The Five Things You Aren't Allowed to Discuss About Linux

Rob Enderle

I started writing about Linux not because I thought it interesting, fascinating, or even because I liked to code (I don't).


I started writing about Linux because I was told I couldn't and the more people told me I couldn't, and particularly when they said "or else," the more the Linux dirty laundry became attractive to me. In short, if anyone bothers to look at the sequence of events, they will see that the Linux community pushed me down this path. Granted I didn't fight much, but I have this thing about cover-ups. I believe they can lead to disasters both within a company and across a nation; here in the U.S. this last point, whether it be Global Warming or Iraq, would seem self evident.


So this time I'd like to talk about the five things you can't talk about without being attacked by OSS supporters. I'll take the heat, and as always, I'm not suggesting you stop deployment of Linux, I'm just suggesting you intelligently cover your backside.


One: Is Linux a Myth?


This strikes me as both the most obvious and the least talked about. We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows, we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft, and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.


Linux isn't a thing, and it sure isn't a god. When we compare an operating system to another we should be comparing the specific distribution, which is a thing. When we compare it to Microsoft we need a company to do that; Red Hat, Novell and now Oracle provide us with a framework so that we can intelligently compare one to another and assess the differences.


The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit. It can be anything, in concept, it needs to be to win a deal. But we live in the real world where there needs to be a real product and a real support structure behind it. If we are actually doing an evaluation we have to evaluate what we are actually going to end up using and it isn't generic "Linux."


This isn't to say Linux can't or doesn't win in real comparisons, only that the majority I've seen weren't real comparisons. As a ex-auditor I care less about who wins than I care about the process that determines the winner. I've seen too many instances where decisions were made on products, including proprietary products, based on what appears to be graft. One CIO even won a Mercedes Benz for making the "right choice" -- we'll talk about that in a future post.


Presenting the products and companies in abstract was actually rather brilliant, however, I can't find a Steve Jobs-like person I can congratulated for this excellent work. It just seems to have happened that way naturally, but, if you are going to be successful, your justification needs to be solid and for that you'll need the specifics.


Linux is a grown up product; it isn't for everything or everyone though. Do your assessment with a real product against real metrics. SuSe and Red Hat are both capable enough to compete without cheating.


Two: Is Linux Secure?


I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat it like a thing? The easy path here would be to present the different security models for the different distributions but, for this purpose, I'm going to leave Linux in abstract and talk about the unique security problem it represents. I'm not saying Windows is more secure either; I'm saying the products are so different from each other that comparisons may not actually make much sense, which is why there are reports supporting both sides of this. So, let's start by saying nothing is secure enough if people are involved.


Long before IT stopped being just "it," security had three aspects: Physical Safety, Possession Protection, and Intelligence. The way security was breached in all cases was physical; people came in and did harm, stole, or deployed "spies." They didn't need viruses or hacks, they just pitted their intelligence against yours and, if they won, you lost and, in the case of harm, that loss could be terminal.


We know that crooks generally are crooks because they didn't do well in school, not because they graduated from the top of their class at MIT (though clearly this "rule" has been broken from time to time). We also know that the most successful kind of attack to get "intelligence" is a phishing attack, and what brought this into the news recently was HP's pretexting problem.


Linux is surrounded by people who generally don't even use real names and often "exaggerate" what they do for a living. Wonder over on Groklaw and you'll see a lot of legal experts, a few months back I corresponded with one. His legal "expertise" came from a class on contracts, and I'm not kidding, he took in high school. PJ, the woman who allegedly heads up this legal resource, is currently ducking service from SCO and lord knows what she is covering up (and I don't think it is that she works for IBM; they aren't that stupid).


We also know that when someone gets access to information it generally isn't reported anyplace, primarily because, at least until we figure the Quantum thing out, the activity itself doesn't prevent subsequent use by anyone else. For instance, after the Cold War ended, we were amazed at how much of what we had the Russians had copied. What drove our suspicions was the similarity in what resulted, and the fact we also had spies looking at their stuff.


