Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

Posted Apr 12, 2003 22:07 UTC (Sat) by philbu (guest, #10608)
Parent article: Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

I think it is.

I was finally able to switch from Windows just recently. I've been toying around with various distros for the last couple years. But until now, the time hasn't been right.

Now I can install Redhat 9, with full feature support for my laptop, except for the modem, which I don't use. I'm also running a printer, scanner, external usb/firewire hard drive, connecting via usb to my 12 track audio recorder, burning CDs, as well as doing my job.

I'm a System Admin for a lot of Windows boxes by the way. Rdesktop and VNC are the best.

Another big plus is how far Mozilla has come along. Java and Flash support is bonus with me. And the fonts are a lot more readable.

Just my 2 cents,
Phil

(Log in to post comments)

Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

Posted Apr 12, 2003 22:33 UTC (Sat) by Evil_E (guest, #10609) [Link]

I think Linux is ready. I switched to Mandrake Linux 9.1 recently and the only thing that
keeps me from wiping XP from my Harddrive is my Music program. That's the only area
where Linux is not ready... ok we got Ardour and some other programs. But they are not
ready for PrimeTime... all I need is a good reliable old fashioned Harddisk recorder with
some good effects. When they start arriving I'll say good bye to XP. Many people at my
work don't think Linux is good enough for anything, but most of them looked at RH 5.2 or
something that old and doesn't realize how far Linux and all the GUI:s have come since
then. I switched because I wanted freedom and most of my needs are satisfied now.

David

Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

Posted Apr 13, 2003 14:43 UTC (Sun) by fandom (subscriber, #4028) [Link]

Unfortunately, that's the big point, no matter how ready Linux is for the desktop, as
long as there is a single app that doesn't work for you in Linux, you have to keep
Windows around, and as long as there is a single app that doesn't work in Linux,
why bother having Linux at all.

I mean, I do have Linux at home but at work it is not feasible because of an app that
almost nobody has heard of.

Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

Posted Apr 13, 2003 17:13 UTC (Sun) by utidjian (subscriber, #444) [Link]

That cuts both ways... in my case there are dozens of apps I use in Linux that aren't available for Windows (ok so mebbe 5 or 6 main ones). Some have Windows versions but are a PITA to setup and are missing a lot of the functionality that the Linux version offers.

The only reason I bother having Windows at all is because I have to check webpages and services for my Windows users.

-DU-...etc...

Linux not ready for the desktop? Give me a break! (NewsForge)

Posted Apr 13, 2003 18:06 UTC (Sun) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

If you have to use the non-Linux app all the time, that's certainly true. But if you only occasionally use the app, Linux could be more pleasent and efficient for the rest of the time. Trying to primarily use Linux also means that you're less likely to start using more apps that tie you to Windows, and encourages you to try to find an alternative to that app (which will be necessary at some point, regardless, because you will eventually be unable to get a computer that runs a particular version of a Windows app). It's also worth looking into VMWare and similar software, which can make it relatively easy to run both at the same time for different tasks (and can also improve the lifetime of your Windows installation by handling hardware that the Windows version you need can't support natively).