The second most common complaint is that Linux has everything except for that *one* Windows-only application that the critic absolutely, positively must have. BS. This is desktop computing we're talking about, not genomics. If Joe User is running some special app, chances are high that it's already been ported to Linux (and probably a good number of other OSes, too). When it comes to common, uncommon, or even outright bizarre tasks, Linux has the bases covered. There's so much free desktop software for the Linux platform it's almost an insult to even pretend you've got some magical app that has only been designed for Windows and has no Linux counterpart. Why is it so unbelieveable? Because the current generation of Linux developers and contributors are users just like everybody else. They have needs. They have wants. They have time. And if they needed or wanted that program or that functionality, they're the type of people who would build it. If a couple of people have a can't-live-without application that hasn't been ported or written afresh, it's typically because those people belong to a niche group lovingly referred to as "the fringe", or they simply haven't done their homework. Basically, nobody has needed that app or all the Linux users have found a way to get by (or prosper) without it. Typically, this argument is made by those without the capacity for research.
However, the truly beautiful thing about free software is that one has full license to create an application to fulfill a need. If, by some freakish cosmic oversight, an application addressing your needs doesn't exist, you may create or propose an idea and start a project. And if you aren't a proficient coder, it's ok! Developers are always on the lookout for a good idea and any kind of help, from design to documentation or artwork, is greatly appreciated.
That said, productivity and desktop applications in Linux are mature, standards-compliant and feature-rich. In contrast, Microsoft has been releasing the same Office suite since 1997, with the only visible changes residing in the formatting of documents and the creation of an increasingly crowded workspace. Native documents are often incompatible or inconsistent accross the major iterations of Office. You still can't export to PDF format from the Office suite. Standards compliance and interoperability aren't even on the radar. Heck, Outlook just got a "real" mail filter in late 2002. Compare that to Linux mail applications, such as Evolution, that can operate quietly and comfortably in any climate, even a hostile Windows-only office environment. OpenOffice can import and export into every format imaginable (and a few most people didn't even know existed). Even the most basic office tools on the Linux desktop provide powerful functionality and are simple enough for grandma to use. Most of them (Gnome Office, Koffice, OpenOffice, etc) possess the capability to operate in a tightly integrated manner with no extra fuss. And many of them possess features that can be downright revolutionary at times (ex: Abiword automatically scales your document to fit its window by default. For those with lots of screen real estate, poor vision, or a comfortable bed or chair further from the computer, this is invaluable).
Ease of Configurability
What if you want to fiddle with the settings of your operating system in regards to that hardware we just talked about above? Here's the catch: you don't want to touch the command line. As far as you're concerned, a desktop user should never even know that such a thing exists. I agree, and so do many of the latest Linux critics. But most are convinced you can't do it. Many even contend or imply that configuration is easier in Windows. I can't believe this. It hurts my head when I hear this argument made. The graphical tools are right there in front of you! KDE has so many configuration utilities, I'm convinced they're violating child-labor laws just to code the stuff. Gnome has a painfully simple to use set of System Tools that is not only intuitive, but it packs a punch as well. This stuff is virtually grandma-proof. The tools are full-featured, flexible and incredibly powerful. And with new innovations in hardware abstraction, compatibility and configurability will get even easier! Yay!
With Windows, I must concede, the user is presented with what seems to be a rather complete set of utilities in the Control Panel. But, as any experienced Windows user or admin will attest, Windows' configuration utilities suffer from a chronic case of wizarditis. The process is GUIfied to such an extent that only typical, average cases are accounted for. The wizards will simply not allow for "strange" or unconventional configurations. And they certainly won't let the frustrated user enter in their own settings. One must ride the wizard merry-go-round armed with grit, information and determination, or drop down to do some low-level hacking. But wait! That's not allowed.
I can already hear the grumbling, so to those naysayers out there, I have a challenge for you: have a computer illiterate (your stereotypical "my grandma" case) perform *any* configuration task in one of the Big Three Linux distros (SuSe, Fedora and Mandrake). If grandma absolutely cannot perform the task with the graphical tools these distros provide, I'll pay her $10. Now, have her try to perform the same configuration task in Windows. Choose something easy and then something involved and complex. Run through a whole bunch of scenarios. Try to set each computer up on a network. 9 out of 10 times, I guarantee it will take at least twice as long to accomplish the same configuration goal in Windows as in Linux, if it's even possible at all. The truly ironic thing about Windows configuration is that, to do it right the first time, you do have to be an expert. Or at least you have to know what each generalized, cryptic setting truly means. The prompts in most Linux configuration utilities are actually clearer and easier to follow, in my experience, than those in Windows. They accomplish this by not dumbing down the interface too unnecessarily. If a user has begun playing with Samba shares or DHCP settings, it's safe to assume they know enough to get by without having to "idiotify" the descriptive names of settings and elements. Simple explanations tend to suffice. Windows developers could learn a few lessons here.
Ease of Installation
This is another sore spot for Linux critics. Linux, they argue, simply does not have a single, integrated, simple-to-use package management tool. And they're absolutely right. Of course, look though I might, I can't seem to find anything even remotely resembling such a tool for Windows, either. In fact, the OS barely ships with anything worth using ("I paid $300 for this? Where are the programs?"). No productivity software, a couple of games and a swiss-cheese, featureless, non-compliant web browser. And certainly no package management. I'm not sure where the theory originated that this is necessary for a successful desktop OS (or that Add/Remove Programs and Windows Update are in any way related to this), but if it were true, most distributions of Linux would already qualify as very, very successful. There are at least half a dozen fully mature tools for package management already in existence (apt, yum, emerge, pacman and red carpet come to mind), but I can't seem to find too many of these kinds of tools for Windows.
Many will say that this is because most programs compiled and distributed for the Windows platform have significantly fewer dependencies (well, they're actually distributed with the OS, contributing to the collossal bloat), so dependency resolution is largely unnecessary. Although this may be true to some degree, Windows distributed binaries are no easier to find than their Linux counterparts. There is no one-stop-shop in Windows. There is no organized distribution method by which a user could browse or search for a program by task and install it with the click of a button. Such entities exist in Linux.
As a result of an almost complete lack of standardization or cooperation, Windows installation files are typically scattered throughout the filesystem. And because there's no guidelines dictating Start Menu entries, a user's Start Menu can begin to resemble a waterfall of words and tiny icons. Many apps in Windows don't register with the Add/Remove utility during installation, necessitating an uninstall from the included uninstallation program (which involves more hunting). With the above package management systems, this is all taken care of transparently. They're certainly not perfect yet, but considering the complex role they play, it's clear they're a far superior tool to anything Microsoft offers.
- "Windows Not Ready, Page 1/3"
- "Windows Not Ready, Page 2/3"
- "Windows Not Ready, Page 3/3"
