- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Disadvantages of Using Linux
|
|
|
Comments (62)
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...
28 earlier comments in the full thread.
It's a lot easier to run Windows software on Linux, than to run Linux software on Windows.
@fewt --
Yup. Upgrades still suck like an angry Hoover (vacuum or J. Edgar, as you prefer).
The biggest problems with Linux remain:
1. Most of the software that people want runs on something else, although... that is becoming less of a problem as more stuff runs on the web
and
2. Windows support is freakin' everywhere.
Outside of the workplace, the most important Windows support is not from Microsoft, but from that "computer-savvy" guy you know. Good, bad, or indifferent, that "power-user" type will make you feel more comfortable with Windows than Linux. You might even know a Linux wizard -- and not even know that person uses the stuff.
Yup. Upgrades still suck like an angry Hoover (vacuum or J. Edgar, as you prefer).
The biggest problems with Linux remain:
1. Most of the software that people want runs on something else, although... that is becoming less of a problem as more stuff runs on the web
and
2. Windows support is freakin' everywhere.
Outside of the workplace, the most important Windows support is not from Microsoft, but from that "computer-savvy" guy you know. Good, bad, or indifferent, that "power-user" type will make you feel more comfortable with Windows than Linux. You might even know a Linux wizard -- and not even know that person uses the stuff.
Well if you are any good with Computers then you will know more about Operating systems then just MS Windows. I have family and friends now using Linux and they are far from "computer saavy." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to push the power on button or click on web browsers, emails, programs, etc.
How many people live in the past when it comes to Linux? It is like saying MS Windows sucks but basing it only on Windows 3.1
How many people live in the past when it comes to Linux? It is like saying MS Windows sucks but basing it only on Windows 3.1
@Rodebian - I also enjoyed it. :D We have indeed come a LONG way. I still remember years ago fussing with OpenSound and proprietary X servers just to get a working display and sound. Fortunately, many things work out of the box now.
@dinotrac - Agreed.
@dinotrac - Agreed.
@Rodebian:
False premise.
You can be "good with computers" and know nothing but windows. You won't be good with ALL computers, but you can get a lot done for a lot of folks.
You won't impress Linux geeks, but you won't care, and, more importantly, the people who come to you for help won't care either. You'll be able to get Act! running, or Quickbooks, or Auntie Mabel's EZ stitch knitting primer, etc.
FWIW --
You can be good with Linux and not very good with Windows. I fall into that category because I've barely touched Windows in the last dozen years. I can sort of work my way through, but all of my kids are better at it than I am.
False premise.
You can be "good with computers" and know nothing but windows. You won't be good with ALL computers, but you can get a lot done for a lot of folks.
You won't impress Linux geeks, but you won't care, and, more importantly, the people who come to you for help won't care either. You'll be able to get Act! running, or Quickbooks, or Auntie Mabel's EZ stitch knitting primer, etc.
FWIW --
You can be good with Linux and not very good with Windows. I fall into that category because I've barely touched Windows in the last dozen years. I can sort of work my way through, but all of my kids are better at it than I am.
@dinotrac
I see where you are going with that. That is true. Linux users I think can adapt better to fixing MS Windows more then MS Windows tech can with Linux. So I guess that means wii inuxL youzers R Marter,,, ;-)
@fewt my nightmare memories where with the winmodems. Dial up was still pretty popular and trying to get those to work was a mess. Broadband helped with all of that, thankfully.
I see where you are going with that. That is true. Linux users I think can adapt better to fixing MS Windows more then MS Windows tech can with Linux. So I guess that means wii inuxL youzers R Marter,,, ;-)
@fewt my nightmare memories where with the winmodems. Dial up was still pretty popular and trying to get those to work was a mess. Broadband helped with all of that, thankfully.
@Rodebian - I'm with you there too. I remember purchasing a 14.4K modem for my BBS expecting it to be a wonderful speed boost only to find it was a soft modem and needed a Windows driver. Unfortunately making it 100% incompatible with my BBS. What a mess indeed.
> Sure that's a one year subscription which is equal to 5 incidents. Unless you call Microsoft more than 5 times in one year, RedHat is more expensive.
That doesn't change the fact that you were comparing a per incident price to a 1 year subscription price. Apples and oranges.
