SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Microsoft Corp. - Moderated (MSFT)
MSFT 493.85-0.7%10:08 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lone Ranger who wrote (6875)4/20/2004 10:41:43 AM
From: miraje  Read Replies (3) of 19789
 
Here's one to make the penguin heads howl..

Linux... Not ready for prime time (three page article, excerpt below)...

informationweek.com

...even Windows 95--nine-year old software, reviled in the Linux community as junk code--handled the exact same sound system perfectly. So did Win98, WinMe, Win2000, Win XP Home and Win XP Pro. In this case, reflexively blaming the hardware is simply a dodge. If Linux is a truly superior operating system, shouldn't it be able to do what a nine-year-old copy of Windows can do? Why is it still struggling with a problem that Microsoft solved roughly a decade ago?

All this is amplified now that some companies in the Linux community are charging Microsoft-level prices. When a free or low-cost distribution falls short in some area, one might shrug it off. But when a full-price Linux distribution fails to provide even Win95's levels of compatibility, and then offers poor tech support as well, Linux is hardly a bargain.

And the costs are actually worse than that: I've invested more than two full working days on just the sound problem, which has raised the real cost of Linux on this PC, so far, from its retail $90 to $90 PLUS two day's pay. That makes this install of Linux the most expensive operating system I've ever tried. (And after all that, and after trying everything that the XYZ paid tech support suggested, it's still not working right.)

I also see I'm not the only one starting to do the math, as this survey of 1,000 IT managers shows. According to that survey, it can cost three to four times as much as moving from one version of Windows to another. Linux doesn't have to cost that much, true; but it can. As my case shows, just because you have current, fully functional, utterly mainstream hardware doesn't mean you'll have smooth sailing with Linux.

Nine And Counting
I didn't want to mention a specific distribution earlier because the sound problem isn't limited to that one distribution; I didn't want to unfairly single out one company for a problem not specifically of their making.

With that caveat in mind, I'll tell you that the "XYZ" software in the above was Xandros 2.0 Deluxe. But again, none of the Linux distributions I've tried so far on this PC succeeded in getting the sound working. That includes majors, such as two versions of Slackware, two versions of SuSE, plus Debian, Xandros, and Lindows; as well as several specialty distros like Knoppix, Knotix, Morphix, and Gentoo. You can count that as seven major versions and four minors; or as nine distributions; but no matter how you count them, not one of those Linuxes fully worked. But every version of Windows since 1995 worked just fine on the same hardware.

I think the above empirically shows that, despite its many good points, Linux still has some huge, gaping holes--holes that Windows plugged almost a decade ago.

Bottom line: For broad hardware support, Windows is still much better than Linux. That's not bias--it's a demonstrable fact.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext