are happy with it. I think it is a perfectly suitable OS for the those who think its a perfectly suitable OS--and apparently the market for hackers and hobbyists who think its a perfectly suitable OS for the desktop is somewhere around one percent.

For business use, Linux is a great server OS and I highly recommend it. But, as I state in the article, I don't believe Linux should be considered as a desktop OS replacement for a business.

Yet businesses are where it works out the best. Businesses don't have to worry about playing games on their PC's. Office is accessible via the web. You don't have to worry about retarded users getting the machines infected. You don't have to worry as much about security. And I would figure the majority of the business applications have either a decent, workable Linux counterpart, or work well enough in Wine.

Also, if you were serious about testing Linux for the workplace, you would have used a distro that was dedicated to that purpose. Something like SLED or RHED. Instead, you chose a consumer desktop and expected it to work in a business environment. Did you consider that even MS has a separation there for a reason?

[MarceloG]

I've been a Linux user for the last three years. I do have Windows XP installed in my older (8 y/0) machine and Windows 7 in my Lenovo laptop, both in dual boot with Linux (Lubuntu to be more precise) and I NEVER use them. They are so inefficient and time consuming. Lately I started installing Linux in friend's and friend's friends computer. In the last month I installed Lubuntu to a 75 y/o lady who couldn't run Windows in her machine anymore, and is happily doing her bank's operation and mail in it, no problems whatsoever. And not, she is not a Linux hobbyist or anything of that sort. Another 45 y/o yoga teacher who didn't even know how to create a new folder in Windows (to depict her level of computer skills) is astonished by how fast she surfs the web now and how responsive her machine has became. Finally, a professional translator is impressed not only by how snappy Linux works in his machine as compared to Windows, but also by LibreOffice that answers all his needs without having to buy anything (nor the office suite neither the check speller or dictionaries).

Linux is not only free but it is able to run fast in machines that are unable to decently run Windows. The practical meaning of it is a healthy saving of money for the user who doesn't need to replace his/her machine as often (I roughly estimate Linux can double the usable life cycle of computers) as well as avoiding technological pollution.

Just for the fun of it, I tried several light Linux distribution in a Pentium 3 machine (which I got for free from someone who was unable to run Windows in it) and it responded so well to all of them I am tempted to start a recycling initiative.

Add the lack of viruses and better security...

There might be some rare and specific software that run only in Windows, but for most users, in my experience, Linux is an absolute winner over Windows in every aspect. I cannot compare to Mac OS as I never used it.

[NiGhTRaVeN13]

Put it simply....i strongly disagree with this article, Ubuntu isn't the only Linux Distro out there...even though i mostly use Ubuntu myself...but it doesn't mean Linux is dead, security wise it is far superior to that of Windows (which i must say, leaves all it's ports open for any sniffer to come in), but yeah, that's my say on it.

[mikedgolf40505]

I have no dog in this fight; I use Mac at home and Windows 7 at work. I actually find Windows 7 to be better than any of the last three releases of OSX. That being said, I am not thrilled with the direction that both are taken and would love to give Linux a shot. I have experienced the same problem when asking questions about installing and running Linux in various environments. I get talked down to and feel like the Linux users tend to be somewhat condescending. However, if Apple and Microsoft continue to go with the Phone OS on a Desktop Environment; I may make the leap. That being said; most ordinary people are not tech nerds like us and are not going to take the time to set up and OS. That is just a market reality.

[AtienneSavard]

I really don't care about Linux desktop market share. It does the job for me and that's what it is important.

Your article is full of FUD. If Linux is not for you, that's OK. But don't try to scare everyone else.

You mention trouble to sync your iPhone and iPad with Linux... Yeah, no doubt about it. When Apple will start supporting Linux, the problem will be solve.
This is why I use Android devices and I have no problem connecting those with Linux. Guess what, I was never able to connect my Samsung smartphone to Win7 but never have any problem on Linux.

[frlwinslow]

Linux, especially UBUNTU, is an extremely attractive O/S as long as one approaches it as that and not as a Windows look-a-like. In fact, being one who will not even consider an Apple product and is very concerned about the direction that Win 8 is taking, UBUNTU is very likely where this cowboy is heading.

Over the past couple of years Open Source has all but filled the software gaps that were keeping me with Windows. And Libre Office is certainly as good as or better than MS Office (and not just because it is free vs several hundred dollars) for my purposes - and I do a lot of writing! Although, mind you, I do like that four letter word - F-R-E-E!!