> Not to mention, that cost also includes patches which you get from Microsoft for free. So, to be completely fair that cost is ongoing because you need to continue to receive patches.
The last time I checked, Red Hat's patches are free to download in source form. Or you can simply download them from CentOS when they become available there. There's a reason it's called Open Source.
That doesn't change the fact that you were comparing a per incident price to a 1 year subscription price. Apples and oranges.
> Not to mention, that cost also includes patches which you get from Microsoft for free. So, to be completely fair that cost is ongoing because you need to continue to receive patches.
The last time I checked, Red Hat's patches are free to download in source form. Or you can simply download them from CentOS when they become available there. There's a reason it's called Open Source.
Winmodems, unsupported printers & wireless cards, ... 1999's obstruction to adopting Linux. I only encounter problems on machines that were designed from the ground up to exclude Linux anymore. Until UEFI "secure" boot comes out, those are getting fewer and farther between.
@jdixon -
If you can find a more comparable pair of support packages, I challenge you to do so. Barring that, they are very comparable because they are both support models from competing vendors. They are not apples and oranges, I explained how they compare. RedHat is more expensive until you exceed 5 Microsoft incidents, that is just how it is.
So are you saying it is up to a common user to download the source code, compile it, and make the patches available to themselves? Certainly, an advanced user can do that. I know, because I do exactly that.
How do you compare that to updates that automatically download and stage themselves? You can't. You have just described a scenario that makes a RedHat Desktop extremely less user friendly than Windows.
@JaseP - +1
Quoting:That doesn't change the fact that you were comparing a per incident price to a 1 year subscription price. Apples and oranges.
If you can find a more comparable pair of support packages, I challenge you to do so. Barring that, they are very comparable because they are both support models from competing vendors. They are not apples and oranges, I explained how they compare. RedHat is more expensive until you exceed 5 Microsoft incidents, that is just how it is.
Quoting:The last time I checked, Red Hat's patches are free to download in source form. Or you can simply download them from CentOS when they become available there. There's a reason it's called Open Source.
So are you saying it is up to a common user to download the source code, compile it, and make the patches available to themselves? Certainly, an advanced user can do that. I know, because I do exactly that.
How do you compare that to updates that automatically download and stage themselves? You can't. You have just described a scenario that makes a RedHat Desktop extremely less user friendly than Windows.
@JaseP - +1
> If you can find a more comparable pair of support packages, I challenge you to do so.
It was your comparison, not mine. I'm not going to do your work for you.
And why would I care? I won't use either one. And neither will almost any desktop user. The people who use support packages are businesses, not home users. And they often run more than 5 incidents per year.
> So are you saying it is up to a common user to download the source code, compile it, and make the patches available to themselves?
The Red Hat desktop isn't aimed at "a common user". It's aimed businesses who want a supported desktop. And yes, they will download. compile, and install the patches for their users if they don't want to pay for support.
> You have just described a scenario that makes a RedHat Desktop extremely less user friendly than Windows.
The common user Red Hat desktop is Fedora. Updates for it are freely available in binary form and are as easy or easier to install than equivalent ones are in Windows. Again, apples and oranges.
It was your comparison, not mine. I'm not going to do your work for you.
And why would I care? I won't use either one. And neither will almost any desktop user. The people who use support packages are businesses, not home users. And they often run more than 5 incidents per year.
> So are you saying it is up to a common user to download the source code, compile it, and make the patches available to themselves?
The Red Hat desktop isn't aimed at "a common user". It's aimed businesses who want a supported desktop. And yes, they will download. compile, and install the patches for their users if they don't want to pay for support.
> You have just described a scenario that makes a RedHat Desktop extremely less user friendly than Windows.
The common user Red Hat desktop is Fedora. Updates for it are freely available in binary form and are as easy or easier to install than equivalent ones are in Windows. Again, apples and oranges.
@jdixon
If you are unable to prove the case that you tried to make, you shouldn't have challenged it. It's not up to me to prove myself wrong, it's up to you.
Right, they will use Ubuntu. Ubuntu has paid support, at the cost of roughly 2 Microsoft support incidents. They also have a knowledge base and documentation just like Microsoft.
