Linux - Why It Fails As A Desktop Operating System?

[red_dragon_here 0]

Linux is becoming such a craze nowadays that not even a single day passes without one or other distribution releasing a new version. But why is it failing so miserably in the desktop arena. The answer lies in three reasons.1. The plethora of distributions - Redhat,Debian,Ubuntu,Suse,Gentoo,Knoppix - everbody and his uncle is coming out with new ones.2. The lack of backward compatibility - I had Redhat 7.3 running. I upgraded to Redhat 9. Many applications had to be recompiled. You ask my mom to recompile applications - She will throw out Linux and take Windows anyday. She is not concerned more about usability than about security. Security is required but not at the expense of usability for most users.3. To add a new hardware or install a new software, you need to be a geek. In most cases, to configure new hardware such as adsl modems, you have to edit configuration files manually. Not what home users want to do. Even the people who come and install the stuff are no aware about Linux. Infact once I had to educate the tech support fellow on how to configure something in Linux. OK the tech support was not good. Still it speaks a lot about Linux.Until these factors are resolved, there is no way anybody can even think about Linux competing with Windows for the desktop market. Only in dreams.

[Jeune 0]

I think one other aspect where linux is not good at is the GUI (I used Mandrake when I started programming). I just think it sucks. Yeah it's too geeky, dull and boring. I don't know if it's just me and that I have gotten used to Windows GUI. Either way, the windows feel is still better. I don't know much about the technical issues you're talking about but yes I'd have to agree that it's such a downer to recompile applications and reconfigure hardware. I mean how user unfriendly can you get? When I mounted my usb drive in one computer that had linux, I couldn't figure how to unmount it. Then in another desktop I could, so it speaks of how linux is so inconsistent.You have to give windows the credit, they've set a, more or less, a good standard for operating systems, security problems and other things aside.

[shadowx 0]

As much as i do love linux i agree fully. Firstly i think they should try to release a few editions such as mandriva and redhat into shops. I know linux is pretty much totally free but i would be happy to buy linux on an easy install disk with a manual for ?20, they dont even need to charge that, only enough to cover their costs such as packing and delivery etc. That way many people will get to see linux and as they see only a few distros they will be more inclined to try hopefully then progress onto lesser known distros. I cant speak about backward compatibility scince i have only tried knoppix live and mandriva and used differnet software on each! But i take your word for it. Although Windows tends to do that to try and keep the market moving. If everyone decided they only wanted xp then MS would run dry so by making things like aero only avaliable in Vista many many people will upgrade to vista. So i think both linux and MS have the same issues there and i guess macs are no different!And all i can do is laugh about the installation of hardware and software, it is a NIGHTMARE! it took me a week to find a video card driver then i tried to install it for 2 days and gave up leacing my widescreen displaying normal width resolution. It seemed impossible. I think the main thing here is that linux is muxh more suited to a fully networked environment and excels as a server platform. And servers are normally controlled by technicians and so the user friendliness isnt so important. Although i found mandriva to be have a very good GUI the user friendliness was zilch when it came to software, although my usb flash drive worked perfectly so did my usb mouse, both without installing additional drivers. Maybe if some hardcore linux coders programmed some automated installers it would help the masses to adopt it. Which can only be good! If i could code in linux id give it a go but using linux is hard enough let alone coding it! but i still think linux is great once its setup correctly Though i havent used it in a very long time! Once a support center find out youve got linux aswell as windows and you have a problem its instantly linux' fault and all you hear is "uninstall linux and phone me back". Which could be another pitfal, the support! Anyway im droning on so ill make my way out now!