Linux exists in an environment where there is broad collaboration, but no effort to validate the collaborators so the opportunity for traditional, old style, data breach is immeasurable.


We know that pretexting is wide-spread, how much easier (and harder to catch and convict) if the person doing the pretexting doesn't even have to come up with a real fake identity?


If you are using Linux and haven't done a physical security audit in a while and specifically looked at who is collaborating with whom, I would say it is likely well past time.


By the way, this is true whether you are using Linux or not; we generally are not focusing enough on physical security right now, particularly in home and branch offices. But that is for another time; a good resource is "Security Dreamer," which focuses on the topic of physical security in general; the author, Steve Hunt, is one of the best in the business.


If you are using UNIX, Linux, Windows or Apple, you need to ensure they are secure. OSs aren't security products; none of them are secure enough.


Three: Do Communes Work?


If you step back and look at Linux from a distance it actually looks like this idea of community works, there is progress, and UNIX has been taking it in the shorts. But, when you get close, you see a political nightmare that can make the bureaucracy at IBM and Microsoft seem simple and almost streamlined by comparison.


Let's take the GPL; this is like watching a government working. This is the license that defines how you will use the product and what you will "pay" for it. Right now they can't even agree if they need a new one, and the two sides have, as they seem more than willing to do, degraded into name-calling. This has gotten to the point where Linus Torvalds, one of the nicest guys, has been called some rather nasty things, not by Microsoft, but by other Linux users.


The reason Communes do not work is a few do the work of many and aren't compensated for it. In general, the few are increasingly upset that others are benefiting from their efforts and the many get upset when they see things done they didn't want done.


The GPL 3.0 is a good example; a few are doing the work of many, and the end result is clearly, on my reading, anti-business. In fact, a committee had been put together with some of the largest and most powerful supporters of Linux, and because the framers disagreed with what the committee recommended, it was disbanded and the recommendations, apparently, will be disregarded.


Sounds like a government doesn't it? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who uses Linux will be impacted by the license. You'd better read it, and you'd darned well better make sure it is what you want it to be. There is one word for people that let any group or company unilaterally write a contract they have to live under, yet I've seen that word applied to the people who don't participate in communal efforts (and yes, voting is a communal effort, given how few participate in that, there should be no surprise we are in the mess we are in).


Now, if you wanted to participate but were blocked from participating, don't you think that speaks directly to whether an effort is, in fact, communal? Could I now argue that Linux is simply another name for OSF? Really, look at the language in GPL 3. If you have intellectual property to protect, your attorneys should have a major cow with regard to what is in that puppy. But they should read it regardless. Now there is a question of whether Linux will adopt it, but if you use a Linux based product, this is a question you should help answer.


If you are going to use Linux, you should get involved, even though the Free Software Foundation may not listen.


Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?


Maybe if you live in a Third World country and like to work for peanuts. Linux throws off very little cash; much of the revenue that comes from it is tied to services and hardware, and these services are generally, though not always, discounted below what they would be for a "proprietary" product. The applications that go on top of the platform are also discounted, many of them being "free" as well. Now Google is proving every day that the advertising model works and it can be very lucrative, but it may not work for you if you are an inside IT resource (though selling ads for you HR internal website would be a creative way to get more income for your department).


Employees often are valued based on the cost of what they work with. The higher the cost, the easier it is to justify an employee's salary. More important, if a product is expensive, the focus is often on the cost of the product, but if the product is free, the focus is on the cost of the employees.


Let's move out of industry where the example is clearer. If you are a Ferrari mechanic you make substantially more (I worked as a Jaguar mechanic while in college) than if you are a Chevy Mechanic. You may not be able to find work (not a lot of Ferrari dealerships), but you'll make a lot more money. Companies typically don't reduce salaries; they either get rid of the expensive people or outsource or both.


When I first started writing about Linux, I heard from over a thousand people that they disagreed, some rather violently, with what they thought I had written. For many, once they realized I'd actually not said what the excerpts they had read had implied, they actually entered into very real discussions.


