My Letter To A Linux Desktop User

But that is the point...
with Linux if there is a feature you wish to use or play with you CAN but if you do not want to, as you noted... install it and only apply security patches and not the newest updates to the packages. I would note that it is normally not the linux kernel or the disto but a particular package. So that would be like me telling a windows user do to the crappy programming of a 3-party app that they should not use windows because the crashes. No, the answer is not to use that software, or that version of the software... etc.

I am one of those who like to tinker so it is not a frustration to me... the frustration I feel is when I start something and can not figure it out, but it has never (I may be forgetting something but as a rule of thumb never) impacted my productivity or my work quality.

But, I agree if someone does not understand what Linux is and how packages work, and how to control the installation... then it would be hard for them to achieve the stability that the *nix folks boast.

That is my take on it...

Daniel,

Your premise is invalid. Linux is not monolithic - there are well over 100 different distributions with attributes that span the gamut. Certainly Linux desktops as you describe it exist, and those distributions address the desires of Linux hobbiests as you describte.

I offer you disproof by counterexample. Linux desktops exist that are more solid and reliable than any flavor of Windows and are just as well supported. Here are a number of such that fit this description:

1. The (K)Ubuntu distribution known as Dapper Drake, version 6.06 LTS (Long-Term Support)

2. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation.

3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop

4. SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop

All are: easier to install than Windows, more reliable, and less prone to exploits (by count - not the same as saying they are not exploitable). All are as easily updated, and one is free (as in gratis), while all the rest are free (as in open source, easily examined).

I know the things I have claimed from personal experience (well, except for SuSE - that one is by reputation). I have used computers since I started college in 1972, graduating in 77 with my Master's degree in EE. I have used Windows since version 3.0 was released in 1990 and Linux since 1996. I use several flavors of both Windows and Linux every day. Like you, I want an OS that is not an end but a means. As reliable tools go that I can "just use," Linux is my OS of choice.

Reliable, unbiased information is hard to find. There is a great deal of FUD on both sides. I hope my experiences help you.

Regards,

DaCAP

Very helpful indeed, DaCAP.

I suppose that the issue isn't so much that the operating system leads to tweaking issues; it's probably more accurate that the tweaking fetish leads to the operating system/distro choice.

Hmm, this would make my entire point invalid. I'll think about it some more. Thanks for your comments.

Go read Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice". I don't want a bazillion choices, for the very reasons he states in the book. I don't care about 1000's of linux packages for my desktop system. But I do want a stable OS as my platform for development, and Mac OS X does that beautifully for me. I use Linux for all my server-related work, and it's perfect for that, but I'll never again use it as my desktop machine unless Macs go away and the only other choice is Windows.

Interesting, Scott. This is precisely my choice as well -- Linux on servers, OS X on the desktop.

Hmmm...I'm kind of torn on the matter. Everthing I've read so far, from the article to the comments, are valid and make valid points. I fairly recently converted to Ubuntu from WinXP and will say that I've had to do reinstalls on both OS's. I've done more WinXP reinstalls only because I've used it more, but I think when I reach the point that I've used Ubuntu just as much, I will have the same amount of crashes/reinstalls.

It is simply in my nature to "mess with things" in ANY OS that I am utilizing. If you ask me which is easier to crash, I say Ubuntu for obvious reasons. Linux puts the power at your fingertips and lets you "mess with anything" with ease. While you can "mess with alot" in XP, it is more sugar-coated there, you have to dig hard to mess something up, but I have, numerous times. Don't know where I'm really going with this...

Well to focus on the main article, I would have to agree with the writer on one premise alone:
Yes WinXP or MAC OSX is the platform to utilize to get work done, but only because they are designed in such a way that they are harder to screw up yourself. I'm not saying Linux is unstable, quite the contrary, if you let that box sit there serving up webpages with Apache and you don't "mess with stuff" it is inherently MORE stable that any other OS.

Bottom Line: All three OS's are pretty good at what they were designed for. Can't really count Linux as an OS as it has many flavors, each with it's own purpose, but even those specialized distros are pretty good at what they were designed for. Yes Linux draws "tweakers" and PC enthusiasts and it caters well to them. Yes Linux draws business for server use and it caters well to them. Yes Windows draws the vast majority of the planet, because it caters well to the vast majority of the planet. Mac OSX caters to those who love it as well. You see? You find what works for YOU, it's as simple as that. Sorry to get a little long-winded there.

There's really nothing to stop you from messing around with or tweaking any operating system -- you can download or buy apps that will change your Windows themes, make Mac OS do things differently and so on, and many people spend hours and hours doing just that.

The point Daniel is making (I think) is that at least on Windows or Mac, mail and other apps just work and you don't have to (usually) do anything other than input your account names, imap servers etc.

I've probably just stepped in it, because many will argue that you can install, set up and run mail clients and image programs on Linux. And they're right. But from my own experience, it has always been a hassle updating my desktop linux system, and I don't have that same hassle factor with Mac updates. Plus, the apps for the Mac tend to fit into their environments well, even the third-party ones, while apps for Linux and Windows are functionally and visually inconsistent from a UI perspective. So call me shallow.

I don't want to have the operating system in my face, I want to use it as a platform for doing other things, just like I want my fridge to chill my food without any assistance from me. I use Linux for all my servers because it's just plain incredible in the server role. But I use a Mac for my frontend because I have enough other distractions and my operating system interface shouldn't be one of them. From what I hear, Vista tells you about *every* event that happens on your box like an "overeager Boyscout". Really, I don't need that much information.

I use Linux, and only Linux when I work. My current Linux box, that I have had for two years, still has not crashed on me. I am even running a testing version of an operating system, with all of the latest beta software.

My workflow is great. I get more done in a day than most of the other designers in my office, and yes, they are on Macs.

It really has nothing to do with the operating system, it has to do with how well you can use it.

Please stop trolling. This article is totally unsubstantiated.

Paul, you had me up until "trolling"...

It's called "presenting ideas and having a discussion" -- learn the difference.

I will jump back in this and into it...

I am sure that if one could never learn how Linux truly works all of these things would be true and that going to OS X would alleviate their learning curve... LOL (it was a joke people) But a joke with a point. People have historically had to learn the operating system, and with great ability comes great configuration options (marvel spoof). That is not so much the case today, but two years ago it was very prevalent. It is a reputation they will have to deal with.

I, for the most part, think that it is a matter of choice that has no real connection to 'better/best' but more to 'style'.

I took Dan's article is an opinion piece, not as a declaration of scientific fact and not meant to apply to every human being who uses Linux. There are always implicit assumptions made in most things people write -- if we have to caveat every article or comment we post, the caveats would smother us.

I'm sure there are pockets of people who use Linux on the desktop and have no upgrade issues, and I'm sure there some of them who have a great workflow and love the apps that they use. Great, they should keep doing it for as long as they want.

But I agree with Dan--many people eventually get fed up with tweaking the tools. Look around at any technical conference and you'll see a large portion of the attendees carrying Macs. Look at any business conference, and you'll see mostly Windows. If it wasn't the operating system that was the issue, you'd think all the technical folks would be running Linux -- they are after all the ones who know how to use it best.