[rldowling03 0]

Linux is excellent, I use linux everytime I use my computer. My windows gives me the craps and becuase I am running a low spec system, I started to use Linux Live disks (you know the ones you put in your CD drive and boot up and you can try linux without installation or anything) Well I tried a few of the live CD's incuding; Ubuntu, Knoppix and one of my favourties, Damn Small Linux. Also I downloaded Suse but it wouldn't work for some reason so I just gave up.I personally liked the Damn Small Linux the best because it was small in size, took up very little space, and looked great, the GUI was excellent although I did have problems with it booting up and showing very little color, but it was just a problem which was sorted out easily.Now Knoppix I liked but plain and simply, ran slow.Ubuntu had to be my 2nd favourite, I ordered it from their website and they sent it to me FREE, took about a month but didn't matter . Anyway I really liked Ubuntu and installed it onto my second harddrive with windows still on my first harddrive. Now it all works fine but as you say the hardware and software installation is very challenging but then again there are plenty of people willing to help you out on forums and that, but I guess if you are good enough you could try to do it yourself.Another thing about all the different distributions of Linux is that when I was looking for one to get which I liked, I went through hundreds at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and still didn't find one I liked so I just gave up and asked around in forums and was reccomended some which I tried.Anyway, what do you guys think is the best and most used Distributions?

[brainless 0]

There's one very important thing to remember everytime you complain about Linux' user-friendliness - Among most of the people using Linux, there is no such goal as to get Linux installed on all desktop PCs (as, for example, Microsoft has for Windows) but a rather simple goal: Make Linux as easy to use as possible.Yes, easy - Let's say you wrote a text but when you're finished, you realize that you have to move one line to a place five lines down in the text. What do you do in Windows? [many people I know delete this line and type it again but that's plain stupid so let's forgetabout this way] You mark the line, hit the "copy"-button [well ... I rarely meet people who know about ctrl-c], move the cursor down to where you need it, hit the "paste"-button [the same goes for ctrl-v] - done.In vi [a text editor on many Linux systems], you can do this with one command [right, since I don't have a linux installed anmore, I don't remember it :/]......so Linux is actually easier to use than Windows - but way harder to learn.another mistake many people (including me) make is to try as many distros as possible, hoping that there's one among them which they can use right from the box. As there is about no such thing, it's better to pick one, maybe two [ask some Linux geek about which one to use] and stick with it. This way, you'll learn at least this/these two distros, that's easier than trying to find some config file and trying to find it where it was in the last distro you tried and take a long time before you realize that you're trying to do it the Mandriva way on a gentoo machine...

[xboxrulz 0]

Yes, Linux can be very easy if you took a lil' lesson to learn how to use it. Sometimes Linux is even userfriendlier.However, about Red Hat 7 and Red Hat 9, is because one is using the 2.2.x series (7.0) and one is using the 2.4.x series (9.0). However this has been resolved between 2.4.x and 2.6.x. You can run 2.6.x programs on 2.4.x and vice versa.xboxrulz

[juice 0]

The only reason I will use linux is because I don't want to be ripped off with windows. I saw (in a computer shop) Microsoft Office Student Edition going for over R1000 (around $166). Where is a student who is probably working night-shift, supposed to come up with that sort of money? And another thing: if people don't like linux they can code it themselves - problem solved.

[AnkitGoswami 0]

Well I'm a new linux user (kubuntu 6.10) and after two weeks of pulling my hair, I can finally say that now I can use Linux for almost everything I did in XP. I managed to install real player, opera and vlc player which really made linux much more pleasant for me. However I've started hating google (no picasa, no gtalk) and find myself going back to xp for web development. The real reason for me to go the linux way was Vista. I tried it and found it didn't live up to expectations and then I saw Beryl + XGL on a friend's comp and I knew then and there that I was gonna install Linux on my pc.

