Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Beans
    1,354
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    Quote Originally Posted by swoll1980 View Post
    A bunch of your rebuttals refered to things that are not finished, PA, package kit. Wouldn't the fact that these solutions are not yet ready yet, only further prove the point that Linux isn't ready?
    I don't disagree with him as such that we aren't ready, but I doubt any OS really is ready on all points. I think we have reached a point where most users can comfortably listen to music, play videos, browse the web and so on (ordinary tasks). There is a group of people we will never be ready for for various reasons but I believe the majority of all people would be fine on a Linux desktop.

    Also being in progress doesn't mean it's hopelessly broken now, just that in some cases a few corners need to be polished. I am hestitant to call any bit of FLOSS totally finished. I would consider PackageKit and Pulseaudio pretty solid, there are problems with the backends, ALSA e.g. needs some fixing but for most setups now both are very nice. so his whole point of saying this is a mess is wrong, which is what I aimed to counter, we are aware that it's problematic, we have solutions and they are ready for deployment.
    On strike during the Oneiric cycle due to ungratefulness of Ubuntu.


  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    US
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    I actually don't have beef with any of the original points. I just don't see how that necessarily leads to a conclusion of "Linux isn't ready for the desktop," especially when no one has put forth an agreed-upon definition of what "ready for the desktop" actually means.

    Instead of using absolutely terms like "ready for the desktop" or "not ready for the desktop," I prefer to just know all the pros and cons of Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux and then recommend the most appropriate OS depending on the individual user's needs. Someone may need an SUV, and I may need a compact car... or I may not need a car at all.

    Some people prefer Mac OS X. Some prefer or depend on Windows. Others prefer Linux. To each her own. Why make sweeping statements about what is absolutely ready or absolutely not ready?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Mistake by the Lake
    Beans
    1,813

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    I don't disagree with him as such that we aren't ready, but I doubt any OS really is ready on all points. I think we have reached a point where most users can comfortably listen to music, play videos, browse the web and so on (ordinary tasks). There is a group of people we will never be ready for for various reasons but I believe the majority of all people would be fine on a Linux desktop.

    Also being in progress doesn't mean it's hopelessly broken now, just that in some cases a few corners need to be polished. I am hestitant to call any bit of FLOSS totally finished. I would consider PackageKit and Pulseaudio pretty solid, there are problems with the backends, ALSA e.g. needs some fixing but for most setups now both are very nice. so his whole point of saying this is a mess is wrong, which is what I aimed to counter, we are aware that it's problematic, we have solutions and they are ready for deployment.
    That sums it up pretty nicely. I myself Have never had a problem with PA, but for some people it seems to be an absolute nightmare. Are these people exaggerating? Are these, so called nightmares, nothing more than maybe one program needed a setting changed for audio to work?
    Last edited by swoll1980; May 18th, 2009 at 07:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Homer J. Simpson
    "Dinner is the perfect break between work, and drunk."


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    @aysiu....
    especially when no one has put forth an agreed-upon definition of what "ready for the desktop" actually means.
    Excellent point!
    ...What do they actually mean when they say that, anyhow? Is Windows all that "ready for the desktop"? Oh well,..Linux is perfectly ready for MY desktop.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    /dev/null
    Beans
    1,574
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    2001 is TOTALLY gonna be the year of the Linux desktop.
    Understanding is a three-edged sword: Your side, their side, and the truth

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Beans
    391
    Distro
    Xubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    Ya, linux is ready for my desktop.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Reykjavík, Iceland
    Beans
    1,555
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    omg omg omg I don't care.

    omg omg omg

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    One thing is very clear, even with little penetration by Ubuntu and Linux in general in the desktop world has got the the rabid MS fanbois frothing and foaming in their mouth, imagine when the number would reach close to 30%. I guess we will see them doing all kinds of extreme acts against Linux users.

    Linux has been on my desktop since last ten years, been dual booting but ended my Windows install last year and have never looked back. Never felt the need. I have installed Ubuntu on many ex Win users and not because I evangelize it, it was their voluntary request and guess what, every single one of them is happy with it and they have never looked back. Most of these persons have suffered virus attacks with their Win installs. Also they all were tired of seeing their Windows install come to a crawl after a year or so, desktop icons disappearing, programs just stop working and of course, the fiasco that comes with every service pack in Windows. So if Ubuntu is not desktop ready for myself or the others I install, I guess for some Windows worshippers, it never will be. Desktop ready to me means getting up, turning my PC on and doing what I intend to do instead of worrying about hacks, HIPS, AVs etc. Most security apps bring even top of the line Win systems to a crawl thereby negating any advanatage of using new hardware.
    Last edited by Arup; May 18th, 2009 at 08:12 PM. Reason: addendum

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    US
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    Quote Originally Posted by nitehawk777 View Post
    @aysiu....


    Excellent point!
    ...What do they actually mean when they say that, anyhow? Is Windows all that "ready for the desktop"? Oh well,..Linux is perfectly ready for MY desktop.
    I created a little poll, and as you can see the results are all over the place.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Beans
    426
    Distro
    Lubuntu Development Release

    Re: rebuttal of: Why Linux is not (yet) ready for the desktop

    what did he mean by "very slow GUI except when being run with a compositing..."

    what a minute! my gui is much more responsive when compiz is OFF! given the difference is negligible, the fact is that he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

    "no standard way of software distribution"

    WHAT?! ubuntu has synaptic and apt-get. wtf does windows have?! they have nothing.

    (4) i've stated this on the forums many times, but i converted my sister and my mom to ubuntu and they know nothing about CLI but they are able to customize their own computers above and beyond anything they've ever done on windows!

    and look at (3.2). he mentions deb, rpm, portage, tarballs, source... well windows has exe, msi, zip, and source as well..

    ARGH

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •