Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Are you qualified to bash GNU/Linux?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The usual sources of this (mis)information are things other people said
> | about GNU/Linux (i.e. heresay), Microsoft propaganda or a personal
> | experience. Well the last one can be valid, but not in the context
> | I am talking about, not when this personal experience is based on
> | ignorance or is just too old to be a valid measure to draw conclusions
> | from.
> `----
>
> http://www.nuxified.org/are_you_qualified_to_bash_gnu_linux
>
>
>
> Speaking of /bash/, new article from IBM:
>
> BusyBox simplifies embedded Linux systems
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A small toolkit for small environments
> `----
>
>
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-busybox/?ca=dgr-btw01BusyBox
We do have to own up in that the desktop side of Linux was in the past
sometimes a struggle as far as stability was concerned. Winning back those
that weren't able to fight their way through that would be difficult.
But primarily I think that the takeup in the office is held back simply
because users don't know what advantages are available to them. They are
often shown the simmilarities with their current Office software, but are
not shown those things that Linux does well where Windows simply couldn't
compete.
It has been mentioned many times the difference in the way Linux handles
memory compared to Windows. The MS Win choice for memory handling may well
have been ok? for the client machines we once had, low memory mainly not
much app sharing low cache usage, but the UNIX/Linux memory management
schemes are much better for not only servers, but as it has turned out on
client machines too. We have to accept that as a side effect of the server
memory handling, because I suspect that ten years ago if any of us had been
asked if Linux memory management would need to be changed for clients, I
bet your socks most of us would have said 'Yes'.
Example. We must have all seen users struggling with a large presentation in
MS {dam, I've forgottten what its called, the MS version of Impress}. If
the presentation involves pictures they have to chop down the quallity of
each file, otherwise they too large for MS Presenter to handle. Very large
presentations are handled very badly, slow updates and must be saved
regularly because you know it is going to crash eventually. (That is all on
the creation side, the playing of the presentations is handled well).
The the same presentation in Linux Impress or StarOffice, you can keep your
full quallity pictures, no limit on size of presentation caused by poor
memory handling.
The Database interface in StarOffice, SunSystems know a thing or two, and
one of the things they know very well are databases. So even from the first
port of StarOffice the interface to your database application was a very
standard 'connection string'. None of that incompatible nonsense that MS
put into Access. Without third party software you couldn't even use MS
Access as a front end for a database until I think it was MS Access 2002,
even then the SQL incompatibilities still made it awkward to use.
Database handling in StarOffice though is simple and standard. Mail merges
fly off to the printer with Linux not batting an eye.
Compatibility, whether it's FileOpen or SaveAs, every major document type
you can think of is on the list, and it has been on that list for many many
years.
ODF is a really good format, I default all my own to that now. Handling
speed of even large documents is great and it compresses exceptionally well
for backup.
|
|
