In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:25:26 +0100
<16526808.I27BjhS304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Why Linux isn't mainstream
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | With the ease of installation, maintenance, and use of many recent Linux
> | distributions, such as Ubuntu and Fedora, some are left wondering why Linux
> | still isn't more widespread. Here's my theory.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | But the primary reason that more home users aren't on Linux is because
> | they don't use Linux at work. So the work environment is the root of
> | the problem.
> `----
>
> http://synthesisbusiness.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-linux-isnt-mainstream-with-ease-of.html
On the *desktop*, perhaps. Servers are using Linux in
a number of places, so presumably the typical workplace
(if that term makes much sense) is someone using ssh or
putty or some such into a Linux or Solaris box.
The good news for me: the only item I cannot replace is
MS Office, and only because there's one essential E-mail
destination on it that I can't get Evolution to properly
accept. :-) Everything else has either been replaced or
is invokable using WinE on my main system here. (That
includes VSS and IE.)
The bad news: I don't know if we can hope for a complete
desktop replacement in 3 years for the entire industry.
It's an interesting problem, and presumably Microsoft
is acutely aware of the possibility. (It would also
be a fairly grand coup for FOSS if we get a majority
of desktops.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