Scott,
I agree with your point but your conclusion might need some work...
at the tech situation I would not say OS X is there because they all tried and used linux and were able to use it, then got tired of maintenance. First, depending on what the conference was, that might not even be a true statement. The reason most people use what they use is experience. I am certain, had I used OS X prior to drinking the linux cool-aid I would be agreeing with Daniel. But as time would have it I did not, so I am not... at least not exactly.

The reason you see windows in business is M$ had a better marketing machine. And a lot of tech's can not use linux or OS X. They can use windoz because that is what they know because that is what they use at work because it is a business decision. It is market share. We are the remnant that have stumbled onto a truth that the main stream can not see.

By the method of reason one would conclude that albeit there would be a good portion running 'other' OS's, that since most would be windows (market share... its a fact) that windows is right.

I am bouncing around between things at work, on my linux laptop, doing several things so I hope all that flowed well.

Daniel, have you nothing to say about my reply before I called you a troll?

@Paul:

I have no doubts that your claims are true. Again, I think my comments apply to a certain kind of user, not everyone as a whole. Also keep in mind that I've been running Linux myself consistently for the last 5 years (albeit only on servers).

So it's not a matter of bashing Linux, the idea was that if your focus is working rather than fixing tools, many distros -- even those dubbed "desktop" distros -- are rather unstable over time. I do agree with you and Rick, however, that if you know your shit and spend a little time, you can keep it running solid.

So, yeah...agreed, but this is a discussion, not a troll-fest. Take a look around the site. I work hard to come up with content that I and others find useful; I don't run around spamming or trolling with garbage to generate hits. If I wanted hits I'd get a real domain name and start pumping out "popular" content instead of random thoughts and technical articles.

Anyway, have a good one.

I thought this was going to be a discussion around Dan's claim that there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools, and that will likely lead you to Windows or OS X. Instead, it's turned into a "my OS is better than yours" and that's not even the point.

Paul, all you've said is that you aren't yet tired of tweaking your tools because your desktop needs are well-supported by Linux and the apps you run on it, and you aren't spending a lot of time tweaking them or messing around with upgrades that break features in those apps. Congratulations. You are the one person on the planet who is running Linux as a desktop or laptop and who spends less time tweaking and upgrading than a comparable Mac OS X or Windows user. I simply don't believe you.

Rick, my point was that between techies and business users, techies are the ones who are more likely to have a real choice about what they run because they are skilled enough to maintain their own systems. More and more of the techie group are selecting Macs over Linux because it's they're so much easier to use. Fine, this isn't scientific evidence--I didn't claim it was, and I'm not interested in debating it. I'm simply describing what I see and saying why I think it is so, much of which is based on discussions with these same people as to why they're running Macs. You don't have to believe it, but please don't tell me why I think what I do. I'd rather hear what your observations are and what you see.

For the record, I have 20 years of Unix experience as a sysadmin, network engineer and software developer. I've seen the Unix wars, I've installed and used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and all the patches. Ugh. I've worked on Cray's, SGIs, DEC's (VAX and Alpha), 386s, 486s, 586s, 686, AMDs, SunOS, Solaris, even the 3B2. I started running with Linux before it was 1.0. I started on the Sinclair ZX-80 almost 30 years ago, moved to the Atari 800, then the Atari 1040ST. I even have a C book from the early 80's, and a GNU Emacs manual from 1985. I've written 6502 assembly language. I've been to more conferences, both technical and business, than I care to remember. I've been around the block, and I've heard all the arguments for and against this or that OS, and all kinds of OS and language religious wars, and I'm fed up with all of them.

What have I learned? I've learned that none of us really know anything, and most of us believe our own bullshit. What I haven't learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody's feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.

By the way, I could be completely wrong about all of this. Yep. I could.

> What I haven’t learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody’s feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.

Exactly. That's what I was looking for -- a discussion. I put out my thoughts, someone else puts out theirs; it's an amazing concept. Too much to ask for, evidently.

In regards to:

"[If] you avoid tweaking, [Windows and OSX] offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do."

and

"I have a friend that uses it and complains constantly about the fact that if you update it enough it breaks"

I've never had these issues in FreeBSD or Gentoo Linux. In fact, I find more issues in Windows and OSX, because I have all of my software upgraded in one fell swoop in my OSes, while my OSX lab machine needs most applications to be updated manually. I won't even get into how hard it is to keep my applications up to date in Windows, nor the dozens of cases I've had where an official update of Windows or Office breaks something terribly. These are of course my experiences, yours will vary.

Another possibility is that your friend is new to Ubuntu and isn't as familiar with it's foibles and problems as they were in Windows? The first time I tried FreeBSD I was cursing up a storm and scared my neighbor. But now I have more issues in Windows; perhaps this is just a case of unfamiliarity?

In response to the original article:

It has been my experience that Windows and Linux and OS X are very very similar. They are simply different approaches to the same problem. The choice of operating system depends on the person using it. For example, I have used Windows, Linux and OS X. There are things I like in each of them. There are things i dislike in each of them.

There exists this perception that computers/operating systems are like toasters. Meaning, they can be fixing by randomly prodding them with a fork. Operating systems are very fragile. It is a miracle that they work at all. For me, the best update procedure exists in OS X. It is to the point. It doesn't rely on a specific browser (Windows i am looking at you). Linux update procedures are usually quite painless. It depends which distro you go with.

Not being able to stop tinkering with the OS is not the fault of the OS. It is the fault of the user. I have a desktop machine running Xubuntu. I use it most of the time to get work done. It took a very short amount of time to set up. It does everything i want it to. I can run Eclipse and write the Java code i have to write.

There is a difference between an OS for getting your work done and a "home computer" OS. "Home OS" is a tough choice. However, i can see no reason for saying that Linux or OS X are bad choices for any kind of comp sci or programming related work.

my .2 cents.

Well, apparently I hit a nerve, which to anyone who knows me is never my intent and I do not get offended. I was trying to add to the discussion. I see that for me to agree and point out my perception on 'your' thoughts were presumptuous but it was not meant the way you have apparently taken it.

You are right though... it is APPARENT you can not discuss without offending someone.

And for the record... I am glad you have the background you do... it makes you someone worth discussing with... me, not so much... I am just barely qualified to discuss any of this... ;-)

so, now that we have all gotten a little hot and said the same thing... it is choice based on preference (style) not better/best (science).

Ooh... and all those I know most run windows and I personally know more linux/bsd users than OS X, but that is because my field and associations.

I have to agree with this article. For the past few years I've used Linux exclusively on my laptop--Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SuSE, Ubuntu... I love Linux have great respect for the forementioned distros, but this year I became disenchanted with continually fixing/configing my main work machine.

For example, on Linux I used several applications that required a kernel recompile every time a new version of the Linux kernel was released. Although I like the freedom of compiling my own kernel, the necessity of compiling the kernel in order to use the applications I need can be very frustrating.

