Advanced

Opinion: Why Linux isn't ready for the Desktop

Posted by dave on · 1 comment
OSnews; By Ernesto Garbarino
Mail this story
Print this story

First of all, we should agree on what the definition of "ready for the desktop" stands for. For some of us it refers to a graphical user interface in which applications have icons and can be launched in an intuitive manner without the need of complex commands. Even a Commodore 64 running Geos could be "ready for the desktop" by this definition, but the fact is that when we read "ready for the desktop" we understand "ready to replace Microsoft Windows".

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Microsoft; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (1)

... "Why"

Let's just bypass the Bayesian filter and dump anything with the title "Why Linux is/isn't Ready for the Desktop".

For that matter, why not dump:

"Why Linux Is*" "Why Linux Will*" "Why Linux Won't*"

Come to think of it, it's been a while since I saw an article the started with the word "Why" that was any good. They always seem to tend toward self important rants.

To be honest, I did not even click through to this one. The title is enough of a tip off.

I'd have done the same to "Why Linux Is Ready for the Desktop".

Sorry to be so negative, but really! ;-)

-Steve This message was edited Jul 27, 2004 8:11 PM

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:
|||||
10
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