[hitmanblood 0]

The biggest problem with linux is that it is not user friendly at all. I know there are distributions which are installing automatically more or less similar to the wondows. However if you check then driver support and if one component fails to install you've got real problem.Then again there is problem with the driver support as companies aren't often writing driver support for the linux systems. And there are several more things like gui which is some way ugly I know it works nicely with and that it can be configuration to look like windows but it is still not the same. Also windows has nice policy they allow windows to be cracked and hacked for home suers because they are then making bunch of money from the licencies which companies are paying. And if some user is used to windows at home he will wont to work on the linux also it is fact. And if we look for security most home users don't need that much of security or are not interested however companies servers are usually on linux at least its the case at me. So everything is on windows except server.Also one more thing which should be considered is that linux is operating system for power users and most of them still don't use it as you can see many developers are still working on the windows.Also I would like to say what I have read in one PC magazine is the thing that in windows they are actually using linux based system although a bit adjusted for their needs. So that says much about windows and security. Why don't they use their own software

[srujanlive 0]

You guys pretty much have hit the bulls eye. That learning curve is the simle reason I dont use linux much. Yeah we can always search the web for solutions and there willl always be one. But with Windows there is no need to even do that. But for me I even have to install my ISP client. That I have never been able to configure. The newer versions have made it simppler to install applications but for that you need an internet connection. A fast one at that. Linux has still a long way to go before it can become what it set out to ... the easiest to use OS

[sinthetix 0]

I know why it fails as a Desktop Operating System. And it's probably one of the best reasons. Anyone can sit down and learn an operating system over time. It doesn't even matter which operating system it is. The thing that screws Linux royally is the fact that there are so many different distributions to choose from. I ask of you, how many of you can really sit here and tell me for a fact that you know, which of these Linux Distributors are a real big company with a lot of backbone and most likely future development that will hopefully not go under in say the next ten years? Now put yourself in the position of a general consumer that doesn't know much about Linux at all. Maybe not even that much about computers too. As soon as they ask someone about Linux and someone says it can be difficult at times, they automatically get turned off to it. So what shines through to the general consumer? Microsoft does of course. And sometimes Mac OS. Microsoft is the big player because we all know how Microsoft started and how it has blown up to a information domination machine that it is today. Now compare that shiny XP or Vista box on the shelf to your favorite flavor of Linux. Which do you think the consumer would choose? Especially after they figure out there are pretty much endless versions of Linux out there, all made by different people!The general consumer has absolutely no idea what they are getting themselves into. They do however know for a fact that Microsoft has been around the block for a while now and will probably continue to do so. When people buy expensive things, they buy it for the future not just the present. It's like buying a car from the dealership. You wouldn't buy a brand new car without a warranty would you? Exactly. Wait, Linux does have some perks doesn't it? Indeed it does. Some are put out by semi-large companies, it's just now that the consumer has found a big companies, how do they know they even have money to really help the consumer if there are problems? Microsoft does. Everyone knows it. You see the commercials, you see them knee deep in everything technology. And Mac is the runner up. It's like trying to sell a Buick when there is a Porshe sitting right next to it.I don't like Microsoft, I don't even like windows. Linux is my all time favorite operating system followed by Mac OS. Microsoft is the worst thing ever put breathe into. I urge *everyone* to at least try Linux. And not just *try* it. Install it on a pc you have as a spare and use it. I mean really USE it. If you just get discouraged try harder and *learn* something for once. Nothing is going to fall out of the sky and into your lap. Everyone had to figure something out at some point on their own or maybe with a little tutorial, and so can you. I think one of the biggest threats to Linux itself is that users stay with Windows while they play with Linux. And because of this as soon as they run into a dead end they hop back on their Windows box and never look back until they think they are ready to try something else with their Linux box. Come on people, spread the Linux!

