- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why do Windows journalists have to trash Linux?
What is it these days with all of the Linux-bashing articles that are being written by various people? It reminds me of a column I wrote a while back for Eye On Linux called "Desktop Linux: The Presstitutes Strike Again!" |
|
|
Comments (13)
Anti-Linux articles are part of the advertorial system in journalism. These articles are there, not because journalists LIKE to trash Linux, but because it is expected of them, in order to win MS advertising dollars... As long as Linux is available, I honestly don't care what MS fans think, or what kind of articles MS pays for...
Let the MSers use what OS they want...
Let the MSers use what OS they want...
@cmost: nicely said. +1.
I found this comment at the bottom of the article:
"Jim, you just wrote a piece last week about how the Linux desktop still matters, is awesome, etc. Then you write this piece. You're actually demonstrating the chief problem with Linux promoters: you're out of touch with the vast, vast, vast majority of computer users, especially in the enterprise. It's not that Linux is a bad thing, it's just not a relevant thing.
I think it's also interesting to note both articles I mentioned are here on IT World -- as in Information Technology World, as in corporate IT World. We, as an audience, are very concerned about all the things that Linux is not (with the exception of security). We care about compatibility. We care about software selection. We care about support from first- and third-party vendors. We care that users can figure out their OS without going back to the drawing board (which is why Windows 8 is a flop).
We don't have a problem with Linux per se, we're just tired of hearing the pronouncements that THIS is the year of the Linux desktop, that Linux is great and everyone just needs to wake up. Please. If Mac OS X can't get a foothold in corporate IT, what hope does the Linux desktop have?
Basic economics has demonstrated the market will not support 3+ desktop OS platforms. Sorry, but Linux is #3, as was OS/2, Amiga and all the others. It's doing pretty well in handhelds, and server appliances though. So there's that."
Apparently there is no room for three desktop operating systems.
Based on the principles of this guy there would have been no Sony Playstation nor would there have been an XBOX because it used to be Nintendo and Sega who ruled the gaming world. History dictates though that it was SEGA who was pushed out of the console market and now with the XBOX it is Nintendo who might lose out.
Based on the principles of this guy there would only be 2 political parties in the UK which means we would never have had a Labour party and Scotland would not be voting for independence this year, because the SNP would never have survived.
Times move on. Windows 8 is a mess but Windows 9 may be better. Linux may not have taken hold of the desktop market yet but there is still time.
Who cares anyway? I use Linux and I like it and there are plenties of other people using it and building it and making it better. I have no vested interest in Linux gaining world dominance.
As for the comment in the article that "Reason #2: For all of us who have lives, there's Windows." this is just a joke. I have a computer that came with Windows 8. The video player doesn't work, the music player doesn't work (unless I download lots of codecs etc), navigation is terrible, internet explorer from the tiles view is just nonsense and it really doesn't just work.
Ironically Microsoft are trying to create an operating system that works on all devices (ie phones, computers, games consoles) yet it is Ubuntu that is closer to achieving it.
"Jim, you just wrote a piece last week about how the Linux desktop still matters, is awesome, etc. Then you write this piece. You're actually demonstrating the chief problem with Linux promoters: you're out of touch with the vast, vast, vast majority of computer users, especially in the enterprise. It's not that Linux is a bad thing, it's just not a relevant thing.
I think it's also interesting to note both articles I mentioned are here on IT World -- as in Information Technology World, as in corporate IT World. We, as an audience, are very concerned about all the things that Linux is not (with the exception of security). We care about compatibility. We care about software selection. We care about support from first- and third-party vendors. We care that users can figure out their OS without going back to the drawing board (which is why Windows 8 is a flop).
We don't have a problem with Linux per se, we're just tired of hearing the pronouncements that THIS is the year of the Linux desktop, that Linux is great and everyone just needs to wake up. Please. If Mac OS X can't get a foothold in corporate IT, what hope does the Linux desktop have?
Basic economics has demonstrated the market will not support 3+ desktop OS platforms. Sorry, but Linux is #3, as was OS/2, Amiga and all the others. It's doing pretty well in handhelds, and server appliances though. So there's that."
Apparently there is no room for three desktop operating systems.
Based on the principles of this guy there would have been no Sony Playstation nor would there have been an XBOX because it used to be Nintendo and Sega who ruled the gaming world. History dictates though that it was SEGA who was pushed out of the console market and now with the XBOX it is Nintendo who might lose out.
Based on the principles of this guy there would only be 2 political parties in the UK which means we would never have had a Labour party and Scotland would not be voting for independence this year, because the SNP would never have survived.
Times move on. Windows 8 is a mess but Windows 9 may be better. Linux may not have taken hold of the desktop market yet but there is still time.
Who cares anyway? I use Linux and I like it and there are plenties of other people using it and building it and making it better. I have no vested interest in Linux gaining world dominance.
As for the comment in the article that "Reason #2: For all of us who have lives, there's Windows." this is just a joke. I have a computer that came with Windows 8. The video player doesn't work, the music player doesn't work (unless I download lots of codecs etc), navigation is terrible, internet explorer from the tiles view is just nonsense and it really doesn't just work.
Ironically Microsoft are trying to create an operating system that works on all devices (ie phones, computers, games consoles) yet it is Ubuntu that is closer to achieving it.
The way this guy presents himself makes me assume he's an hot airbag. Hot airbags find themselves so important and clever that anything opposing them is a threat and should be eradicated. Reading on confirms this. He wrote an article some time ago that he killed a Linux server by cross-installing packages, that is: one for Debian to CentOS. You can get away with that if you know what you're doing. And that is the entire point: although he makes the impression he knows, he doesn't - one of the characteristics of an hot airbag.