So, even in the case of Ubuntu, Microsoft is less expensive until you exceed 2 Ubuntu support instances.
.. and you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges? From RedHat.com "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop is built for both the administrator and the end user. "
Fedora makes a fine desktop for an advanced user, but it is not ready for common users. Even my fork, though much easier to use than Fedora IMHO is still not good enough for end users.
Nor are any of the other Linux distributions, IMHO. We are certainly closer than we were 10 years ago, but there is still a lot more work to do.
Quoting:It was your comparison, not mine. I'm not going to do your work for you.
If you are unable to prove the case that you tried to make, you shouldn't have challenged it. It's not up to me to prove myself wrong, it's up to you.
Quoting:And why would I care? I won't use either one. And neither will almost any desktop user. The people who use support packages are businesses, not home users. And they often run more than 5 incidents per year.
Right, they will use Ubuntu. Ubuntu has paid support, at the cost of roughly 2 Microsoft support incidents. They also have a knowledge base and documentation just like Microsoft.
So, even in the case of Ubuntu, Microsoft is less expensive until you exceed 2 Ubuntu support instances.
Quoting:The Red Hat desktop isn't aimed at "a common user". It's aimed businesses who want a supported desktop. And yes, they will download. compile, and install the patches for their users if they don't want to pay for support.
.. and you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges? From RedHat.com "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop is built for both the administrator and the end user. "
Quoting:The common user Red Hat desktop is Fedora. Updates for it are freely available in binary form and are as easy or easier to install than equivalent ones are in Windows. Again, apples and oranges.
Fedora makes a fine desktop for an advanced user, but it is not ready for common users. Even my fork, though much easier to use than Fedora IMHO is still not good enough for end users.
Nor are any of the other Linux distributions, IMHO. We are certainly closer than we were 10 years ago, but there is still a lot more work to do.
> If you are unable to prove the case that you tried to make, you shouldn't have challenged it.
You were the one making a case, not me. And you used and invalid comparison to do so.
> It's not up to me to prove myself wrong, it's up to you.
I've already demonstrated that your comparison is invalid. Any argument which requires comparing a single incident cost to a yearly fee doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I'm not going to do the research to come up with a better one when it's not my argument. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, fix it yourself.
> Right, they will use Ubuntu.
The last time I checked, Red Hat had far more income from subscriptions than Ubuntu did, even though Ubuntu support is cheaper. Make of that what you will.
> From RedHat.com "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop is built for both the administrator and the end user. "
What Red Hat claims in their publicity and how they market are two completely different things. I used to be able to buy a copy of Red Hat at Staples. I haven't been able to do that in years now. They don't market their desktop for the end user.
> Fedora makes a fine desktop for an advanced user, but it is not ready for common users. ... Nor are any of the other Linux distributions, IMHO.
Actually, I agree with that statement. None of the Linux distros are really ready for the common user. But then neither is any version of Windows. They all break far to frequently. The only thing which even comes close is the Mac, and most people simply can't afford Macs.
You were the one making a case, not me. And you used and invalid comparison to do so.
> It's not up to me to prove myself wrong, it's up to you.
I've already demonstrated that your comparison is invalid. Any argument which requires comparing a single incident cost to a yearly fee doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I'm not going to do the research to come up with a better one when it's not my argument. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, fix it yourself.
> Right, they will use Ubuntu.
The last time I checked, Red Hat had far more income from subscriptions than Ubuntu did, even though Ubuntu support is cheaper. Make of that what you will.
> From RedHat.com "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop is built for both the administrator and the end user. "
What Red Hat claims in their publicity and how they market are two completely different things. I used to be able to buy a copy of Red Hat at Staples. I haven't been able to do that in years now. They don't market their desktop for the end user.
> Fedora makes a fine desktop for an advanced user, but it is not ready for common users. ... Nor are any of the other Linux distributions, IMHO.
Actually, I agree with that statement. None of the Linux distros are really ready for the common user. But then neither is any version of Windows. They all break far to frequently. The only thing which even comes close is the Mac, and most people simply can't afford Macs.
Quoting:You were the one making a case, not me. And you used and invalid comparison to do so.
It is a perfectly valid case, commonly compared by people making decisions to purchase support contracts. Your argument that it isn't doesn't hold water unless you can back it with something of substance. Simply saying they don't compare doesn't make them not comparable.
