- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
5 disadvantages of Linux
|
|
|
Comments (30)
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
I cannot name 1 Linux from 2001 that was as stable.
I can name three or four that I know I was working with at the time that were much more stable and being used in mission critical systems.
Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, and SuSE (or was it still Su.S.E.). I would add Red Hat, but I was not using it professionally or personally since version 4.3 in 1997 or so. There are probably dozens more that were as or more stable for critical use than XP. So no, I cannot name a single Linux distro that was as stable in 2001 as Windows XP.
You got me there!
I can name three or four that I know I was working with at the time that were much more stable and being used in mission critical systems.
Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, and SuSE (or was it still Su.S.E.). I would add Red Hat, but I was not using it professionally or personally since version 4.3 in 1997 or so. There are probably dozens more that were as or more stable for critical use than XP. So no, I cannot name a single Linux distro that was as stable in 2001 as Windows XP.
You got me there!
LOL tuxtom, and can you name any version of Windows that can do one-tenth of what any average Linux distro can do today? Of course we're comparing to an antique Windows, because that's all there is! Vista is XP + 13 gigabytes of functionless junk, and Windows 7 is Vista minus a few pounds of lard. It is a low bar and we should be ashamed for mocking the afflicted.
> Windows XP came out in 2001. I would challenge you to name a Linux desktop distribution of the era that was as stable, usable and meets those points ready-for-prime-time as well as XP.
Almost any distribution of Linux was more stable than XP in 2001. You're also ignoring the fact that XP didn't really become the XP we know until Service Pack 2 was released in 2004. I would argue that Mandrake, SuSE, and probably some distributions like Connectiva were as good as XP in 2001.
Almost any distribution of Linux was more stable than XP in 2001. You're also ignoring the fact that XP didn't really become the XP we know until Service Pack 2 was released in 2004. I would argue that Mandrake, SuSE, and probably some distributions like Connectiva were as good as XP in 2001.
> I like to play games, and I am not a console gamer (yeah, there's a difference)... so for this I use XP.
Yes. If you're a gamer, then your only real option at this time is to keep a Windows machine for gaming.
Yes. If you're a gamer, then your only real option at this time is to keep a Windows machine for gaming.
2001-2002, I had two more-or-less identical Dell machines in my office. Once ran Windows 2000, one ran SUSE (7.2, then 7.3). I remember they were 933 MHz, but I can't recall disk brand/size or memory amount.
The SUSE machine was noticeably faster for similar tasks - you must grant "similar", as MSFT has carefully never released Word, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint for linux. Opening an xterm vs opening "cmd" window, starting a web browser, everything was faster on SUSE.
The SUSE machine never crashed. The Windows 2000 machine crashed twice. The SUSE machine never required a reboot, the Windows 2000 machine required reboots after installing Java, and any number of other things.
SUSE 7.3 was at least as "stable, usable and meets those points ready-for-prime-time" as Windows 2000 was in 2001-2002 time period. By the end of 2002, I used SUSE for everything except company email on Outlook, and filling out Excel-spreadsheet expense reports. If it wasn't for my employer's absolute and total reliance on Word, Excel and Exchange, I would have done without Windows 2000, and converted it to another linux machine.
The SUSE machine was noticeably faster for similar tasks - you must grant "similar", as MSFT has carefully never released Word, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint for linux. Opening an xterm vs opening "cmd" window, starting a web browser, everything was faster on SUSE.
The SUSE machine never crashed. The Windows 2000 machine crashed twice. The SUSE machine never required a reboot, the Windows 2000 machine required reboots after installing Java, and any number of other things.
SUSE 7.3 was at least as "stable, usable and meets those points ready-for-prime-time" as Windows 2000 was in 2001-2002 time period. By the end of 2002, I used SUSE for everything except company email on Outlook, and filling out Excel-spreadsheet expense reports. If it wasn't for my employer's absolute and total reliance on Word, Excel and Exchange, I would have done without Windows 2000, and converted it to another linux machine.
Quoting:Windows XP came out in 2001. I would challenge you to name a Linux desktop distribution of the era that was as stable, usable and meets those points ready-for-prime-time as well as XP.
Mandrake Linux circa 2000, 2001 2002, which I upgraded to at that time in preference to Windows XP.
wow, you know TA's an oldtimer to remember when Mandriva was Mandrake.
;)
;)
If Mandrake had not been as good as it was back then, as "ready for prime time" when compared to Win XP I would not have removed Windows from all my computers in 2002 and gone fully Linux, when I did, in May of 2002.