[hitmanblood 0]

You are right there with most things. Like that the problem is with consumers but there is also problem with the linux itself it is just not so nice and it is certainly not user friendly. And most common users are having problems with Linux and they would never switch from windows because with windows you click here click there and if you don't destroy your system you probably get what you searched for. but with linux you have to sit down and type and then learn a bit more programming and then type again and so on. you can see rreally whos got advantage over here. That is problem, and I think that is the biggeest problem of the linux. Because people just turn their head away when they see it. And with linux distributions I think they are in fact plus for linux because they are mostly compatible between each other and I wont to say programs are usually compatible at least they were those who I checked. And this is plus because potential user is able to choose from vide variaty of products it is like going to supermarket and then buying there several types of chew gums while microsoft still offers only one and it will stay like that however. Problem is that microsoft is also brand name and in the western culture brand name means really a lot. On the other hand most of the microsoft profits comes from the united states and the problem here is that in the united states Linux is considered some stupid European thing which wants to depreciate their domestic brand.

[elrohir 0]

Seriously. Do your homework before posting.

 

Yes, Linux is on average harder than Windows. Why? Because people have been learning to use Windows for years. I used Windows when I started using computers, and used Windows at school in my first computer classes. We are born and bred, as the saying goes, into a completely Windows environment. And you are surprised that it takes two days to install a driver (shadowx)? Did you try that kind of thing two days after the first boot of Windows? Hell, no!

 

"The plethora of distributions"- what's wrong with that? I personally like Ubuntu best - and by no means have I tried every distro out there - other people like Fedora Core, yet others are even more advanced users and use Gentoo. You just need to find something that you like best. Not really that hard.

 

The lack of backward compatibility...

that hurts. It makes me wonder whether you actually figured out about the repositories. It's a great thing that no commercial OS will ever have, simply because of the way their marketing strategies work. You can update the system from the repositories. It's not hard - in fact, it notifies you when updates are ready, even with an annoying little pop-up if you want it to. The only possible reasons you would want to re-compile everything installed is

a) You swapped processors to something drastically different, in which case the processor would most likely fail to operate at all

You are re-compiling the entire system instead of just updating the core, in which case I would like to take this opportunity to label you i. sadly misinformed ii. extrememly lucky that you actually managed to compile a system. However, after recompiling everything, all the programs in the repositories would be updated, so you wouldn't have to "recompile" anything.

 

"Until these factors are resolved, there is no way anybody can even think about Linux competing with Windows for the desktop market. Only in dreams."

Linux isn't competing with Windows. How could it? What does, say, the Ubuntu foundation, gain from me using Ubuntu. Nothing. Yes, there are distros that aim to take market share away from Windows, but so long as Windows doesn't bother Linux (see: DRM), I think you will find that the majority of Linux users are content not to bother Windows. I'm happy with Ubuntu. Why should I care what everybody else uses. Treat it the same way you do freedom of speech.

 

When I mounted my usb drive in one computer that had linux, I couldn't figure how to unmount it. Then in another desktop I could, so it speaks of how linux is so inconsistent.

First of all, there is perfectly good documentation for all distros of Linux that have made much of themselves. It's the user's responsibility to inform themselves, rather than having the OS give you all the information at once, when you don't actually need it (see: force-feeding). You have to understand that Linux is not a corporate adventure, and that the configuration, settings and methods of use depend on a usually small group of people who are making things the way they like them. So, since people have different tastes, different flavours of Linux have appeared, and since they are different, not everything in them is the same.

Normally, however, unmounting a thumb drive is as simple as right-clicking the icon that appears on the desktop and clicking eject. Not hard.

 

"You have to give windows the credit, they've set a, more or less, a good standard for operating systems, security problems and other things aside." yes, it has. It has enabled people who do not want to put effort into learning anything to user computers for various tasks. As they say, "It's gone from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of terminals that tell them what to do and how to do it."

Even so, I'd strike out the "good" in that.

 

Firstly i think they should try to release a few editions such as mandriva and redhat into shops.

Why? I set a download going overnight, and in the morning I have a new OS ready to install. No black magic, just navigating the distro's site. Larry Ellison once said something about the senselessness of software in little card-board boxes. He also, coincidentially, said "I hate the PC, with a passion" in the same sentence, but I'm sure the two have nothing to do with one another (see: sarcasm).

