Problems with Linux: Why it has no chance...
- Status
hmmm
This post sure is hot. Look at the number of replies. i guess its expected - people love arguing (they call that debating LOL!) about which is best - Linux or Windows, IE or (<put your favorite browser here>) and what not.
Oldmonk rightly points out, each to his own. peace
@kl_ravi
Thanks for the info.
This post sure is hot. Look at the number of replies. i guess its expected - people love arguing (they call that debating LOL!) about which is best - Linux or Windows, IE or (<put your favorite browser here>) and what not.
Oldmonk rightly points out, each to his own. peace
@kl_ravi
Thanks for the info.
How do you guys Compare Linux (Secure and Stable) with Windows (Easy of use and User friendly) ?
Linux is the MOST stable OS ever made, even microsoft would've to agree. Windows has a lot of bugs (intentionally created to rip off people) and endless upgrades and a lot of additonal softwares to be installed whereas Linux is best suited for Servers and Enterprise Solutions.
Ofcourse, both have some positive and negative features, but both are made for different users. It'd be sensible if you compared Windows 2003 Server Advanced with Linux. But still, Linux wins there (for servers).
And for Desktop PC's, as everyone knows, Microsoft wins. However, most people still prefer Linux as its FREE, GNU and offers a lot considering its a Free Release. If you're one of those, who've usedLinux at home and could'nt play Games, Mp3's on it, then, please dont compare Microsoft and Linux. There have been endless discussions on it here and on other forums resulting into a lot of posts and nothing more..
Microsoft and Linux DONT COMPARE. Its like comparing a male and a female.
(Correct me if I'm wrong!)
Linux is the MOST stable OS ever made, even microsoft would've to agree. Windows has a lot of bugs (intentionally created to rip off people) and endless upgrades and a lot of additonal softwares to be installed whereas Linux is best suited for Servers and Enterprise Solutions.
Ofcourse, both have some positive and negative features, but both are made for different users. It'd be sensible if you compared Windows 2003 Server Advanced with Linux. But still, Linux wins there (for servers).
And for Desktop PC's, as everyone knows, Microsoft wins. However, most people still prefer Linux as its FREE, GNU and offers a lot considering its a Free Release. If you're one of those, who've usedLinux at home and could'nt play Games, Mp3's on it, then, please dont compare Microsoft and Linux. There have been endless discussions on it here and on other forums resulting into a lot of posts and nothing more..
Microsoft and Linux DONT COMPARE. Its like comparing a male and a female.
(Correct me if I'm wrong!)
sreevirus
Certified Nutz
i dont see any problems in comparing these two OSes...infact i feel such healthy debates can make us understand more abt the ups and downs of the (now) champion Windows (desktop segment) and its sure challenger Linux....we have to carry on such debates so that we understand what handicaps linux and how the solutions can be made up.
ok....i wasnt talkin crap abt linux earlier, i feel that linux has a gr8 potential to make it big on the general desktop segment....the constant hangings and security holes in windows can drive any1 nutz.....it is at times like these that linux can have an advantage over windows....but think about it, still ppl prefer windows over linux. why? again the old user-friendliness...and windows is a weakling in the server section and a champion in the desktop segment and its vice-versa in case of linux....
i am certainly not vouching for linux OR windows, (even tho i'm better off with windows for now) but now u ppl urselves think, wouldnt u guys want Linux as a userfriendly OS?? wouldnt u like to see changes in the desktop OS? (i certainly would)
tuxfan said abt tightened security which, as he said, is high required in mission critical operations, but is such security required for the common user???
here i'm talkin why linux (according to me) doesnt make it big for the common user....why cant linux be a simple little OS?? why all the complexities?
yeah "how" windows works maybe a complex process but then we dont "see" the complexity. its simple for the common user [as they say, its better to hide ugliness] ....and the same man will readily accept Linux if it was simple to operate.
i remember that i once said this before, ppl will be more willing to shell out more money for peace of mind and ease of use and then the affordabilty of open source linux doesnt matter....and i am sure, if linux were to become more easier, ppl will no longer have to spend huge amounts on softwares like Office Suites and other applications as such things are easily available (in most cases free) for linux.