Like an earlier commenter I think the writer of this article has taken an all wrong approach to her (?) evaluation and analysis of Linux! It is like so many "scientific" findings that are attempt to prove a preconceived premise rather than attempting to find an effective answer to a base problem.

[xyzzymagic]

I've been using Linux exclusively on my desktops & laptops for 4 years as of this Spring and haven't had any interest in looking back despite not being remotely close to a serious geek. I quite happily use the various available programs to do everything I ever did in Windows; if I did have some urge to use a Windows program that lacked a decent native equivalent, I could most likely just use WINE.

Frankly, while I can see plenty of reasons to offer for using one OS or another, "because almost everyone else is doing it" is about as vapid as it gets. To paraphrase an old saying: would you jump off a bridge just because almost everyone else was doing so, too?

[Harryf0kq]

It's a fair article. I use Linux Mint on my netbook, and while it runs well, it's not perfect. And I don't know why linux users keep up with the "open office", "gimp", etc arguments.. when all those programs are free with Windows also. A lot of linux desktop users are hobbyist, constantly installing new OS's just to play around with betas. Many hardware does not work with Linux. My GPS unit does not work with Linux, most of my games don't work with Linux, the broadcom drivers on my netbook didn't install on my netbook and some other stuff.

[xyzzymagic]

I've been using Linux exclusively on my desktops & laptops for 4 years as of this Spring and haven't had any interest in looking back. I happily use open-source programs to do everything I ever did in Windows (if I did have some urge to use a Windows program that lacked a decent native equivalent, I could most likely just use WINE). As far as installation: I boot to a live CD/thumbdrive with a fully-functional desktop, answer a handful of basic questions for the installer, and within 30 minutes, it's set up; Windows has *never* been that quick or simple in my experience.

While I can see plenty of reasons to offer for using one OS or another, "because almost everyone else is doing it" is about as vapid as it gets. If repeating absurdly outdated stereotypes is really the level of discourse that PCWorld is lowered to these days, I'm glad that I haven't bothered visiting it in ages.

[MikeFreeman0717]

tonybradley, on 24 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

This article, and the content on Net Work in general, is aimed at business use of technology: SMBs, IT admins, IT decision makers.

I agree with most of your points. Linux is "successful" as long as those who use it are happy with it. I think it is a perfectly suitable OS for the those who think its a perfectly suitable OS--and apparently the market for hackers and hobbyists who think its a perfectly suitable OS for the desktop is somewhere around one percent.

For business use, Linux is a great server OS and I highly recommend it. But, as I state in the article, I don't believe Linux should be considered as a desktop OS replacement for a business.

Yes, and my primary point is: don't you think that should depend on the needs of the business? You can't just make a blank statement like "Linux shouldn't be considered as a desktop replacement for a business," when it might be perfectly acceptable for some businesses and not for others. Let the people who are in the IT trenches of that business figure out what that specific business needs, instead of making them think Linux is junk and shouldn't be used for anything but servers. Nothing, including business, is THAT black and white. Want to write a good article? Give some specific use cases where Linux wouldn't be good in business. Then counter those with use cases where it might be useful. That's a fair way to rate an OS. What you've written is not.

[kronoscornelius]

Anybody can judge for themselves. Just got to http://www.ubuntu.com/, download the file. make a life usb. instructions on that same page.

Load it, click Try Ubuntu. play around with it for 30 minutes... make your decision. You don't need anybody to make the decision for you.

If you get stuck at any point, you can call it quits and agree Linux is hard to learn.


I've installed Linux probably 50 times. At this point, Ubuntu Linux is more stable than Windows. I recently change the Motherboard on my desktop. After the change, Linux came back up no problem. Win7 just give a Blue Screen of Death. I won't fix it this time. I use Linux 100% of the time now.

The author makes the mistake of trying to use the old tools with Linux. There is a reason why the package that allows you to run Windows apps on Linux is called Wine... it is not because of the drink.

As the author mention at the end. This discussion won't matter much in a few years since the cloud will make the OS type irrelevant, and I think at that point, the cheapest, safe option will win.

At least we are talking about it :-) thanks Bradley.

