OSNews

Quote:
Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that "just works"

This myth is simply untrue, Windows is the operating system that just works.

I'm not disagreeing "just for the sake of disagreeing" but Windows is NOT an OS that just works. If I want to be real extreme I can go on to say that MacOSX is not an OS that just works.

To all these OSes I would have to say *how* good does it work? Linux has a high learning curve yet for many people "it just works." If Windows is what you call an OS that just works then why have a tech support staff? Go into any online forum and read the trouble shooting sections. Go to any MacOS forum and read the troubles people have with the supposedly "it just works" OS.

Different OSes work with variable levels of success. Different people have variable levels of skill, patience, and know-how.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that Linux "just works". In fact, I've heard much more stories about depedency-death spirals and driver hell. Did he mean to say OS X?

What did anything written under Myth #6 actually have to do with Myth #6?

8. Windows (2K/XP) is unstable

Yeah, I added this one, because this IS a myth and I'm tired of hearing it. Give me some decent hardware and a good set of drivers, and I can make Windows more stable than ANY modern Linux distro running KDE/Gnome. (Hint: If the DE crashes and you have to restart X, than counts! I don't give a shit if you can rsync into the box or not - that's irrelavent for a desktop discussion.)

"(Hint: If the DE crashes and you have to restart X, than counts! I don't give a shit if you can rsync into the box or not - that's irrelavent for a desktop discussion.)"

Hear Hear! To the average user, the desktop crashing IS linux crashing, even though WE know better.

"Thinking objectively you must realize Macs have the least hardware support, as well as the least diverse selection of software"

Not to split hairs here, but what hardware are we talking about here? Mac shares the same level of support on harddrives, memory, printers, scanners, digital cameras, digital camcorders, audio cards (especially high end audio like Digidesign, MOTU), even video cards (admittedly with some lag in market availability), network routers/hubs, firewire/usb2 external chassis. I'm open to suggestion on what hardware the author might be referring to?

quote:
If Linux had the market share of Windows, and Windows was the underdog you would be saying how great, and easy to use Windows is, and how it just works

I've had the same thought as well, and I believe this is already happening, with BSD. Linux is "the man" now for some people.

I would have to say, IMHO, OS X is the closest thing to "just works" using Linux, Windows and OS X on a daily basis. My USB HP printer would be a good example for myself.

Linux: gnome-print emerged & configured & print
Windows: use install disk & print
OS X: plug-in & print

The above was just my personal experiences.

Good Article!

Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that "just works"

False

Myth #2: Windows is insecure

True

Myth #3: Windows has better hardware support

True

Myth #4: Linux does a few things and does them well

True (linux does a LOT of things and does a few things well)

Myth #5: Windows is bad for the server

Oh so true

Myth #6: Mac is the best since it is as easy to use as windows, and has the stability of UNIX

Truish

Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop

False

I'm glad that somebody is trying to be objective. IMO Windows shouldn't fade away and die. Even though MS killed my lovely Amiga and apparently robbed me of BeOS without me even knowing until i was too late. I believe in diversity, which means that there should be room for Windows, Linux, my favorite FreeBSD and any other OS. Windows isn't that bad, I'm just fed up it thats all. Perhaps its because they killed Amiga and BeOS, I don't know.

Not very difficult when the hardware people give you drivers. If these hardware companies would do the same for other operating systems (instead of making the devs figure it out, sometimes for completely undocumented hardware), everyone would have tons of support for hardware.

the only Mac Myth and he makes it up?

umm....dude, there are enough Mac Myths that you don't have to make up one called "macs are better because *insert reason*"

Hmm... the myth 6 paragraph seems way way off. About the only point he makes is that Macs are expensive. But even then he gets it sort of wrong.

He says that you'd be better off building your own top of the line computer than getting a mac. Well, in THAT case the Mac is probably not that much more expensive. When you start putting all those high end parts in a PC, the PC too gets fairly expensive. The real issue is that there are no *budget macs*. Also, if you buy a lower end mac (like the e-mac or imac) it comes with things like built in screens and is in general not nearly as *upgradable* as a PC.

The most silly claim in myth 6 though, is that "Macs have the least software support." Considering Macs can run the majority of what Linux can run via it's BSD layer and can also run many Mac only programs or programs avaliable only for Mac and Windows, I'd say the Mac has good software support.

> At the risk of sounding predictable I am just going to come out and say it, "Try and run windows on a Mac."

You can. It's called Virtual PC. You can also run many Linux programs right on the OS X desktop under XDarwin.

> I would like to forewarn readers that i have had exceptionally little experience with macs, think 4 or 5 hours total.

Then why are you writing about them?

I *do* agree that many people champion one or the other operating system just to be contrary. That's not productive.

We run Windows XP and SUSE Linux in the office. I have a Mac at home. While I have a clear preference (OS X), each system has its strengths. You can buy inexpensive Windows software damn near anyplace, and to most users, the computer is its suite of applications. Linux is mature and stable. It's king of the server room and is ready for prime time for a lot of desktop users. Mac OS X is consistent, gorgeous, and a pleasure to operate. It supports key commercialware and lacks Windows' security bugaboos.

You can say something nice or nasty about any OS. Ultimately, it all comes down to user expectations.