And by the way that did include WinXP from my new at the time Laptop which I had been running in Dual boot.
And by the way that did include WinXP from my new at the time Laptop which I had been running in Dual boot.
Yeah, well, there are a lot of us oldtimers around :) I went all Linux in 1999. Red Hat Linux didn't mean enterprise then. It was what we now call Fedora. What we now call RHEL was Red Hat Enterprise Edition. Caldera Open Linux was a fine distro in no way associated with litigation roulette. Turbolinux had a Light edition that was absolutely free in every sense and they were actively marketing in the U.S. I remember Storm as a Linux distribution, I remember Corel's brief foray into Linux, which is now called Xandros, I believe. SuSe was a German distribution with funny capitalization and no relationship to Novell. Slackware was pretty much what it is today.
Now I'm really going to date myself. Circa 1995 the network coordinator where I worked introduced me to Linux. I went to the local software store who had three distributions, all housed in zip lock bags with manuals, floppies, and yes, a CD-ROM. They were: Red Hat Linux, Slackware, and Yggdrasil. Does anyone else remember Yggdrasil?
Now I'm really going to date myself. Circa 1995 the network coordinator where I worked introduced me to Linux. I went to the local software store who had three distributions, all housed in zip lock bags with manuals, floppies, and yes, a CD-ROM. They were: Red Hat Linux, Slackware, and Yggdrasil. Does anyone else remember Yggdrasil?
> Does anyone else remember Yggdrasil?
Remember? Yes. Used? No.
Remember? Yes. Used? No.
That would be me, too. I never tried Yggdrasil. I went back to the office and asked which would be best for me. I was told that either Red Hat or Slackware would be good but that Red Hat would be easier. She was running Red Hat so Red Hat it was. I didn't try Slackware until a few years later.
Oh, and you don't want to hear my opinion of Linux at the time. I thought it was a joke and a bad one at that. I promptly went back to OS/2 and Windows NT 3.5.1. I was force fed Linux in 1996 because that network coordinator went on medical leave. Nobody was left to do UNIX. I was handed HP-UX boxen to administer and was absolultely clueless at first. It was sink or swim and I had manuals. I didn't sink.
I was also given access to her workstation as an admin tool, one I was decidedly uncomfortable about using, both because of the OS and because of the idea of invading her space. It was in her office. It ran Red Hat with a commercial CDE desktop.
I didn't voluntarily choose to use Linux until 1998.
Oh, and you don't want to hear my opinion of Linux at the time. I thought it was a joke and a bad one at that. I promptly went back to OS/2 and Windows NT 3.5.1. I was force fed Linux in 1996 because that network coordinator went on medical leave. Nobody was left to do UNIX. I was handed HP-UX boxen to administer and was absolultely clueless at first. It was sink or swim and I had manuals. I didn't sink.
I was also given access to her workstation as an admin tool, one I was decidedly uncomfortable about using, both because of the OS and because of the idea of invading her space. It was in her office. It ran Red Hat with a commercial CDE desktop.
I didn't voluntarily choose to use Linux until 1998.
> I didn't voluntarily choose to use Linux until 1998.
Whereas I started with Slackware in 94 and switched to it as my primary desktop in 98, rather to use Windows 98. But it's where you wind up that counts, not exactly when.
Whereas I started with Slackware in 94 and switched to it as my primary desktop in 98, rather to use Windows 98. But it's where you wind up that counts, not exactly when.
@jacog
You can't measure Linux's suitability by rattling off a checklist and seeing whether it ticks the boxes or not. You can make any checklist to come to any conclusion you like. (I always wonder why Linux must compare itself and try to beat windows all the time?)
The real proof is in the pudding, in adoption. If people aren't adopting it, something missing. If people are adopting it, people find it's suitable and you've made it.
The technique seems to be to make a checklist, tick them off then wonder why despite having ticked all the boxes, people still use Windows, and then blame apathy, MS, hardware vendors, etc.
The prevailing belief is everything has been done that is necessary, because the checklists are ticked off. However, the better approach is to measure market adoption and sentiment, and use this as the yardstick. Then, if people still are not adopting Linux, one needs to think, and think laterally to determine what the barriers are.
These barriers may not be barriers than can be solved by banging out more code. I put forward that most of them have nothing to do with code, which is perhaps why they've been overlooked. After all, if the development is steered by coders, then every problem is seen as something that requires more code, is it not?
