[News] Why Windows Desktop Cannot be Taken Seriously, Unlike GNU/Linux

Hash: SHA1

6 things Microsoft needs to do before I’ll take Windows seriously

,----[ Quote ]
| While I’m going to address security later 
| in this article, let me say one thing 
| about Windows Updates: you need them. If 
| you are 
| not applying updates at least monthly, you 
| will regret it, unless you’re one of those 
| oddball system administrators who doesn’t 
| MIND finding that your servers are part of 
| a botnet, or have been turned into a porn 
| server, or a spam server, or more on the 
| stability side of things, are ridden with 
| bugs that Microsoft has deemed worthy of 
| fixing in a patch or a hotfix.
| As for my second truth there, in my 
| experience Windows servers act “funny” 
| when they’ve been up and running (and 
| providing some service, not just sitting 
| idle) for longer than a month or so. Odd 
| things will happen… you might see some out 
| of control paging file usage, bizarre 
| error messages, services that are in some 
| sort of “starting” or “shutting down” 
| limbo (which only a reboot can fix), you 
| know the drill.
| My point is, Windows servers need frequent 
| reboots. If you’re a Windows IT person and 
| you don’t think that only a month of 
| uptime isn’t ridiculous, then you 
| obviously haven’t done anything other than 
| Windows in your data center, because I’m 
| here to tell you: it’s nuts.
| Microsoft needs to address stability first 
| and foremost, and while they’re at it, and 
| while we’re on the subject of uptime, they 
| need to engineer things in a way that 
| won’t require a reboot for seemingly EVERY 
| My last maintenance evening I had to 
| reboot one particular server four times in 
| order for it to take all of its updates, 
| and it had only been two weeks since its 
| last round of them. That’s ridiculous. I 
| can count on one hand the number of times 
| I’ve actually HAD to reboot a Linux 
| machine after applying pushed-out updates 
| for it. 
| [...]
| I always find it funny when I read 
| articles that are mostly FUD that say 
| things like “Linux is not ready for the 
| desktop” and “not ready for the 
| enterprise”, because as I just discussed, 
| the reality of the situation is that well, 
| neither is Windows. Whether you’re running 
| XP or Windows 7, Server 2003 or Server 
| 2008, you’ll find that compared to the 
| alternatives, you’re running something 
| that requires constant attention, constant 
| hand holding, constant reboots, constant 
| patching, constant reloading, 
| troubleshooting, more hardware 
| requirements, and more security-mindedness 
| in your administrative approach, just to 
| do its job.


I've Installed Linux, Now What?

,----[ Quote ]
| How do you deliver the bad news to someone 
| who is upset, technically unsavvy and has 
| just overwritten their Windows system with 
| Linux?
| He had installed a second hard disk in his 
| system and wanted to put Linux there. The 
| problem was that when he installed it, he 
| did so to the primary (Windows) disk.
| I looked up a PC Recovery business in the 
| phone book for him and politely told him, 
| "Good luck." I unplugged my phone until 
| the next morning.
| I'll never know what happened to that guy 
| or if he ever recovered his files or his 
| Windos system. But, it makes me wonder if 
| that scenario could play out today with 
| our newer, cooler, smarter installers. 
| Could that happen on Ubuntu, for example



Why GNU/Linux is ready for the Average User

,----[ Quote ]
| I find it amusing that people like to jump on
| the Ubuntu bashing bandwagon just because an
| installation (or some piece of setup) goes
| astray. Ever tell the average user they need to
| reinstall Windows? Nine times out of ten they
| will look at you side ways (or if your a tech
| such as myself they will ask you to do it for
| them). Does this make Windows less popular or a
| "not ready" operating system just because you
| need a professional (or someone with at least
| some know-how) to get it all installed and
| running properly? No, it does not. Why should
| the standard be any different for GNU/Linux?
| In short I'd like to say this: Linux is more
| than ready for the average user to be using,
| but just like any operating system it may be a
| bit much for the average user to get it setup
| and thats just fine if you ask me.


Is Linux really that hard to use?

,----[ Quote ]
| Linux is just different and once people have
| become used to the differences they have no
| problems. Sort of like driving an unfamiliar
| car for the first time. Some controls feel
| different or be in a different place. The car
| will handle differently to start off with yet
| once you become used to the different control
| positions and the handling characteristics you
| are just as confident as in your own car.
| Linux is not hard to use, just different.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


5/27/2010 11:28:25 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

0 Replies

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 44