Topic: Five reasons NOT to use Linux

[mistybear]

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

[GillE]

What a load of tosh!

Gill

[sam]

  i like that - how is it tosh Gill? It is just pointing out that the common reasons that people quote to not using linux are daft.

[GillE]

That article is just patronising, sarcastic propaganda which sneers at people who report valid issues with Linux.  It is not based on any valid data whatsoever.  No matter what the author of the article says, Linux is not as simple to use or as well supported as Windows.  If it was, everyone would opt for the free OS instead of the commercial one.

Linux is complicated, difficult to set up (if you want it to do the range of tasks that Windows will undertake, and most people do seem to want that), and it doesn't have enough applications.  Insofar as security is concerned, I'm not qualified to comment but with so few people using Linux it's unlikely to have its weaknesses exposed anyway.  The issue with cost is irrelevant; if the application doesn't support your needs, price won't be a consideration.
 
Gill

[sam]

That article is just patronising, sarcastic propaganda which sneers at people who report valid issues with Linux.

I agree about the patronising tone, I though that reading it - but I expect it was written to linux users.

Linux is not as simple to use or as well supported as Windows.

Hmm, I don't agree with you on that front. Todo the day to day thing Linux is as easy as Windows - I have a group of elderly people who use Linux on a daily basis at my local church centre to check their email and generally browse the net and type things up. If linux is setup on a machine (like most get windows) most will not have a problem using it (did anyone when they first used windows? we are a bit conditioned to use it now). As for support, I would argue it is pretty well supported, but not in the same or necessarily the easiest way (i.e. there is not a debian support number charging you £2 per min). There are countless Linux forums - and most distro's have detailed support groups... this is how linux is developed!

Linux is complicated, difficult to set up

It is no more complicated than Windows to do the basic stuff. To setup, well it probably still is a bit more complicated but not much.. most now have very detailed graphical installers that are far superior in use than the XP one for example. I can setup a Ubuntu machine from scratch in under 20 minutes now, with everything installed - all this for the default installer. It works exactly the same as the Windows install cd and to be honest if anyone can install windows they will not have a problem installing SUSE, Ubuntu or Mandravia (and countless other distros).

and it doesn't have enough applications

huh, not sure I follow that... it has countless - and they range over all ranges, it just doesnt have all the big name applications that people are neccessarily familar with (but they will if they use linux for any time). It is now also pretty trivial, through a program called Wine, to install most windows applications without much hassle (if any) - e.g. photoshop just installs and runs fine.

Linux it's unlikely to have its weaknesses exposed anyway

I'd agree with you on this to an extent but most servers run Linux so if the hacks were out there they would still be developed...


Hmmm ... maybe I should run a series of how-to's on these things.. and try and convince you all, but alas I dont really have the time at the moment.

[Simon]

Apart from the most adventurous, with time on their hands, I can't honestly see anyone converting to Linux, from a perfectly well functioning Windows set up.  That said, it's always good to try out new things, and learn from it, but, unfortunately, these days, everything has to be quick and easy, and for most people, Windows is the 'ready meal', whereas Linux takes a cookbook, and some preparation, to get it together.

[sam]

Apart from the most adventurous, with time on their hands, I can't honestly see anyone converting to Linux, from a perfectly well functioning Windows set up.  That said, it's always good to try out new things, and learn from it, but, unfortunately, these days, everything has to be quick and easy, and for most people, Windows is the 'ready meal', whereas Linux takes a cookbook, and some preparation, to get it together.

well the same could be said about XP to Vista (or whatever in the future). I think that XP will be the last major windows distro I for doing things apart from games. I really think there is lots to be gained by people taking up Linux... and it doesnt take too long to boot up a cd version.

[Simon]

Fair comment.  I did toy with the idea last year, but it was just one of those things that stayed on the back burner.

[Sandra]

I love my new linux based satellite receiver but I access it from my XP pc to set it up and ge it working properly 

[GillE]

It's an old story.  Those who can do something often fail to comprehend why others have difficulty.

The big difference between M$ developers and Linux developers to my mind is that it's in M$s best economic interests to make its products as user friendly as possible.  Linux developers don't have the same financial incentive so they tend not to go that extra mile for users who are less adroit than them.

Gill

[sam]

well you are right Gill - I dont find it hard how people find it difficult to do these things.. however I feel that if people can cope and deal with the microsoft crap they will easily be able to cope with the world of linux...

but I really dont agree with you on

Linux developers don't have the same financial incentive so they tend not to go that extra mile for users who are less adroit than them.

I really think Linux developers really do go that extra mile to make it better for users - they go for open source generally so it can be improved by the users, making it freely availabe and editable... of couse we are not talking about users who would do this. The users we are talking about want something simple and easy to use, I really think that linux over the course of the last few years has really put alot into this and the developers have worked hard to produce distro's and packages that are easy to use for the average computer user. Economic is not the only reason to make things user friendly... there is always the intelligent fight issue...
Oh I'd also aruge the MS has good enough reason to make certain things very hard to do.. so that you pay for the better version or you pay for support staff.

[mistybear]

i like that - how is it tosh Gill? It is just pointing out that the common reasons that people quote to not using linux are daft.

I knew you would get it Sam.    I only posted it as a bit of fun.....

[sam]

yeah, i guessed  .. though it has sparked off interesting discussions ... something for a first on the linux board, so well done 

[GillE]

I'm perhaps being a little harsh here.  If only all computer component producers were required to make their products compatible with a Linux distribution!  I'm sure I'd be using Ubuntu right now if it wasn't for problems using my ISP or drivers for my TV card and graphics pad.  That said, which Linux version would manufacturers choose?  One of the great advantages in using Windows is product compatibility.

Few people mind a bit of fiddling around to get hardware up and running but the command line interface is downright intimidating!  It also uses language which the average computer user doesn't understand.  I wonder if more people would take up Linux if it used a different interface or if it was easier to find a 'CLI for Dummies' guide .

Gill

[sam]

'CLI for Dummies' guide

Not a bad starting point: http://www.linuxcommand.org/index.php

And a very good guide for all things ubuntu: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Feisty - this actually gives you the commands to do most tasks that are a bit demanding - I use this as reference all the time when I'm messing with drivers and hardware.

Few people mind a bit of fiddling around to get hardware up and running but the command line interface is downright intimidating!

as that article said most do have graphical (control panel esq) interfaces now, some much better than others, SUSE's and Madravia's are the best but Ubuntu's isn't bad.

That said, which Linux version would manufacturers choose?  One of the great advantages in using Windows is product compatibility.

On this matter - well they could just make sure the drivers were fine for the core linux kernel.. which is the same for all (good) distro's, they might use earlier or later versions of the linux kernel but it is standard, they could choose a version to support. In fact most manufacturers are increasingly supporting linux and nvidia for example put considerable effort into this... so hopefully in the not too distant future... I have to say I have never had a problem with a dirver, but then again I use pretty standard things