ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

7 reasons why Linux won't succeed on the desktop

Time: 19:40 EST/00:40 GMT | News Source: EETimes | Posted By: Andre Da Costa

I know that, in years past, whenever I was ordered by my bosses to do a "state of Linux" article, I'd call the usual suspects and ask them if "this'll be the year." They always told me it would be. Twelve months later, I'd repeat the whole process.

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 41 of 41

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 11888 (64.231.3.191) at Friday, September 21, 2007 07:50:03 PM

I think XP, Vista, and OS X are reasons enough why Linux won't succeed.

I've been trying it time and time again since 1997 and while it's better, it's not a Windows or OS X replacement.

This post was edited by MrRoper on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 19:50.

#2 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at Friday, September 21, 2007 09:15:18 PM

Hey,

I really like Linux so I keep a live MEPIS DVD distro around to screw with when I'm using my computer as a toy.

Only one question - Why are the type fonts soooooo ugly?

#3 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at Friday, September 21, 2007 09:36:16 PM

Linux is looking good lately and getting easy to use too, especially with the forthcoming release of GNOME 2.20 which contains a high level of polish. But the primary issues remain, compatibility, application support, hardware support and integration with existing Windows environments.

http://news.opensuse.org/?p=264

And the fact that there are over 300 distributions. It needs to be cut down to he best 10, with at least five being OpenSource projects similar to Fedora and OpenSUSE. People want to open their Music or Video libraries or insert and CD or DVD and it just plays without the need to search for an appropriate codec. As for good looks, Windows looks good too, especially Windows Vista.

#4 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at Saturday, September 22, 2007 09:55:34 AM

Mr. Roper nailed it. Bonus points for him.

#5 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at Saturday, September 22, 2007 04:57:17 PM

My biggest issue with completely switching to Linux is lack of equivalent applications in Linux for some of the less often used stuff, like Quicken, good CD / DVD burning suites like Nero that just work, etc., and lack of hardware support for many peripherals. I have a scanner that is several years old, with an ability to scan transparencies, slides, negatives, etc., but only the flatbed scanner portion is supported under Linux / SANE. At least with Windows XP, I know I can purchase a cool piece of hardware, and know that there is driver support for it, even if I have to download the latest driver version from the manufacturers web site.

Linux has made some huge strides in the last few years, but it is not Linux that is the problem. It is all the other software makers that are not making their software available in Linux versions that are holding it back the most. Once Linux is being used by enough people, the ISV market will start to support it more, and then it will take off like crazy. Of course, this is a classic Catch-22 situation, as the growth won't be there until the apps are, and the apps won't be there until the number of installed seats is great enough to make the effort worthwhile. And once Linux is a suitable platform for game makers to start porting popular games to Linux, that will help greatly as well. Until then, it will remain a niche OS, just like all the other non-Windows OSes are. It is unfortunate, but that is life in the IT sector.

#7 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:17:22 PM

I was talking to a neighbor the other day. He was trying out Ubuntu. He had nothing but troubles and finally gave up. I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell.

Even if you only keep the PC for 3 years, that works out to less than 5 cents a day.

Was all the hassle worth it to save 5 cents a day? Not a chance he said.

#8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:28:13 PM

#7, Very powerfully and well stated! Equally sobering.

#9 By 11888 (64.231.3.191) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 07:39:53 PM

I'm not sure an upsell that is at least double the cost of a retail box of Vista is powerful or well stated.

#10 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 08:07:23 PM

#9: Ketchum kisses anyone's butt when they're praising Microsoft. Of course, parkker talking to a neighbour about Ubuntu is a nose-stretcher (to put it politely) to begin with. What's that? You're having trouble with something free on your existing system? Why, the obvious solution is to spend a grand on a new PC loaded with Vista and have problems of a whole different nature. Typical Microbot thinking -- the solution to any problem is to give Microsoft more money. Meanwhile, the WSJ, normally a cheerleader for MS, says this:

"Microsoft is a frequent target, of course. But the Business Technology Blog can't remember companies taking on the giant at this rate before. They seem to sense weakness. The most obvious explanation is slow adoption and widespread discontent with Vista, the latest version of Microsoft's flagship operating system. Only 7% of companies plan to deploy Vista this year, according to a recent Journal article. Thirty-eight percent of companies say they have no plans to move to Vista at all."