Over the last two years the vast majority of them have lost their jobs due to outsourcing after their companies moved to Linux from UNIX. While I don't have enough to do more than suggest there is a cause and effect here, I can say that the use of Linux neither protected their job nor made them more valuable to their employer; in fact it seemed to have done the opposite.


Recently, outsourcing has slowed; I think this is because companies finally realized that sending a critical part of the firm to the Third World made execution all but impossible. However, have you noticed that Sun has started to come back?


While we were all distracted by the whole Microsoft vs. Linux BS, the real fight wasn't between Windows and a Linux distribution; it was between Linux and HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX instead. IBM and HP did both, and are complex companies which conceal the impact of the move, but Sun is simple and arguably the strongest UNIX firm. As companies bring IT back from the Third World, UNIX appears to be coming back as well, and I think that is partially because developers understand that it is a vastly more financially beneficial platform. I also think CIOs are starting to remember that being in the software development business carries with it too much risk, and that depending on vendors like Sun, EMC, HP, and IBM provides a more sure result.


In any case, if we accept (and OSF in particular would not agree to this) that financial success is the primary measure of a successful platform, Linux has done very poorly historically against the alternatives, and both UNIX and mainframes seem to be coming back as a result.


By the way, Google is a really good example of how to use Linux and make tons of money doing so, so I'm not saying it is anti-business, as I mentioned above; it is FSF that appears doing that. I'm not sure Linux is pro-anything, though it is clearly positioned most often against Microsoft.


Products have implications that go beyond code; they have implications for organizational structure, for salaries, and for best use. Before you advocate anything new, you may want to think a bit on the secondary impacts; the grass may be greener, but it may be wise to also watch where you step. (I have three dogs, and they suggested I mention this).


Is Linux is "Open"?


How can anything be "Open" if honest discussion isn't allowed?


If you think a Microsoft product sucks you can say that to great detail without having to be afraid of your job, apparently even if you work for Microsoft (which I kind of find surprising). But if you suggest that Linux isn't ready for the desktop -- which I do often because it isn't -- you'll have folks coming after your job and, sometimes, suggesting you won't be long for this world. Some of the mail has been rather nasty (though I do admit it has moderated of late).


No product is perfect for everything. What made Windows good for the desktop is largely what makes Linux a better product for some servers, and the opposite is true. I think that Microsoft made a huge strategic mistake when it merged the workstation/server code base with the desktop code base. They optimized for them and forgot about the customer. I could say that then, and I can say that now without any concern for my safety.


As an analyst I actually had to quit my job to have the same freedom of speech with Linux. According to The Register, there is actually some kind of a strike team that comes after me every time I say something positive on Microsoft or negative on Linux. And I'm not alone: Laura DiDio at Yankee gets sexual harassed, and Dan Lyons over at Forbes is attacked regularly, although he does have supporters as well.


Let's take indemnification; this should be a topic every company should suddenly be looking very closely at. Microsoft just got nailed with a whopping $1.53 Billion, that's with a "B", judgment for the use of a common music standard. They did this because they indemnified Dell and Gateway, the companies initially targeted. If they had used Linux instead of Windows, it would be Dell and Gateway hit with some fraction of this judgment (and even a fraction of $1.52B is a big number). So where is the coverage? Don't you think it should be a hot topic right now, so where is the chatter?


There are at least two sides to everything. What I've observed with OSS in general and Linux in particular (and this applies to Apple as well) is there is a distinct effort to make sure only the popular side can speak.


I think the thing that bothers me the most about Linux is IT advocacy. IT shouldn't be an advocate of any product, because it needs to make determinations between them. Whether it is Microsoft, Apple, or Linux, once IT takes a side it is no longer capable of properly assessing a solution based on the needs of the business. And that is the job.


IT needs to ensure, not prevent, discussion so that the best product, company, or service is chosen, and when they can't do that, they should find other jobs.


When only one side is heard, you don't have "Open," and you sure as heck don't have "Free" as in Freedom, which, to me is more important than "Free" as in "Free Beer." If, to get "Free" Software, we give up "Free" Speech the cost, at least to me, is way the heck too high.


