Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
economist.com
Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#2There is an irrelevant history lesson of an experience jumping through distros to start with. Then the main argument of the piece is unclear. It begins with (probably justified) moaning about device drivers, but is followed up with a declaration that Linux's problems are caused by recent UI changes. The author then laments that the update cycle is too fast.
Why hasn't someone told this person to stick to long term stable distros, such as RHEL or Ubuntu LTS?
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#3That does seem like a common double standard that people hold Linux to: on the one hand people complain when it lacks coherent vision and whole-system thinking, and on the other hand people complain when it has coherent vision and whole-system thinking.
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#4I only see 4 ways for linux to actually gain on the desktop for the average user. 1) Truly painless cross-platform support for most languages. 2) A huge shift to web-based applications. 3) Microsoft seppukus. 4) Wine magically becomes painless and transparent.
Two is the only alternative that has a reasonable chance of happening.
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#5Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#6Um, and the author's solution to this is installing Windows?
I'm sorry, but at least when Linux Mint needs updates I am free to update when I want. Windows will pop up a nag screen and interrupt your work, even threatening to perform the update if you don't delay it. Anyone who has ever done work on a Windows machine has met this inconvenience. On the other hand, Linux Mint doesn't have it.
Also, his complaint is that it's not rolling release? Uh, neither is windows. Lets see, Windows xp, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, yeah, it's rolling release alright. At least with Linux you don't also need to buy new hardware each time you update the OS.
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#7The real reason Linux lags windows is application support. Windows 8 seems to have every intention of being a train wreck, but Linux will benefit little because users will not upgrade from Windows 7. Linux is not an alternative as long as users cannot run what they want on Linux. I only see 4 ways for linux to actually gain on the desktop for the average user. 1) Truly painless cross-platform support for most languag…
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#8> Linux Mint requires users to do a complete re-installation, rather than a rolling incremental update Um, and the author's solution to this is installing Windows? I'm sorry, but at least when Linux Mint needs updates I am free to update when I want. Windows will pop up a nag screen and interrupt your work, even threatening to perform the update if you don't delay it. Anyone who has ever done work on a Windows machin…
1) Windows releases are much slower. Most Linux distros have a new-shiny problem: I can't trivially (by which I mean, click a button and emphatically not muck with the command line or PPAs or equivalent user-hatefulness) get the newest OpenOffice or Firefox or Chrome or whatever on an older version of Mint (or Ubuntu--and dist-upgrading Ubuntu is a dicey proposition if you like having a working computer).
2) For the most part (there was some wackiness with architecture changes), Windows will do something much, much closer to the Right Thing on a reinstallation. Your data's where you left it. Your applications are still installed and work. It is not, on Windows, taken for granted that you must pave your machine (yes, I know you can put /home on another partition, that's only part of the problem) in order to upgrade.
3) The idea that you "need to buy new hardware each time you update" Windows is just silly. I have a laptop sitting here. 1GHz Pentium III, 512MB of RAM. I use it for playing old DOS games. It runs Windows 7 a lot more pleasantly than it did XP (which surprised me, but there you go). It may be way more pleasant to use on new hardware, sure--but so is Mint.
And by the way--you can set Windows Update to automatically do it when you shut down, and never nag you. (That this isn't the default is probably, on balance, a bad idea, but the capability is trivially there.)
Put your hackles down, dude. The mud-slinging helps no one.
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#9I personally don't care for Ubuntu or any distro that tries really hard to copy apple (or worse, come up with their own "better" way of doing things), so I can't relate. I've always used Slack w/ XFCE and never ever once (save the first two weeks I spent learning it) had a problem.
Linux is a complicated system, and you have to expect to spend some time learning it. If your distro's defaults are not to your liking you can either a) change them or b) install another distro. I understand the desire to bring the Window/OS experience to the casual linux desktop user, but this article seems to pick some distros which the auther has trouble with, and apply them to linux (to be honest though, the article was a bit long-winded and I skimmed some).
Re: Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive
#10I found the comment from Jonathan Corbet of LWN ( https://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ ) particularly telling: 'The article is a little muddled, complaining about the "we know best" attitude while saying that Linux lacks the integration seen in iOS or Android, but it's worth a look.' That does seem like a common double standard that people hold Linux to: on the one hand people complain when it lacks coherent vision and w…