Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Why I Still Run Windows 17

Journal by the_mad_poster

Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better.

The problem with Linux is not that it's not production ready, it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go. It has taken a large chunk of the market share away from the old, cumbersome UNIX systems, with their painful licensing models and lackluster support, but now it has no more market share to chip at because the supermajority of disk space that is left is in the form of desktops.

And Linux is just nothing special in that realm.

I speak authoritatively on the subject because my experience with Linux begins many moons ago with an old system called Linux Mandrake, now called Mandriva Linux. It started with version 5.2, a system forked from the Red Hat 5.2 release. I have since used Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 7.0 and 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, Fedora Core 2, and variations from SuSE.

The first version I used was painful. It was a horrible system with a horrible interface and horrible documentation. Managing it was excruciating, and it wasn't uncommon for a seemingly simple change to break numerous systems in unrelated modules and drivers. The GUI was weak, disorganized, and difficult to manipulate. The desktop was hard to customize, and the interfaces were slow and cumbersome. Installing and uninstalling was nearly impossible because packages scattered files across a confusing, oblique filesystem, and it was a very common occurrence to find rpm entries had been corrupted and left unusable.

These problems I experienced were not uncommon and plagued Linux for years, leaving astute IT professionals shaking their heads, and young, energetic, and idealistic kids suffering under a burdensome system. I think it is fair to say that the rise in Linux use during the IT bubble and the subsequent pop of that bubble is not a completely coincidental correlation. Literally millions of man hours were lost in this time to troublesome Linux boxes and that sort of loss can hit new IPOs hard when it comes time to pay the piper.

It took many, many years and thousands of developers, but the system finally began to shed its inadequacies and "quirks" and develop into a full-fledged corporate workhorse. The managers who had been shaking their heads warily approached new versions and their confidence was bolstered as the GUIs began to fill out, the quirks began to shrink to the background, and more application support became the norm on new releases.

Now, Linux is a force to be reckoned with in backoffices and server racks. It is not, however, any closer to dethroning Windows as the supreme ruler of meatspace userland.

There is a very simple reason for this: it sucks.

I know, I know, I just finished zipping up the body bag on the "Linux isn't production ready" myth, but we've moved to a whole new realm here. We've gone from the terminology of fsck to frag. From SMP to MMORPG.

The problem is that everyone knows Windows and everyone's applications already run on Windows. There is no purpose in learning a new system because Windows is now polished and stable, and maintains its original attractiveness through its continued ease-of-use. Like Linux, it has shed its inadequacies and become a competent and powerful system in its own right.

So, in effect, we have the Windows system which has provided a consistent and simple interface for a decade now, and the Linux system which is an alien world to most people. Both function competently, though Linux still suffers a bit from the problem of glut thanks to its monolothic structure, and neither really offers a serious bnenefit over the other. As Joe Sixpack sitting in my cubicle, I have to think "Well, then why should I switch?" As the IT manager evaluating the cost of switching, I have to ask, "Well, how can you justify the tens of thousands I'll need to spend in training on this new system?"

Why, indeed? In the end, the Linux system offers nothing of value that Windows doesn't. For the multitudes who are already using Windows, there is no reason to switch. For the newcomers, it's a toss-up. In fact, there are only two groups that give each side an edge in specific circumstances: the Linux zealots hype Linux because it's Linux, and the gamers hype Windows because it's where all the games are.

At the end of the day, I can't recommend one over the other, but that's why I have to recommend Windows. It's already on your computer, you might as well just use it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why I Still Run Windows More

Why I Still Run Windows

Comments Filter:
  • There is no purpose in learning a new system because Windows is now polished and stable,
    Psst - its not Tuesday :-)

  • Some good points (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @01:34PM (#13034486) Homepage Journal
    Value is a leading argument you have. This line is very core to the Microsoft corporate message about Linux. I do think that there are those who would strongly agree that value to them is differently weighted.

    Source code availability is a value that is, for some, a make-or-break value. Beyond mere availability, free license to manage, modify and re-distribute source and derivative objects is a paramount value.

    For some freedom from license fees is a principal concern. Others find a value in the pressure that Linux and its "fellow travellers" can exert on MS. Witness IE7 - a direct response to Firefox.

    Not all of these values can be weighted under the "I want a consumer computer to just work" definition.

    I am not necessarily an advocate of tehse positions - bu t others claim them as valid concerns, and form their own definition of "Value".

  • First of all, I meant to have comments enabled across the board, since this is not a political topic.

    But, I'd like to address some of your points.

    ... it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go.