Wrapping Up:


I stopped at five things but there are clearly more we could chat about.


Like why don't we talk about Apple vs. Linux? In the last trial I participated on for the desktop, Windows won, Linux missed by a mile but Apple only by a hair (and Apple will be pulling that hair next month).


Does the Free Software Foundation own Linux? They appear to be trying to rename it.


Who's side is Steve Ballmer or Richard Stallman on? (I would argue it is Stallman and the GPL 3.0 do more to kill Linux than anthing Microsoft could conceive of, and that Ballmer's statements generally benefit, though unintentionally, Linux).


When I was growing up a popular T-Shirt Slogan was "Question Authority." Take a look around, what are people afraid to ask questions about, what isn't being discussed that should be? I believe in preventing mistakes, not constantly finding creative ways to blame someone else. Ask questions, get answers.

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Mar 12, 2007 11:56 AM Rob Enderle Rob Enderle  says:
So did you listen to the link you posted? Of course not. This goes to trust doesn't it? You can lie about me all you want but it doesn't make it true. It is interesting to note that the sites driving this effort have gone dark all of a sudden huh? Makes you wonder who YOU work for doesn't it? You know, I ask that a lot, I never seem to get an answer. And then there are the mystical disappearing sites.... We've been aware that many of the folks doing this kind of character assassination are paid to do it. If your proud of what you are doing, let us know who is paying you. If not don't respond. I won't hold my breath. Reply
Mar 12, 2007 1:54 PM Mr E Mr E  says:
I love reading that people using an operating system in 1996 are complaining about wireless not working today.You've obviously not used a current distro in recent months. I agree, tinkering is time consuming but the major distros have pretty much eliminated that. Of course you still can if you want to though.About the AD and MOM issues. Please. MS didn't invent LDAP and there are plenty of other LDAP servers to be used: Iplanet (or Sun one etc), Red Hat Directory server (based on the Iplanet code), Fedora Directory server (same Iplanet code), Novell's LDAP offereings and even OpenLDAP. All of these compete just fine with AD. Does openLDAP require more to configure? Sure but the choice is there. Openview happens to run just fine on Linux. As does Tivioli and a host of other monitoring programs.I love how Robby says linux doesn't have to compete on merit'' That *EXACTLY* how the windows folks at my company copare windows to any other operating system. Want to talk about viruses? No we can't possibly do that. What about applications? No we can't talk about them. OK Let's talk about underhanded business tactics and a company that can buy their way out of any legal trouble? Certainly we can't talk about that.Windows has just as many, if not more, skeletons in the closet as any Linux distro does. Want to see these windows skeletons? Too bad. No, shared source or what ever they are calling it today isn't the same thing. Reply
Mar 12, 2007 4:38 PM Tyler Tyler  says:
You article is well-written, but that's the end-all-be-all of it's merits. You are trying to convince people that these are things you "can't say" about Linux, but for the most part they seem to just be avenues that you've come up with to criticise Linux. I mean some of your points just seem to reak of desperation. On security, for example you said nothing is secure when people are involved and therefore Linux isn't any more secure than Windows. What a load of manure. It's like saying that because your house has windows, which can be broken locking the door doesn't make it any more secure. If you tried to make that argument, people would laugh at you and rightfully. It's considerably more difficult to smash a window than it is to open an unlocked door, and it leaves evidence that someone has been in your house when they do.Then again, this just seems to be another in your endless series of Microsoft apologies. Why don't you stop trying to find new ways to write the same tired arguments and actually try to see that's theres more than just Microsoft's side of the argument. Reply
Mar 12, 2007 7:30 PM ManInScaryMask ManInScaryMask  says:
To Poster #1:The date on this article is 02/26/2007. I don't know what distributions you tried, but you're obviously ignorant.*EVERY* distribution I have played with, besides the one I use, has *ALWAYS* found USB jump-drives. I have a PSP as well, and it is recognized. My camera is recognized, my friend's cameras are recognized, and even webcams work just fine.You need to do a little bit more research before you say stupid things...And yeah, someone could have already said that above, but I don't feel like researching it ;) Reply