I don't want to be picky but if you only have 4-5 hours of use on a Mac and you already know alot about how it functions, looks and works, wouldn't that say something about the OS and the user expirience. I would like to see anyone walk into a mall and be able to sit down at a linux machine for a few minutes without ever using one and then feel comfortable enough to review it. My point is, the Mac must have been ok. I have friends and family members who can't figure out Windows XP but can use my Mac with ease. Yes I know you can change the XP interface to look like 2k/98 but how will they figure that out if they can't even figure out the new start menu. I also really resent the comment people make about not being able to tweak Macs. This page http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch.html is a pretty good source of OS X info. It gets semi-in depth but it's still a good read. What could you possible tweak on an x86 machine that you can't on a current Mac? Maybe someone knows the answer.

>> The fact of the matter is Joe
>> average can manage to point and
>> click his way to installing a
>> piece of software.

Yeah right .. what you need is to get a tech support job, and then your eyes will open real wide. Believe it or not, Windows is an acquired taste. People use it for the same reason why they comfortably used DOS back in the day.

Nick,

Great article. You listed both positive and negative points with all three platforms. It's nice to see someone willing to objective by opening their eyes and mind before opening their mouth.

Cheers

This article is flawed in so many ways I don't even know where to start.

First of all when you say Linux doesn't 'just work' what on earth are you referring to? Operating systems can do many different things -- what application does Linux not 'just work' for? I'd say for a web/ftp server Linux 'just works'... if you have enough intelligence to spend a little time reading some documentation (which you would need to read for any operating system).

If the author is referring to the idea that Linux doesn't 'just work' for the desktop, then it's sort of difficult to take him very seriously seeing that he is running Slackware.

Someone get this guy a distro with proper package management and see if his opinion on this matter changes. Try Libranet.

And the statement that Windows 'just works'? I think enough people have already debunked that trash.

Sites with longest running systems by average uptime...

Just a few facts about Netcraft's uptime list;
none of them are running any Linux distribution
none of them are running any version of Windows
most of them are running BSD/OS (Unix)
some of them are running FreeBSD (Unix)

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that "just works"

False. There is no OS like that, except embedded ones , but among desktop OSes MacOSX is very, very close...

Myth #2: Windows is insecure

True. Insecure by default. However if you try really hard you can make it more secure (but still far from being perfect)

Myth #3: Windows has better hardware support

True but this depends only on drivers. There is not that much interest in releasing propertiary drivers for Linux. That's the only difference.

Myth #4: Linux does a few things and does them well

Not really true. Linux does many, many things (is very scalable and flexible). Some of them does better, others worse.

Myth #5: Windows is bad for the server

Correct. Period.

Myth #6: Mac is the best since it is as easy to use as windows, and has the stability of UNIX

True, but maybe not for everybody. This depends on applications you have to use!

Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop

True! But still - not for everybody!

---------------
I have about 1 year experience with MacOSX, about 4 with Linux, and many more with Windows.

"if you don't mind buying Mac hardware, and Mac software updates, as well as using mostly Mac applications" Isn't this a universal statement of any platform?

"Platform Y is great 'if you don't mind buying Y hardware, and Y software updates, as well as using mostly Y applications'"

this dude should hook up with Rob Enderle

Nick: I think good of you to debunk a few myths. Largely many people know about these myths, but they are rarely stated. The problem is that once stated, you end up with bozo comments like the Dave guy above (you add a lot of real substance that deserves realistic rebuttal: Mr Dave offers no substance but merely drive-by slander). Any conversion over Windows and Linux is largely subjective and non-objective in my experience. There are a rare people who do see through the smoke and mirrors (on both sides) and acknowledge the reality of what the things are.

Personally, I've done Unix kernel work (and have BSD code to my name), but I still think Windows is a great OS for what it is and what it does for me now. However, Linux is moving ahead and I may need to revise my opinion in the next 2-3 years. Mac's, I have little experience with: but generally the experience has always been good.

Windows XP makes major steps beyond the mess of Windows 95/98 and the "industrialised" Windows 2000; and arguably looks like it is biting the tail of OS X.

I think the next 2-3 years are going to be very interesting: because Microsoft for once has _real_ and substantial competition from Linux, a real threat as opposed to the veneer of OS2; and I think OS X while a fantastic OS still has to cope with a relatively more expensive hardware platform which puts it out of the mass market - whereas Linux desktop could remove Microsoft from the important business space (i.e. the dell/gateway zone).

The really big issues for Linux now are some of the ones you mention, _especially_ reliable hardware vendor support, driver/security/bug update automation, etc. But I think these will improve substantially in next 2 years.

I hate to say it (as a BSD guy), but I think vendors will largely support Linux and Windows, and OS X where necessary. BSD is relegated to the embedded/server space, and mostly going to rely upon its own support base to do hardware work (other than that done for OS X). I don't think BSD will die, but it's market space is probably never going to reach that of Linux, Windows or OS X [ignoring the fact that it's BSD under the covers].

Myth #3: Windows has better hardware support

If you count the number of ported architectures,
Windows has 1/10 of the hardware support of Linux.

If you count the number of graphics cards that
works with 3D HW acceleration out of the box,
Linux (ok, ok X) has 1/10 of the hardware support
of Windows.

"If you count the number of graphics cards that
works with 3D HW acceleration out of the box,
Linux (ok, ok X) has 1/10 of the hardware support
of Windows. "

Please elaborate. There are 3D accelerated drivers available for ati's line of cards, nvidia's line of cards as well as matrox's. Perhaps you have bought into a myth?