[LinuxUser1337]

Disagree with you..
You do require some intial knowledge but once a linux distribution is installed and
configured according to your needs it does not require much attention.
I am using kde 4.8 desktop environment on ubuntu and it is much more user friendly than windows 7

[ChloeWortman]

I find the "post PC era" comment to be completely flamebait. I can hook a keyboard and mouse to my Android tablet, however, I can't do much with Android as my main OS, samething goes for iOS. So this comment leads me to believe that you are completely incompetent and should only be allowed to use an iPad for 30 days, in fact write an article and do just that. Live in the "Post PC era"... You won't make the 30 days.

I have been avidly using computers since 1994, Macs, Windows based PCs, DOS, and so on and so forth.

I am a Windows user by choice as OSX just doesn't cut it, and from what I hear about Linux "I will never try it" has been my attitude until today. You sir have perked my interests because of your idiotic statements. Your own failures at life, and after looking at your goody lookin face, I can tell you sir are one of those who stop before they turn right when there is no stop sign; a.k.a. the common moron who can't think for themselves yet feel the need to vocalize how something sucks because of their own preconceived notions of how a product should work. Then when the product which was never designed to work that way piss and moan like an impotent jerk. I don't put a tail hitch on my Ford Taurus and expect it to pull a full length trailer-camper then when it pulls my bumper off, bitch about how Ford Motor Company sucks because they tried one product, and expected it to work like a Mac Truck. I am not sure what distro to start with, but I bet you 10:1 you tried a family car and expected it to work like a Tractor Tailor.

[JustinReide1qx]

This article is pretty narrowly written especialy when you consider those who actually use Linux on the desktop. I know for fact that both the National Weather Service and George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic use Red Hat. Although the author is right about the market share, Linux on the desktop maybe different than Windows and Apple UI's but there's no need for strange work arounds and is not a headache to use in my experience.

I've been using Linux as my main desktop for about 2 years now (Ubuntu+KDE) and what you get, even preloaded, for the desktop is very impressive for open source. Heck even when I booted into my Win 7 partition today I had to wait yet again for updates and postpone an automatic reboot every 10 mins or so. What I think this article failed to miss is that people use different OSs for different reasons, and calling Linux on the desktop dead is disingenuous.

[haradeepbathina]

I moved from Linux to windows this month.

For Basic desktop users linux is ok. For advanced user, switch to windows. We don't find good tools, even though we find tools, we don't get latest updates in software manager.

[CaniblCat]

"But, they haven’t, and they won’t because Linux is not a big enough player in the desktop market to warrant the attention."
Catch 22 and probably the biggest reason Linux doesn't rule the roost.

I can tell you, I'm an MCSE and make a living working on Windows machines. That said, I got so frustrated with all the Windows related problem both at home and at work, I decided to install Linux (Ubuntu 10.04 at the time, I'm currently using 11.04 and seriously considering a switch to Mint due to the fact that I hate the Unity interface).
At the time I was a Linux novice, but a Windows expert.
What I found:
1. Linux was quicker and easier to install.
2. Linux offers a host of free open source software that not only equalled all the software I used in Windows, but in many case (such as LibreOffice) exceeds it.
3. The only one thing I miss from windows is playing games, but there's where your statement quoted above comes in.
The reason Windows won't become popular as a desktop is because most home users want to play games (I myself miss playing DDO).

If, in the admittedly unlikely event, game manufacturers started making their games OS neutral, then you will likely see Linux take off like a rocket.

In fact, in the past year of using Linux, I've only run into one non-gaming problem: When I use Chrome on a dual screen system, it goes full screen and won't come out. This was easily resolved by simply switching to Mozilla on the dual screen system. I use Chrome without any problems on my other two Linux machines (three if you include my Acer D250).

[IanHolton]

What a pratronizing load of rubbish.

[nemasket]

I'm laughing as I write this (on my linux laptop).

I feel the same way as the author about using Windows - it's like swimming upstream or computing with one hand tied behind my back. Yes - there are some things that are easier on Windows because the software equivalents on Linux are lacking. Some examples might be using your Ipod/Pad or some other hyper anti-competition proprietary device that doesn't have linux drivers. But for the 95% of what you do with your computer (email, web browsing, music, movies, streaming etc) it is Windows that comes up short. The Windows experience of virus scanning, rebooting after simple software installs, and it's sheer vulnerability to computer evil doers makes it a platform that is stressful to use. Every attachment, every link, must be considered before clicking. With Linux I never have a concern about that.

But too each his own. You''re happy with your platform, I'm happy with mine.