Quoting:I've already demonstrated that your comparison is invalid.
No, you made a statement. An unsubstantiated theory at best.
Quoting:They don't market their desktop for the end user.
Then, in your opinion Ubuntu is the only major vendor providing support for consumer Linux. This confirms my implication that you aren't going to get good paid support for Linux, since per your statement, RedHat support isn't even an option.
Quoting:Actually, I agree with that statement. None of the Linux distros are really ready for the common user. But then neither is any version of Windows. They all break far to frequently. The only thing which even comes close is the Mac, and most people simply can't afford Macs.
Meh. I was given an Apple a few months back, I traded it in for a Thinkpad running Fuduntu. OSX wasn't as stable as often implied. That's just one experience though, so I wouldn't really claim OSX is bad. Windows though isn't nearly as unstable as it used to be. 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad stability wise in the Linux distro world, this year has been much better though.
> Simply saying they don't compare doesn't make them not comparable.
Pointing out that one is a per incident charge while the other is an unlimited incident per year charge does.
> No, you made a statement. An unsubstantiated theory at best.
A statement of fact, not an opinion. One of the two is a per incident charge, the other is a per year charge. Anyone can verify that for themselves. You're the only one who seems not to understand the difference.
> Then, in your opinion Ubuntu is the only major vendor providing support for consumer Linux.
I've never used the Ubuntu support, so I have no idea if what they're offering actually qualifies as support for consumer Linux or not. Red Hat's doesn't, you're correct.
> OSX wasn't as stable as often implied. That's just one experience though, so I wouldn't really claim OSX is bad.
I've never tried OSX, but the people who I know who use it never seem to have the problems Windows users do. That's anecdotal of course, since I only know a handful of Mac users.
> Windows though isn't nearly as unstable as it used to be.
The Windows NT line has always been stable. It was the 9x line which gave Windows it's reputation for instability. It's still not on par with Linux/Unix, but it's no longer an order of magnitude difference. Window's virus/spyware problems are still as bad as ever though, and there's no sign that's ever going to change.
> 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad stability wise in the Linux distro world...
Well, that depends on your distro. For some strange reason, I didn't really notice a problem on my home machines. :)
Pointing out that one is a per incident charge while the other is an unlimited incident per year charge does.
> No, you made a statement. An unsubstantiated theory at best.
A statement of fact, not an opinion. One of the two is a per incident charge, the other is a per year charge. Anyone can verify that for themselves. You're the only one who seems not to understand the difference.
> Then, in your opinion Ubuntu is the only major vendor providing support for consumer Linux.
I've never used the Ubuntu support, so I have no idea if what they're offering actually qualifies as support for consumer Linux or not. Red Hat's doesn't, you're correct.
> OSX wasn't as stable as often implied. That's just one experience though, so I wouldn't really claim OSX is bad.
I've never tried OSX, but the people who I know who use it never seem to have the problems Windows users do. That's anecdotal of course, since I only know a handful of Mac users.
> Windows though isn't nearly as unstable as it used to be.
The Windows NT line has always been stable. It was the 9x line which gave Windows it's reputation for instability. It's still not on par with Linux/Unix, but it's no longer an order of magnitude difference. Window's virus/spyware problems are still as bad as ever though, and there's no sign that's ever going to change.
> 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad stability wise in the Linux distro world...
Well, that depends on your distro. For some strange reason, I didn't really notice a problem on my home machines. :)
Quoting:A statement of fact, not an opinion. One of the two is a per incident charge, the other is a per year charge. Anyone can verify that for themselves. You're the only one who seems not to understand the difference.
I never said or implied there wasn't a difference, in fact if you re-read my statement I said until you reach X incidents the other is cheaper. That means I had already accounted for the very thing you implied I didn't understand. ;)
Quoting:Well, that depends on your distro. For some strange reason, I didn't really notice a problem on my home machines.
Possibly. In 2009-2010 I found that there were a lot of regressions in commonly used software, and even in the kernel itself between Ubuntu 9.x - 10.x, and Fedora 12-13. This year - It's just better I really don't have anything to complain about stability wise, last year and the year before I had pretty long laundry lists. That could be because I took more control over what gets installed, but I'd rather believe that there has been a noticeable improvement in stability across the board.