Edit: Wow, I just read this over at the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

They seem to think that the EU antitrust decision that the Microbots are decrying as the end of civilization is a good thing. Interesting.

This post was edited by Latch on Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 20:27.

#11 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:20:16 PM

"Why, the obvious solution is to spend a grand on a new PC loaded with Vista ..."

He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor).

It was a much better choice for him than wasting his time trying to make Ubuntu work on his older PC.

11$ a month if he only keeps his PC for 3 years.

40 cents a day for the PC and OS to save him years of frustration dealing with cryptic command line crap trying to make Ubuntu work

#12 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:33:06 PM

Gee, I am glad you are not my IT go to guy. Do you tell everyone with a software problem to go and buy a new PC so they can run Vista? What am I saying? Of course you would, and probably do. And it is telling that one simply can't upgrade from XP to Vista on an older machine, but upgrading from XP to Ubuntu is very doable. Want to upgrade to Vista? Forget the actual shelf price. It is irrelevant. You need to purchase a new PC with it pre-installed in order for anyone who hadn't bought a new PC in the last couple of months to use it anyway.

Simply amazing. But, we have come to expect no less from you.

#13 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:38:34 PM

#6: Thanks for the links! They have been duly bookmarked. Though I mentioned software as an impediment, in a general sense, my biggest impediment often becomes one of hardware driver support, as I tend to get oddball types of add-on hardware, like scanners that Linux drivers (such as SANE) don't fully support. At least with Windows, I can look on the back of the box and know if it supports Windows XP, and which service pack level, minimal hardware, etc., is recommended. There is no such information easily available to me when looking at stuff in a store, short of finding an internet connected PC, and doing a web search for Linux compatibility issues with each piece of hardware I might be interested in. This is the sort of thing that helps Windows maintain their installed base, and prevents Linux from growing more.

#14 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:34:27 PM

#10, You're getting pretty loose with the intensely personal insults young man.

Notparker presented a very strong argument opposite a value proposition that is too often overlooked... to which the best you can offer is to call me an ass-kisser and Notparker a liar.

Try presenting an argument that refutes the value and cost effectiveness notparker simply, and as I said, powerfully, articulated.

#12, What?!?!?!? Upgrading to Vista is about as stupid proof as installing a new OS can get. We've done it on so much hardware that I can't begin to recall them all. Vista is many fold better than XP. I still don't get what you are speaking to in this context.

#15 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at Monday, September 24, 2007 12:05:38 AM

#14 "Notparker presented a very strong argument..."
Woah... hold on there cowboy... "I was talking to a neighbor the other day..." is now considered a very strong argument? Really? Hearsay? A strong argument? Perhaps you should spend a little more time learning to debate rather than worshiping everything that is Microsoft or supportive of Microsoft.

NotParkkker didn't present any argument of any kind - he completely ignored everything that was written above, specifically point #6, and instead told us an amusing story of how he recommended that his neighbour upgrade to Vista to fix some mythical issues that they were having. Then to top it off he once again informed us all of his deep knowledge of operating systems with his comment - "years of frustration dealing with cryptic command line crap trying to make Ubuntu work".

As for the cost-effectiveness - what's cost effective about purchasing a brand new pc (just to run Vista) just to get some discount on the cost of the operating system when he already HAS a pc and HAS an OS that was... absolutely free? That's right... there is none!

#16 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at Monday, September 24, 2007 12:17:29 AM

If you have a fairly modern machine, buying a new machine to use Vista is never necessary. I am running Windows Vista Ultimate x86 on a Dell Dimension 8300 I acquired in March of 2004. Of course, it initially came with a P4 3.2 GHz, 512 MBs of RAM and an nVidia Geforce FX 5200. I upgraded the RAM to an additional 2 GBs in late 2005 and its running Vista like a champ ever since. Spent like about $170 on the memory. Better than buying a brand new machine and I get to use the latest OS and use my existing applications.

