|
Human
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Why Linux is not for You, Part 5
-- Does this guy have something against technical writers, analysts, and Linux companies. It seems that all he's doing is attacking people who have said Linux is bad, what makes this guy different from any other Linux zealot?
Technical Writers, Analysts, and Linux companies don't necessarily give off the right image of Linux... here's why. Technical Writers are quick to make the Linux vs. Windows comparison and say that in terms of desktop usage Linux loses, in terms of software support Linux loses, in terms of hardware support Linux loses. This is a bad assumption to make, because there are thousands of applications I can compile on Linux that don't have equivalents in windows, and it's really not the other way around. Developers have worked hard at making alternatives to Windows software on Linux sometimes with exactly the same features, sometimes with some missing but other added that the Windows counterpart doesn't have. I prefer Open Office to MS Windows, not just cause it's free, but because it seems less obtrusive and obnoxious. I prefer GIMP to Photoshop, I feel it has a cleaner interface with a much more direct method of doing what I want when I want. However, many will argue that GIMP is worse than Photoshop and OO.o is worse than Word. I don't think there's a such thing as "worse." It's really all about user preference, and what some people see as lack of features, others see as the removal of unnecessary features. Is it really necessary to have a "shadow effect" filter in Photoshop when the same thing can be done using layers, blurring, and opacity settings? Analysts are just as quick to jump on the Linux vs. Windows bandwagon but in a much more market share sense. They'll say Linux is doubling in server sales while Windows is staying the same, only growing a little, or in some cases declining a little or a lot. I don't like this as a representation of the quality of Linux, which is often how it's used. Too many people are quick to associate market share with how well the product is, and we all know that such a thing is not the case. Also, it's a pain to see a company say that Linux is growing in the server market but making not so large moves in the Desktop market. It's not just a pain because some of these numbers are largely inaccurate, but because we begin to associate the entire OS with a single function, rather than the usually specialized distributions+versions of the OS.
We don't say that Windows Datacenter Server isn't used as frequently on Desktop systems as Windows XP... that would just be inane. Yet analysts are quick to make no distinctions between Linux which is optimized and configured for server environments and that of Desktops. You want to see movement, divide Linux up into server Linux distributions and desktop Linux distributions, see which ones have made the greater sales over time. Increasing the amount of servers which use Linux from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 might look like a big increase, but percentage wise increasing the number of desktop Linux systems from 1 to 2 is just as big a leap. I don't expect desktop Linux sales to match that of Server sales even in percentages, but I don't feel that people who watch it's sales accurately represent the growth it's making in the desktop market. As far as Linux companies go. I feel they are the major backers of "Linux must replace Windows." Because they'll be the ones that not only make the money off of it, but get the most out of the "I told you so" factor. Do I think Linux has the ability to replace it? Yes, I've already said that, but do I think we should try to express it as the number one goal of a community? No. I don't think it should be expressed as a goal at all, it's strictly business when you're talking about who's running what. What we should be talking about is not who or how many are running what but why or where they are running what, that way we are better able to gauge Linux in terms of what we know it can do and what we know it can't do, instead of gauging it in terms of "can it replace windows."
Lastly, I'm certain there will be people who disagree with my views, opinions, and objections to Linux usage and representation, but I think it's more important that when people use Linux they use it because it works and does what they want it to do than if people use it just cause someone said it's better than Windows. It's not so much better than Windows than it is different, and different doesn't mean more difficult, less difficult, better, or worse. It simply means that if you're expecting to move from Windows to Linux and feel just like you're using Windows, you shouldn't be moving to Linux in the first place. Sadly, these are the type of "moves" which represent the mass amounts of inaccurate Linux reviews and editorials which constantly say, "Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?" Because in the end, yes, Linux is ready for the Desktop... I just don't think the vast majority of people are ready for Linux.
( Original Story URL at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3297 )
|
I'll comment on this later sometime. Right now I need to eat dinner, do homework, and make up for lost sleep. Do I agree with this 100%? No, but it makes some very good points.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|