Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>
> Now I bring this up, because sometimes someone will claim that Linux is
> difficult to use (by which they mean, of course, that they've had
> difficulties in using Linux). Assertions that Linux is no more difficult
> than Windows, or that the "someone" is obviously a WinTroll, etc. aside,
> sometimes a Linux advocate will ask "What exactly is it that's so difficult
> about Linux?"
Upgrades on Windows are notoriously difficult - so much so that most
ordinary people are utterly unable to do them, and even good technical
people find it a significant challenge.
Take some facts:
1) Installing an operating system is not easy
Linux wins, however, by the top-quality liveCDs and CD installs, network
installs, tftp boot options, bootable USB keys, floppy installs, just
about any kind of install. Modern linux distros (including the latest
debian version) have good hardware discovery, and unlike Windows, the
drivers are supplied /with/ the operating system, so there's no need to
get online in order to get the drivers you need in order to get online,
which has certainly happened to me in Windows.
2) Installing and operating system upgrade is not easy
Again, Linux wins because it can support multiple versions of kernel,
has bootloader options, and upgrades will typically (debian, anyway)
leave you with the option of returning to your previous version. That's
not to say this is trivial, it's not, but it's relatively achievable for
a normal user.
Other examples of this including upgrade TomTom with latest version -
just save the "application"; and flashing my Nokia 770 has also gone
without any hitches - just reboot and we're off.
Windows upgrades, conversely, usually require a hardware upgrade as
well; as any engineer knows, the more variables you push into change,
the more things which can, and therefore will, go wrong. Windows is
*not* designed to be upgraded, Linux is - easy win for linux.
3) Installing applications is not easy
Windows loses badly here due to zero package management. Linux,
contrarily, has excellent package management. This capability is so
flexible that it works as effectively on my Nokia 770 as it does on my
desktop i86 machine, and my lad's Gamepark GP2X, and his PowerMAC PPC
machine. Application management is *excellent* in linux, whereas in
Windows it is essentially non-existent. Easy win for Linux.
4) Installing applications upgrades is not easy
In windows, at least, the lack of package management leads to, amongst
other things, DLL hell, Registry saturation and storage deficiency, as
cruft is left behind which interferes with the proper operation of the
machine. Linux wins so easily here it is amazing - just click on what
you want and install it (N770, Ubuntu, Debian, GP2X etc), or aptitude
install <package> and you're off. What's more, in order to avoid DLL
hell, the resolver in aptitude is capable of retaining packages in a
fine-grained admin control state should particular versions of libraries
and packages be required, *and* it will tell the user which combinations
cannot be achieved using available binaries. If all else fails, for the
experienced user or admin, the compile from source option is also
available, thus providing a personal "backports" possibility. Again,
and easy win for Linux.
5) Virus/malware/spyware
How does a user know whether a package is legitimate, has a virus or
not? This is not a trivial problem, indeed, there have been examples of
repostories becoming damaged, /however/, aptitude/apt-get now supports
digital signing of packages and developers to provide an increased level
of security. However, the most important gain for Linux here is that
virus-guards are not required, so virus-checks are not necessary for
every disk-read and disk-write.
Now that is 5-0 to linux, I'd say.
Perhaps someone could explain to me why we still have wintrolls here?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