With Linux, I would spend more time tinkering, configuring, relearning, adjusting, which could take time which most persons don't have. We need to stop always looking at cost as a number 1 factor to stop using Windows, but then again, its a number 1 factor when it comes to sticking with Windows. If you have invested in a number of Windows based software over the years, throwing them out just to make Richard Stallman, the OSS Community and Linus Torvald happy will only leave you frustrated.

#17 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 07:59:33 AM

#14: Yes, a Vista install is pretty simple, but I have also installed every installation of Windows prior to Vista on several different machines, as well as various flavours of Solaris and several different Linux distributions. Many of the Linux distributions have been quite painless to me to install and configure. I occasionally had a few difficulties with DHCP and cable modems back when those were still considered to be a new thing, but not in any recent distro.

The point I was making, since you seemed to not get it, was that NotParker had to recommend that his neighbour upgrade to a new PC, just to get a cheap copy of Vista, and a system that it would run on, rather than use his so called expertise to help his neighbour get what he already had running.

I have to agree with Chris Kabuki that what NotParker gave was anything but a strong argument. A personal example, yes, but a strong argument? Not even close. If you consider "My neighbour had some sort of problem with a Linux OS on his system, so I recommended he buy a new PC with Vista pre-installed" to be a "very strong argument", then you definitely need some lessons in the finer points of debate and logic. Here is a strong argument against Vista from me: "I once had a friend who was having problems with a Windows system, so I recommended he keep his existing hardware, and install Linux on it, overwriting his Windows partition." Since I recommend keeping his existing hardware, thus lowering the cost to him, my argument must be much better than NotParkers, by your definition.

#18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 08:16:57 AM

#14: Poor Ketchum. You can certainly dish it out when it suits you, but you can't take it. How does it feel to get spanked in public, huh? That's what you get for standing with a crackpot like parkkker, no matter how idiotic he's being.

#19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 08:36:50 AM

#15: Keep in mind that NotParker would recommend purchasing a new car to get a discount on a new fuel filter, if the old one was causing problems.

#20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Monday, September 24, 2007 08:43:24 AM

#18, head of bone... mond of clay... please pay attention...

The strength in his arguement is in the cost analysis....

Neighbor aside... subject aside... the simple, clear cost analysis is too powerful and accurate to ignore.

Now... pop your littel pill and go make some fresh coffee.

#21 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Monday, September 24, 2007 08:43:52 AM

#18, head of bone... mind of clay... please pay attention...

The strength in his argument is in the cost analysis....

Neighbor aside... subject aside... the simple, clear cost analysis is too powerful and accurate to ignore.

Now... pop your little pill and go make some fresh coffee.

#22 By 12071 (203.158.38.187) at Monday, September 24, 2007 09:09:51 AM

#19 *laughs* Now THERE is a very strong argument! :) I might need to purchase a new car soon...

#23 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 09:19:15 AM

#21: If it was really about cost analysis, then why didn't NotParker simply suggest getting XP to run on his current hardware, rather than buy new hardware to get the newer OS? That would have been the more cost effective alternative suggestion, if that was in fact what NotParker was aiming for, rather than just shilling for Microsoft.

#24 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 09:21:53 AM

OSS fanatics: too cheap to spend 5 cents a day to save themselves years of trouble.

Most people don't want to waste years of time hunting down drivers that don't really work well.

The argument that there are free alternatives to commercial software (#6) is kind of blunted by the fact that almost all open source software runs on Windows.

There is no economic reason to switch to Linux that makes sense when Windows is so inexpensive.

#25 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:18:11 AM

Microsoft shills: more interested in giving more money to Microsoft and Intel than to reusing existing hardware. What is the cost per day of using the existing hardware and putting XP on it? Over 3 years, I suspect it is way less than $0.05 per day.

#26 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:27:15 AM

New PC with Vista: $0.40 per day
Old PC with XP : $0.09 per day

Which is the better cost value?