Now I'm happy with OS X on my laptop and Debian on my server--both are solid as a rock in their respective uses. In short, I learned a lot keeping my Linux laptop just how I wanted it. In this sense it was time well spent. I still love Linux (and keep it on my laptop as a Parallels VM), but I just got tired "fixing my tool".

Well I have stayed out until now. I am an avid fan of Linux and OSX, but I will have to disagree with Daniel's point. I think what we are really talking about is personality traits and not the merits of the operating system. On my desktop I run Ubuntu and have upgraded it threw 3 different releases and never had any downtime. I do not have to tweak it always works. Now that being said, I do not compile my own packages and run things that are not in the repositories.

I do not think that OSX is a bad choice. It has proven to be stable and a very good platform. I am the one that introduced Daniel to OSX and and I think Linux as well. My wife is also an administrator of a Mac network. One of the things that I notice is that with any operating system you have to be aware that a patch could break something. That is the reason that patching in companies that use MS is alway a touchy topic. Patches can break things because you do not know every piece that will be touched. Now with Linux and OSX you seem to not have as big of a shot of breaking things as you do with Windows, but it can still happen.

I think that with a mature distribution with good standards like Debian, Ubuntu, ETC.. you have a less of a chance of something breaking then in OSX and here is why. They are going to make sure that all the packages are stable and will work with there system. Where with OSX if you patch the system then you third party apps do not know what is going on and they have a chance of breaking. Same goes for if you patch them and not the OS. The problem is you are dealing with a number of people and teams to get all your updates. With a mature Linux distro you have the package maintainers that do the QC to make sure nothing breaks. Of course they can not do that if you install apps that are not in there repository and that is where I see many people running into problems.

I think that if you will take emotion out of it you will see that the stability of most Linux distros and OSX has more to do with the users and not the systems. Take someone that cannot stop from downloading the latest beta sources and compiling it from scratch and you are going to have bad results. Take someone who uses it for a tool and does not care to be on the bleeding edge and sticks to the packages supplied and they have a completely stable OS. So the choice is yours. You can take your OSX box and install crazy apps and it will break. I know that I have had that happen to me. I also know Daniel has ran into problems as well.

WHEW!! now that I am done let me say my next laptop will be OSX, but not because it is more stable then Linux. It is because world of warcraft runs on OSX and not natively on Linux. If not for that fact I would buy a Sony or Dell and run Ubuntu.

Sorry Rick, didn't mean to go off on you like that. Regardless of your background, I'd still prefer to hear your experiences or responses to Dan's original declaration, not a response to mine.

Dan's thesis:

"... there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools. This will likely lead you to Windows or OS X — both of which, if you avoid tweaking, offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do."

Dan's thesis deconstructed and rephrased just in terms of the User Interface:

"The UIs for both Windows and OS X don't change over time as much as the multiple UIs for Linux."

and

"There is a single UI for Windows and a single UI for OS X while there are multiple choices of UIs for Linux."

and

"There are many more options in tweaking any of the multiple Linux UIs than are available in the Windows or OS X UIs."

leading to:

"At some point, you will realize that you are spending too much time and effort tweaking whichever UI you've chosen on Linux in an attempt to get it to feel integrated and for all the applications to fit cleanly in it that you'll eventually give up and move to Windows or OS X on the desktop because their UIs are already fixed and you don't have to mess with them."


If you apply this to other aspects of your desktop experience, such as upgrading, installing and deinstalling software, Linux, in general, requires more effort to manage and maintain on the desktop than either Windows or OS X. That doesn't mean it's not usable on the desktop, just that it requires more effort.

The question is, will you move to Windows or OS X because you eventually get tired of tweaking the Linux on the desktop and it's UI? If you've ever used Windows or OS X, quite probably. I did. I moved to Mac OS specifically to simplify the desktop so I could focus on using my computer as a tool for other things. I even began using my personal MacBook for all home and work related things so I wouldn't have to keep track of two systems. This year, I'm ditching the Mac version of MS Office as well as Windows XP running in Parallels. Next year, I'm quitting my federal government job of almost 20 years because they're going to force us to run Windows on the desktop and probably the server side too.

Scott....
no worries, like I said you CAN NOT offend me.

I have clearly stated above my views and responses to Daniel's post. It depends on the person...
my responding to you was in the whole point... to have conversation. I think of blogs as a room of folks hangin out and talkin... not a one on one conversation with the originator... perhaps I am using bad web etiquette but that is what I thought the point was.

I appreciate your over looking of my jr status... he he.

I have used windoze quite extensively in my limited year career and am the engineer called on when clients have issues with mac, as my *nix experience allows me to get to a console and get to the root of the matter (no pun intended). I also ran OS X in a vm for a while, it was just to ram intensive with the pc hack to vm. I plan to get an OS X desktop (perhaps mini mac) to learn, toy with, and master. That is what started the original conversation Daniel eludes to when he quoted that he had this conversation before with the the person he wrote the letter too... it was me this time, and my telling him I was going to get a mini mac lead him to tell me not to repeat his mistake... dont go cheap just buy your next workstation as one... "you won't go back"... so, that is the scope on that.

roll easy all

Wow, the feedback has been just great. My closing thoughts echo what Scott and Tony have said (and I thank them for showing up). Essentially, it is very possible to put effort into Linux Desktop environments and make them very stable environments. I think we all know this and the comments here from Ken, Rick, and Paul lend support to that premise.

My main idea here was simply that - even if you don't notice (likely due to the love for the OS combined with the hacker mentality) - Linux desktops do tend to require more attention over time than Windows or OS X. And when I say "more attention", I mean time spent keeping basic functionality working, e.g. X, sound, drivers, quirks, etc. I totally agree that once you start messing with stuff it's pretty easy to bork *any* OS.

So, I'm not saying that if you don't mind giving your OS this attention you're wrong, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that there may come a time when you realize that putting forth that effort to make your OS do what it's supposed to do will become tedious to you, as it has for me. Tony has come to the exact same conclusion after using a Linux desktop for quite some time. Again, it's all about personal preference. I'm simply stating mine, and the thought that others may share it at some point in the future.

Dan

I would still disagree with you. I spend no time on my Linux desktops.I really do not do anything at all but click install updates in the gui every now and then. My argument stands that Linux requires less attention then any other platform I have used.

Obviously there will be individuals who have no problems with Linux on the desktop. But, _in general_, Linux is still more difficult to maintain on the desktop for most people than Windows or Mac OS X. That's my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of people I've worked for and with.

While your individual experience may be different, I'm willing to bet that if you do know people who run or have run Linux on the desktop, they have either switched to something else on the desktop, or, if asked, will complain about the hassle.

The question to ask is: how many people do you know who _used_ to run Linux on the desktop but switched to something else? Because if they've already switched, you'll never know they used to run Linux on the desktop and did the switch. If all that's left are those who were able to run it without hassle, then we aren't able to see all those who quit.

One thing I think we can all agree with is the statement that when a tool we are using to accomplish other ends continually requires tweaking to keep it working, we would gladly switch to a different tool with which we can achieve those same ends but which requires significantly less hassle to maintain.

This is, of course, assuming that you aren't using the tool as a security blanket or religious symbol, in which case the tool has become an end in itself for that individual and the tweaking is simply a ritual addiction.