AND then again, why do ppl say that windows is user friendly and linux is more secure and leave it there?? why dont we think abt how windows can be more secure and linux can be more user friendly?? ok we cant discuss much abt windows bcos its propreitary, but LINUX IS FREE isnt it?
and about viruses, i think lamers will always be there to cause trouble to people and now as more ppl use windows, more viruses r made for windows....the scenario would have been different if Linux was in place of windows ie more viruses for linux...programmers wont stop
so ppl, think about it.....
ok....i wasnt talkin crap abt linux earlier, i feel that linux has a gr8 potential to make it big on the general desktop segment....the constant hangings and security holes in windows can drive any1 nutz.....it is at times like these that linux can have an advantage over windows....but think about it, still ppl prefer windows over linux. why? again the old user-friendliness...and windows is a weakling in the server section and a champion in the desktop segment and its vice-versa in case of linux....
i am certainly not vouching for linux OR windows, (even tho i'm better off with windows for now) but now u ppl urselves think, wouldnt u guys want Linux as a userfriendly OS?? wouldnt u like to see changes in the desktop OS? (i certainly would)
tuxfan said abt tightened security which, as he said, is high required in mission critical operations, but is such security required for the common user???
here i'm talkin why linux (according to me) doesnt make it big for the common user....why cant linux be a simple little OS?? why all the complexities?
yeah "how" windows works maybe a complex process but then we dont "see" the complexity. its simple for the common user [as they say, its better to hide ugliness] ....and the same man will readily accept Linux if it was simple to operate.
i remember that i once said this before, ppl will be more willing to shell out more money for peace of mind and ease of use and then the affordabilty of open source linux doesnt matter....and i am sure, if linux were to become more easier, ppl will no longer have to spend huge amounts on softwares like Office Suites and other applications as such things are easily available (in most cases free) for linux.
AND then again, why do ppl say that windows is user friendly and linux is more secure and leave it there?? why dont we think abt how windows can be more secure and linux can be more user friendly?? ok we cant discuss much abt windows bcos its propreitary, but LINUX IS FREE isnt it?
and about viruses, i think lamers will always be there to cause trouble to people and now as more ppl use windows, more viruses r made for windows....the scenario would have been different if Linux was in place of windows ie more viruses for linux...programmers wont stop
so ppl, think about it.....
Another tyhing I would like to add about Linux's weakness- The internet. The internet on Linux just doesn't appear as it should. All the webpage elements like buttons, radio buttons, etc appear slightly different from their intended looks. Thats bad.
Also Linux is behind Windows in the fonts department. Everything appears different in Linux.
Also what about R&D?. Since no single company is running Linux, who does the R&D?. I mean Linux for long has just been playing the "me too" game. Fo ex. Apple makes so many improvements to its OS. Many of them are new & never seen before. Such as iMovie, sherlock, iTunes, widgets, etc, etc. Similar ex. can be given for Microsoft. Now this happens because each of these companies have R&D machines behind them. As far as Linux is concerned, all I have seen it doing is playing the "me too" game. As soon as some nice feature is released in any of the other OSs, some Linux programmer comes up with a lookalike for Linux. Thats not very creative is it?. What do you have to say about this?.
Also I am glad that some of the Linux buffs accept that Linux is not for everyone.
Also Linux is behind Windows in the fonts department. Everything appears different in Linux.
Also what about R&D?. Since no single company is running Linux, who does the R&D?. I mean Linux for long has just been playing the "me too" game. Fo ex. Apple makes so many improvements to its OS. Many of them are new & never seen before. Such as iMovie, sherlock, iTunes, widgets, etc, etc. Similar ex. can be given for Microsoft. Now this happens because each of these companies have R&D machines behind them. As far as Linux is concerned, all I have seen it doing is playing the "me too" game. As soon as some nice feature is released in any of the other OSs, some Linux programmer comes up with a lookalike for Linux. Thats not very creative is it?. What do you have to say about this?.
Also I am glad that some of the Linux buffs accept that Linux is not for everyone.
tuxfan
Technomancer
I have never experienced any such thing in Linux. May be you just need to upgrade your browser and things might fall in place.
If it looks same, people complain Linux is copying Windows
BTW, in my PCQ Linux, I have all basic fonts that come with Windows, including Verdana, the most commonly used. So things appear very much similar if exactly not same.I agree. That may be done because so many people are used to the Windows environment. If things are made different, then people complaining about learning curve will complain all the more. The point is, if every thing is done and looks the same, but still it is more secure and stable, then more and more people are likely to adopt it.
I somewhat agree. As of now, it may not seem to be for everyone. All substitutes are not still very much upto the mark. But mind you, there are all the substitutes. But the programmers are catching on and working on improvement all the time. Keep looking.
If that is the case, then I would stop arguing and posting
I would like to repeat the same thing I said in my last post- Who does the R&D for Linux???. For now, Linux developers are just making Linux equivalents of features found in other OSs. Very little or no originality & innovation. So does that mean that Linux cannot survive without the other operating systems?.
gamefreak14
Journeyman
The biggest difference is the price factor. Companies are willing to shell the extra amount of time so that Linux becomes more accepted in their organization. As and when Micro$oft reduces bulk licensing costs, Linux will remain the clear winner.