#27 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:38:36 AM

Google's hard drive analysis : "The data also suggest that the highest failure rates occur in drives that are three years old".

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/11872

You are being irresponsible if you suggest people keep running old PC's and expect their data to survive.

40 cents a day for a new PC every three years is being both prudent and cost conscious. Its a good balance.

#28 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:50:17 AM

#27: Okay, so add other $0.09 per day for a new hard drive. You can get a pretty decent hard drive for $100.

#29 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:52:13 AM

It should also be mentioned that the average home user does not put the same wear and tear on a hard drive as the Google server farm does. Not even close.

#30 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 10:53:44 AM

#27: You are being irresponsible if you suggest people keep running old PC's and expect their data to survive.

You mean you ensured that the $400 PC had proper means of data backup built in? What was the3 backup method used in this $400 PC?

#31 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 11:20:01 AM

#28 Sure. He could. But the extra money (of the 400$) also got him better video, a DVD burner, dual core, 2GB of ram etc etc.

All in all, a much better computing experience. Ancient hardware just isn't much fun.

#29 "Google's data suggest that high drive temperatures and high utilization don't necessarily translate to higher failure rates".

Drives fail after three years. Higher utilization doesn't speed it up. There isn't any evidence lower utilization slows it down (within reason).

#30 DVD burner.

#32 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 11:33:49 AM

#31: Ancient hardware just isn't much fun

I guess that depends on what the computer is used for. If it is for writing a few emails to the grand-kids and a little bit of web surfing, then the old hardware would do just fine. In this case, the extra horsepower of the CPU and the more powerful video card are simply there as requirements for Vista, not as anything that will actually make one more productive in a particular task. I don't know too many people who would need Vista on a dual core 3 GHz CPU with a high end video card just to send and receive email and do some web surfing.

However, I guess everyone you know is as rich as you are, and can afford to go and purchase a new PC, just because the OS you recommend requires it as a minimal requirement. Must be all that Microsoft kickback money that is subsidizing you.

When I get a new computer next year, it will run either Mac OS X, or XP, depending on what actual hardware I decide to get. I am still undecided, but Vista is not on the radar at this point. Vista will likely get on my radar when a) XP reaches end of life, b) software I need to use requires Vista to run. So far, fortunately, I see no signs of either of these happening soon.

#33 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at Monday, September 24, 2007 12:12:39 PM

#32 "then the old hardware would do just fine"

Have I said what the old hardware was? How would you know?

"In this case, the extra horsepower of the CPU and the more powerful video card are simply there as requirements for Vista"

Did I say he bought Vista on it?

#34 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 12:24:11 PM

#33: "I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim (sic) costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell."

"He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor)."

This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 18:37.

#35 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 01:11:16 PM

#34 But did I say he bought Vista on the dual core PC?

#36 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 24, 2007 01:48:13 PM

It was implied when you said you told him it was cheaper to get Vista for $50 with a new PC, and then you indicated he got a new PC. The implication is pretty strong.

#37 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 03:41:06 PM

#36 You are always ready to trash Vista for needing "more hardware", when in fact I told him to get the cheapest dual core PC he could afford (for longevity). I didn't specify OS.

#38 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at Monday, September 24, 2007 06:36:31 PM

"I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim (sic) costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell."

"He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor)."

These are your words, not mine.

#39 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Monday, September 24, 2007 07:40:32 PM

It's funny watching parkkker dance as fast as he can, all the while trying to dislodge his foot from his mouth.

Give it up!

#40 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at Monday, September 24, 2007 08:01:59 PM

#38 Pointing out how much something costs to someone is not the same as them having bought it.

In fact I sent him a coupon code for a dual core X2 Dell with 2GB of ram and XP Pro for 400$.

Thats what he bought.

The knee-jerk off-topic trashing of Vista is the usual load of moronic bull I expected from the 2 stooges.

But I have enjoyed watching you two make fools of yourselves.

#41 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, September 25, 2007 02:02:22 PM

So, you pointed out how cheap and wonderful Vista is, and then he bought XP? After YOU gave him a certificate for it with a PC? Priceless!!

replica watches