Re: Linux is Lame
From: Keith Clark (clarkphotography_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/22/03
- Next message: Keith Clark: "Re: Popup stopper"
- Previous message: Joerch: "Re: sendmail takes 2 minutes on booting the system"
- In reply to: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Next in thread: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Reply: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:56:07 -0700
Stiİky wrote:
> In article <th4lb.88088$7_1.13230@twister.austin.rr.com>, blowme@rh.com
> says...
> > About every 2 or 3 versions, I setup a Linux box to see if the OS is a
> > viable altermative to MS yet. I keep hoping it will be but it always
> > disappoints me. I've used old hw and new hw but I've never seen a Linux
> > install that can properly use my hardware without major tweaking (if at
> > all). Even if I can get most the hw working, apps constantly crash, the
> > system is slow, and the stability isn't anywhere close to MS. I'm a very
> > experienced network engineer so don't try the old trick of blaming the user.
> > Face it folks.. the sad truth is Linux is Lame.
> >
> >
> >
> I, too, have tried to set up a Linux box (RH 7.1, 8.1, 9.0 and MDK 9.0,
> 9.1) several times over the years. I have never successfully installed
> a soundcard and have also found it cumbersome to install apps or set up
> a network. It always makes me think of the Commodore Amiga (I have a
> 1000, 2 x 2000, and a 3000) and the challenges of getting a stable,
> fully-tweaked system up and running. This doesn't mean Linux is a lame
> OS, nor any worse or better than MS or Apple - just different. However,
> I have yet to find a compelling reason to properly educate myself and
> make the switch to Linux since MS does a great job in the areas that I
> need. In my experience, MS doesn't constantly crash and I leave my XP
> and 2000 boxes on for weeks at a time without a problem. I will still
> try Linux occasionally and perhaps one day it will be my main box, but I
> don't see that happening in the near future.
>
> Sadly, it seems Linux and Windows are becoming more and more similar
> with each version release in an effort to make Linux user-friendly for
> the majority of people which means even less reason to switch.
> --
> Stiİky
> stiİkybill@hotmail.com
> (amend the İ if replying by e-mail)
Reasons to switch?
Well, first, I do agree that Win2K and XP (pro) can run for months w/o rebooting
except for the weekly MS security hacks or the fact that even a minor program
install most often requires a reboot, but that's besides the point. The NT kernel
is orders of magnitude better than WinME/98/95, no argument there. I'm forced to
use a Win2K machine at work and sometimes it does go months w/o rebooting.
But why to switch? Do you *trust* Microsoft?
Look, if it were as simple as what do you prefer, Company A or Company B, or even
free software vs paid-for software, that's fine. But Microsoft's stated goal is to
eliminate all consumer choice except for which Microsoft app they buy. Why did
they give away IE, when Netscape was making millions selling their browser? To
force Netscape out of business so Microsoft could "de-commoditze" most web
protocols. Don't believe that? I don't blame you if you don't, it's pretty
inflammatory. But it's Microsoft's own words. Do a Google search on "microsoft
halloween document".
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=microsoft+halloween+document
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php
I got into Linux because I liked the early days of learning computers and it gave
me something to mess with at home, and I had to use it at work anyway. I saw it
was really powerful and I appreciated that. It reminded me of how much I enjoyed
using a command line with Data General machines at one time (concatenating
commands, using the contents of a file to pass arguments to another command, make
for powerful, short & sweet scripts) . When I started messing with RedHat 6.2,
Ximian Desktop seemed like "the answer" because it was so much better than what
RedHat was shipping, but it still didn't do much for me as a home user - so I read
up on how to compile the kernel for what I wanted.
Now with RedHat 9, I think it's pretty much ready to become a mainstream desktop
OS. We can finally use drag & drop to install fonts! What we (users) need is
better applications. That's not RedHat's job. Anyone who hasn't installed the new
Open Office 1.1, should. The way OO1.1 installs is how all Linux apps should
install.
Or look at Crossover Office. Or install Unreal Tournament 2003 from the factory
CD. Those are all commercial quality apps.
And what we the user come away with is choice. The OS itself is open. No big
company, including SCO, can come in and dictate to us how we have to use the
software, on how many computers, etc.
With Microsoft each new "innovation" reduces choice. Microsoft is now planning to
force "updates" on users whether users want them or not. You like I-Tunes? Sorry,
it competes with a Microsoft service, and the (hypothetical for argument sake) new
update makes it incompatible now. That's just a hypothetical scenario, but given
Microsoft's court record, I can easily foresee it happening...
So why switch? Because we have a choice, and because in reality, Linux is a better
OS, at least in my opinion.
--Keith
- Next message: Keith Clark: "Re: Popup stopper"
- Previous message: Joerch: "Re: sendmail takes 2 minutes on booting the system"
- In reply to: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Next in thread: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Reply: Stiİky: "Re: Linux is Lame"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