But if you look under the covers you find that most of the Linux hardware support is done by people other than vendors, not always with documentation. Quite simply, if you look at any hardware peripheral on the market, it has a Windows driver. You _might_ find vendor drivers, possibly. Otherwise, it's up to someone to hack one up in their spare time, unless a major distribution decides to sponsor it.

Linux does run on more hardware platforms, granted. There seems to be more vendor support for this than there is for peripherals.

Things listed here just seem either crazy or obvious to anyone that seriously looks at things objectively.

#1 - WHO seriously says that?

#2 - This one does not some reitterating so I do agree.

#3 - He's crazy right? So Windows didn't autodetect and come with all his drivers. Big deal, it still has all the drivers. Pretty much any peice of hardware out there that you buy has a Windows driver. Many have Mac drivers, and a lot will get linux drivers. But you're out of your mind if you think that Windows having better hardware support is a myth.

#4 - I agree, but this does seem kind of obvious as well.

#5 - Agreed, but once again kind of obvious.

#6 - Nothing is really a "best". What's best depends on what you need to do and your own personal preference. I may vote for Macs, but well, I'm a mac user. If I was a hardcare gamer or needed to use an extremely wide range of commercial software I'd be better off with Windows.

#7 - Obvious, just don't ignore the developments that keep popping up. Linux/*nix desktops are looking better and better each day.

Macs may have a smaller choice in software compared to Windows, but of those choices you'll find better software to choose from. Os X applications are the best, most consistant, and user friendly applications in the world. Bar None.

Spend a week with one, and you'll find plent of third party applications to tweak your interface with usability features and plug ins. Its really great.

For me, the only problem I run into regarding hardware support in Linux is I get different results from every distro I try.

Red Hat / Fedora - detects all hardware but my video card can only go up to 1024 x 768

Mandrake - can't find my network card no matter what i try, but allows my video card to go to 1280 x 1024

SUSE - no network or sound, 1024 x 768 max resolution.

MEPIS - detected everything, current distro I'm using

I kind of hate having to decide which distro I get to use based on hardware support alone instead of what else the distros provide. What's even worse is hardware that worked perfectly in previous versions of a distro stopped working in later versions (Mandrake 8 had everything but sound, Mandrake 9 had sound but video sucked, Mandrake 10 had no ethernet) If they could all use a standard for hardware detection it would be great.

JS

I overall liked your article. But don't you think that the stuff you're saying about myth#3 contradicts with the one about myth#1?

some arguments made were kinda silly, like the stuff about the macs but you say so yourself that you don't have much experience with them so i'll forgive ye

i do agree with you though, that macs aren't for people that like to tinker, they're for people who don't want to tinker. that's the whole point about a mac. it's something that alot of people that slag macs off just don't get.

the thing about windows security: you have to make windows secure, with something like debian, you'd have to work at it to make it insecure.

@Darius
give me some decent hardware and a good set of drivers, and I can make Windows more stable than ANY modern Linux distro running KDE/Gnome.

i don't doubt that windows xp/2000 is stable and i don't doubt that you/anyone could make it more stable. but why do you have to say "more stable than linux"? that's just inviting a flamewar. i'm running debian testing (yes that's right testing, not stable), it's got the latest kernel, KDE etc so it's as modern as a distro could get and it has never ever crashed. i tell a lie actually, the only times it has crashed was due to hardware faulting.

[" I'm glad that somebody is trying to be objective. IMO Windows shouldn't fade away and die. Even though MS killed my lovely Amiga and apparently robbed me of BeOS without me even knowing until i was too late. I believe in diversity, which means that there should be room for Windows, Linux, my favorite FreeBSD and any other OS. Windows isn't that bad, I'm just fed up it thats all. Perhaps its because they killed Amiga and BeOS, I don't know. "]

i dont believe that windows killed beos, it was be inc that killed it, they should have started it open source, then linux would be where it should be - on the server. they had good concepts, they had in mind of making a desktop os, they just thought this would be enough for users to go out and buy it, and thought that a market share of more than 90% of windows would not stand between them and the users - well a wrong assumption. after they burned their startup money no wonder they went bancrupt, they could have used the money better and would still be a living company.

windows had nothing to do with it, apart of just being the dominant os at the time. hands down.

I think a more fair comparsion would be h/w support out of the box. The clear winner is definitely linux.

My:
-Pine Z100 webcam
-Epson CX3200 scanner/printer
-nvidia fx5600(depends on distro)
-Labtec headset mic

Work out of the box in linux but in windows XP I need to download drivers.

the author is trying to debunk myths based on people's personal computer experience with his personal computer experience? you do not debunk myths with anecdoctal evidence. you do it with controlled, repeatable experiments. some might require actual hardware testing, some might require a large cross-section of computer users either trying to do the same things on different OSs or even simply answering a survey.

his "myth-busting" comes down to "well, that's not true because i once saw a computer do X and Y and the one time i went on a mac, and did this and that"

this article is about as informative and useful as the myths themselves.

"Check out Netcraft's uptimes, the highest belong to FreeBSD and Linux."

I can hear the VMS-Admins laughing...

writing this from a g4 1ghz powerbook..