I believe your scope of what constitutes “just wants to work” is too narrow. My Wife, Mother, and Secretary probably would not benefit much from using a Linux based system. It’s not a comfortable tool for what they need to get done. The ASIC chip designers that I maintain clusters for probably could not do their job on a Windows based or Macintosh based systems. The software they use doesn’t run on those systems. The media services group at my place of employment use Macintosh’s for video and flier production as it’s the best tool for their job. Myself, I personally have 3 different desktop operating systems spread across four systems in my office, as I need all of those to provide adequate support for my division. I guess it boils down to your “just wants to work” scope. What “getting work done” means varies from individual to individual. As you said earlier you view your desktop as a hammer. You wouldn’t use a metal hammer to tap pieces of wood together in a fine piece of furniture would you? No, you’d use a hammer that was softer than the wood you are working with as to not damage it. Again it’s the right tool for the right job.

After you decide that you have a tool that fits for your need you move on to feeling. How does your tool make you feel. You have the “Socially responsible” types who base their use of tools on some inner conscience. They choose to use electric cars and solar panels over gas-guzzlers and oil burning electric plants. There is also this type of person in the computer user field. You have people that use Linux because they believe that Microsoft is the big bad boogey man. You also have individuals that refuse to use Linux because it’s inherently socialist in its development system and they are staunch Capitalists. I’m sure there are individuals that use Macintosh systems for some sort of reason that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy as well. Personally I get all Tim the tool man like when I sit down in front of a six headed Linux desktop monitoring some interesting experiment.

I hope these arguments make sense. I’m not much of a writer. I’m a desktop support specialist for a research lab who is majoring in computer based distributed systems so I get to see this argument played out almost on a daily basis.

P.S. to see a nice desktop setup check out my current workstation http://www.flickr.com/photos/jormes/373808633

Scott,

As an answer to your question about knowing individuals that have switched between desktops. I have users that have moved from VMS to windows NT, to mac OS 8 or 9, then back to windows 2000, moved on to some version of Redhat, moved to OS X and now are back on Scientific Linux and probably are awaiting the next "Big thing" in OS's.

Personally I thought VMS was a wonderful desktop operating system.
Jason

I've been using desktop linux for 3 years now, Ubuntu for 1. I've never ONCE had ANYTHING break.. I really think you're doing something wrong for that. You should LEARN a new OS before using it.

The author is right. If you need to do some work, you need a system which just works. No tweaking or fiddling around is desired. But: look at Vista and what comes after that? Maybe we shall get some kind of Windows-Sharia PCs which will chop off your right hand when you do not behave as you should. :-)

In my opinion, with Linux Debian Stable you come close to "just working", if you do not need the latest cutting-edge versions of software. You do need to educate yourself better than with Windows, however.

Linux might get even better chances in situations with a knowledgable administrator and more than one user to make the tweaking pay for itself. I have a small model situation of this at home: my wife and two daughters are no experts. They use my Linux PC for web-surfing, e-mails and word processing (Open Office). We have no complaints.

Linux is rapidly getting better. Look at the long-term prospects!

Daniel,

I enjoyed your article and your point. But I am a Linux Desktop user, and to some degree the kind of person you direct your letter to. I started using Linux about three years ago with an unstable little OS called Progeny Debian based on the Debian project. Since then I have used Linspire, Fedora, and Ubuntu in various successions and I have seen the usability, features, and stability grow by leaps and bounds.

Right now, I am using Kubuntu (the KDE version of Ubuntu) Edgy Eft. I don't have the programming skills of probably most Linux users, and so mostly I have to rely on whatever packages of software other people put together. For me, compiling new software is not an option as I simply don't have the skills for it.

In spite of this, I have been using this flavor of Linux on my laptop (on which I am writing) non-stop since about March or so (beginning with Breezy Badger, and following the distro upgrade path through Dapper to Edgy). I have indeed had to dig a little to find drivers and get a few things working with support from the forums; but otherwise it has been a very stable and reliable OS with which I work exclusively. Yes, I have a small Windows partition, but it is only for those few Games I cannot run under the Wine emulator.

Most users generally do not tinker with their MS Windows OS any more than they absolutely have to, they simply neither have the know-how nor the desire to. They simply install and use popular software which was written for that platform. Ironically, this is the OS I am called upon by friends and co-workers to troubleshoot and repair just after normal, average use by people who only want to use their computer for music, internet, office work, email, etc.

The truth is that an average Modern Linux Distro like Ubuntu, or PCLinuxOS, or Linspire, etc. would be more than sufficient for the average computer user right out of the box, and they probably wouldn't have to call in the Geek Squad any more for Ubuntu than for Windows (XP or Vista).

I Beta tested Windows Vista on one of my machines. About the only thing I thought was worth anything was the wallpaper. If MS offered me a free copy of Vista for my systems here, I would turn it down or file it on a shelf somewhere in favor of Ubuntu. I can't comment on OSX because I've never used it, but at it's heart, from what I understand, it is essentially a kissing cousin to Linux.

In conclusion, as an "above-normal" computer user, I find this Distro of Linux to be entirely stable on it's own, perfect for the average user, and a vast improvement over MS Windows; and a cheaper alternative to OSX

You will have to forgive Daniel Miessler, this was probably not written by him but was published under his name by some black hat pushing the article through Daniel's bot infested computer. Yes I tweak my computer and its desk top regularily, i consider that effort to be a small cost since I need to do usefull work such as checking my bank accounts and paying bills. Tasks that I would never do from a windows based pc (did you see the report news.com.com/Zombies continue to chase Windows PCs/2100-7349_3-6129235.html) Some where around half of the windows based PCs are infected with malicious software.

My kids disagree with you. They love their Linux desktops (they chose KDE after sampling both KDE and GNOME) and never have to "fix" anything. They are shocked, however, when they use a Windows desktop. See, on Linux, they don't get all the intrusive popups, adware, spyware, infestations and other irritations.

I've been a linux desktop user for over 10 years now. Pray tell when should I expect this day when I will grow tired of not fixing non-problems?

I think part of your problem is in finding a stable distribution that offers the most capabilities out of the box with little to no tweaking. I have been using Mandriva for almost a decade now, and have had very few stability issues. As a matter of fact, until I started rewiring my house last month, my server and firewall both ran for 2 years without rebooting or updating (minor tweaking on the firewall to forward remote ssh to my desktop system). My desktop system has been upgraded almost every other year since 10.1 came out (I skipped 2005), but not reimaged. Even when I upgradded my hard drive on the desktop system, I just copied everything over and reran the boot loader installer from the control center (try that with Windows or OS X).

While I am a developer working on the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture, I own none of the sound systems I have written code for, so am unable to test on my desktop. I recently bought a laptop, and with the exception of the modem, everything on it worked with Mandriva 2007 out of the box (Windows requires a driver cd to be inserted just to see the SATA hard drive, and the system doesn't support Vista).

Granted, there is a lot of hype around Ubuntu and Fedora Core, but after testing these on a spare system, I can see where you are coming from. My only suggestion is to look at other mainstream distro's out there. Novell Suse is the next bet distro for the desktop just below Mandriva (based on my own usability experiences).

