[lug] my latest guilty pleasure -- Linuxhaters Blog

[Collins Richey]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:
> Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
>> It's even better than that.  Back in January I hired us an administrative
>> assistant.  She had only used Windows before.  I set her up with a Linux
>> system and walked her through what she needs to do (e-mail, openoffice,
>> SVN
>> for our documentation repository even, web browsing).  She had absolutely
>> no problems, saying something like "This all seems like what I'm used to".
>
>> She's had no problems with it.  Except that "it doesn't crash all the time
>> like my Windows system did at my last job".
>
> That part we all know is kinda a straw-man... Windows will run a long time
> without crashing nowadays with a professional admin/support staff doing the
> right things.  Sounds like they didn't have one at her last job.

Nate, you never give up. Of course, Linux could never be an acceptable
alternative in your opinion. I would rephrase that statement. Windows
will run longer without crashing that it did in the past with or
without professional admins. It will not run as long as Linux without
crashing. We have professional admins at work, and it still crashes.
In particular, the hotfixes that M$ proscribes to fight the
continually morphing viral infections are more likely to crash the
system than not. Based on recent experience at work, I would say that
maybe 1 out of 100 Linux updates are flawed (RHEL), whereas Windows
fixes get about 1 out of 10 badly wrong, and these are usually hard
failures, not just a single broken package.

>
> A mac can also fill that last "requirement" too...
>

Of course, it's based on BSD, an extremley reliable OS.


> Also curious:  Could she have loaded that machine herself with the distro
> you're using and ended up with the same desktop you set her up with... with
> a single "go do it" mouse click?
>
> That's the goal... if we want people to use Linux.
>

Not really. The goal is to have Linux preloaded by professionals in
the same manner that Windows is preloaded. The average Luser is no
more capable of installing Windows than Linux. Installing Windows is
certainly not a one-click operation, and if the installation goes
boom, the user is less likely to find reasonably quick help (did I
mention mostly free?) repairing the broken system than is the case
with Linux. If a user can run a windows update, he/she can certainly
deal with one of the gui package managers under Linux. In any business
environment, professional admins are available for Linux just as for
windows. Besides, not one out of 50 of my users needs to deal with
installing software; we do it.

The three (oops four)  flaws I find with Linux that aren't likely to
go away any time soon are:

1. The continual selfish need of developers to reinvent the wheel (aka
API) over and over. This applies to the kernel and to most
applications. What used to work won't work on the new release without
a lot of tinkering. This is really the M$ approach.

2. The multiplicity of desktop environments and eye candy. If the
lamebrains at GNU had put the same amount of effort into improving
KDE/QT instead of reinventing the wheel, we would have one solid
desktop environment by now. Yes I know that QT had a non-free origin,
but the code was released rapidly, so that's not an acceptable excuse.

3.  The lack of support by manufacturers for peripherals under Linux.
Not something that Linux can fix.

4. As you have said. Too many applications but not enough killer
applications in Linux land.

Nevertheless, If I were running a small business, I would consider
Linux or MAC for most of the functions. Who needs to deal with malware
every day? There are some exposures in Linux, but the frequency is
infinitessamally  small for the average business that does not have
externally exposed websites.

-- 
Collins Richey
 If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
 of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.