'windows is the os that just works'... simply not true... i use linux, windows and mac, windows the most, macs second... i can tell you that windows is FAR easier at many things than linux, but windows isn't a Just Works OS... corrupt registry, inability to uninstall a broken program, wonky bugs, crashing applications(fewer with xp, but not gone), and generally just quirky features. Windows is usable, and manageable, but not a Just Works OS by any means... I truly believe Mac is close(not perfect, though) to Just Works... it has room for improvement, but jumping between network, installing and uninstalling software, preferences, system settings... it is a cleaner and easier OS without sacrificing power.

"Myth #6: Mac is the best since it is as easy to use as windows, and has the stability of UNIX"

Calculate all the hours an IT department spent on fixing the latest windows worm( how many times a year, 2, 3, maybe 4?) spread that out over how often a year such occurences happen, maybe 1-5 times(give or take). now, times by 3-4 years, the average life of a mac... the cost of the IT departments extra work on fixing, reimaging, locking down, and cleaning systems from worms alone would have probably made switching to Macs profitable within the first 18 months. Macs are easy, clean, adminable, lock-down-able, and safe enviroments... if easy, security, uptime, and freedom from viruses is not worth an extra 50 to couple hundred dollars over the course of 5 years, then stick with windows.

Just because Win 2K/XP works for you doesn't mean it is stable. From what I had heard, I expected XP and 2K to be stable. They're definitely unstable (an OS that freezes more than once a day is certainly not, and the fact that you MS-zealots know how to tune it and make it stable does not help me).

They are so used with that myth they don't bother to speak...

"The fact of the matter is Joe average can manage to point and click his way to installing a piece of software. Linux suffers from too much diversity, and too much flexibility. I just know someone is going to bring up "apt-get," stop! Don't bring this up! For Linux to be ready for the average home desktop you have to get it to the point where a user will never have to see a terminal no matter what they want to do on their computer."

Linux actually is to this point, depending on the distro. I use SuSE, and have since 8.2. I have no reason to go to a terminal except for if I want to. Everything is point and click. To install software I have to double click, no terminal needed. To adjust any settings, I point and click, no terminal, etc.. Outside of that statement I will say really good article. It was refreshing to see an article neither for nor against, but accurately pointing out discrepancies.

Many "Myth #" are just irrelevant. Windows doesn't "just work" for me, because my main OS is a GNU/Linux and I know far more things about Unix than Windows, and particularly latest versions. Currently GNU/Linux just works for me, and if ever I have a problem, I'm not long to find the solution. Of course, if I had mainly used Windows recently, I would say exactly the contrary. But as a long-time GNU/Linux user, I'm usually lost when I have to look into Windows configuration panel, and installers I have used are far more painful than my apt-get.

The fact that it works or not heavily depends on your usage, and the OS you do know. 10 years ago, DOS was just working for me, better than the latest Windows. It's not that Windows is worse, I'm sure Windows is fine for people who use it everyday, it's just that I'm not used to it anymore.

...an OS that freezes more than once a day...


Now, there's a myth.

If you were speaking of Win 98 / ME I'd believe you, but 2000/XP? Please. I do all my Java development at work on a Win2000 machine, been so for the last 2 years; never once froze, bluescreened, etc. I compile, install, uninstall, have people going through my machine to connect to a VPN; nothing bad has ever happened. Can say the same for every developer around me too.

it is always a pleasure to read an articel written by someone who uses linux AND is objective... from time to time i start to think that my beloved linux is only populated by fanatics.

Mac:

Lets face it, I started with Macintosh. They suck on the hardware level, I always had trouble with some components and cost a lot. And backward compatibility? When apple releases a new OS "update"(8.0=>8.1 for example), you must buy all new versions of your soft,such as photoshop, cause they dont know what backward compatibility is. The Macos X file structure is as complex as a linux/unix file system(no more simple /system/preferences or /system/extensions). Have you ever tried to code for MacOS X GUI? Its in Objective C! hum.. thats so nice when your engine is in C++. You must learn a whole new programming language which does the same things than C++. And dont talk to me about the dockbar, the KDE desktop panel and windows are so much more functional.

Windows:

Lets face it. It cost a lot. Explorer is buggy and slow(konqueror is far better). Security? its not about security, its about common sense! A webpage should never never be able to install a Gator software on your system. Oh yeah... they keep backward compatibility but the registry-regedit stuff is the crappiest thing you will ever find in an OS. Its the perfect place to store virus, spyware and worm.

Linux:

Lets face it. Linux/KDE is the most functional desktop around. I have nothing more to say. Oh wait... its free and OpenSource.

>>...To the average user, the desktop crashing IS linux crashing, even though WE know better.

How's that supposed to keep me from rebooting the next time Gnome or KDE lock up my machine? Fat lot of good it does me to know that the kernel didn't do it.

i don't doubt that windows xp/2000 is stable and i don't doubt that you/anyone could make it more stable. but why do you have to say "more stable than linux"?

Completely agree with this. Windows experts may have something very stable, and newbies probably have something quite stable (probably with a little help, I didn't find it stable personnaly, probably configuration/driver problem). Same thing with GNU/Linux, no problem for experienced users, neither for newbies if people help them a bit.

The problem is that both those systems have zealots saying their OS is perfect and the other one just sucks, and they feel the need to say it everywhere thay can.

>>...To the average user, the desktop crashing IS linux crashing, even though WE know better.

How's that supposed to keep me from rebooting the next time Gnome or KDE lock up my machine? Fat lot of good it does me to know that the kernel didn't do it.