So he had to retract that article. And here he does the same thing - making lots of silly mistakes and blaming the product. So he turns to another tactic: make it unimportant: "Linux doesn't run anything important", "I like Windows better anyway".
Bottom line: you may be (or feel to be) the impost important ape on the rock, but nature isn't impressed. If you're not strong enough to lift a rock, you won't be able to do it. May be the silliest, least popular ape is strong enough - but you're not. So you start to blame the rock.
So walk on, guys. Nothing to see here. Just somebodies hurt pride.
So he had to retract that article. And here he does the same thing - making lots of silly mistakes and blaming the product. So he turns to another tactic: make it unimportant: "Linux doesn't run anything important", "I like Windows better anyway".
Bottom line: you may be (or feel to be) the impost important ape on the rock, but nature isn't impressed. If you're not strong enough to lift a rock, you won't be able to do it. May be the silliest, least popular ape is strong enough - but you're not. So you start to blame the rock.
So walk on, guys. Nothing to see here. Just somebodies hurt pride.
@gary_newell...
Actually I think it is a very telling remark! Once a user's Windows computer becomes a poor performing mess riddled with malware and bloatware, that user will be more likely to turn off the computer and go spend time with their family! In other words, Windows users spend more time beyond their computers because their computers are relatively useless compared to users of other OS's.
A very telling remark!
Quoting:"As for the comment in the article that "Reason #2: For all of us who have lives, there's Windows." this is just a joke."
Actually I think it is a very telling remark! Once a user's Windows computer becomes a poor performing mess riddled with malware and bloatware, that user will be more likely to turn off the computer and go spend time with their family! In other words, Windows users spend more time beyond their computers because their computers are relatively useless compared to users of other OS's.
A very telling remark!
It's been my experience that the local community thinks I'm nuts for using Linux for everything, but they always come running to see what I'm building next! From video security machines with sound, answering machines, and remote controlled sat boxes that record on the fly the remark is always the same: "Wow, mine doesn't do that, how are you able to make that?"
In my present circle of acquaintances, a large number are Linux users. I've even converted two of them to Linux, after Windows pooped-the-bed on them.
One, however, is the kind of person for whom hardware compatibility keeps biting him in the butt. The HDMI port on a laptop had no sound for him, using Linux. Running Windows, it "just worked", video and audio.
He indeed does blame Linux for it "not working". Oh well.
One, however, is the kind of person for whom hardware compatibility keeps biting him in the butt. The HDMI port on a laptop had no sound for him, using Linux. Running Windows, it "just worked", video and audio.
He indeed does blame Linux for it "not working". Oh well.
That problem with no sound on an HDMI port is usually one of two things:
The most likely one is a graphics card driver with incomplete support for the HDMI port. Some versions of the open source Radeon driver do not have complete HDMI support, for example (though this situation is improving lately). Depending on the graphics chipset, a closed source driver could be usable and solve the issue.
The other possibility is some sort of kooky Pulseaudio settings for the HDMI audio, or the HDMI audio just not being turned on. You can have to dig around in the Pulseaudio settings for a while to find the right ones to get the sound working (or at least you could at one time; I hear that this is becoming easier).
The most likely one is a graphics card driver with incomplete support for the HDMI port. Some versions of the open source Radeon driver do not have complete HDMI support, for example (though this situation is improving lately). Depending on the graphics chipset, a closed source driver could be usable and solve the issue.
The other possibility is some sort of kooky Pulseaudio settings for the HDMI audio, or the HDMI audio just not being turned on. You can have to dig around in the Pulseaudio settings for a while to find the right ones to get the sound working (or at least you could at one time; I hear that this is becoming easier).
"Depending on the graphics chipset, a closed source driver could be usable and solve the issue."
That is exactly the kind of "programming" that he whines and complains about anyone who uses Linux having to do to make it work.
The fact that it's a driver for a hardware manufacturer that is _deliberately_ not contributing to the Linux kernel, while they do ensure it works for Windows, is not important to him.
That is exactly the kind of "programming" that he whines and complains about anyone who uses Linux having to do to make it work.
The fact that it's a driver for a hardware manufacturer that is _deliberately_ not contributing to the Linux kernel, while they do ensure it works for Windows, is not important to him.
Quoting: "Depending on the graphics chipset, a closed source driver could be usable and solve the issue."
That is exactly the kind of "programming" that he whines and complains about anyone who uses Linux having to do to make it work.
The fact that it's a driver for a hardware manufacturer that is _deliberately_ not contributing to the Linux kernel, while they do ensure it works for Windows, is not important to him.
I tend to translate that kind of response as often (not always) amounting to little more than,
"Hey, I don't care if I'm being royally screwed over by Mega-Corp 'X', as long as my computer works the way I expect it to."
We could also rejoice at such bashing as it also means Linux is meaningfull and viewed as a real threat, else it would have been ignored.
You know the best thing? The author of the original article just penned this one: http://www.zdnet.com/milestone-im-recommending-chromebooks-i...
So his recommended OS? A heavily customized version of Linux. :)
So his recommended OS? A heavily customized version of Linux. :)
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
I don't give a crap what Windows users think about Linux. I rather enjoy the plethora of choices that myriad distributions offer and I like that my OS is free, including its source code. Regardless of what the ZDnet author thinks, there is no way that he can claim with a straight face that Windows is pleasant, peaceful or "just works." That's ridiculous by the very fact that Windows is a Frankenstein OS that has been patched and spackled since the days of DOS. The system is vulnerable to a raft of viruses and spyware which is due to its inherently insecure programming and Microsoft's "my way or the highway", close-minded mentality. In the twelve years I've used Linux exclusively on all of my machines (servers, workstations and laptops) I can honestly say that it has grown into a powerful OS that is a joy to use and my time spent maintaining it is minimal. Not to mention all the money I've saved in licensing and upgrade fees.