Mar 13, 2007 9:47 AM corey k corey k  says:
I enjoyed the article it touched on some important things, i have been trying out linux for about 1 year now and i have to agree with the author of the article that linux really isnt ready as a desktop os even with things like freespire or linspire its still a pain in the butt to get things installed when you cant find what you are looking for on cnr or in the package manager. Linux users also usually seem to be very cultish like they just make information up about windows that doesnt even make sense, like they point fingers at microsoft for all the lawsuits, whats funny about that is that most of those lawsuits against MS were related in some way to misusing propietary software, isnt that interesting that all these open source advocates would point fingers at microsoft for being a victim of proprietary software issues. If a proprietary software company sues some open source developers they are put on a pedastal in the open source community and martyrs but when it happens to MS and they have to pay 1.5B suddenly open source advocates do a complete 180 and they are suddenly all for closed source software rights as long as it means MS gets hit for it. To me from my experiences that seems to be the bottom line with most linux users i know and have talked to, all that matters is putting microsoft out of business it isn even about making things open source with most of these people its just this wierd socialist anti capitalist operating system religion. The really funny thing though is that most virusus out there for windows are probably written by people who use linux, so people who use windows get fed up with the viruses and turn to linux which is the community of people who most likely infected your computer in the first place. I personally jus tdont like linux because it gets in the way to much of what i am trying to do, i just want to install something and get to work i dont need 10 different GUI to choose from or 25 media players installed on my system to play with i just need a simple OS that works and that makes it easy to install software. Microsoft and apple know this which is why they are the most succesful companies. Reply
Mar 13, 2007 9:50 AM Hubert Hubert "Johnny_Bit" Kowalski  says:
I've read the article and I must say that author missed the whole point about 2 or 3 parsecs...You know, there's actually no Linux that is actual operating system. Linux is KERNEL. Windows has it's kernel, but Windows' kernel isn't Windows itself, is it?Now Kernel is the very foundation of Operating System. And from that point we can start.Now question: How many versions of Vista are out? 6 maybe? Well, to be honest, It's actually just one, some features are simply disabled in cheaper versions. With just a little of knowledge one would probably be able to from most basic edition make most advanced one at no charge what so ever. How many Linux versions are out? Let's Now assume that we're talking about OS now. Urgt... Well, let's start from the point of popular distributions: more than 300. Now, check the very foundation of Linux OS: the kernel itself. It's extremely configurable, so with one source base you can get a lot of different Kernels. You know, one-size doesn't fits all. There's of course more to OS than just kernel, let us skip to user interface: with windows you've got possibilities, with Linux you get... Well more than 20 different and mature desktop managers, each more powerful than Windows standard Aero. Again each of them can be configured so that two identical desktop managers wont look or even feel the same. Can you get that with Windows? Well... You can mess with your icons... Or get some styles and stuff, but it's still the same thing. Oh, and even in kernel wise choice: You've got loads of choices! There is of course mainstream one (Vanilla) but there are also patch sets and they can change a lot. This choice and configuration is so wide that I can say and be sure about that there's not enough living creatures on earth that would even match to the number of possible Linux configurations.Writing that I even forgot what was the basic of this article. Well, now I see that's it about Linux comparison to something. Well, you can compare two cars, but how can you compare car and a custom-made, pimped-out by alien Xzbit's team space ship? Reply
Mar 13, 2007 5:31 PM Steve Steve  says:
rob, please do adequate research before posting this awful conglomerate of pseudo-information. you do not have the slightest clue of what you're talking about - standing ovations for another "IT professional" with a definitive liability to self-dramatization.your article is embarassing. Reply