I'd be happy if linux had Windows marketshare, then MS would be gone and I could happily spend my time with my underdog of choice.

Seriously, I've never chosen an OS because it's an underdog, I choose things because I like them. It's that simple. I don't like MS nor Windows, I somewhat like linux, I love BeOS.

But as Bruce Dickinson once sang: Only the good die young, All the evil seem to live forever.

I've been using Mandrake since 7.2. URPMI has EXCELLENT dependency resolution, to the point that one could simply click "install packages", click a check box... and hit install. Windows is great, if you want to reformat/reinstall every six months and have a spyware war once a week. Mac is great, if you want 10% of the programs available for UNIX based systems. I'm not arguing your end point, but I am however arguing the fact that SOME Linux distros are ready for the desktop user. Do you think its far for the average everyday Windows user to have to pay some techie $60/hr to come run NAV and Spybot once a week? I don't.

I have had this with both XP and 2K, but I'm not saying it crashes once a day on everyone's desktop ! Of course my experiments were short: if I were using XP/2K everyday, I'm sure I would have found the problem, and it would be very stable. And I do know that it's the case for most people. But it was my experience with out of the box XP (and previously 2K). I just mean the fact it happens for me or newbies doesn't mean you/your admin/experts can't find the problem and make it stable. The fact it's stable for you is not relevant in what I said. "XP/2K is unstable" is neither true nor false : it may be true, and if it happens on your desktop I would expect it's really possible to make it stable.

Win2K and XP stable.

Would you mind sharing this joke with community?

Well I can tell so far that updates (ALL OF THEM) and few registry tweaks (ALL TESTED and mostly taken from various WinTweak sites) do make system a bit more stable.

But that's not even close to what STABLE means. Either you're just used to Windows UNSTABLE and you think that this BETTER state is STABLE (which is far from it), or you could perhaps share your knowledge.

Here is a dare for you: Make a HOWTO and if you're successful then people might change their mind about Windows being unstable.

Hehe, well I find it hard to believe that MS can live forever. Forever is a very long time. And it is a matter of time.

"I can't afford a Mac!"

Its called an eMac...799.00 i have one and its a fantastic machine. by no means low end and unable to get the job done. go set up a dell with all the same specs (17" monitor too) and you wont be able to beat it....

people need to stop this macs are expensive stuff, yes the high end dream machines are, but for most peoples needs emacs are great. i do web design, video editing, photo editing, gaming...etc on my g4 1ghz emac and its very responsive.

"Remember what the word EDITORIAL means--it's an opinion published by the editors or publishers of a given publication."

You mean like the editorials John C. Dvorak has on just every other magazine on the world.

"When apple releases a new OS "update"(8.0=>8.1 for example), you must buy all new versions of your soft,such as photoshop, cause they dont know what backward compatibility is."

*** Kinda reaching a little eh, I mean OS 8.0 was out, what, seven years ago. You wouldn't want me to bring up Linux issues of seven years ago, would you?

Have you ever tried to code for MacOS X GUI?
*** Yes, I'm a professional developer

Its in Objective C! hum.. thats so nice when your engine is in C++.
*** What engine are you talking about? XCode is free and build C, C++, and Obj-C.

You must learn a whole new programming language which does the same things than C++.
*** If you think that C++ and Obj-C are the same, then you are just ignorant. And besides, Obj-C is just standard C with class support added and different memory management. It hardly qualifies as "a whole new language"

And dont talk to me about the dockbar.
*** It's called the Dock, if you gonna make a generic blanket statement, at least get the NAME right.

"I can hear the VMS-Admins laughing..."

People still using VMS for other than the sake of nostalgia?

Completely agree with this. Windows experts may have something very stable, and newbies probably have something quite stable (probably with a little help, I didn't find it stable personnaly, probably configuration/driver problem). Same thing with GNU/Linux, no problem for experienced users, neither for newbies if people help them a bit.

Actualy, you're wrong. Most of the Linux users have much cleaner machines than experts. With all of my friends I see the problem from Myth #1. They installed something when and after I prepared yum repository with a really simple click.

Myth:
Typical user does not know how to search for software XYZ. Typical user does not know how to compile.
Typical user isn't gonna have linux software thrown in the face (popups when browsing)
Typical user won't have access to pirated software on Linux

Fact:
I'm already decided that with FC2 I will try to make a point, click and install system on web page (just to get rid of friends calling me how to install XYZ).

The problem is that both those systems have zealots saying their OS is perfect and the other one just sucks, and they feel the need to say it everywhere thay can.

Zealots or no Zealots. As long as system does what it needs with satisfactory rate, that system just works. So in my case Windows DOESN'T WORK AT ALL (Satisfactory rate 0%).

Scary stuff, he had just been singing that in my earphones when I read your post...

What do you do when you think an opinion you have may be in jeopardy of being wrong?

Opinions can't be right or wrong. An opinion can be well-supported viewpoint or poorly-supported, but not "right" or "wrong".

"People still using VMS for other than the sake of nostalgia?"

