searchopensource.techtarget.com— This columnist shows how Microsoft’s lock-in strategies work behind the scenes to stop Linux desktop adoption, drawing on the stories of two IT pros’ experiences.
Feb 9, 2006View in Crawl 4
I hope jane likes the hits to her stupid looking blogsite FFS all blogs should be prevented from being linked on this site it clear out almost all the trash and pure opinions especially the apple and linux freaks.
The reason Linux has hardware problems is simple, there is no money in supporting it. If the vendors could make a buck off of it, they would support Linux in a heartbeat.I love Linux. It's incredibly stable. I use it for my home server. Totally rock solid! I have gone for months without even logging on to it. I would move away from Windows if it weren't for games and that I have to use Word for my resume. I like OO, but it's not worth the risk of OO mucking up my resume and causing me to lose out on a good job. Besides, I got Office Pro through my job for only $40, so the price thing isn't an issue for me.
The person who wrote this is a religious zealot. He hates Microsoft so much he can't see that MS Office is better for the end user than Open Office. Especially when he recommends that you REMOVE MS Office and don't allow anyone to use it. If I worked at that company I would be outraged. If Open Office is so great and interoperable, why can't the users try both and use what they like? How is this any better than MS "locking in" the user?If someone is comfortable with MS Office they should not be forced to switch, just because some religious fanatic in the IT department tells him. Not everyone wants to relearn how to do what they can already do well in Word, Excel, etc.
I'll tell you what sabotages the adoption of Linux on the desktop. The fact that Linux is a piece of s**t on the desktop.Every distribution out there just uses kde or gnome which are carbon frigging copies of Windows. What the hell is the point of switching if you're just going to end up with same damn interface??Of course, the problem is catch-22, because how do you make it easy for users to adopt when they have to learn a new interface?If developers want to see Linux on the desktop, then they should try innovating rather than copying. However, the developers are limited because the desktop-enabling resources are so far behind the technology curve it's like having sticks and stones for tools.Only recently has an advanced graphical tool (necessary for advanced desktops) been released - Xgl. Some idiots will tell you that eye-candy doesn't matter, but it does. It enables things like Expose on OS X, which actually IS useful.
@kidlinuxwow, what a rant. 'what's the point of switching if you're just going to end up with the same interface... how do you make it easy when you have to learn a new interface?" Great argument. Also, I'm sure you could make linux pop all the windows on the screen at once, it doesn't have to be pretty to work.
"It works, it's hardware is upgradeable"If you have XP or windows 2000 installed, try upgrading your mb and CPU, using a different chipset and not have to do a clean reinstall of either OS. I'd be surprised if 98 or ME didn't choke at this either.I use XP and am comfortable with it on the desktop. I'll try out linux (again) sometime in the future, but for what I usually use a computer for, running linux would be a waste of my time.
robbh66Feb 10, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/users/diggmann">http://digg.com/users/diggmann</a>That about says all that needs to be said about this douche.
humblemagiiFeb 10, 2006
I hope jane likes the hits to her stupid looking blogsite FFS all blogs should be prevented from being linked on this site it clear out almost all the trash and pure opinions especially the apple and linux freaks.
mckinnejFeb 10, 2006
The reason Linux has hardware problems is simple, there is no money in supporting it. If the vendors could make a buck off of it, they would support Linux in a heartbeat.I love Linux. It's incredibly stable. I use it for my home server. Totally rock solid! I have gone for months without even logging on to it. I would move away from Windows if it weren't for games and that I have to use Word for my resume. I like OO, but it's not worth the risk of OO mucking up my resume and causing me to lose out on a good job. Besides, I got Office Pro through my job for only $40, so the price thing isn't an issue for me.
gnugrepFeb 10, 2006
The person who wrote this is a religious zealot. He hates Microsoft so much he can't see that MS Office is better for the end user than Open Office. Especially when he recommends that you REMOVE MS Office and don't allow anyone to use it. If I worked at that company I would be outraged. If Open Office is so great and interoperable, why can't the users try both and use what they like? How is this any better than MS "locking in" the user?If someone is comfortable with MS Office they should not be forced to switch, just because some religious fanatic in the IT department tells him. Not everyone wants to relearn how to do what they can already do well in Word, Excel, etc.
kidlinuxFeb 10, 2006
I'll tell you what sabotages the adoption of Linux on the desktop. The fact that Linux is a piece of s**t on the desktop.Every distribution out there just uses kde or gnome which are carbon frigging copies of Windows. What the hell is the point of switching if you're just going to end up with same damn interface??Of course, the problem is catch-22, because how do you make it easy for users to adopt when they have to learn a new interface?If developers want to see Linux on the desktop, then they should try innovating rather than copying. However, the developers are limited because the desktop-enabling resources are so far behind the technology curve it's like having sticks and stones for tools.Only recently has an advanced graphical tool (necessary for advanced desktops) been released - Xgl. Some idiots will tell you that eye-candy doesn't matter, but it does. It enables things like Expose on OS X, which actually IS useful.
nebunezzarFeb 11, 2006
@kidlinuxwow, what a rant. 'what's the point of switching if you're just going to end up with the same interface... how do you make it easy when you have to learn a new interface?" Great argument. Also, I'm sure you could make linux pop all the windows on the screen at once, it doesn't have to be pretty to work.
h0miFeb 11, 2006
"It works, it's hardware is upgradeable"If you have XP or windows 2000 installed, try upgrading your mb and CPU, using a different chipset and not have to do a clean reinstall of either OS. I'd be surprised if 98 or ME didn't choke at this either.I use XP and am comfortable with it on the desktop. I'll try out linux (again) sometime in the future, but for what I usually use a computer for, running linux would be a waste of my time.