Mar 13, 2007 7:53 PM xamat xamat  says:
[quote]I'm really talking about being ready for the business desktop not your desktop or your 7 year old's. This is the most recent head to head I've participated in. It isn't even close. (Apple is though). www.cio.com/advice_opinion/infrastructure/operating_systems/halamka_os_review_1.html[/quote]I use Linux for business desktop, my 7 y.o. kid was simply an example...I read the article you pointed to and I have to say I don't believe it, honestly. I have been mounting USB HD plug'n'play drives in my Linux machines for some time now and I never have a problem. It is known laptops are a pain because manufacturers don't observe any standard or publish real specs, but even so I have had fully functional laptops in Linux for years.And I am not goint to lie here, I have had problems indeed. All of them dealing again with manufacturers not opening up their specs so the Linux community can write drivers. All you need to do is a little research before you buy your laptop and see how well it is supported. A team of PhDs? No, just google. Reply
Mar 14, 2007 8:04 AM Rob Enderle Rob Enderle  says:
Did you look at the chart? Linux has less than 1% of the desktop now. Growth is 30% declining through 2010 to 20%, it will make 2% in around 2111/12 at that rate. Apple is growing faster, a lot faster. Bob kind of messed up on the Windows price (enterprises typically pay around $100), but otherwise an interesting piece. Reply
Mar 14, 2007 9:41 AM xamat xamat  says:
So, what is exactly your point?As long as there are companies willing to invest millions of $$ in its commercial failure and people like you writing the things you write about Linux, it is obviously going to have a hard time.I thought we were discussing about whether it is ready or not, not about marketing strategies.Throughout the history great pieces of technology have not succeeded because of people with a lot of money deciding otherwise. Fortunately some of us decide to fight against that tendency while others just follow the crowd. Reply
Mar 14, 2007 5:18 PM Rob Enderle Rob Enderle  says:
I actually think Microsoft's investment in marketing against Linux has helped the platform a great deal. The "Get the Facts" campaign alone probably drove more people to consider Linux than any other single effort by any company or individual. That's just my opinion though. I think folks should be free to discuss anything without fear. This is kind of about that. Reply
Mar 14, 2007 6:37 PM taupist taupist  says:
Mar 14, 2007 7:13 PM xamat xamat  says:
Mar 16, 2007 2:50 PM Charles Charles  says:
To: Robin JacksonRobin, I am planning developing some product on the Linux platform. PNP is really bothering me a lot. Fortunately you talked about it. Now I need a Chinese version of any of those Linux distributions with better than Vista PNP support you mentioned about. However, there does not seem to be one.If you can find out the download links and post them here I really appreciate.Thanks. Reply
Mar 20, 2007 12:58 PM Dan Dan  says:
To: CharlesYou could try Red Flag Linux which is available from www.redflag-linux.com/As far as I know this is a RedHat derived distro specifically for Chinese users.You may also find the following link usefulwww.chinesecomputing.com/os/linux.htmlCheersDan Reply
Mar 24, 2007 5:13 PM Akie Akie  says:
Rob just does not understand Linux so his comment sound rather stupid to developers.My company develops security products, mostly aimed at protecting networks agains infected Windows PCs. We could never do what we do with Windows. To provide certain features we need to modify the kernel. Without Linux our product would not be possible. Reply
Mar 26, 2007 6:47 PM Rob Enderle Rob Enderle  says:
If you were you would use something like CE or Embedded Windows, but I'm not aware of any security products that do that. You pick the right tool for the job, sounds like that's what you did. Can't argue with that, in fact that's generally my point. Reply
Apr 11, 2007 4:08 PM Gary Gary  says:
Simply said, if you know nothing about what you are writing about (which is very obvious), then it should be forbidden for you to do so. I stopped picking up many computer magazines due to one sided views. If Windows disappears so do their jobs, while it's around, enjoy the viruses and spyware and loss of cpu resources struggling to keep it secure. Is Linux for everyone? No, not everyone can maintain a learning curve. Enjoy your "Cover-up", we'll enjoy ours. :) Reply
Sep 12, 2007 4:32 PM Jacob Jacob  says:
Hey Ryan. Have you tried Ubuntu?I don't have experience with many distros, but whenever you insert a storage device into an Ubuntu-run computer (CD, flash stick, etcetera) the OS detects it, and an icon appears on your desktop. I actually think it works more gracefully than on Windows.As for installation, compiling from the source is indeed intimidating for graphic-interface users. However, the vast majority of the software an average user needs is indexed in Add/Remove Applications. You click on the program you want; the program downloads and installs and its icon appears in the appropriate menu. Again, this system - though needing improvement - is more intuitive than the Windows system.The widespread belief that all Linux distributions are complex and unintuitive is, nowadays, a myth. Things are done differently, but most difficulties of transition are a matter of paradigm.I'm not a Linux evangelist. I don't think everyone should use Linux, and I don't think it's much superior to Windows. But there's no need for people to paint teeth and claws on Linux because of it eccentricities; it's really not that bad, and it's dirt cheap. Reply
Jan 11, 2008 4:52 PM fibo fibo  says:
It seems that you don't know what you are writing about, please document yourself before you write another article about the opensource community .. start from here www.gnu.org/thanks Reply
Jan 12, 2008 6:38 PM dave dave  says:
Fantastic article about linux, these misconceptions were of the main reasons i dropped off right before Kubuntu 7.10, i screwed up 7.04 so bad it couldn't boot, i had a spare xp copy which was a pain in the ass all around. I only had a week until 7.04 so i thought I'd try Vista out for a week before (finally) moving back to my beloved Linux desktop, i relized how much better Vista was over XP first of all, much more stable, faster, easier to work with, etc. But most of all it gave me a look at how much trouble I had getting Linux not to have an xserver crash or fubar after an odd update. The mesh of poorly written software is probably what causes this, kind of the "Hey we can do it too" attitude. From now on I'm just going to keep an eye on Linux while I keep using my Vista comp. Seen KDE 4 yet? It's final build default theme reminds you of Vista (not completely) with an OS X overtone."Open source, replicating commercial software since 1991"By the way, thank you rob, you also made me realize how much time i spent refuting these OS idealists (ALL OF THEM) and I should probably just instead use my computer, and stay off the blogs or comment pages, digg, etc (which I'm assuming most people who use Windows do) and instead read a book or practice the guitar, do something more useful with my time. LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO ARGUE CONSTANTLY ABOUT IDEALISMS WITH OS'S AND SOFTWARE Reply
Feb 17, 2008 9:16 AM Business Mailing Lists Business Mailing Lists  says:
Boy that tells it like it is. I was always under the impression that Linux was far more stable and secure than Windows.I just never wanted to take the chance to install it on a machine only to find that I have to learn the computer all over again.The users of Linux are similar to the Apple Macintosh users in their seemingly rebellious "cult like" devotion, which may be another reason that I didn't want to take that chance.Well, I don't know how I found this blog but it was certainly interesting. I'll have to keep a watch out on this.Thanks,C Burns Reply
Mar 19, 2008 7:13 PM Psp Blender Review Psp Blender Review  says:
I have a review posted of the major 3 psp download sites here at my website. Just the name to continue... Reply
Jul 6, 2008 12:31 PM Huff N Puff Huff N Puff  says:
Software for Linux often assumes the end user is a geek. I use Linux, not as a geek, but the way most people use Windows or a Mac. I have a desktop, and I use a mouse. I point and click. On Windows, when I download some new software, the software comes with everything I need to install it or run it. If it doesn't come in a runable format, I click on an "install" file, maybe answer some questions, and it gets set up on my machine. Well, I tried downloading and installing some new editing software for Linux. It wouldn't run. On investigating, I found that was because it required other software, which I did not have. I then downloaded a competitor's product. When I extracted the files, none were executable (binary). Apparently, I have to compile the thing! (There is no documentation on the download website -- no installation instructions.) If Linux wants to compete with Windows, the authors of OSS should stop assuming end users are geeks! Reply
Dec 25, 2008 9:11 AM cwxwwwxdfvwwxwx cwxwwwxdfvwwxwx  says:
well, hi admin adn people nice forum indeed. how's life? hope it's introduce branch ;) Reply

Post a comment





(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.




Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.