@borg
No offence, but Windows itself before its current avtar, is a copy of the Mac OS. Infact Microsoft is know to be the #1 in copying other people's innovations and research and marketing with a new name. Windows was able to penetrate the market because of agressive marketing strategies of Microsoft and NOT due to the so called Innovationsby Microsoft. or a superior windows product.
No offence, but Windows itself before its current avtar, is a copy of the Mac OS. Infact Microsoft is know to be the #1 in copying other people's innovations and research and marketing with a new name. Windows was able to penetrate the market because of agressive marketing strategies of Microsoft and NOT due to the so called Innovationsby Microsoft. or a superior windows product.
hmm... Well, there is no single company or entity in this world who can claim that everything they make is original. Not even Apple. The fact that MS copied MacOS to make Windows is well known, but Apple also copies MS & other companies. I can quote so many examples. The concept of context sensitive menus (right click or cntrl click)was unheard of in the Macworld untill 1997, whereas you had this in Windows for years. It was only in 97 that Apple released its Mac OS8 which featured context sensitive menus. Similarly take the minimize & maximize buttons. You only had a single button in Mac OS originally, but from Mac OS X, Apple too has two buttons just like Windows. I can quote many such examples.
But atleast these two compaies innovate. No one can argue that Microsoft or Apple don't innovate. I don't think so many people would be using the computer today if it wasn't for Microsoft (& Apple).
Now coming to Linux I don't see any new & original features. It rather sticks to its "me too" line. I don't undestand how new improvements & new features can happen in Linux, since no single company is behind it. Untill a way is found I think linux will simply be content with imitating other people's work.
But atleast these two compaies innovate. No one can argue that Microsoft or Apple don't innovate. I don't think so many people would be using the computer today if it wasn't for Microsoft (& Apple).
Now coming to Linux I don't see any new & original features. It rather sticks to its "me too" line. I don't undestand how new improvements & new features can happen in Linux, since no single company is behind it. Untill a way is found I think linux will simply be content with imitating other people's work.
Also another important question that arises from this discussion is this-
"Can Linux in its present form survivie on its own?"
Lets suppose commercial companies, like MS (which many Linux people hate so much) & Apple, simply vanish from the market. Will Linux, in its present form, be able to take on itself the task of innovating at the pace that we are so used too?.
My opnion is that it would be very difficult for it to do so.
"Can Linux in its present form survivie on its own?"
Lets suppose commercial companies, like MS (which many Linux people hate so much) & Apple, simply vanish from the market. Will Linux, in its present form, be able to take on itself the task of innovating at the pace that we are so used too?.
My opnion is that it would be very difficult for it to do so.
As for pages appearing distorted in linux, that completely depends upon the browser and resolution. I use firefox at 800x600, no problems. When some pages appear distorted, thats not the browsers problem, rather a problem with the site which optimised it for internet explorer and nothing else.
Well borg,
Like u mentioned, Linux as an OS is not developed by a single company such as Windows or Mac OS. The Linux movement is a team effort of individuals who are doing it with non-profit motive. The effort itself is to be commended. If you take the case of Windows or any other commercial OS, it is in the best interest of the people involved to strive to add new features - all the bells and whistles and market those. The motive behind it - its pure business sense. Whether you actually need all of these features is really another matter. My point is this: Linux itself is a huge step in terms of the of choice it offers as an alternative OS that is free.
Linux in my opinon can very well survive on its own. Whether Microsoft and Apple exist or not. The point here is not about innovation, its how best a product addresses the need of the people involved. Innovation happens as the product(s) mature. Agreed, as it stands now, Windows has the largest market share when it comes to Personal Desktop computing. But Linux is catching up on that front.
The stability and security that linux offers is all the more relevant in today's internet connected world. That's one good reason why one must at least give Linux a serious thought.
Like u mentioned, Linux as an OS is not developed by a single company such as Windows or Mac OS. The Linux movement is a team effort of individuals who are doing it with non-profit motive. The effort itself is to be commended. If you take the case of Windows or any other commercial OS, it is in the best interest of the people involved to strive to add new features - all the bells and whistles and market those. The motive behind it - its pure business sense. Whether you actually need all of these features is really another matter. My point is this: Linux itself is a huge step in terms of the of choice it offers as an alternative OS that is free.
Linux in my opinon can very well survive on its own. Whether Microsoft and Apple exist or not. The point here is not about innovation, its how best a product addresses the need of the people involved. Innovation happens as the product(s) mature. Agreed, as it stands now, Windows has the largest market share when it comes to Personal Desktop computing. But Linux is catching up on that front.
The stability and security that linux offers is all the more relevant in today's internet connected world. That's one good reason why one must at least give Linux a serious thought.
- Status