no. people DON'T need to shut up about it.
if Linux were the most advanced system for PCs, then it would be easier to configure than Windows, it wouldn't have so much ole timey shit, and people would use it. it might be really good, but it's not "the most advanced". Seeing as how it's "just another UNIX clone" using a monolithic kernel. I'd say Darwin is more advanced. It uses MACH.
I love the double-standard. you want Linux to be successful, and take over on the desktop... but if it means losing some of that UNIX ole timeyness, and someone actuall MAKES IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO USE... you'd rather it fail on the desktop.
UNIX is real nice, but it sucks when you have to interact with it. people shouldn't HAVE to know what cron does, or what all that bullshit in /etc is. all that they need to worry about is that their stuff is gonna work when they plug it in.
guess what? with Windows it does. it just fucking works.
and for a lot of people of the same level of knowledge and skill that it would take to do all that with Linux, they keep a windows box running trouble free if you've got 2000 or XP Pro.
it takes less work.
no, sorry guys. that article is right. Linux sucks as a desktop OS. it's great for workstations and servers, but no... it's no good for consumer desktop use.
1) Installing software. People have to deal with multiple different methods to install software. Not all software comes packaged the same way. Some software STILL doesn't come as binaries. Every other consumer OS has an installation system, or doesn't need one. Be and OS X don't.
2) System management. Be and OS X don't have this concept. Stuff just does work. Windows makes it fairly simple. Linux? Because of that ole timey goodness of unshielded UNIX, unless you know all the commands... fuhgedaboutit.
3) User interface. Yeah, people care about it. I'm not talking about how nice it looks, but how well every single app conforms to a univeral set of UI design rules. <whine>But Jimmy, that allows for less originality!</whine> GOOD! When I ran Linux, I hated how ever little fucking app seemed to try to reinvent the wheel just to pull of some mundane UI function, like menus.
4) Device support. Linux has great support for hardware... except consumer hardware. MP3 players, digicams, all that, yeah... support sucks ass. And it all stems from OLE TIMEY UNIX. It tries to treat the stuff as regular volumes, and there's no way to differentiate as to what they are. Not to mention the fact that many cams use non-standard methods for storage and communications.
5) The infamous ole timeyness. You guys must hate that phrase now. Guess what... IT'S TRUE. Linux suffers from "ole times" syndrome. Nobody will do jack because they're worried that it'll make it "not like UNIX". I don't understand it. The issue that holds Linux back on the desktop is the one thing that nobody will let go of... ole fashioned, bad ole days UNIX.
6) X11. X11 sucks ass. It doesn't support any advanced rendering effects, it's finnicky, it has poor support for hardware features, it's hard to configure because it relies on ole times methods of doing things. X11 is just shit. Even Windows GDI is better. God... QuickDraw on the classic Mac OS? BETTER. Everything is better than ancient old X11.
I hope maybe this is enough of a slap in the face to get you guys to realize that LINUX SUCKS ASS FOR CONSUMERS. You can't expect it to take off if it's "just as stable" as Windows. That's not good enough! For many people, XP is perfect. It doesn't crash. I've had more crashes running Linux than I have with Windows 2000 and XP.
When Linux can surpass Windows as far as features and ease of use goes. Not match... SURPASS, then come tell me that it's ready. That's what it's going to take.
Rememeber, home users don't give a flying fuck about source code, or compiling kernels or some shit like that. They want to DO THINGS. They want to enjoy their computer, not have to read up on archaic UNIX.
[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Agent Jimmy James Smith ]