There is more to an OS, a platform, than a collection of software. It's more than an ethos, a philosophy, its an ECOSYSTEM. The software is merely the matter in which this ecosystem is built out of, but the interrelationship between these components, and these components and the user over time is also critical.
Imagine a house which was built using the best materials, the best techniques, by the best builders. It could still be one people dont want to live in, if they can't use it for their purposes, if they can't make it their OWN home.
The aspects that make a house built, a home, are not as easily definable as 'hot water system, check!. Driveway, check! There are indefinable elements which people can instantly recognise, but can't elucidate that matter. These indefinable, but crucial aspects matter, whether it be a house, car, or OS/platform.
Quoting: It's easy enough to say that Windows/Linux is/isn't suitable for everyday use, but without knowing what any particular user's requirements are, this type of statement is likely to be false for at least a few people.
You can't measure Linux's suitability by rattling off a checklist and seeing whether it ticks the boxes or not. You can make any checklist to come to any conclusion you like. (I always wonder why Linux must compare itself and try to beat windows all the time?)
The real proof is in the pudding, in adoption. If people aren't adopting it, something missing. If people are adopting it, people find it's suitable and you've made it.
The technique seems to be to make a checklist, tick them off then wonder why despite having ticked all the boxes, people still use Windows, and then blame apathy, MS, hardware vendors, etc.
The prevailing belief is everything has been done that is necessary, because the checklists are ticked off. However, the better approach is to measure market adoption and sentiment, and use this as the yardstick. Then, if people still are not adopting Linux, one needs to think, and think laterally to determine what the barriers are.
These barriers may not be barriers than can be solved by banging out more code. I put forward that most of them have nothing to do with code, which is perhaps why they've been overlooked. After all, if the development is steered by coders, then every problem is seen as something that requires more code, is it not?
There is more to an OS, a platform, than a collection of software. It's more than an ethos, a philosophy, its an ECOSYSTEM. The software is merely the matter in which this ecosystem is built out of, but the interrelationship between these components, and these components and the user over time is also critical.
Imagine a house which was built using the best materials, the best techniques, by the best builders. It could still be one people dont want to live in, if they can't use it for their purposes, if they can't make it their OWN home.
The aspects that make a house built, a home, are not as easily definable as 'hot water system, check!. Driveway, check! There are indefinable elements which people can instantly recognise, but can't elucidate that matter. These indefinable, but crucial aspects matter, whether it be a house, car, or OS/platform.
Quoting:Linux has reached a point where it might barely be able to pull it off, but it still isn't credible outside the Linux community.
Depends on your frame of reference. French gendarmerie, Dutch patent office, Central Bank of India, one fourth of Korean government, Russian post, Munich: They all decided Linux is a credible alternative. And all of them were outside the Linux community at first. Some of them switched in 2005; when you claim there was no alternative to XP.
> However, the better approach is to measure market adoption and sentiment...
Something which is effectively impossible to do. The folks who have the best idea of how much Linux is being used would be at Microsoft, as they know how many machines folks like Dell sell, and how many of them request Windows updates or have corporate licenses. They can guess that 80% or more of the remainder are running Linux. Then they can make a reasonable guess at how many home built machines there are based on that number and the number of Windows licenses sold with home built equipment.
Microsoft's own chart at http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Compe... and their actions tell you all you need to know about Linux's market adoption and sentiment.
> There are indefinable elements which people can instantly recognise, but can't elucidate that matter. These indefinable, but crucial aspects matter, whether it be a house, car, or OS/platform.
Well, you've thus far demonstrated the can't elucidate portion quite well. Which doesn't mean you don't have a point, merely that you're not communicating it.
Something which is effectively impossible to do. The folks who have the best idea of how much Linux is being used would be at Microsoft, as they know how many machines folks like Dell sell, and how many of them request Windows updates or have corporate licenses. They can guess that 80% or more of the remainder are running Linux. Then they can make a reasonable guess at how many home built machines there are based on that number and the number of Windows licenses sold with home built equipment.
Microsoft's own chart at http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Compe... and their actions tell you all you need to know about Linux's market adoption and sentiment.
> There are indefinable elements which people can instantly recognise, but can't elucidate that matter. These indefinable, but crucial aspects matter, whether it be a house, car, or OS/platform.
Well, you've thus far demonstrated the can't elucidate portion quite well. Which doesn't mean you don't have a point, merely that you're not communicating it.
Quoting:LOL tuxtom, and can you name any version of Windows that can do one-tenth of what any average Linux distro can do today?Yes, very true, but the average Windows user only uses less than 10% of what an average Windows desktop has to offer and has no interest in using anything else.