 

"Maybe if some hardcore linux coders programmed some automated installers it would help the masses to adopt it." There have. They are the funny-looking things that appear when you boot with the CD for the first time.

 

Once a support center find out youve got linux aswell as windows and you have a problem its instantly linux' fault and all you hear is "uninstall linux and phone me back". Which could be another pitfal, the support!

That says more about the intelligence of the tech people than it does about Linux. As you have correctly noted, it is nothing do to with Linux when your Windows install breaks (see: redundant), in which case you should have the brains not to mention Linux. For Linux, in case you hadn't figured it out, nobody employs idiots to try and help people that are smarter than them solve things if anything breaks. We use the forums, making use of the knowledge of those with more experience.

 

"Also I would like to say what I have read in one PC magazine is the thing that in windows they are actually using linux based system although a bit adjusted for their needs. So that says much about windows and security. Why don't they use their own software"

I wish you had a few more details about that. See, the roots of windows were laid ages before Linus Torvalds started linux. If you are not talking about the core OS of Windows, then things like additions to Vista in regards to functionality bear strong resemblance to the GNOME window-manager, eg the "waiting" cursor (which appears rather too often), the way you toggle sections in the open/save boxes, the way you enter the administrator, aka root, password - the screen even dimms! - and so on. I tried a copy of Vista Ultimate for a while, but even in that short time I was rather distressed at the extreme rip-off. Damn good thing I hadn't actually paid money for the thing!

 

But for me I even have to install my ISP client. That I have never been able to configure.

Configure your ISP? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard so far. You don't configure your ISP. If you have dial-up or something, you configure your computer according to the settings given to you by the ISP, but most people have a modem and router in between, so nothing at all is done that relates in any way to the ISP.

 

"The newer versions have made it simppler to install applications but for that you need an internet connection. A fast one at that."

What can you download on Windows, Mac, Unix, *BSD, Solaris, or ANYTHING, without an internet connection. Or do you buy every single app you have ever used in a little cardboard box? In that case, stick like hell to Windows. No-one in the FOSS communities ships their programs in cardboard boxes any more.

 

I ask of you, how many of you can really sit here and tell me for a fact that you know, which of these Linux Distributors are a real big company with a lot of backbone and most likely future development that will hopefully not go under in say the next ten years?

Ten years? Seriously. That's if you want to invest your fortune in stocks or something. What does it matter if development stops tomorrow if I have a good operating system installed? The software is still yours

 

"Now compare that shiny XP or Vista box on the shelf to your favorite flavor of Linux. Which do you think the consumer would choose?" Mine! That's why I have it. Of course, I realise that not all "consumers" are ready to digest the amount of information needed to set up something like this, but still. I think that with your argument strategy, it might be a bit more effective to say that 98% of home computers come with Windows pre-installed, and that most consumers have no idea what an operating system is, or heard of linux.

 

how do they know they even have money to really help the consumer if there are problems? Microsoft does

You are looking for help about some random issue, right? Why are you looking for money? Ever heard of the "Wealth of Knowledge"? That's something no Linux forum lacks.

 

"linux itself it is just not so nice and it is certainly not user friendly." That takes me back to my first point. How long have you used Windows. How long have you used Linux? I'm sure most people posting in here have at least tried some flavour of linux (if they haven't, they should run as fast and far as they can while they still have a life) but I'm not convinced that all of the posters have actually taken the time to use Linux until it became a routine. Until you not only know the power of linux, you realise it, you understand it.

 

It's like trying to sell a Buick when there is a Porshe sitting right next to it.

I'm not completely sure whether I'd compare Windows to a Porsche, but I get the message. It's all a matter of taste. Personally, I would hate to have a Porsche, since you can't use it for anything useful, for fear of screwing up the paint or something (the Porsche-Windows analogy wasn't so bad after all, it would seem...). I also just don't have that kind of money. And I'm sure as hell not paying for a nasty OS like VISTA (fyi, vista means chicken in latvian. I found humour in that.)

