Keith Vassallo wrote:
Philip,
I do agree with you to a certain extent.
Companies do support Windows more then Linux. Windows users will be
used to Windows and will want Linux to act like Windows, when we all
know it shouldn't - that part is true.
However, anybody saying that Linux is easier, as easy, or almost as
easy as Windows is GREATLY mistaken. Geeks tend to forget they're
geeks and think "If I can do it, Joe Doe can too" - that certainly is
not the case.
If there are 100 distributions out there, only two are easy to use.
Mandrake and Fedora. These two, however, are definately not as easy to
use as Windows. How would you explain to a Windows user that using
Fedora's up2date manager can actually send you to RPM hell? How would
you explain to a Windows user that Mandrake places some Linux files in
non-standard places, so what you read on the web doesn't apply to your
system? How would you explain to a windows user that even on the
easiest Linux distro out there, you still have to use a terminal to
install anything?
If you wish to provide an upgrade path without the culture shock, you
should invest in Lindows or Xandros. These two companies sole aim is to
ease the migration path of users. This is not only about the ease of
installation. This goes into things like: I would like to use my XXXX
favorite app in windows under Linux. Can I ? Thats where Wine and
Crossover come in. You don't have to explain to a user where and how the
system installs stuff. What you need is a consistent "portal" on how to
install things.
Now we can go on and on endlessly quibbling that this distribution does
it better than that. I reason it out this way. If you want ease of use,
and you can afford it, then stick to Windows. If you are willing to get
more out of your IT investment, then you can might as well allocate part
of your investment in yourself by including some good linux training.
If you want ease of use yet a desktop which is way more powerful than
Windows, then pay for a good distribution. Pay for support. Thats why
its there. The problem with Maltese culture is that people grumble when
they have to fork out a cent for software or software support.
Ok... I have had enough of ranting. And don't blame me.... Angelo
started after all. :-)
How would you explain to a Windows user "Hey, I've installed
OpenOffice for you. If you want to upgrade, simply download the
tarball, use tar xvzf (in the terminal of course [oh, dont forget to
login as root] and un-extract the files, and run the setup. Oh, then
logout from root and run your user setup. Oh, the icons won't come in
the kde menu automatically, so you'll have to add them
yourself........... etc... etc... ad nauseum"?
I could give, literally hundreds of ways in which Linux lacks behind
in usability. I'm a Linux advocate, I love Linux, hate Microsoft and
all the other stuff.. But I am awake enough to smell the coffee -
Linux usability sucks.
As for running Windows applications, well, I won't comment on that as
I've never had to do it myself since I own a copy of Windows just for
those 1 or 2 programs anyway.
Keith
P.S: This was not a flame
Philip Serrracino Inglott wrote:
Dear Angelo,
This posting sounds a bit like a flame bait.
It is well known that MS benchmark Linux. The two systems do influence
each other in many ways.
Just think of the look and feel of KDE and the fact that ASP supporst
Perl-like regexps.
As to how obvious the obvious is: you mention ease of installation,
presumebly you mean ease of installation
on an avarage PC bought recently with a plain vanilla configuration and
periferals. I wonder what the results
would be like if you compared installing on cd-rom less or screen less
workstations.
What i'm tring to say is that the word "Wins" does not make much sense
when comparing different categories.
If you race a Landrover against a ferrari the ferrari wins! ( as long as
you are not racing up selmun hill)
Hmmm I wonder what my girl friend would think if she knew you called her
a geek :-P she uses
gnome without any hassle! and the version of linux you are looking for
is probabbly a
KDE setup. It will not run windows applications of course (excluding the
use of WINE)
but then agin I'd like a version of windows with that extra feature
called "no cost" too.
Thanks for the feedback anyway
Philip
Angelo Dalli wrote:
Hi guys,
just had an interesting chat with some people working for Microsoft
Research... (whom I shall not name)
And surprise, surprise -- they actually do benchmark Windows against
Linux :-) In fact they have a "Linux Advisory Group" within MS :-)
Their results just confirm the obvious: in certain areas, like
storage handling and uptime reliability, Linux wins. On usability
and ease of installation, Windows wins.
I would love to have a version of Linux that can support Windows
applications seamlessly and that can allow normal users to actually
*use it* without all the hassle involved, but I think that for now
Linux will remain a server and/or geek oriented OS.
Cheers,
Angelo Dalli
______________ ______________ ______________ ______________
Sent via the WebMail system at maltalinks.com
---
[This E-mail was scanned for spam and viruses by NextGen.net.]
_______________________________________________
MLUG-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
_______________________________________________
MLUG-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