Nicely written article, but I too think that your premise is not valid.

I had started to write a list of points that I would disagree with, but instead I will limit it to a short summary of my own experience with M$ and Linux.

Background: I am an electrical engineer by profession with strong background in hardware/software development. (Does anyone besides me remember the old Fairchild 4 bit chips?). Also, business owner and business computer user.

I started with Linux in 1995 after using M$ since DOS 2.something (was also CP/M user, still have running CP/M system in my 'museum'). Used all versions of Window$ until XP, an experience I decided to pass.

In 2003 after watching my admin time for my inhouse network of 7 systems, all W2K at the time skyrocket due to virus, malware, other exploits and resulting enless upgrades - I screamed ENOUGH!

I had no actual favorite distro at the time but was running Mandrake 7.2 and 9.0 on a couple of laptops, so I chose to switch all my systems to Mandrake just for commonality, expecting to just endure the pain...

There WAS NO PAIN! I 'lost' a substantial investment in M$ apps but in the end had zero difficulty replacing - and in most cases enhancing - my existing capabilities.

Today we run 8 desktops and 8 laptops - all Mandrake/Mandriva based and have never looked back!

I agree - you do get tired of fixing your tools - that is WHY I switched to Linux!

For those thinking about it - obviously I like Mandriva, but it doesn't really matter which distro as long as it has the apps you need and you stick with it! You didn't learn Windows overnight, don't confuse learning curve with broken system!

Good luck!

Robert

I don't see why an up-to-date Linux desktop system can't be a productive tool, or why you think that only Mac or Windows can provide that experience. The trick is to make sure you're using a distribution that cares first about working properly. There's a reason they call those other ones "bleeding edge" distributions... and it involves bleeding. :)

I've been using a Slackware system for my desktop for years. Over time it's been updated from KDE 2.whatever to 3.5.4, it's running a 2.6.19 kernel, and whatever other updates I can't think of now. In all that time I haven't run into any kind of problem that kept me from using my system and getting work done.

I think the real problem is that computers have been made easy enough that people don't have to know anything about them. I hate to use the phrase "point and drool" but the level of question I've seen asked in various online fora has me wondering why some people are even running Linux (and in some cases why do they even have a computer?) My letter to a potential Linux desktop user would ask instead "Do you know why you need Linux? If you do, go ahead and switch. If not, just stick to Windows."

And speaking of Windows, as a proper Linux user I have to get the obligatory slam in or they'll make me turn my plush Tux penguin in. :) So... um... Anything from Microsoft that hasn't had at least 2 service packs applied seems to be as bad as any of the cutting edge Linux systems as far as stability goes. Search your feelings. You know that it's true.

Finally, I do agree that a Mac desktop is a sweet machine. I've only been able to play on a friends system a little, so I can't say anything about how stable it is, but it sure seems nice.

Have a good one,
Pete

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for over 6 years. Yes back then, when Linux and its applications were constantly being improved and enhanced, I did upgrade a lot. That is part of the dynamic development process. I really didn't have to upgrade so much, but it was my choice. Today, you can update/upgrade a way lot less and if you do, you don't have drastic problems like you point out. For about a hear now, I have been using Kubuntu and I update almost every night without any issues, nada, zero issues, zilch. It is all automatic, you get flare signal, you click, supply root password and select update of whatever you select from a list. Clean and easy in a fashion that Windows will never be able to match. Linux & apps will keep chucking along until one day you get convinced of its superiority.

Have a good day.

Starting arguments with invalid premises for the purpose of inciting isn't "discussion," it's flamebait and trolling. I'm disappointed to see this linked on LT, they've certainly stooped low to keep interest.

I've tried multiple times to get rid of Windows and I can't do it for this very reason. Maybe those of you who claim Linux to be perfect know something I don't know, but I'm constantly having trouble with one thing or another.

I now dual boot Windows and Ubuntu, and I'm pretty satisfied with it when I feel the need to tweak or show it off to friends as a novelty OS, but when I need to work, I boot into Windows. As much as I despise Redmond, Windows is still the best platform in terms of stability and available applications. The Linux apologists can say whatever they want, but it doesn't make a lick of difference because they're wrong: Linux is not even close to being a stable, full-time desktop. That isn't to say the kernel is unstable, just that X/KDE/GNOME/drivers/apps are not developed to a point where they "just work."

Sorry, folks. I love Linux and I love open source, but I'm not willing to live in delusion about their limitations.

I have not had the experience of getting all frustrated because of Linux breaking do to excess tinkering. It has never broken in my 8+ years of Linux desktop usage. Since Red Hat 6.0, I have had a Linux powered desktop at home. I run Fedora Core 1 now. I know, Fedora is at core 6 or 7 now, but why upgrade. It simply boots up and does what I want it to, with no muss, no fuss, no viruses, no trojans, no problems. My only complaint is that no one has written a Turbo Tax like application for Linux. Web apps don't count in my book. It takes care of my computing needs. Isn't that what an OS is supposed to do? When I left WINDOWS at 98, I was getting really tired of paying for all the virus scanner, ad blocker, pop-up and all that other foolishness upgrades(more $), so now I only boot Windows when it's tax time or when I need to run off a trip ticket from M$ Streets & Trips.. For everything else, there's Fedora FC1. By the way I am still getting a lot of milage out of a 500 MHz machine with 2 10G drives.

Why upgrade and mess with stuff when it just works?

I'm currently a linux user. I used windows up until I got tired of using XP a year or so ago. I find that after the initial learning curve, linux can be quite productive as a desktop. I use the Xandros distribution, it's not free as in beer but fairly cheap. Since the newest distribution of Xandros (4) I found that it's just as stable as windows has been. I run it on a laptop just fine. Installed with no issues. I don't tweak it, I just use it for some hobby coding and college homework.

I find that on XP since a user is expected to have Administrative rights, it's easier to break than linux. On linux I have to type in a root password in order to access anything vital, if another user (such as my fiance) were to use my system, she could not accidentally break anything her user did not have access to.

Updates on this distribution work very well. It's easy to browse packages, and by default only supported packages are shown. The user is warned not to install packages from other sources, as they can cause instability.

However, I wouldn't recommend linux to some of my friends and family, even though the OS is stable... it's occasionally difficult to learn new software on the new OS. OpenOffice / StarOffice is so similiar to Word that the dissimilarities are confusing. I haven't found any good home finance software for linux desktops. People that aren't good or excited about learning new things are probably better with something more familiar.

That's just my short speil.

I have to agree with DaCAP 100%. I have been using Linux as a desktop for 7 years now. Currently I have 3 systems I deal with. 1 has OS X, 1 has Kubuntu LTS and 1 has Fedora 6.

I have in the passed used RHEL. The linux systems designed to be stable (from a package stand point) are just that. I have been running Kubuntu for a bit over a year now, no viruses, no crashes, no reboots, no problems. It just lets me do the work I need to do AND gives me the tools to do that work with out nickle and diming me to death (OS Office Development tool Security tools = lots of money). My brother runs XP on his laptop and has to re-install every 6-12 months just to keep a reasonable amount of performance, security and stability. Furthermore, with Kubuntu, or either of the enterprise systems, you WILL get a very nice upgrade/package refresh each year or so. Unlike MS who has waited/wasted 5 years to get a new version out the door.