Quoting:Some of them switched in 2005; when you claim there was no alternative to XP.The only date I referenced was 2001. Mandrake was my Linux desktop in 2001....it was from 1999 to 2004. Of course at work I had to use a Windows NT/2000 desktop those years. Been using Linux since RedHat 4.2 back in '97 (FVWM and AfterStep and tweaking/compiling NIC drivers to get my first cable modem working in '98). Been using Ubuntu since 4.10. Been using Kubuntu until KDE4 came out and I retreated to Gnome (talk about selling out!). Been using Debian, RH and Slackware servers throughout my career. Fo rall my personal computing I have used a Linux desktop exclusively since 2002, although I do occasionally run XP in a VM for some Garmin GPS stuff and a odd utility here or there. I've been here on LXer since 2005. I'm not pro-Microsoft, I'm anti-anti-Microsoft.
No matter how bad Microsoft is it doesn't make Linux good. That is a weak stance, really really lame. You can't make Linux better by making Microsoft worse.
Fact is that in the mainstream corporate/gov't environment here in the US Windows is here to stay. Exchange is here to stay. Microsoft Office is here to stay ( no one likes Open Office except us Linux folks). Sharepoint is really, really, really here to stay. .NET is here to stay (no, Mono doesn't count). SQL Server is here to stay. IE (i.e. ActiveX) is here to stay. Outlook is DEFINITELY here to stay (it hurts to write that). Most people like the Microsoft desktop and see no reason to use anything else. They are not going to be bothered to even consider anything else and would prefer just to move along and accept Windows' deficiencies as a transparent part of life. Users can care less about what is technical superior. Technical superiority does not grant market share and revenue. The fact is that Microsoft sells more than inferior operating systems and what they sell really does make people want to use it...just ask Tracyanne, she'll tell you.
All the inefficiency and all the problems with Microsoft create an economy. A very important, massive economy. You should be grateful for Microsoft because without them you would never be here right now. Linux would be nowhere near what is is today without Microsoft. You would never have even heard of Linux. Most of you would not have the good jobs you have without Microsoft. Love Microsoft. You don't have to use it, but LOVE IT!!! It pays a lot of bills and buys a lot of Starbucks and creates a bunch of "obsolete" hardware that runs Linux just fine.
BTW: For all you hardcore anti-Microsoft folks http://www.ihatemicrosoft.com can really use some work. Those animated gifs are sooooo Windows 95.
> no one likes Open Office except us Linux folks
I disagree with that statement. I've found that there's no piece of software for which there is greater indifference than MS Office. I've introduced a fair number of users to OOo and getting them to switch is like running a lemonade stand in the Sahara desert.
My wife uses OOo for everything. She laughed when I suggested buying Office if she wanted it. My mother has a new computer and I told her it wouldn't have Office. She shrugged and said, "I don't think I had it before. Why don't we just use that?" My brother used to run a small business using OOo. The list goes on with coworkers and friends.
is more true for MS Office than for Windows.
I'm still not understanding the basis for your claim that Linux is not suitable. Most of the folks I encounter can't set up either Windows or Linux, but once it is set up, they could truly not care less which they are using. (And they like the lack of security problems in Linux.) They do dislike the fonts, but these days with widescreens they often find Linux to be easier to read. The casual users I encounter are not married to any particular app, so they are happy to hear about malware-free, free beer alternatives.
I disagree with that statement. I've found that there's no piece of software for which there is greater indifference than MS Office. I've introduced a fair number of users to OOo and getting them to switch is like running a lemonade stand in the Sahara desert.
My wife uses OOo for everything. She laughed when I suggested buying Office if she wanted it. My mother has a new computer and I told her it wouldn't have Office. She shrugged and said, "I don't think I had it before. Why don't we just use that?" My brother used to run a small business using OOo. The list goes on with coworkers and friends.
Quoting:the average Windows user only uses less than 10% of what an average Windows desktop has to offer and has no interest in using anything else.
is more true for MS Office than for Windows.
I'm still not understanding the basis for your claim that Linux is not suitable. Most of the folks I encounter can't set up either Windows or Linux, but once it is set up, they could truly not care less which they are using. (And they like the lack of security problems in Linux.) They do dislike the fonts, but these days with widescreens they often find Linux to be easier to read. The casual users I encounter are not married to any particular app, so they are happy to hear about malware-free, free beer alternatives.
