Re: Linux is Lame

• Previous message: Tech Geek: "Re: sendmail takes 2 minutes on booting the system"
• In reply to: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Next in thread: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Reply: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Reply: Jeffrey Silverman: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:37:45 -0700

In article <3F95B987.DF84BADC@hotmail.com>, clarkphotography@hotmail.com
says...

<snip of Stiİky's (my) comments about no compelling reason to switch to Linux...>

>
> Reasons to switch?
>
<snip>
>
> 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
>
>
For the average home user, running a Windows machine is considerably
easier than using a Linux machine - I don't think anyone would contest
that. If you're running a web or ftp server or complex network then I
would say Linux is the way ahead. But for people who need a desktop
solution or run a two or three computer network, they aren't going to
invest the kind of intellectual effort it takes to become functional
with Linux.

Do I trust Microsoft? Its a huge company with a good product working
hard to make as much money as possible - they aren't looking out for my
best interests. Do I trust Red Hat? They're a large company with a
good product out for financial gain through the provision of support for
an open source OS - they too aren't necessarily looking out for my best
interests.

Microsoft is rapidly expanding its influence and will be an integral
player in every electronic convenience in every home in the near future.
Linux will never achieve that level of user base because its open source
nature restricts its coherent visioning ability.

Linux is not yet a truly viable alternative to MS for the basic computer
user and will continue to be the prefered choice of those who want
"something to mess with at home". It is getting closer though
(Fedora?).

Don't get me wrong, choice is good and if there wasn't a MS I would
flock to Linux as the next best thing...but that's just me.

-- 
Stiİky
stiİkybill@hotmail.com
(amend the İ if replying by e-mail)

• Previous message: Tech Geek: "Re: sendmail takes 2 minutes on booting the system"
• In reply to: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Next in thread: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Reply: Keith Clark: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Reply: Jeffrey Silverman: "Re: Linux is Lame"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]