Your description of a linux desktop matches my Fedora system exactly, but that is exactly why I use it on that paticular system :)

OS X is as stable as the Kubuntu system, just works, but not nearly as "open" as I would like it to be.

Anyway, my point in all this is that Linux is the pinical of OS flexability, offering as much if not more stability than any other while at the same time giving far more "tweekability" than any other.

Oh, one more thing... it's not just my kids. I also have my parents running Linux. They're not particularly computer-savvy, so I gave them something they *couldn't* break (and also something I could support remotely should the need arise.)

The sum of your evidence is that your friends have broken their Linux installs. I've broken dozens of Windows installs, I don't think your conclusion follows from your evidence at all.

> Starting arguments with invalid premises for the purpose of inciting isn’t “discussion,” it’s flamebait and trolling.

I would argue that it *is* clearly a discussion. If it were not, a number of people would not have shown up and agreed with me. Trolls tend to get opposition (because that's the whole point), but no supporters. The point of trolling is simply to stir shit up while having no dialog. If you can't see that this doesn't fit that mold then there is little I can say to change your mind.

Very interesting stuff...

A few points:

1. It has become very obvious that some of the animosity I've seen here is in fact my own fault. A few friends have advised me to be more careful with my language during debates and discussions, and I think this is an example of me not taking their advice. Generalizations coupled with imprecise wording tend to illicit negative responses, and I deserve much of the bashing that I've received.

2. That being said, I think it's clear that I was onto something with the idea; if that were not the case then I would not have received the support I did -- especially from those with such considerable *nix experience. So I think my point was valid in the sense that what I was saying was true about SOME people feeling this way (and that more will feel this way later), but the problem with the post was that it is stated as if it's some sort of universal truth. I didn't define the types of users I thought it applied to, discuss the different distributions' qualities, etc. In short, it was sloppy.

3. I probably should have pointed out that I am an avid Linux advocate. I am a member of the Free Software Foundation and give to my distro regularly. The site you are looking at is running on Gentoo, actually -- a distro I've been using since 2002. At work I use Ubuntu Linux as my primary operating system, and while I'm no super-guru, I'm decently versed in Linux in general. So my comments don't come from a total lack of experience.

Anyway, this has been a learning experience for me. I shall endeavor to be more precise with my language in the future.

I think an interesting distinction is that Linux desktops tend to be a little trouble on the uptake and then gets stable over time, windows seems to take very little trouble to setup initially but over time it fades into chaos. I have my own opinions on why but I'd be interested to know what others feel is the reason... I haven't had my Macintosh long enough yet to make an intelligent observation of weather it will devolve into chaos and need to be rebuilt yet.

My letter to a Windows Desktop User:

Dear DMeissler,

The day I decided to stop fiddling about fixing my tools was the day I reformatted my Windows/Linux hard disk and gave it all over to Linux. I did commit the cardinal sin of fiddling about with Gentoo, but for one thing Gentoo is not the whole Linux story, and for another, once I had it the way I wanted it, it hasn't been fiddled about with since.

Stories abound on the Gentoo forums about how users have broken their systems and had to reinstall but assuming that both sides are telling the truth, I really can't understand how this happens. Gentoo is one of the best distros at fixing itself if things do go wrong, and Linux is immeasurably better at fixing Windows, than Windows. I have had to reinstall Windows more times than I can count, precisely /because/ that's the only option it offers.

I'll speak from the point-of-view of someone who uses Linux (Arch Linux distribution with Ion window manager) as my primary desktop machine at home, and Windows XP as my primary desktop machine at work. 99% of the time, both "just work", and I spend very little time tweaking or reconfiguring. In both cases, apps only get updated for security patching or a compelling new feature.

The big reason I strongly prefer Linux is the 1% of the time, when an issue DOES come up. More than once, when addressing some problem on a Windows machine, I end up in "proprietary land" -- in other words, there's a bug in an app or driver, or even the OS itself, and I am totally dependent on someone else to fix it. I have no other choice. I can't hire someone to fix it, I can't fix it myself -- I have to wait for whoever owns the source to fix it. With Linux, the chances are much better that someone with an incentive to fix the problem has access to the source code, and will do so in a more timely manner.

I was running Ubuntu for a year, had Xubuntu and Kubuntu for a few weeks. Before Ubuntu, I was running WinXP all the time. I went back to WinXP recently just for one reason: Battlefield 2142. Other than this, I cannot think of reason that Linux could NOT be a good desktop. It installed, worked and flied. WinXP? I have minor problem only because I don't use IE, I don't have all those spyware or malware stuff on my computer, yet its fragmentation is killing me!! My office users were all mad about how slow windows runs when you install programs over time! One of my colleague's laptop running WinXP with 20 programs installed needs almost 5 minutes to just boot up to login screen. With Ubuntu, I had tried installing more than 20 programs and it doesn't slow me down no time!

But I understand that business users would not go for Linux at this moment yet because there are no apps for it! Okay, I know you are talking about, Gimp or Evolution. But how about the following:

1. Business users always need to use ActiveSync to sync with Outlook and their blackberry or PDA or cell phone for contact list, how easy you set that up in Linux comparing to Windows one?

2. Business users always need corporate email that works great with calendar for task and events, what do you have in place for Linux? I don't think Evolution can compare to Outlook or Exchange although Lotus Notes recently is available on Linux platform.

3. Your business may use art tools all the time, but mainstream businesses are all using ERP or CRM. For CRM there are a lot of web-based ones but how about ERP? If they are using AS/400 at the backend with JDE or Oracle or other ERP, how difficult for them to upgrade the entire companies' desktops to Linux? Web 2.0 is still not mature yet even though Oracle is having it on its platforms. How about financial institutes? many of them are using Macros in VBA or small VB apps that run well over years for them to do small tasks, you need extra resources to replace these programs if you need Linux desktops.

I don't think business starters would have problems converting windows desktops to Linux, not even small business owners but definitely not corporate ones. I mean they may be able to change it like IBM, but at least by portions. Besides, when Web 2.0 becomes more mature, there would be more linux desktops as platforms would be independent. I, myself, really love Linux but the game is a problem for me. However, I am going back to Linux later because I have to study, no time for games.

I've only been using Linux for two years now, since I first got my own computer, but I have already learned to keep my Linux laptop in a stable state. My general attitude to my desktop is that it should get out of the way and let me work, while providing all the tools I need. Linux has proved itself over the last two years to be a great fit for my needs.

I frequently tinker in the sense of installing experimental software and even occasionally tweaking a source-distributed program to work with GCC 4 on my Suse Linux 10.2 laptop, but have never had to go to the extent of recompiling the kernel (I tried once, figured I was wasting too much time and bought the special cable that would make it unnecessary). My desktop works fine precisely because I don't tweak too much. When I first installed Linux I was trying to change everything, but since I decided to sit back and just let it work things have become a lot smoother.

