On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:44:32 -0700, NoNamer wrote:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | I can think of seven excuses often tossed about, and one real reason of
>> | my own creation.
>> `----
>>
>> (Gist:)
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Excuse #1: Some will say this is because there aren't enough
>> | applications for Linux.
>
> It's not that there aren't a lot of applications for Linux, it's that
> these are very small little 'applications' that have very unintuitive
> naming conventions with often poor documentation and a half finished
> feel.
>
> Linux advocates love to say "OH LINUX HAS THOUSANDS OF APPS!!!!" but in
> reality these apps. are not really useful to the majority of the
> population.
Depends entirely on what you want to do. Users don't necessarily want huge
apps that do everything, they may just need something small and quick.
>
> Linux needs more apps. like OpenOffice (and OpenOffice itself needs to
> be tuned up with more polish - it feels rough around the edges).
Not to me. The latest versions are very nice indeed, and still improving.
>
> At least OpenOffice has the word 'Office' in it which connotes
> something about doing business unlike the rest of Linux' apps. names
> such as Gimp - I mean, what a stupid effin name. Who the hell wants to
> use an app. named "Gimp"? It's not only stupid, it's very unintuitive
> as well as to what it does.
I never understood this complaint. The boring, literal names of so many
Windoqws apps are one reason I found Linux a refreshing change. Seriously,
how long does it take to find out what an app does? Especially as nowadays
many are listed in the main menus under their functions.
>
>> | Excuse #2: Others will say the market is too diverse and confusing.
>
> Not sure what this means. The market seems clear cut. Choose Windows
> or go buy a Mac. No conflict, no confusion.
>
>> | Excuse #3: Yet another excuse slowing adoption is that the mainstream
>> | does not know about it or understand it.
>
> Agreed. Nobody outside of nerdome knows or cares about Linux. They
> care about applications - and getting their work done. They don't give
> a damn if they can run 'headless' or run apache.
The majority may not, but even then, I'd doubt it. People are blogging,
running their ownwebsites, getting into all kinds of fields that once they
wouldn't have considered. Linux tools serve their needs. And as for no one
butnerds knowing about it - a bloke at the factory where I work, who is a
warehouse operative (he drives an electric pallet truck) certainly knows
about Linux. He saw me reading a Linux mag, and asked if I also was into
it, as he'd heard about it and wanted to try it.
>
>> | Excuse #4: The brainwashing of Microsoft: It has convinced everyone
>> | that their offerings are the only ones to have, or so this excuse goes.
>
> Nope.
>
> Almost everybody knows about the Macintosh - and some actually go out
> and buy one. Certainly the iPod has even helped this along a bit.
More than a bit. And i still only know two Mac owners.
>
> This is just an excuse from Linux nuts as to why Linux hasn't been
> doing well on the desktop - must be Microsoft's fault.
In some degree it is, because MS squeezes out all the competition it can,
and makes it far less easy for someone to get a foothold in the market.
>
>> | Excuse #5: There are issues with Linux and certain hardware.
>
> There are!
Yup. Not Linux's fault, though.
>
> Just look at ATI for a good example, or Creative. Look at the poor
> printing with CUPS, or the very poor mobile syncing issues, the list
> goes on and on and on.
No, not really.
>
> Yes, Linux has gotten a LOT better in this area, but it still has a
> LONG ways to go.
Some way. Perhaps. But the fault lies with the manufacturers.
>
>> | Excuse #6: Lack of technical support.
>
> You can get it if you PAY for it - which many Linux nuts refuse to do -
> they want everything for free.
Your attempt to mischaracterise Linux users as 'nuts' is noted.
>
> But you can definitely get technical support from a company for their
> specific distro - such as RedHat or Novell for example. It's not
> cheap.
No paid support is, usually.
>
>> | Excuse #7: The costs of adopting/migrating are too high.
>
> This will be different depending on the situation. In some cases, the
> costs will be too high.
>
> Hell, even upgrading one version of Windows Server to another has costs
> associated with it.
>
> I can imaging that going from big iron UNIX to Linux would be very
> expensive. (note that real people get payed to do this - it doesn't
> come for free - a concept that most Linux nuts may not get)
Linux *users* get it fine. I don't know any 'nut's, thanks all the same.
>
>>
>> The author addresses all excuses.
>
> So do I
Not really.
A lot of it is just people's general laziness. They've got something which
works (however badly) and which they're familiar with. People tend not to
like change. Particularly when it involved effort of any kind. Just human
nature.
--
Kier
|
|
