 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
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 |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
How Far Behind Is Linux? | |
|
||
| Time: 19:18 EST/00:18 GMT | News Source: Wall Street Journal | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
If some of Linus Torvalds's own family members back in Finland don't use Linux, what hope is there for the rest of us? Even though Linux is easier than ever to use, the dream of many Linux buffs of it replacing Windows as the desktop mainstay is, at best, stalled, and at worst, fading. While exact numbers are hard to come by, one survey has desktop Linux users barely scraping a single percentage point of the market share. Among Microsoft's customers, concedes Mr. Torvalds, are his father and sister, though Mom has managed to resist the allure of the dark side. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 10 of 10 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Saturday, October 20, 2007 09:30:17 PM |
|
"Dell started installing Linux earlier in the year"
Wrong. Dell offered linux years ago, but then dropped it from lack of customer interest. Does anyone else remember this? |
| #2 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at Saturday, October 20, 2007 09:38:45 PM |
| I think they started offering Redhat Linux at version 6 back in December of 1999 then dropped it and made it only available to their technical workstations, but they have been in the Linux biz a long though. |
| #3 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:18:04 AM |
| Linux needs better wireless and video driver support, to become more widely accepted. The biggest problem with Linux is that it perpetually trails Windows and Mac by about a year in driver support. Try to install RHEL 5 on the latest Intel chipset boards. It appears to install okay. But, kernel panic starts at the first boot. You can't run the absolute latest chipsets with Linux without plenty of effort. People just want an OS to work. Period. |
| #4 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Sunday, October 21, 2007 07:49:28 AM |
|
Actually, I was really surprised with my latest linux install effort. Every so often I throw a distro on my own system to see how the latest and greatest offering runs. I have pretty up to date system - Core Duo, newish chipset, 8800gtx, 4GB of ram. Since ubuntu's latest was released last week I thought I would give that a go. Stared with the 64bit version - could not get it to load. Thought it was a bad CD so I reburned at a slower speed - same thing it just goes to a black screen on boot up of the live CD and sits there. Moved to the 32bit version and that booted fine off the live CD. Was surprised to see all my major hardware working fine including the built in wireless on my MB that i normally disable in windows. Started the full install and for some reason it hung halfway through. Restarted the system and tried it again and the second time it installed fine.
Altogether I was impressed with the system - the fact that you can select new packaged and programs to install and it just downloads them for you. The full nvidia driver was a simple couple clicks to install. It is super quick to install (when it did the second time). It seems like a release like this is way more simple for the average user. It found all my hardware including the printer that was hooked up. The down sides - problems with install that I had. The average user would have probably given up with the first problems. The fact that overall the system is not as responsive as my Vista system out of the box on the same system. Vista looks nicer also - the fonts are easier to look at and overall the graphics look cleaner. This can probably be tweaked in ubuntu but i am just referring to the out of the box look. I am impressed and linux has come a long way - would i switch to it or recommend it to someone else probably not. As an alternative i would recommend OS X over ubuntu but it is amazing how far they have come on the desktop in the last couple years. It is nice to see more alternatives out there though |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at Sunday, October 21, 2007 03:23:57 PM |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119256930870361011.html
"Ubuntu updates itself every six months and notifies you if security updates are needed in the interim. That last feature, incidentally, should disabuse an actual Ubuntu user of the notion that a non-Windows operating systems is security utopia, where hackers are powerless and children are all above average. I recently installed the April version of Ubuntu on my home machine and promptly was informed that more than 50 security patches to problems discovered in the interim awaited my downloading. Who does Ubuntu think it is? Windows?" That was funny. |
| #6 By 52115 (66.181.69.250) at Monday, October 22, 2007 03:35:13 PM |
| #4 - I read somewhere others were having issues with the 64bit version and the suggestion was to download and use the "Alternative" CD. If you boot with this, it'll install fine. |
| #7 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Monday, October 22, 2007 04:08:36 PM |
|
#6
Thanks for the info - it is not really a big deal for me actually. I just wanted to play around with it. I do wonder if the 64bit version will feel snappier. The more i have played with Ubuntu 32 bit the more it feels sluggish in comparison to XP and Vista on the same machine. The machine I am is not short on power either. |
| #8 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at Monday, October 22, 2007 04:08:42 PM |
|
double post This post was edited by kaikara on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 16:08. |
| #9 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at Monday, October 22, 2007 08:31:12 PM |
|
It's really far behind - like 10 or more years behind.
I install the latest Ubuntu, Xandros and Puppy distros as they come out. They do progress, but each time I come away with the same feeling... "I can do this in my sleep and install all the packages and come up with a reasonble approximation of Windows." I then ask why I just spent the time to do it - curiosity, I guess - certainly not mental exericse, as after a time, it is as easy for me as taking out the trash. Do the modern releases have something to offer? I suppose, but not near enough for me to run them all the time. I'd miss Outlook and its secure Exchange integration and that is just one app. I'd end up missing the new Office really badly - O2K7 is just so easy to use. I'd miss serious magic's products and a thousand other applications I used on Vista. |
| #10 By 2960 (68.100.247.204) at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 08:31:34 AM |
|
I tried to install Ubuntu 7.10 under Parallels. Never made it. Keep getting errors saying "the system has rebooted 5 times" during the early part of the install.
TL |