If one Downtime a year is one too often for you you end up with VMS/OpenVMS.
I know some companies who still have their complete prodution run by a VAX with VMS.
And even this ******* Fiorina ***** can't kill OpenVMS.
It's sad seeing one of the best OS' ever developed migrating to one of the crappiest platforms today

I know, I know, I am just asking to be flamed, all the same I am going to speak my peace and be done with it. I find it amusing when i come across Linux support forum posts, where a newbie desktop user says something to the effect of: "in Windows I was able to point to this, and click on this, to get this done, how do I do that in Linux?" and they get a snotty response in the format of, "That's insecure and dumb, now open up a terminal su over and issue this command, then use the output to determine what format your distro uses for this, then you will be able to do this, as long as this isn't happening." You see, no one is accusing Windows of being intuitive, or especially easy to use. The fact of the matter is Joe average can manage to point and click his way to installing a piece of software.

Both KDE and GNOME have a GUI su frontend.

I am no security expert but if you tried to sell your web server to the Linux community on the basis that it "works in kernel space instead of user space!" you would be laughed out of the room, and possibly the state

Hmm...Ever heard of Tux? The webserver from Redhat.

Hardly worth laughing at.

I just know someone is going to bring up "apt-get," stop! Don't bring this up! For Linux to be ready for the average home desktop you have to get it to the point where a user will never have to see a terminal no matter what they want to do on their computer.

There is a gui program called synaptic, that allows you to use apt without any terminal. Just select a package and install it.

hello, why does it sound like everyone is running some sort of gentoo, slackware, debian or red hat (it may work on the corporate desktop but not on the home, not by a freaking longshot!) and then say linux is not ready for the desktop...

suse, mandrake, linspire (alltho i wish suse and linspire would create a free to download version, but i guess that will never happen (alltho i think suse ones had one)) and similar all aim for the desktop...

personaly i run mandrake as my distro of choice, and i get flames from the slack/gentoo/rh people for useing a linux with support wheels and flames from the windows crowd based on theyre red hat experience. mandrake have a nice little toolbox called mandrake control center that allow me to config everything from hardware to installing and updateing packages, all with just one request for root password. hell i can remount all my partitions and repartition drives from there to (kinda looks like partition magic that tool). hell i can even set up a nice little folder in my home folder, stuff it full of rpms, add it to rpmdrake and have the tool install from there with dependency resolving all without dropping to the console. but it you want to use the console your free to do so. most of the tools are mirrored as ncurse ones (ie useing ascii art to simulate windows and so on). urpmi (the backend for rpmdrake) is accessible and i do belive its about as powerfull as apt is. mandrake to me is a fully working desktop os complete with film and music playing software and office suites (and some games to keep your younger kids happy, just toss them frozen bubble and tuxracer)...

"People still using VMS other than the sake of nostalgia?"

Yes, yes. Why not?

"i don't doubt that windows xp/2000 is stable and i don't doubt that you/anyone could make it more stable. but why do you have to say "more stable than linux"? that's just inviting a flamewar. i'm running debian testing (yes that's right testing, not stable), it's got the latest kernel, KDE etc so it's as modern as a distro could get and it has never ever crashed. i tell a lie actually, the only times it has crashed was due to hardware faulting."

Right on. I'm using Debian GNU/Linux Sarge (Testing) with GNOME and it works incredibly stable. No crash at all. Uptime: ~19 days, since i started it.

Now, i've used XP for such purposes as well, but a huge problem is MSIE which crashed my Explorer regulary...

Interesting, because I've tried to find stuff on VMS and everything seems to eventually point to OpenVMS. Is this the same thing or simply an Open Source version?

> I don't want to be picky but if you only have 4-5 hours of use on a Mac and you already know alot about how it functions, looks and works, wouldn't that say something about the OS and the user expirience.

Not enough to write an article other than something like, "My first few hours on a Mac." But you're right that Mac's fairly rigid human user interface makes getting comfortable on an Apple pretty straightforward for someone who cares to learn.

My kids picked up the KDE desktop without instruction -- the basics, at least. I asked my 11-year-old what he thought: "It's just like Windows, Dad."

To my mind, the biggest challenge a truly newbie user faces their first time on a Linux box is a menu clogged with weird program names. I'm a fan of showing only what most users need. And since the "brand names" of Linux are different than Windows, descriptive program labels like "Web browser" or "Email" are probably best. More experienced users can add labels and programs as they go.

I can't imagine the confusion of a new user trying to make something of gobbeldygook like Klipper, Kate, Kopete, and so on (to pick on KDE, which is my favorite Linux desktop).

i started out on linux with mandrake and i have to say, it's the only "noob" distro that i'd recommend. it has lots of nice and easy to use GUI tools that can help you configure just about anything you want.

i'm using debian now though because mandrake is just too unstable. it used to crash on me every few weeks, the kernel would fail every few months. while it's pretty damn stable, it isn't very stable as it should be.

is urpmi really that good? could you upgrade from 9.2 to 10 without a hitch? debian can do this (from stable to testing) without breaking a sweat.

OpenVMS is VMS for Alpha-CPUs (and soon IA64).
The original VMS runs on VAX.

This is my take on things.
Windows Xp and Linux and even mac os x,who cares,to me the factor thats crucial is the applications i need.If the be on windows ,linux i use the respective OS,and get what i need to done.So yes i use both windows and linux,both have their good and bad points which i wont list because u are not reading this to take in a subjective opinion,u`r here to challange the "otherside".
Fair enough thats up to u all,i`ve been through all that years ago when it was "Amiga Vs 386/486 " etc.

