Why Windows Isn't Hell Or Why Linux Isn't Bliss

[12345678910]

Why Windows Isn't Hell Or Why Linux Isn't Bliss

To me, it's a miracle how every tiny article on OSNews.com, or any other tech-site, ends up in people shouting all sorts of nonsense at each other like "Linux is gonna bring back Elvis", "Windows shot president Kennedy", "Linux kept the cold war cold" or "Bill Gates wants to buy the moon and charge people for looking at it". Do these people really know what they are saying, or are they just going with the Open-Source flow?

Intro

I tend to think the latter. Not because I am not a Linux fan (I happily set up my Computer with Mandrake about two years ago, they are still merrily in love), but because I have not heard anything new in the past two years. It is always "my god, not another security hole in Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP/Server 2003", "Microsoft aggressively bought company X", "Microsoft launches another way to protect their software" and "Microsoft software is too exspensive". And Linux, on the other hand, is all bliss.

Well, I think Linux is not all "bliss". Linux would be all "bliss" if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times, if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let's say, Ati products (Ati being the number two in graphics cards!), if we forget the "geek" image of Linux, if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued, if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I've heard).

You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs, if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion).

If you confront Linux addicts with the disadvantages I just named, you always get the same reaction: "When Linux becomes (more) mainstream, those problems will disappear." Well, I think you should turn that around: Linux will become (more) mainstream, when those problems are solved, or at least addressed. Your OS can be great when it comes to its inner workings, but it are the looks of the OS that really matter to the masses. Would Marylin Monroe have become as famous if she was not so darn pretty? I do not think so. I mean, consumers do not want to wait forever for their PC to boot (you can read a Donna Tart in the meantime... twice), they do not want twelve different applications for one task, they do not want to choose between six different Window Managers, even though all of them are quite good. I mean, do you line up six tv's in your living room just because they look a bit different from each other? Again, I do not think so (imagine the remote-control interference...).

What Should We Do?

So, what should happen to Linux in order to gain more marketshare at the cost of Windows? Well, a lot has been said when it comes to this particular issue.

I think the major Distributions should all "join hands" to create one version of Linux, with one desktop, a uniform look, with one update system and so on. They can still develop their own Distributions (for the fans, I do not think my Computer and Mandrake will ever divorce). By creating a standard, you will make it more accessible for the masses. Just look at the dvd recording standards now: the number of standards are really stopping people from buying a dvd recorder. They are heavily influenced by articles stating the risk of buying one: "Your standard may be unsupported in a few years".

It will be no problem if Linux XP (couldn't resist the temptation ;) , sorry) will cost something, they can spend the earned money on research. The newly developed applications can first be put in the Distributions, and, when the community is satisfied, they can be integrated into the next Linux version, Linux Longhorn (okay, this is getting silly). This way you get the best of both worlds: the knowledge, experience and diversity of the Open-Source world, combined with the easiness and clarity of standardized software. A very good example is, in my eyes, LindowsOS 4.0. I have used it for a couple of weeks now and I must say I am impressed. Despite critizism from the Open-Source commmunity ("It's too Windows", "It's not free" and "They don't supply source-code (which is a plain lie, by the way)"), I believe LindowsOS is kind of what that new standardized Linux should look like.

Of course that kind of takes away the essence of the Open-Source concept. Open-Source is all about letting everybody not only use the software, bu also letting everybody improve the software. This has led to a diversity in the available software. This is a good thing, if you are an expert willing to put time and effort into your OS, but if you are not, than Linux just isn't for you, at this moment.

But, as always, this is just my opinion. So please, do not send any suicide penguins my way...

By Special Contributor Thom "Slakje" Holwerda

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought this was a good read.

Lata,
12345678910

[strestout1]

while i do not agree with many of the points in this article, such as the recommendation for the consolidation of distros into one, it is a very good read. Linux has come a long way in the past decade, but it's still not as "user friendly" as Windows in some respects, though if all you need is web browsing, IMs, document work, email, and music, switching is extremely simple. My wife has barely noticed the difference (though she complains about certain things once in a while). I run Red Hat 9 as the only OS on my PC for over a month, and am quite happy with it. Yet, it took a fried HD and busted beyond repair WinXP cds for me to make the switch...maybe that's the way to get others to do it... /me begins planning...

[cribology crew]

Tried Linux Mandrake 8.1 and was disappointed on how useless it was, it wouldn't recognise my dvd drive, or scanner the software except Open Office and Gimp is useless, now I use Windows XP and if you want to go the Linux route, forget Mandrake and Red Hat and use the mighty Knoppix which runs entirely from a bootable cd, it installs no software onto your hard drive, although allowing it to set up a swap file (90mb) improves its speed when you want to return to Windows all you do is remove the cd and reboot and all is well.

[Theinfamousone]

Windows fried your HD? Now there's something you don't hear every day.

