The future of Linux
Dave Persik
Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
(with some distributions)
The remaining obtacale is installing new apps. In Windows, you
download to your desktop, double click on the icon, and follow the
instructions. When it becomes as easy to install a new application
on Linux, it will become mainsteam. Just as the PC and Windows did.
Bit Twister
> The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
> Installation has overcome this by being as easy to intall as Windows
> (with some distributions)
Guess you have not installed an off the shelf Windows os in awhile.
Let alone looked. Here just hit next to see if it is too hard for you
http://doc.mandrakelinux.com/MandrakeLinux/100/en/Starter.html/drakxid-selectLanguage.html
> The remaining obtacale is installing new apps.
Yes it has been awhile for you.
I click Software install, enter name, and donot have instructions
except to insert cd X and click OK.
Malte
Not sure that you are correct, but why should Linux become mainstream
anyhouw? I like it the way it is. Sure, it could have state-of-the-art
printer drivers and sound,and it could play Thief III and MS Flight
Simulator to make me REALLY happy, but it is OK for the money, and I can
do 95% of my work on Linux.
Pandora Xero
> Dave Persik writes:
>
>
>>The barrier to Linux becoming mainstream is its ease of use.
>
>
>
USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was
games... name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is
a Linux equivalent. but, just so we stay on target, keep it limited to
USEFUL applications, not games, please
>
>
> It's not ease of installation, it's the availability of applications in
> the first place.
availability!? you're talking AVAILABILITY!? can i go out to the
internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system
for free? well... i can get them ILLEGALLY if i wanted to, but legally,
no. rethink that response and come back when you have a better one.
>
> In any case, not only would Linux have to overcome these obstacles, but
> it would also have to present some sort of _advantage_ over Windows in
> order to persuade people to switch. Currently none of these is the
> case.
>
and what puts you in a position to say that anyways? you're OBVIOUSLY
not a server or network administrator, or else you'd know better.
Audit this:
1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
discovered, not weeks or months
2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any
computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP,
Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch,
Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)
3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message
that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for
changes to take effect"? that doesn't happen in Linux
*sigh* thats it... i'm cross-posting this to its proper location
--
--Xero
... the lone Linotaku
Mxsmanic
> USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was
> games...
There are easily a quarter million applications available for Windows.
No other OS even comes close. UNIX does have a pretty good selection of
applications available, but virtually none of them are desktop
applications (whereas virtually all Windows applications _are_ desktop
applications).
> name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is
> a Linux equivalent.
Equivalents are a matter of opinion. The fact is, there are more
individual applications for Windows than for any other. And if you want
a specific application, chances are that it will be a Windows-only
application.
> availability!? you're talking AVAILABILITY!?
Yes.
> can i go out to the
> internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system
> for free?
Yes, depending on the application. A tremendous amount of Windows
software is freeware or shareware.
> and what puts you in a position to say that anyways?
A couple of decades of experience.
> you're OBVIOUSLY not a server or network administrator, or else
> you'd know better.
I'm both.
> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
> discovered, not weeks or months
The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.
> 2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any
> computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP,
> Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch,
> Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)
Not very useful if you have a PC.
> 3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message
> that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for
> changes to take effect"?
That is increasingly rare today. It depends on the environment for
which the application was written. Some things still require a reboot.
This is more common on Windows than on UNIX, but both operating systems
occasionally require reboots.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Bill Marcum
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:51:38 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
>> discovered, not weeks or months
>
> The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.
>
--
"I deleted a file from my PC last week and I have just realized that I
need it. If I turn my system clock back two weeks will I have my file
back again?"
chris
> Pandora Xero writes:
>
>> USEFUL? hmm... last I checked, the only advantage Windows had was
>> games...
>
> There are easily a quarter million applications available for Windows.
> No other OS even comes close.
More than 90% of the "applications" for Windows are duplicates of existing
ones. If you strip those out, there are a similar number of applications
for each OS.
> UNIX does have a pretty good selection of
> applications available, but virtually none of them are desktop
> applications (whereas virtually all Windows applications _are_ desktop
> applications).
The applications I have on my desktop Linux machine *are* designed for
desktop use. These include Open Office (not really a server application),
Kontact (also not really applicable to a server), web browsers (which I
wouldn't install on to a server) and many more....
>> name ONE piece of software in Windows, and i guarantee there is
>> a Linux equivalent.
>
> Equivalents are a matter of opinion.
No - they are a matter of fact.
> The fact is, there are more
> individual applications for Windows than for any other. And if you want
> a specific application, chances are that it will be a Windows-only
> application.
Not these days - I can't find anything useful that's Windows-only, except
for games which I'm not even slightly interested in.
>> can i go out to the
>> internet and LEGALLY download a piece of software for a Microsoft system
>> for free?
>
> Yes, depending on the application. A tremendous amount of Windows
> software is freeware or shareware.
Shareware is just another way of paying for software. Windows "freeware" is
usually so bad that it couldn't be sold!
>> 1. security: as in having security updates only DAYS after a flaw is
>> discovered, not weeks or months
>
> The best security is not to have flaws in the first place.
Like Windows? MS have *never* released properly working software (and never
will - it's not in their interest). It's *always* broken in some way, and
the worst part of it is that their "updates" usually break it further! The
security holes and instabilities inherent in Windows make it unusable for
any serious purpose.
>> 2. Flexibility: Linux can be custom-tailored to work on almost any
>> computer device you can think of, Including Playstation 2, Sony PSP,
>> Nintendo DS, and yes, even Xbox (although thats not much of a stretch,
>> Xbox has a Pentium III class processor)
>
> Not very useful if you have a PC.
You're missing the point - you can't "run" Windows on the majority of
hardware, though Linux can be tailored for *any* application or appliance!
>> 3. Uptime: how many times do you update Windows and get that message
>> that says something to the effect of "You must restart Windows for
>> changes to take effect"?
>
> That is increasingly rare today.
Nonsense. *Anything* that needs to be changed on a Windoze box requires a
reboot.
> It depends on the environment for
> which the application was written. Some things still require a reboot.
*Anything* requires a reboot in Windows!
> This is more common on Windows than on UNIX, but both operating systems
> occasionally require reboots.
No. We have Linux, BSD and Unix machines here that have *never* been
rebooted despite major configuration changes.
C.
--
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!