Linux vs windows (vs OSX) for the desktop eh? Well after listening to perg for the last ~month, I think OSX is the greatest thing since slice bread, and I would never use anything else again. Now all I need is an Apple computer with OSX on it so I can see it for myself
OK, so I know nothing about OSX. Heard great things, can't comment till I use it for myself. So that aside, we come back to linux and windows.
joncon
CONS for linux:
1] Some distros *cough*redhat*cough*, don't even come with MP3 support. This will never fly. Come on. Addin support for OGG,MP3,APC, etc.
Yeah, some legal crap and mp3 support was left out. While it is an easy fix to run over to the
XMMS site where all over the front page this issue is mentioned (or was, site is in transition), these are exactly the kinds of things that will hinder linux from becoming a mainstream desktop OS.
pergesu
I think linux's biggest problem is that there's no single vendor for it
As far as development goes I think this is a good thing. Some of the distro's out there are radically better than others, and this is a product of having different types of people working on linux. As well, which distro is the best is relative to the person using it.
�in_tax
Oh great, so a bunch of companies that already produce their own individual Linux flavours get together to put out yet another? This confuses me, and unless they get more of the major distro's (ie. redhat, slackware, debian) onboard this will only ever be 'just another distro'. Granted the idea sounds good, but I seriously doubt this project will amount to what it intends to be.
joncon
2] Package managers already allow you to (sometimes with a few modifications), type a single command or click a single button and have ALL software (even if not installed with OS) to be updated to the most recent version. Windows doesn't have a unified upgrade/update manager such as this.
Unfortunately that is the only PRO that comes to mind
Package managers are a concept that is not really needed in windows style environments. Windows is an OS that is, for all intents and purposes, an all-in-one OS. It includes support for a plethora of devices, protocols, software, and just about anything else you need in a windows environment. This is not the case in *nix as a whole. Linux is a very modular OS. Just about anything can be added or taken away, including parts that make up core itself (kernel modules). For instance, the other day when I compiled and installed gnome from source, 131 seperate packages were reqired. If this was a windows program you'd double click the setup.exe and away you go.
This modular aspect of linux is why it will never become a mainstream OS. Linux promises (and arguably delivers) an OS that is 100% customizable, that allows access to the how's and why's of it's innner workings, and that offers a completely different way of thinking about computing.
Therein lies the problem.
Computers in general still baffle and confuse the majority of the population. Sure us computer geeks find this kind of thing trivial, but do you remember when you were trying to teach your mom to use email? People do not want choice or flexibility or customizable environment or control or whatever else applies to this topic. They want something that works without them having to give a damn, and they wan it to go on working. If it breaks, they want people like us to come fix it in the next ten minutes or their whole morning is shot.
This is what windows gives them.
Now I know windows doesn't always 'just work', in fact compared to *nix you could say it never works the way it's supposed to. BUT, you can install it in 30 minutes, and have a near completely functioning desktop OS, that people like my mom and yours can grasp the basic use of. You move this little mousy pointer thing over to that little pictuse and click twice really fast. Perfect :p
Many hate RedHat, Mandrake, Lindows etc etc etc. But they are on the right track to getting Linux accepted by the masses.
I couldn't disagree more. This is exactly the thing that really irks me about all this; how a lot of the major linux distro's are trying to get into the desktop market. Let's take RedHat for example here. I liked RedHat. It was the distro I started with, and used for close to two years. It works reasonably well, and still offers the benefits (and pitfalls) of *nix. BUT.... There is so much uneeded crap included in RedHat, that it is as bad as Windows is for ramming their shite down your throat. RedHat 8.0 took three cd's to install. 3 FRIGGIN CD'S!!! Holy crap. And from what I gather, mandrake is no better. Distro's like these are following the MS example and trying to be a lot more than what they should be. But this goes back to the original problem; this is what people want.
So what's worse here? The Windows we know as a desktop, or a couple of Linus distro's doing enerything in their power to emulate Windows???
I say both are the shits.
So where does that leave us? Well it leaves me with my WinXP desktop on my main puter, Obsd on my "server" machine, and my shiny new Gentoo linux install on my laptop (it is a dul boot with XP, but it has only been in XP long enough to install it) But where this really leaves me is waiting for a linux distro that can be evertyhing a desktop OS needs to be, and wishing there was a better alternative to windows.
Infinite