-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The GNU/Linux âChicken Littleâ Syndrome
,----[ Quote ]
| I run Mandriva 2010 at the moment on my
| desktop system here at the ERACC
| Intergalactic Spaceport and Karaoke Bar,
| otherwise known as my home office. I have
| been running releases of Mandriva for several
| years now. At first I too wanted to always
| have the latest, cutting edge release of
| every package out there. After a while I came
| to understand that if Mandriva package
| maintainers saw that a patch was necessary
| for an application I run then they would
| patch the version in the distribution and
| release the patched version in the update
| repository. If there were a new version of a
| software application that had security
| implications for a desktop user, then after
| testing the new version it would be included
| as an update for the life of that desktop
| release, usually 12 to 18 months. Long term
| desktop releases would get these updates if
| needed for their lifetime as well, usually 3
| years. Then the next time I install updates I
| get the patched or new version.
`----
http://blog.eracc.com/2010/01/22/the-gnulinux-chicken-little-syndrome/
FF3.6 on ubuntu is not a reason why GNU/Linux is not ready for the mass-market
,----[ Quote ]
| Second: Remember that the way software is
| installed/maintained in the GNU/Linux world
| is completely different from Windows'. In
| Windows, as the writer said, you grab the
| software from internet (hopefully form a
| reliable location.... but we know that's not
| always the case, is it?), click on it, maybe
| will have to restart your computer.... a
| couple times (why the hell installing Adobe
| Reader requires you to reboot Windows? Is
| Adobe Reader the equivalent for Windows of
| glibc or something?) and then finally you are
| done with the software. In GNU/Linux, at
| least in Ubuntu (and every other distro that
| prides itself of being such), you have to
| wait for the maintainers of Ubuntu to review
| software to make it available. That's
| right.... they do that job for you, the user.
| And it's not just firefox that they
| maintain... they take care of thousands
| (literally) pieces of software to make them
| fit together and not mess with each other
| when you installed them on your beloved
| Ubuntu-powered box. And that not only sounds
| like a dauntin task... it really is. And what
| would be the equivalent of that in the
| Windows world? It would be like waiting for
| Microsoft to review the software when it's
| made available by its developers (have you
| seen how long it takes Microsoft to work on
| their own bugs? How long would it take them
| if they had to review other people's software
| as well?) and make it available to you
| through the centralized software they
| provided Windows with so that their beloved
| customers don't have to go leaping from site
| to site to grab the latest piece of malware-
| infested piece of software... oh, but there's
| no such thing for Windows, is there? Such a
| shame, you know.
`----
http://maratux.blogspot.com/2010/01/ff36-on-ubuntu-is-not-reason-why.html
Recent:
Seven Reasons Why Beef Is Not Ready For The Dinner Table
,----[ Quote ]
| While I've been blogging less and reading more, I notice the
| Linux-on-the-desktop troll-war heating up again. So this was my latest take
| on it - because I've said everything else it is possible to say about it
| already. It demonstrates that you could go on and on with "why X isn't ready
| for Y", using the same pattern of half-truths, absolutes, hand-waves, and
| logical fallacies.
|
| Try it yourself! How about "Why Fords aren't ready for the highway", "Why
| Obama isn't ready for the presidency", or "Why the letter Q isn't ready for
| the alphabet"?
`----
http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=seven_reasons_why_beef_is_not_ready_for_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Why Windows is not yet ready for the Desktop
,----[ Quote ]
| I don't spend my time telling other people which OS should or shouldn't suit
| their way of working. But it seems there are people who do, and like to get
| blog hits for it.
|
| The problem with these "critiques" is always that the author is carrying
| around the self-serving assumption that their preferred OS embodies the only
| real way to organize a software ecosystem, and all others have inferior
| value. Moreover, since they are naturally only looking for a way to justify
| their existing pre-conclusion, they are often sadly misinformed about most of
| their "complaints", half of which are either entirely subjective, or just
| flat-out wrong.
`----
http://climbing-the-hill.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-windows-is-not-yet-ready-for.html
Why Linux is ready for the desktop today
,----[ Quote ]
| Over the years, the question âis Linux ready for the desktopâ has been raised
| time and time again, and countless articles have been written about the
| strengths and weaknesses of this operating system. While desktop Linux
| adoption has yet to go completely mainstream, recent indicators show that a
| major change is underfoot.
|
| Linux is primed to take the PC market by storm as more enterprises recognize
| the value proposition that Linux offers business - more flexibility,
| customization and affordable options. We're also seeing hardware
| manufacturers expanding their Linux offerings on a range of devices. The
| recent roll out of the new ProBook series of HP notebook devices available
| with a fully supported Linux operating system is one example and these
| options is only expected to grow.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-308528.html
Why Microsoft is just not ready for the enterprise.
,----[ Quote ]
| In my last post I had made some comments about the
| Microsoft Windows not being capable of enterprise high
| performance computing. In the comments (upon request) I had
| posted some details on the SCSI subsystem of the Operating
| System, talking of the scatter gather lists when sequential
| SCSI commands are being coalesced just prior to being sent
| to the SCSI-based media. I wanted to continue on that topic
| and focus specifically on the NTFS file system and why it
| too is not intended for enterprise class usage.
|
| [...]
|
| With these limitations well known, then why do we still try
| to deploy Microsoft Windows in environments it was not
| suited for? The answer is familiarity. Microsoft for the
| most part owns the client/end-user market and with that the
| end-user has gotten too familiar and too comfortable with
| its platform. In turn what was built for home (and to an
| extent small business) use has leaked into an environment
| where it is not ready for. Please understand that I am not
| trying to preach against Microsoft and attack them. As many
| others in the high performing server/storage industry I
| have come to understand where certain problems originate
| from and that includes the limitations of the Windows
| platform. If you, the reader, feel something different with
| Microsoft and their role in enterprise class computing
| please feel free to comment. I know that I may not always
| be correct in my viewpoints and if you can shed any
| additional light I would very grateful.
`----
http://blog.hydrasystemsllc.com/2008/12/31/why-microsoft-is-just-not-ready/
Windows Vista Ready?
,----[ Quote ]
| The majority of new members and guests
| are here because they want to install
| Windows XP on systems which came with
| Vista pre-installed. Others are dual
| booting with XP and Vista because they
| do not want to, or are unable to
| solely depend on Vista to do what they
| need their systems for.
`----
http://www.pro-networks.org/blog/index.php/vista/14
Related:
Windows rapidly approaching desktop usability
,----[ Quote ]
| Don't Lose This Product Key!
|
| Video blanking hassles
|
| Windows XP networking: Not for amateurs
|
| Shocked by additional software costs
|
| Where Windows XP shines
|
| Hope for the future
`----
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216
Linux ready for the desktop
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1555287553;fp;4194304;fp
The GNU/Linux Desktop and Borrowed Assumptions about Usability
,----[ Quote ]
| The trouble with this assumption -- like many others -- is that it easily
| becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. All interface designers that I met have
| told me that it is impossible to design a desktop application that includes
| all possible functionality or meets the need of every possible user. Besides,
| they add, if you tried, users would suffer the anxiety of having too many
| choices. And so you get file managers, for instance, that have less than a
| third of the functionality of basic commands like cp or mv.
`----
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3837581
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktdIKEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo56zQCgh4QkTnh0QCEEhyTiBjxxW609
cGwAoKRPsOO7eLv/6KNs9GErSE7KGjXi
=d0it
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|