The fact that tweakability encourages people to mess with a system doesn't necessarily mean that messing with it is the only option. Perhaps rather than switching operating system, people simply need to consider altering their own attitude towards the software they have. One user mentioned having to recompile the kernel every time they upgraded a piece of software. Why? Whenever I update the kernel I have to get VMware Server to recompile its module (this is just a matter of running a script) but anything more invasive would never be allowed on my machine. My Linux distribution works for me, and comes with a lot more tools than I can easily obtain for any other system.

I care a lot more about open standards than open source software, but all other things being equal I would choose an open source platform simply to have access to everything if I ever need it. If I needed to write a driver for a custom appliance then I could do so on Linux without paying any company a dime. I see no need to use a proprietary OS simply to avoid the troubles of tweaking - I just know that any tweaking is at my own risk and may turn out to cost me more in terms of time than I gain.

Well, the world is full of parallel dimension, and I guess I live in one, at least relative to this article. In the dimension I live in, I have found Debian Etch to be more stable, more flexible, and more powerful than either OS X or windows XP. In the world I live in, I'm constantly being asked to help troubleshoot Windows problems and I spend a lot of time Googling various windows registry keys trying to figure out how to fix issues. Mac OS X is nice, but I find it much more complicated to deal with because of the seeming 'disconnection' between the GUI and the underlying file system. I suppose people who like to use a lot of peripheral devices might have issues with linux driver support, but I think a well-configured GNU/Linux system with appropriate hardware is not only more stable and efficient, but easier to work with as well. YMMV.

"Those who wish to actually *work* — in an uninterrupted fashion through multiple, major updates — are left with the options of either installing an extremely stable, non-cutting-edge distribution and not updating any pivotal packages, or going with an alternative operating system."

I would suggest, then, that you do some work and forget about Linux and stop complaining about it. Use whatever suits you. I do.

I don't share the author's experience, except that I have long since got fed up "fixing my tools," and changed OS as a result.

7 years ago I was sick of learning to fix new systems, so I decided to install Windows on the system I was planning to build.

Later the same year I changed my mind, after spending a week trying to fix yet another random problem on an established Windows system. I like tinkering, but what I really like to do is use my computer, and keep using it. So, I took a chance on Linux. 6 years and 3 major version changes later I'm still running the same distribution (Mandrake/Mandriva). In 2004 I stopped doing fresh installs and relied on the update process to take me forward. Since then I've been through two version changes and never had to reinstall, never had to repair the system, and never had a crash. When I want the latest software, I go ahead and install it.

That's FUCKING BULL SHIT!

FUCK UP AUTHOR!

This article contradicts my experience. Windows requires firewalls, anti-virus, anti-malware - You would not *believe* the amount of time I spent sorting out my Mum's brand new Dell XP computer for her; adding software she needed & removing all the time limited demos - the default image viewer was on a 3 month demo! Come on Dell that sucks.

By contrast a decent Linux install comes with everything you need & no need for anti-malware of the kind windows needs. My family uses Linux & I no longer have my kids phoning me up at work because windows is broken.

I grew tired of fixing our (Windows) tools. That is why I use Linux.

Doesn't resonate with my experience.

I've found the Microsoft products to be in constant need of "fixing" more than the Unix derivatives I use on servers and PCs. The needed "fix" was rarely there when needed, or, if it was, usually broke or reduced the functionality of some other portion of the software.

The Unix derivatives require more effort on the part of anyone who wishes to master them.
But the gain far outweighs the pain.

And Linux can be packaged (by people who know what they're doing) like Windows, hermetically sealed in a black box that will do what the naive user wishes without undue intervention from them.

I think the widespread Windows preference is due to the fact that it is in human nature to prefer known mediocrity over unknown superiority.
Microsoft is a technology doofus with a good marketing division.

And I'm in a position to know, I've had to deal with Windows on a professional basis since 3.0 and the Msdos that preceded it.

There have been a few times (when using Linux) that I can fully relate to your blog.Usually these are when I am configuring either print services or a wireless card under Linux. Other then those examples which I find easy to do on Windows the converse is usually true. I end up fiddleing endlessly with Windows (using 2000 and XP currently). Some of the fiddleing is about security some because of software instabilities. My Wifes XP on her laptop stopped booting the other day. I still haven't figured out how to fix it without wiping it. I used a Live Linux CD to pull needed data off of it and installed a W2K license on my old viao for her to use. The installation with software updates took me 2 days to do working part of the time at it. We I reinstalled my Daughters desktop with Linux after a HW problem it took me about 45 minutes to get the latest Ubuntu going and configured. She still needs flash and a couple things installed but they are low priority. (I estimate that it will take another 30-60 minutes to get her all the functionality she needs. On my development systems I use Debian. On the debian and Ubuntu systems I find I rarely fiddle with the system other then at the initial installation. If I do find that something is a little unstable I type the commands "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade" and often the problem I found was already found and bug reported by others and just gets fixed automatically. (most updates like this take 5-15 minutes using DSL a reboot is not needed and I usually can continue using the machine while the update is doing its thing.) If the update doesn't catch the problem I bug report it (and usually wait until someone else fixes it). If the bug is holding up my work I'll dig in and fix it myself. I contrast this with the experience I have with windows and find windows lacking. On average each Windows system I have becomes unstable to a point where reinstallation is needed about once a year. Using debian and ubuntu I have been doing "apt-get dist-upgrade" to upgrade between distributions. and have boxes that I have not reinstalled in 2, 3 and 4 years respectively. Barring HW failures where a reinstallation was just an easy way to get going again I have very good luck with using Linux and it has taken me less time to maintain.

Yes there are still a few areas where Linux can be extreemly frustrating to configure. (Wireless can be the worst depending on the wireless HW. Some jst comeup and work others can take days to get going.) Printing has gotten better but still can occasionally cause frustration. I still find that Linux is a big win over windows. I end up using both but we are trying to get to the point where Windows is no longer needed.

Just as a point of reference, I have used many OSes and find that every one I have used is a mixed bag with some things that are easy to do and some that are hard. Window and Linux are not exceptions to this rule. The perseption that Windows is easy that many Windows users seem to have seems to me to be because if something is broken and not easy to fix they just don't bother. I have spent at least 14 evenings this last year helping friends fix problems with Windows boxes. Only about half the problems that we tried to fix actually got fixed. In each case I offered to install a dual boot Linux on the boxes as an alternative. Most of the people just kept using Windows with or without the problems fixed.

In my experience, it's not even so much the stability (though I have to say that I don't have to reboot my Mandriva box - EVER), but the fact that MS decided for me what I want to do with my computer, and they are wrong. I am also one of those people who have had to deal with relatives and friends with computer issues, and they are ALWAYS on windoze. The funny thing is that I haven't used windoze for years!

I've been using Linux in one variety or another since about 1999. Back then you had to know the specs of almost every piece of hardware you had, now installers just find everything and they work. I've been running mandriva one on this very machine, and other than the motherboard dying on me, I've never had an issue with this machine. Oh, and I was able to replace the MB with another (both HP's though different models) and it came right up with no changes. I've NEVER been able to do that in winblows.