> ...never said or implied there wasn't a difference...
Allow me to quote: "$49 for a Windows Email incident, $59 for a phone incident. If they find a problem with Windows you don't get charged. Canonical charges $105, RedHat charges $299."
Yes, you've noted the difference since, but not in your original statement. And that's the one I took issue with. If you're modifying that position, we can drop the matter.
> In 2009-2010 I found that there were a lot of regressions in commonly used software, and even in the kernel itself between Ubuntu 9.x - 10.x, and Fedora 12-13.
Well, as I said, I didn't notice a problem. But then I was using Ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop until i moved to 10.04 late last year, and I run Slackware at home.
Allow me to quote: "$49 for a Windows Email incident, $59 for a phone incident. If they find a problem with Windows you don't get charged. Canonical charges $105, RedHat charges $299."
Yes, you've noted the difference since, but not in your original statement. And that's the one I took issue with. If you're modifying that position, we can drop the matter.
> In 2009-2010 I found that there were a lot of regressions in commonly used software, and even in the kernel itself between Ubuntu 9.x - 10.x, and Fedora 12-13.
Well, as I said, I didn't notice a problem. But then I was using Ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop until i moved to 10.04 late last year, and I run Slackware at home.
Quoting:If you're modifying that position, we can drop the matter.
I clarified it several comments ago. Specifically on Nov 28, 2011 at 7:15 PM EDT I made the statement: "Unless you call Microsoft more than 5 times in one year, RedHat is more expensive." :)
> Unless you call Microsoft more than 5 times in one year, RedHat is more expensive." :)
While that is a clarification, it doesn't exactly note the true nature of the difference. :) But it looks like it's a matter of semantics and not intent, which is all to common. :(
While that is a clarification, it doesn't exactly note the true nature of the difference. :) But it looks like it's a matter of semantics and not intent, which is all to common. :(
Advantages of using Linux
Update:
This has been submitted as an article. It really was too long for a reply.
This has been submitted as an article. It really was too long for a reply.
tl;dr
EDIT: For a comment thread, this is WAY too long. As a submitted article, it would work a lot better.
EDIT: For a comment thread, this is WAY too long. As a submitted article, it would work a lot better.
Yea, I think you are right. This is either a long winded reply or a short article.
Long-winded? I specialize in that :)
Must.....bite........tongue......
Hey Caitlyn, looks like gus3 has the same problem as us ;-) lol
> Long-winded? I specialize in that :)
Actually, Caitlyn, I've never found that to be true, at least in your technical articles. In my experience, you write enough to cover the subject and no more. You well know I can find lots of things to complain about if I want to, but that's not one of them.
Actually, Caitlyn, I've never found that to be true, at least in your technical articles. In my experience, you write enough to cover the subject and no more. You well know I can find lots of things to complain about if I want to, but that's not one of them.
Thanks, jdixon, you're very kind.
Caitlyn....he's back on his meds, that's all. We use the same online pharmacy.
And oh and speaking of transient insanity......
I found a way of curing people when I walk up to a desk or into a store, of asking me:
"Can I help you?"
In your best bobcat Goldthwait voice, reply:
"Can you make the voices stop?"
You learn a lot about a person's sense of humor in that 5 second exchange.
I found a way of curing people when I walk up to a desk or into a store, of asking me:
"Can I help you?"
In your best bobcat Goldthwait voice, reply:
"Can you make the voices stop?"
You learn a lot about a person's sense of humor in that 5 second exchange.
[quote=Helios]"Can you make the voices stop?"[/quote]
No, I'm afraid not. However, I can make them sing in harmony.
No, I'm afraid not. However, I can make them sing in harmony.
"Do you know a good psychiatrist?" is my stock answer.
No, they can't make the voices stop -- they have no authority to turn off the in-store PA or advertising.
I can turn off the radio.
Hey, let's now look at Advantages of Using Linux:
http://linuxblog.darkduck.com/2011/12/advantages-of-using-li...
http://linuxblog.darkduck.com/2011/12/advantages-of-using-li...
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Edit: I also took my reply out and submitted it as an article. As a few mentioned already, it was just too long for a reply.