It's true, diversity is a blessing and curse. Look at Apple, they have no diversity, all their software, hardware and OS is made by Apple. That's bad and good. It's bad because if you like Apple, you have no choice of what OS you want to use, you have no choice if you want to use a word processing program, if you want to use iDVD or pretty much iMovie for movies (unless you really want to start forking out hundreds for movie maker). You have to use Quicktime pretty much, until the open source community gave them divx. It's good though iMovie is very nice for example because all they have to worry about it supporting quicktime, therefore they spent a lot more time thinking out how to make their software nice and they can render on the spot instead of waiting until the end of editing because it just renders a new quicktime file and mixes it up using a quicktime codec. Trying to render in Vegas Video which is a thousand dollar PC program is like trying to shoot a fish in a barrel. It's unbelievabley worthless.

Linux is cool because it's code that anyone can take and do with whatever they please. If you start making a standard, you're going to run out of competition amongst the distros to make themselves better.

[begoodbebad]

If Linux fans want Linux to be mainstream then they have to accept it being easy to use and nice to look at. It has to make everyday tasks easy not complex.
If Linux fans want Linux to remain an experience with a high degree of difficulty for an unfamiliar user with the trade off that it is highly configurable then they have to accept it will never be mainstream.

Put yourself in the position of the average buyer who walks into PC World knowing approximately nothing about PCs or the corporate buyer who needs to supply workstations to people who will use the machines with minimal training. 99% of the time they are going to choose the option which is familiar, works straight out of the box and is compatible with other businesses/family members/friends machines. The purchasing decision is made here. Everything else has just become irrelevant.

[fernandez]

I think it's a little strange that wirter of the article didn't mention the united linux effort, a project trying to make a standardized Linux distribution http://www.unitedlinux.com

[Korn377135678]

What i hate is the so called eazy distro's that mostly add nothing from altered kde that looks and/or acts like windows.Also I see it as very evil to sell free apps via a ftp.Basicly thats what lindows is doing.The thing that i see is the thing they most need to work is the install of programs.Ever see a program in .tar format and then you need to complie it?They have been some good paces in it namely apt-get and urpmi.I can see why the author said windows isent hell: thier is alot of good points of why windows is a good os.I think linux is allmost what you put in to it,if your willing to put some time into i think you will be happy,but if you think you can go into it blind and have a os for your needs you wont like it.

[Sephiroth]

Really im tired of nix fanatics trying to "convert" people and their lame and immature insults. Also the linux myth and think that just because they dont use Windows that they are uber-1337 cool or something.

Open Source has its role but people who think that its going to replace everything are pretty messed up in the head IMHO.

Really all the people who make a big deal about source code not being made avaible ive noticed in the few times ive seen it personally they usually dont know a damn thing about programming and therefore have no real need for the source other than again to brag to their friends about how kewl they are.

Anyways if people want linux to become more popular then they should make it more appealing and be competitive with windows. Because "its free" and the windows/MS bashing isnt going to do it.

[begoodbebad]

Here's the most crucial difference between Linux and Windows users:

Millions of people (the majority) use Windows by default (and for free by the way, in office environment), they didn't actively choose it and they don't care either. (Of course many also chose it and paid *cough*).

Almost no-one uses Linux (desktop not server) by default (yet). Most Linux users have made a conscious choice to use the OS.

If you choose something unusual that's more difficult to use than average you have to feel strongly about it and its advantages.
You see the positive and manage the negative. You'll be inclined to promote it.

If you have something by default you are more likely to see the weak points and take the positive for granted. You'll be inclined to complain about it.

Personally I feel this difference is more relevant than any difference between the rival operating systems, which are both as flawed or as perfect as any other human enterprise.

[isus]

Originally posted by Theinfamousone
Windows fried your HD? Now there's something you don't hear every day.

It's true, diversity is a blessing and curse. Look at Apple, they have no diversity, all their software, hardware and OS is made by Apple. That's bad and good. It's bad because if you like Apple, you have no choice of what OS you want to use, you have no choice if you want to use a word processing program, if you want to use iDVD or pretty much iMovie for movies (unless you really want to start forking out hundreds for movie maker). You have to use Quicktime pretty much, until the open source community gave them divx. It's good though iMovie is very nice for example because all they have to worry about it supporting quicktime, therefore they spent a lot more time thinking out how to make their software nice and they can render on the spot instead of waiting until the end of editing because it just renders a new quicktime file and mixes it up using a quicktime codec. Trying to render in Vegas Video which is a thousand dollar PC program is like trying to shoot a fish in a barrel. It's unbelievabley worthless.

Linux is cool because it's code that anyone can take and do with whatever they please. If you start making a standard, you're going to run out of competition amongst the distros to make themselves better.

maybe its just me, but i thought i posted here already.

anyway, lemme just say "wow"

"no choice if you want to use a word processing program, if you want to use iDVD or pretty much iMovie for movies (unless you really want to start forking out hundreds for movie maker). You have to use Quicktime pretty much, until the open source community gave them divx."

no choice? thinkfree office, ms office, and appleworks aren't choices? and those are just the business level apps. you have textedit, bbedit, etc etc.

im not understanding the idvd/imovie sentence, but... ehh, maybe its just me.

and we dont hafta use quicktime. we can watch mpeg, avi, wmv... i wouldn't be surprised if you could watch real video or whatever its called in osx as well.