 

"click here click there and if you don't destroy your system you probably get what you searched for. but with linux you have to sit down and type and then learn a bit more programming and then type again and so on["

I get the impression you are referring to the process of searching either for a file on your system, or perhaps information in general. For files, in most GNOME configs, it's "Places -> Search for Files... " or something similar. Not sure about KDE, but I'm sure it's something simple like K -> Search. No programming involved. For other info, I would use google, or the help files (which, by the way, actually contain useful information).

 

On the other hand most of the microsoft profits comes from the united states and the problem here is that in the united states Linux is considered some stupid European thing which wants to depreciate their domestic brand

I see you are from Slovenia, so I don't think you should be saying what people in the US think (no, I'm not from the US either, I live in Norway). I don't know what the truth of this is, though I plan to investigate the matter this summer, and before that I will hold my general opinion concerning the US firmly to myself, unless I'm ranting about it specifically. (btw, have you seen the latest Vista sales in China. You should Last time I checked, they were at around 250 XD )

 

I guess there should have been some final point, somehow explaining why I took the time to do all this typing (and no, I won't sue anyone if I get RSI because of it), but there is none. Besides, of course, the chance to say that:

 

YOU

ARE

WRONG

 

and I am always right. This time I'm just even more right than usual (Quote: Linus Torvalds).

 

Sorry I did not put all the quotes in quote boxes, there appears to be a limit... :-?

 

Further reading: "Linux is NOT Windows"

 

Thank you, and good night.

Edited May 8, 2007 by elrohir (see edit history)

[osknockout 0]

elrohir: w0w. Now THAT's a burning argument. Although you could have been a little nicer on that, it is edging on flaming

 

To be fair, synthetix is right as far as it comes to the user impression. Most people just WANT THE DARN THING TO WORK.

They don't care how much they have to pay for it to happen, but they want their word processor, games, and internet running

preferably with as little hassle as possible. Options only confound an ignorant public. Plus linux doesn't have that much publicity

to the general populace (at least here, NO ONE should start flaming over a dumb thing like that, accept it as a fact.)

 

Plus, thanks to those idiots who indeed don't have a clue about linux, the general public stays confused and ignorant because

when they DO have a problem they don't know how to fix it. Yes, there ARE forums and they're the most useful things in the world,

but that's not something you'd figure out on your own uberfast because you're not used getting others to help you freely in a

proprietary OS mentality. At least, not with the system itself. The idea that you pay for OS support is practically indoctrinated into you.

 

Firstly i think they should try to release a few editions such as mandriva and redhat into shops.

Umm... a friend of mine got a copy of RedHat 7 (back when it was still supported) at WAL-MART. 2 YEARS ago.

They're already in shops. At least, where I'm around.

 

how do they know they even have money to really help the consumer if there are problems? Microsoft does

THEY know and WE know because they actually do. If you buy a copy from a major linux distro , they usually include

support with it. With Red Hat and such, the philosophy is that they sell the services, not the operating system.

Try it out sometime, you might be surprised.

 

Configure your ISP? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard so far

Oh, come now. The words were ISP Client. It's a standard problem that everyone has starting with, even on Windows.

Let's not be that hard on the guy.

 

On the other hand most of the microsoft profits comes from the united states and the problem here is that in the united states Linux is considered some stupid European thing which wants to depreciate their domestic brand

Ok, now this is something I definetly know. I live in the infamous superpower of the world, I know the general impression of linux.

And here it is: "huh?" Most people have never heard of it. Mention it and you'll get something like "what's that?"

Mention it to someone of the general populace that DOES know, and they'll think it's something for people who are pretty good with computers

because that's where they've heard the term. People who have heard of it but don't know much think of it something that "elite" computer users use.

Add that to the reinforcement (NO THANKS to the US media :sarcasm:) that "hackers" use linux, and it sounds like something you want to stay away from.