So untill the new amiga comes out i`ll muddle through with these other terrible OS`s

Hey, we all know "to each their own". One cant write an articale without bashing his or her underdog. Use what you want, dont force others to see it "your way". Every OS is fun, thats why every OS is great.

exactly, that's what i say!

http://slashdot.org/~Milton%20Waddams/journal/

i'm milton waddams btw...

>>Correct. Period.

Windows is great as a server. One of my clients run terminal server for EVERYTHING (from SQL, office, about 15 3rd party apps and print server). Its a 2.4 Ghz with 1/2 gig ram and has no less then 13-15 ppl on it at any one time and it runs great!

and before you guys tell me windows cant do everything and im an idiot for setting it up that way its been running for two years (win2k), never had a fault, every couple of months i need to reboot (for patches or if a 3rd party app gets *stuck*) and its was the only way to update the network within a budget.

Also that myth about linux not working out of the box is crap. Lindows and Xandros are oh so yummy (i was shocked lindows booted with sound hehe). Fedora and Mandrake suck real bad. They install nice and easy but everything past that is a fucking pain.

Debian debunks that myth most of all. when i reinstall i install the sarge base then update to sid then install x11, gnome, gaim, openoffice, tsclient, gdm and xmms in one hit with apt-get. after a few dpkg questions i reboot and i've got a swish windowsy/macy desktop (running sweet sweet gnome) in minimal commands. (Plus upgrading is as easy as apt-get dist-upgrade)

It is nice to an article posted by a realist rather than just a comment. BTW 2k3 server is pretty good.

Really enjoyed the article, Nick, thanks. Too bad it's true, Linux isn't ready to butt heads with Windows, let alone Mac for anything other than standard internet noodling.

Myth #1: Linux is the operating system that "just works"

Well that part is untrue (And this is acutally a new one for me)

"Windows is the operating system that just works."

The only Windows that simply just works is a preinstalled Windows ... especially with XP installing drivers that are not bundled with the system - can be a trying experience and very frustrating since its apparently is very userfriendly to treat the user as a child.

"Windows is easy to get going. You put in one CD, install, boot, double click on Internet explorer, and download whatever programs you feel like. Then double click on the program, and 1, 2, 3 you are up and running. "

Sounds like a few more clicks than is needed installing XandrOS ...

Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop

"For Linux to be ready for the average home desktop you have to get it to the point where a user will never have to see a terminal no matter what they want to do on their computer."

Sounds to me that the author is comparing the latest Windows with Slackware 2.0 from the middle of 1990's

Re: "I wish suse and linspire would create a free to download version, but i guess that will never happen. All though I think SuSE ones had one."

SuSE has always provided a free version of SuSE Linux. Since Novell purchased the company they have limited the free version to FTP installation for SuSE Linux Personal. Basically they offer the OS with out all the extra goodies like support, additional software, etc that you find in the retail versions. It's a fairly fast installation with a cable or DSL net connection. Go to the downloads section at the SuSE site to access the free version.

Also, due to Novell complies with the GNU/GPL for SuSE Linux and recently released Yast as Open Source you can also distribute SuSE Linux for free. So if you check online P2P services you should be able to locate SuSE Linux Professional for free in ISO form. This lacks support and requires you to burn the ISO images to CD or DVD but gives you an oppurtunity to try out the OS and software included.

SuSE Linux Pro also includes a 64-bit version on DVD which may interest those with 64-bit processors. Definately something to consider when you compare to Microsoft's Windows XP 64-bit and Apple's OSX 64-bit, both of which have limited CPU support.

Both OSs are modern, with modern memory protection mechanisms and pretty good kernels. If Linux or Windows crashes on the desktop, then it's quite likely that the user made a mistake of some sort (bad application, misconfiguration, or screwy drivers). And uptime doesn't really matter for the average user as long as it's better than Windows 9X. Now, if you're comparing the OSs for their merits as servers, then it certainly is worthwhile to compare uptimes, but every major modern OS is good enough in this respect for desktop use, so give the "my OS is stable, yours crashes all the time" catfight a rest!

1) I teach "Computer Literacy" at the college level. Many of my students are just out of high school. Teaching people of all ages, who have very little "computer" knowledge, anything about computers is hard. Right clicking, when described logically, still baffles people. Computers are hard, Windows has massive mindshare but people may forget how hard it was to get familiar with it and how long it really took. Getting them to "embrace" that process all over again seem like a kind of madness to them.

2) I don't like Windows because a) Microsoft operates its business in a way that gets in my way; b) MS abandoned the CLI and I can't live without it (I hear this might be somewhat alleviated with .NET and Longhorn though); c) it's too expensive for what it is; d) their directory structure is impossible; e) Windows apps tend to hide configuration data and application data in a way that drives me crazy.

3) That Windows lets you do more easy-to-moderate level configuration through non-CLI methods is an advantage. That Windows doesn't let you do more advanced configurations at a data or configuration file level is it's disadvantage. Linux is catching up in the former and already rules in the latter.

4) There aren't too many things I can't do (easily) in Linux that I can in Windows: Quicken; Photoshop; CD label printing (really!). For that reason I have a Windows machine around.. soon I won't.

How's that supposed to keep me from rebooting the next time Gnome or KDE lock up my machine? Fat lot of good it does me to know that the kernel didn't do it.

Ctrl-Alt-Backspace will restart X. If it does not work (i.e. Keyboard Lock) do Alt-SysRq-R first.