    I disagree - the source code being open for anyone to tinker with is a very compelling reason to run Linux. A developer can try new optimizations for SMP machines, thread safety, etc., and everyone gets the benefit. Plus - it's more capitalistic - it's a

    • Before TMP flames you, you replied to all his points arguing a completely different argument. His argument was that Linux offers nothing to everyday desktop users that just want a machine that runs (the VAST majority of windows desktop users). Your replies were almost all specialty uses or power uses. Tinkering with code, booting from USB2 disks, custom kernel compiling, better manual upgrades (btw: apt-get upgrade in the stable distribution STILL occasionally cause major flaws in my system that need to
      • As for "If you're used to running Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, etc, why do you care if you're running it under Linux or Windows?" that was TMP's closing argument. The thing is, most people already run windows, so why should they change.

        One is free (as in free beer), one isn't. That's a pretty compelling reason there.

        • One is free (as in free beer), one isn't. That's a pretty compelling reason there.

          One the already have, one they don't. That's an even more compelling reason.

          -Ab
          • We could get into the security problems of Windows, the MS Phoning Home problems of Windows XP, the irritating Windows Activation (since it's obviously MS's business if you upgrade your PC), Viruses, Spyware, adware, etc....

            All of which does not hamper Linux.

            • We could get into the security problems of Windows, the MS Phoning Home problems of Windows XP, the irritating Windows Activation (since it's obviously MS's business if you upgrade your PC), Viruses, Spyware, adware, etc....

              All of which does not hamper Linux.

              Again, your arguing the wrong argument. THos things piss me off to no end. I have my firewall set to not allow it to phone home, download without explicit confirmation from me, etc ... then again, I'm a lot like you in the fact that I am a computer
      • I reread your post, and missed a statement - where you claim I didn't address any of TMP's points - actually, not only did I address them, I countered them.

        First, TMP claimed that Linux has nothing special to offer and no where else to go. I pointed out that Linux has, and will have better SMP support for one - which will become more important as more and more Dual Core CPU's hit the market.

        Next, he essentially said the GUI's suck, I responded essentially with "Have you seen the latest KDE, it's neat-o

        • Ok, without getting too far out of hand in this thread, you're STILL missing the point of the argument (or purposely choosing to ignore it):

          1. Yes, all of your arguments are valid ... but NOT in the scope of the original argument. The original argument was for AVERAGE HOME DESKTOP USERS.
          A.1 Your point: Better SMP service
          A.2 Counterpoint: what home user (beyond power-users like me and you and TMP) even know what SMP is, more or less care (SMP, I assume is Symmetrical Multi-Processing, unless you Me
  • Linux is not ready for the desktop [slashdot.org]

    I still run Windows, but I'd love to switch to an Open Source operating system. On my servers, I run OpenBSD, which is a damned fine operating system and I absolutely love the philosophy. On my desktop I once started installing FreeBSD, and even compiled the kernel to activate SMP. SMP worked out of the box with Windows 2000... Go figure! (It's a real Dual machine, not that Hyperthreading crap) Problem is: I vastly prefer to use my laptop and I only have one laptop

  • The problem with Linux is not that it's not production ready, it's that it's a system that doesn't have anything special to offer and has nowhere new left to go.

    It has lots of places it could go. If Linux ever becomes the dominant desktop OS, or even becomes a significant player (more than, say, ~20% of the desktop), it will be because it evolved into something new. It will always have unix roots and a posix interface, but it may end up not looking much like a *nix. Of course, it is already moving away

  • OSX.

    I quite using Windows when I got a virus. MS Blaster. I switched to Linux. That was a couple years ago and I've since switched again. To a Powerbook. It's nice.

    My only complain with Linux was that I couldn't run some of my games as well. Darn. It's not like I needed to anyway.

    When I moved to OSX I got some of my games back, but I'm missing out a little on the bazillion other programs you can get on Linux. I'm not used to *not* downloading source and compiling it. Installation here is a drag and drop
    • Ditto.

      For a geezer hacker like myself (started with cards on VAX systems), OSX is the best of all possible worlds. Nice clicky-clicky things, but I can drop down to Darwin and do the heavy lifting when need be. *nix is my native OS, really, so I'm never stuck on how to get something done with OSX, at most I have to load a man page to refresh my memory on something and then it's done. I don't think windows can touch OSX as a desktop, but I've always done my intensive crunching on the server side with a w
  • ..is that it's only suitable for experts. Put it into the hands of a non-expert, and let them get on the internet, and you know what'll happen.

    Yes, you know how to keep a Windows machine running. Most people don't, and they use the applications (IE, Outlook, etc) that come preloaded with the preloaded OS -- and they use those apps unsafely. You say everyone knows how to use Windows, but I have seen Windows users load a document into MS Word, when they don't even know for sure who sent them that documen

Slashdot Top Deals

Thrashing is just virtual crashing.

Close