(Even though you'd think that "hackers" use linux for a reason.)

 

The point is that people on this side of the Atlantic are so ignorant of Linux that they've never heard of it, nonetheless know that it came from Europe.

They think football is some European thing, thank you very much. (I play it too...) We have no "OS-nationalism". Not all of us are idiots.

But Linux? Try saying that again in Latin? No one really likes Microsoft either, but a viable alternative isn't that obvious.

 

@elrohir: some of these guys sounds like the type of people who've ventured around with different linux distros and has become confused because of the

variation in types of bugs and features. Yes, they are wrong on several points, but lack of know-how is generally the FIRST reason someone uses a desktop instead of

consoles in the first place. When you and I think that our package manager's retarded, we pull up the console and then "apt-get" or "emerge".

We do the same thing with scripts. And it's so easy and flexible when we do so. But most people don't know. So when they DO have a problem

the GUI interface can't handle, they're stuck. If we EVER want people to accept linux as a good desktop system, we have to let them be able

to do everything in easily explained terms through the desktop. Read: a good desktop system. Windows sucks as a performance os, but it

keeps getting better and better with the desktop. And telling people flatly that they're wrong only makes them more frustrated with Linux and

the Linux community. The second part's the one that counts more. In order to use an OS at its par, you should feel that you're part of the os community.

It's psychological as well as technological things that count. Remember, it's the posts back to Linus asking for improvements that made Linux what

it is instead of some experiment for two months. We can't forget that, otherwise the idea of Linux as a whole is meaningless.

And there are a lot more people out there that want to try but really have no clue how to and just end up frustrated. They get turned off that way.

And WE CAN'T AFFORD FOR THAT TO HAPPEN because Linux is a movement, not just an os. It's people like these guys we should be listening most to.

Edited May 8, 2007 by osknockout (see edit history)

[elrohir 0]

I stand... not quite corrected, but something close, anyways. I'll blame it on the time of night it was when I posted....

elrohir: w0w. Now THAT's a burning argument. Although you could have been a little nicer on that, it is edging on flaming

It is, isn't it... Hope nobody took offence. (Do I need to add a little :snigger; here?)
Another thing I should have thought of is:

Linux - Why it fails as a desktop operating system

Do "we", as linux users, really want Linux to become mainstream? Dell are starting to release computers with Ubuntu preinstalled, but my first reaction was not good. Is is really a good thing that Ubuntu is on it's way to commercialism? Even if the Ubuntu devs don't seem to have much to do with it...

Fails? Linux does not fail as a desktop operating system. My computer runs it. Technically it's not a desktop, but my mum's computer runs it. Nothing has "failed".

All fault lies with the user. And I won't stand corrected on that one.

They think football is some European thing, thank you very much.

Well, isn't it? You call it soccer, so football must be european? No, wait, you have the football where you pick it up all the time. At least, I assume that you were being international when you called football football (appreciated!) ?

Oh, come now. The words were ISP Client. It's a standard problem that everyone has starting with, even on Windows.Let's not be that hard on the guy.

That's still covered by the modem -> router, before going into the comp. (And just so you all know it, most of the networking hardware available has some cut-down barebones of linux installed on it.) I'll take the "configuring of ISP client" to mean connecting the computer to a network, which yes, can cause some oddities.

And there are a lot more people out there that want to try but really have no clue how to and just end up frustrated. They get turned off that way.And WE CAN'T AFFORD FOR THAT TO HAPPEN because Linux is a movement, not just an os. It's people like these guys we should be listening most to.

So you're saying that Linux should be made easier, simpler... etc, just because the people who have spent two days with some random distro can't spend a couple weeks getting into it? That just doesn't figure.

I'm not going to argue anything further... I just hope a couple people took the time to read that article I linked to. It's pretty famous, by now, and I really think it gives a good explaination.

-E