Nice emotional handwaving over-generalized fact-free rant, Tuxtom. Linux has significant market share in every segment of computing except the desktop; and even there I suspect it's considerably higher than what the usual ragtag gaggle of pundits are claiming. It is growing at a healthy rate in all segments. It is growing and improving way faster than any other platform; there is nothing else that comes close.
To sum up, and this is surely a Captain Obvious exercise, but the little trollies and nabobs of negativity do love to frame this as an all-or-nothing exercise. The reality is that Linux is already a roaring success, and to a lesser degree FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and OpenSolaris are all growing at healthy rates. Linux is improving faster than any other platform. It adapts into all market segments, from tiny embedded to supercomputers, where it rules the Top 500. No other platform is being morphed into so many different forms; this alone is very remarkable, and a testament to its excellence.
The whole world will never love Linux. Duh. Some folks will never give up their manky windowses. So what? It doesn't matter. Linux will always have flaws and room for improvement. More duhs. The important part is it continually improves, and faster than anyone else. Windows doesn't even try, Linux is like an Olympic distance runner racing against Rush Limbaugh. Rush ain't running, he just sits and spews poison into a microphone. And that is exactly what Microsoft does, rather than making a serious attempt at technical excellence or customer service.
Linux is succeeding handsomely, and thanks to FOSS we have some actual choice in the marketplace. Not as much as we should have, not as much as there would be without Microsoft's success at all but killing choice, but it's there and it's growing. By any measure it is already a huge success and a bright future. You're welcome to remain mired in the gloom bog, I'm going to go hang out where the action is.
BTW borax, the correct quotation is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The proof is not in the pudding, like a fly that got trapped in it, or somebody hid a secret message.
To sum up, and this is surely a Captain Obvious exercise, but the little trollies and nabobs of negativity do love to frame this as an all-or-nothing exercise. The reality is that Linux is already a roaring success, and to a lesser degree FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and OpenSolaris are all growing at healthy rates. Linux is improving faster than any other platform. It adapts into all market segments, from tiny embedded to supercomputers, where it rules the Top 500. No other platform is being morphed into so many different forms; this alone is very remarkable, and a testament to its excellence.
The whole world will never love Linux. Duh. Some folks will never give up their manky windowses. So what? It doesn't matter. Linux will always have flaws and room for improvement. More duhs. The important part is it continually improves, and faster than anyone else. Windows doesn't even try, Linux is like an Olympic distance runner racing against Rush Limbaugh. Rush ain't running, he just sits and spews poison into a microphone. And that is exactly what Microsoft does, rather than making a serious attempt at technical excellence or customer service.
Linux is succeeding handsomely, and thanks to FOSS we have some actual choice in the marketplace. Not as much as we should have, not as much as there would be without Microsoft's success at all but killing choice, but it's there and it's growing. By any measure it is already a huge success and a bright future. You're welcome to remain mired in the gloom bog, I'm going to go hang out where the action is.
BTW borax, the correct quotation is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The proof is not in the pudding, like a fly that got trapped in it, or somebody hid a secret message.
Adoption... like the 5+ million netbooks preloaded with Linux sold since late 2007.
I like the part about how all the Microsoft products are "here to stay". The same was said of both WordPerfect and Wordstar, both of which had a higher market share that MS Word/Office has now. Ditto Lotus 1-2-3. Where are they now?
I like the part about how all the Microsoft products are "here to stay". The same was said of both WordPerfect and Wordstar, both of which had a higher market share that MS Word/Office has now. Ditto Lotus 1-2-3. Where are they now?
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
Second:
Mandrake. It's what my mother chose in 2000 for her shiny "new" (reconstituted) Linux system she wanted for Christmas. She was more comfortable using Mandrake after a week, than she had been two weeks earlier using Windows 95. She occasionally needed to call me over the next couple weeks, to find out how to customize some particular aspect of the GUI. Other than that, she knew that her desktop computing future lay with Linux.
{{In fairness, I must admit I can't discuss standards, because eight years ago, I had no idea to look at it. The only thing I can suggest is that Microsoft was still dictating standards from on high, in a "we know what's best for you" manner. That is no longer the case; they have to fight (bribe and threaten) a lot harder to get their "standards" approved.}}
Some may say "but that's Windows 95, not XP or even ME", and that's true. But has Microsoft ever produced an OS with combined stability and usability surpassing Linux at the time? Not even Vista could stand up to Linux! How many more times will anyone believe Microsoft's claim that "we'll get it right with the next version"?