[clug] Why MS Windows isn't ready for the Desktop
sam at couter.dropbear.id.au
Tue Aug 3 10:34:42 GMT 2004
Andrew Roudenko <aroudenko at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> The article seems to heavily blur the lines between OS and OS+ apps, depending on
> when it suits.
Same tactic as used by the other side (if you think there are sides).
> So the author is comparing a bare bones Windows install v a GNU/Linux install with all
> apps installed?
Install Debian, select the apps you want, wait for them to be installed
off the CD/DVD/'net, all done. Useful machine. Cost: packet of chocolate
biscuits at CLUG.
Install Windows. Click a lot. Windows Update, click a lot more, reboot a
lot. Spend a few days screwing around trying to find drivers (and people
say hardware support in Linux is poor). Go get Firefox so you can
continue to browse the 'net. Grab vim so you have a working editor.
Anti-virus and firewall if you don't have a machine between the Windows
box and the world. Cygwin. PuTTY. Exodus. Development machine? Go get
Eclipse, Python, Perl, Borland, VC++, whatever. Music and videos? More
downloading and installing. Network monitoring? More downloads.
Cost: thousands of dollars, many days, remaining hair.
Windows is a joke when it comes to providing an integrated system.
> How about we compare Windows with OO installed v GNU/Linux with OO installed.
OOo is included in modern Linux distributions. Windows includes nothing.
> More != better.
More choice == better.
> And Mozilla can be run natively on MS Windows for free, so I am
> unable to see how this proves GNU/Linux is better?
Because it's included in the distribution, along with many competing
browsers. Windows includes IE only. If you want a different browser, you
need to go get it seperately.
Including IE at all should be considered malicious damage, but that's a
> Again, GAIM can be run natively on MS Windows, so how does this make GNU/Linux
> a better desktop environment?
GAIM is a seperate download for Windows. It's included in Linux
> I will say it out loud, I have run Win2k for a number of years on one of my boxes and
> NEVER seen the blue screen of death.
I'm forced to use XP at work. I don't see blue screens very often
because the fucker skips that bit and heads right for the BIOS POST,
then proceeds to boot up and pretend nothing is wrong, nothing was
wrong, and that I haven't lost any work at all.
> has a simpler methodology to handling all this. It's called codecs."
> I am unsure what the author was getting at here?
Trying to show their ignorance? I'm not sure either.
> Overall, I feel the author, instead of comparing the MS Windows desktop to the
> GNU/Linux desktops, has instead compared proprietary applications to FOSS
And why not? A full Windows install is useless. About all it's good for
is playing Solitaire, and that gets boring pretty quick. Most people add
proprietary applications to it to make it useful, then talk about how
good/easy Windows is.
I think you've also missed the disclaimer at the top of the article:
" [...] this article is intended to spoof [...]"
> To be honest this felt no less enlightening than reading MS propoganda.
I think that's the point, but maybe that's just me.
Sam "Eddie" Couter | mailto:sam at couter.dropbear.id.au
Debian Developer | mailto:eddie at debian.org
| jabber:sam at teknohaus.dyndns.org
OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20040803/c50db2c4/attachment.bin
More information about the linux