Really, the only time X has ever crashed for me was due to less stable versions of the NVIDIA driver. I've never had a kernel crash, ever. I've had blue screens/spontaneous reboots on Win2K/XP about a dozen time. It's a lot better than Win9X, but not quite up to par with Linux.

There is a gui program called synaptic, that allows you to use apt without any terminal. Just select a package and install it.

You also have rpmdrake and MandrakeUpdate on Mandrake, which are GUI front-ends to urpmi.

Finally, one can't ignore other efforts such as Novell's RedCarpet, Xandros Networks and Linspire's Click'n'Run. There all make installing software on Linux much easier than in Windows.

One thing ppl have to agree, if Linux had the market share that windows now enjoys, or probably even 50% of it, we would have a world where ppl respected standards. And a sword wouldn't be hanging on my head right now for all these years of windows usage... It essentially gets to, "I am at the mercy of MS. I have no choices. No competition. And ironically, being a customer of MS, I am on the receiving end (I thought businesses work by treating customers as kings)".

>>Myth #7: Linux is ready for the desktop
>>"For Linux to be ready for the average home desktop you have to get it to the point where a user will never have to see a terminal no matter what they want to do on their computer."
>>Sounds to me that the author is comparing the latest Windows with Slackware 2.0 from the middle of 1990's

Correct me if im wrong but you've got to be kidding. If windows doesnt have a screen driver it boots in to vga mode and you install the driver in device manager. if fedora (x11) has no driver or the driver is set up incorrectly then you get a lovely white on black screen saying "no screens found".

people will always see text as a step backwards because they've been told forever that gui is more superior (macos back in the 80s and then M$ copying is more proof). just as most people would see setting pc's up uniquely on a lan with dip switches is a step backwards.

Hi,

I just read the article relating to the truth on Linux and Windows.

Well, i quite agree with the author.

For an easy daily use, windows equals MacOSX
Linux is powerfull for the users who really knows how to handle him..

I'l switching to linux for ma station (my lap is a small powerbook 12 inches, for the same size, you would have to pay twice the same price with a PC...), so i'm switching for linux mainly for two things: fed up with viruses under windows and for that: under linux, when i need an app', i just find it on the web and install it. No questions : Am I stealing the work of a windows-developper ??

Linux is free. It's not a matter of performances, or security or anything else. It's a philosophia:i can have a complete system doing a great job without to spend a penny...

And developpers are happy to share their babies with the others linux users.

So yes, Linux requires some involvment from the Joe average, but i think that the effort woth it.. I'll do it...

And fuck the RIAA and all the companies who want to controle my way of thinking, listening, etc in order to catch up my money....

Using Linux is a way to resist.

See ya and enjoy computers !!!

(post written from McOX, using Mozilla web-browser...)

MS Windows has relatively good desktop usability, plus good hardware support etc, there's no denying that. I have nothing against MS Windows in itself. Well, except rather poor security standards, some inflexibility, and high price.

But why is MS Windows considered the de facto easy to use standard for computing? Why is MS Windows (and MS Office) practically a monopoly? Why is MS often a hindrance to true free competition and development? Often because of more or less unethical MS business tactics.

Maybe someone considers this out of topic, but, you know, politics, ethics and economics do and should matter in the world of computing and IT choices too.

Summa summarum:
I don't want to support the MS monopoly, including and especially MS Windows. I could change my mind about MS, but not until I have a good reason to.

Being a relatively competent PC user Linux has met all my PC needs well for a long time already. It is relatively secure, cheap or free, open source and flexible. And, it also suits my sense of ethics better than the MS monopoly world.

Man whoever has a blue screen in windows should seriously check their drivers and or hardware. Only time I've ever had blue screens on windows xp or 2k was due to bad ram or bad drivers.

As far as I know, OpenVMS is the name VMS took when it achieved POSIX compliance.

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/faq/vmsfaq_001.html

Suse Linux provided their distro via ftp download long before Novell bought them.

"There aren't too many things I can't do (easily) in Linux that I can in Windows: Quicken; Photoshop"

Both work using CrossOver / WINE.

"CD label printing (really!)"

Nero?

"Ctrl-Alt-Backspace will restart X. If it does not work (i.e. Keyboard Lock) do Alt-SysRq-R first.

Really, the only time X has ever crashed for me was due to less stable versions of the NVIDIA driver."

Interesting. So what you are saying is that when X locks up using the NVidia driver (which i experienced using Gentoo Linux only), Alt+SysRq+R and then Ctrl+Alt+Backspace gets me a console?

::people will always see text as a step backwards because they've been told forever that gui is more superior (macos back in the 80s and then M$ copying is more proof). just as most people would see setting pc's up uniquely on a lan with dip switches is a step backwards.

Really you need both. Most servers I've seen don't have X installed and it is easier to administrate a computer through a CLI then a GUI. With GUIs you have to try and remeber were the field is. I've done techsupport and just tringing to guide a user to set their dialer to 10 digit dialing via the desktop is far more slower doing it via CLI

In CLI you can issue command from anywere so just have to give a simple command they have to type.

This is why I think Windows sucks since its CLI is the suckest CLI ever, I mean come on you have to run Command.com which only gives you Dos. You get no text browser or text ftp services, not even a good text file manager installed with windows.

I don't how see how the business world can take Windows seriously with such poor text support I mean