Home > Geeky, Software > Linux-alicious


November 20, 2007

On Sunday I set up an Ubuntu system for my son to use while he visits over holiday (it will be a step down for him but better than no computer).  But for all its well-intentioned interface smoovieness, Ubuntu is a bit bloated.  If you want quick and clean, (above all quick)  there are distros that have all the extra baggage pre-removed. Geekalicious goodies from InformationWeek Daily:

  1. Five tiny Linux distros that pack a punch

  2. 7 Reasons why Linux won’t succeed on the Desktop.  I had read this one before and it makes some great points.
  3. Why Linux will succeed on the desktop.  This one unintentionally illustrates a couple points from number 2, but opens a new thought: KDE4.  Though it is still in beta, I am definitely going to have to look into that some more.  But it won’t be for machines that would use the tiny distros.  The developers clearly have the Mac in mind.  Anyway the author believes Gnome needs to go away for Linux to succeed.

Unfortunately one great opportunity for Linux is the utter failure of Vista.  I would rather not see Linux succeed the lazy way, by default.

Categories: Geeky, Software
  1. November 20, 2007 at 11:05 | #1

    The author from number 3 is pretty accurate I would say. Especially on Gnome and KDE. One reason why seasoned veterans of Linux use Gnome is because it is less bloated than KDE. Granted I found it easier to get things done in KDE, but Gnome’s simplicity is very appealing. KDE start button shows you what Windows XP start button would show you if it was well organized. I will have to check out KDE4 when it comes out of beta, maybe it will persuade me to make a switch.

    Unfortunately one great opportunity for Linux is the utter failure of Vista.  I would rather not see Linux succeed the lazy way, by default.

    Isn’t this the only way Linux can succeed? M$ has a monopoly which makes it hard for companies to compete with them. So to me it makes sense that Linux will start to succeed when M$ fails.

  2. November 20, 2007 at 12:06 | #2

    No, Linux can succeed on the desktop by being better than Windows, which for corporate users is pretty iffy right now.  Certainly not the clear superiority of the Mac. 

    In a development race the end product of an easy victory is likely to be quite unimpressive.

  3. November 20, 2007 at 13:58 | #3

    No, Linux can succeed on the desktop by being better than Windows

    Which may in fact be the problem, since many already and have for a long time, thought it to be better.

    I think Linux is much better than Windows. I know one of the arguments for Windows being better is that you can do more on it, more stuff works. To me thats as lame as saying I want to hire a computer technician that knows everything about computers. Why? Wouldn’t it be better to hire the tech that is adaptable? To me this makes Linux the winner. Its Open Source nature and easily configured Kernel make it much more adaptable and much more scalable. It may be 3 years before Linux can do everything Windows can, but it will eventually happen. Open Source leads to interoperability.

  4. November 20, 2007 at 14:36 | #4

    I think Linux is much better than Windows.

    Your definition of ‘better’ and that of most users, are different things.  You’re a geek.  You are thinking; “Hmm, it has a *nix kernel and open-source development, it is scalable and has a longer future ahead of it than Windows.  I can even reconfigure the kernel if I want to.  This is better!” 

    Most users (keep in mind these are the people who write checks) are stopped cold by the first error message; then they need to go find a support person.  For rather obvious reasons there are more Windows support people than Linux support people. 

    No, “asking a question on a forum” isn’t the same thing as talking to a person.  It is so hard for most geeks to get this through their heads: USERS DO NOT CARE WHAT’S UNDER THE HOOD.  How are they going to find a forum, and ask a salient question if they can’t even read error messages?

    They.  Do.  Not.  Care. 

    To most users, a computer should work like a toaster, and to the extent that it does NOT work like a toaster, it is bad.

    So what writer number 3 said about pre-installed, pre-configured, already-working systems is dead-on.  There is absolutely no possibility of most users ever installing an operating system no matter how easy it seems to you.

  5. November 20, 2007 at 16:59 | #5

    Your definition of ‘better’ and that of most users, are different things.

    Correct, which is why I phrased it as I. I wasn’t trying to debate you, I was simply stating my opinion… I would never argue that my opinion should be or is the same for everyone else.

  6. james old guy
    November 20, 2007 at 18:25 | #6

    I took a trip down memory lane and googled up this Amiga OS, I thought it had died. I guess not.

  7. November 20, 2007 at 20:55 | #7

    I knew a guy who had an Amiga and just raved about it – better than a Mac or a PC – but I never got to play with it.  From all reports they were really good.

    BTW I got a big kick out of Apple’s new ad, “Podium”.  Very funny and more than a grain of truth.  Not that there’s a Mac in my immediate future but a laugh is a laugh.

  8. November 22, 2007 at 06:54 | #8

    Totally off subject: Happy Thanksgiving!

Comments are closed.