But really, the thing that bothered me the most when I DID have to play with XP is the damned cutsie little things they stuck in there to waste your time, like the little "find files" doggie. What crap! THIS is considered a "professional" os? WHY? It's childish!

The thing that really made me switch to linux was constantly pulling my hair out and screaming at the top of my lungs at how stupidly the OS worked, or more likely, didn't. I even had a font manager from Adobe crap out the whole OS and render whole programs totally unuseable. THAT is what you PAY FOR? Sorry, I don't think so.

On my linux boxes I do Video production and DVD duplication, CD production and duplication, desktop publishing, 3d graphics and animation, internet, bookkeeping, and everything else I've ever done on a computer. I don't HAVE to tweak it. Never have had to fix a tool. For me they just work.

Linux means to me that I won't be dying from a blown blood vessel in my brain from yelling at the computer. Just my 2 cents, though it's now long enough for about 5!

As an ironic testament to how sloppy my article was, I just realized that I switched from Windows to Ubuntu on my work laptop like a year ago (with Windows in VMware) and have not gone back. Most of my complaints do actually come from this experience, but I still wouldn't consider going back to Windows (with Linux in VMware).

I think this proves the point that many have been making here, namely that certain roles require different tools. As it turns out, it looks like most of my comments centered around home rather than work users.

Well you've just said it yourself :). The power of GNU/Linux comes from the fact that it is modular. It can therefore be as stable and (with todays modern GNU/Linux user-land applications) as feature-full as you need it to be. For the home user, any of Open SuSE, Fedora, Mandrake and a few others can provide feature-full, easy to install and easy to maintain home systems.

Multimedia is something everybody complains about - especially on the distributions that take a stand. But really, it is educational to first time users. They ask "Why does it not support MP3?", they read the response and they realise the problem - well, at least some of them do.

For the others, non-free format support is accessible anyway - some distributions even bundle it by default.

In summary, if you've had a problem, the distribution you've picked it probably not right for you. Experiment a little more. Freedom is after all not free. It does require your effort.

If you don't want to expend any effort, I'd say your article is on target for such people. Then again, such people usually end up paying more for less just because they don't want to look harder for a better deal.

A short post of mine: I switched to Linux over three years ago. I started with Gentoo because I *WANTED* to learn Linux inside out (I have a computer science background), but didn't have that much time to run a full Linux From Scratch installation. Since then I learned a lot. Currently my systems run a multitude of Linux distributions mostly because I still want to learn how to deal with them. Each distro has some unique strong and weak points, as well as different means of management and configuration. To me it's a wonderful experience.

Currently, it's Gentoo on the server (much easier to manage than the desktop version), plus Debian Etch and Ubuntu Edgy on the desktop. Debian is for my personal needs (and they are various, but not extraordinary) and Ubuntu is a selling point for Linux among friends, students and (most important) family. And my young daughter really likes the "cuddly penguin Tux" as well as "Mr. Potato" (if you know what I mean).

I really adhere to this motto:

"Converting Windows users - one Linux CD at a time"

and I always have several CDs with different distributions, as well as several blank CDs which I can freely burn and give away. I always ask the soon-to-be Linux user, what is it that they need to do with their computer. If it involves gaming and/or running dedicated software I never push, but instead I do a small show of what *MY* installation of Linux can do. And maybe we discuss pros and cons of both systems.


And two final thoughts:

1. I really enjoyed this blog entry and the comments. I too went the distro bashing and Windows vs. Linux way, but I hope I grew up since then. My Linux installations work for me, as well for members of my family and people that I occasionally help. YMMV

2. @Daniel:
Since you've written that you're a member of FSF, I started to wonder if this post might just have been a probe for/against feelings about Linux desktop. In the end it could be used in some kind of a report as an example of what other people think about the current state of Linux desktop, its usefulness and user-friendliness. ;-)

Sorry I got bored with all the fighting, and the 'Mines better than yours' rhetoric....

So I skipped to the end to write this, if it's been said already, I apologise...

If you don't tinker with operating system ________ , (fill in your system of choice), it stays more stable!

The Mac users tend not to do it, cos there is little choice to make.

The windows users don't do it, cos they did it for years, crashed their machines over and over again and got fed up (perhaps matured ?).

The Linux users do it, well because it's still fun / different and they will mature eventually.... ? I know for my part that tinkering with Linux is like going back to Atari's, BBC's, Sinclair QL's.... second childhood...
and I cut my computing teeth on Univac, PDP11's and HP10's about 30 years ago.

I've been using Linux exclusivly for the past several years. I dabble in programming here and then, and am a systems administrator by profession.

My experience with Linux has always been epitomized by the statement "Linux isn't hard, it's different."

Keeping the tools analogy going, it's not a matter of breaking your tools, it's a matter of KNOWING them. You think of it as the head popping off the hammer, but I see it merely as sharpening your knives, or replacing a worn sawblade.

I know my tools well, as any skilled professional should. The "breaking" usually happens when I accidentally type "Screens" instead of "Screen". I understand enough to fix X when I break it, or to reset my sound settings should they go wonky.

Tools are only as useful as the people who are weilding them. I've been assured by people that they've run Windows systems for a long time without issues, that's what they know, that will make them the most productive.

More often than not, people's issues with Linux stem from hardware. All the time in IRC and I can say hands down the biggest complaint is about WiFi. One thing people fail to take into account when they buy their computer is how well the OS supports it. In my home system I have a sound card that Windows can't use if the fate of the universe depended on it. Linux uses it just fine. Because I do serious work on my computer, and I KNOW I run Linux, I build for Linux. I've not yet had a device not work properly in my system, stability is important to me, and I don't burden my toolbelt with useless tools.

Anyone who has problems with merely needs to learn it. That's not a "RTFM" (maybe it is, I dunno). Any tool in the hands of someone who can't use it is useless.

I have to agree with the author. I started with Windows, switched to Macs, tried various Linuxes, and am presently using just Macs. I'm pretty sure I still have a Kubuntu box in my basement, and I've been considering IPCop for an office firewall replacement, but all my real work gets done on Macs. I've been doing all this long enough that I've tired of the tweaking.

I find lively debate, refreshing and enjoyable. This post has satisfied those feelings.
Just wanted to add my experience to the fodder.
Windows for work, Linux for fun. I believe not unlike a lot of people having to "know" Win for work is probably a must. However as a Desktop Support tech myself, I also had to know my way around the Mac. Being the tinkering type I had no problem breaking Window$, Mac, or Linux. Will admit that I have much to much practice in installs and configs of all mentioned systems. The main thing for me is I can break-install-configure-tinker with all my Linux boxes (3 -Opensuse-Elive-PCLOS) to my hearts content and the cost is ...NOTHING...but time....Compared to the outrageous sums that are needed to run the aforementioned WIN and OSX. Well I hope you get me small point. Though I will add that I prefer to leave my PCLOS ( distro of choice) alone and do my tinkering on the others - full disclosure. ;-)

The problem being that it is _Windows_ that requires reinstalling, constant disinfecting and maintenance due to what the OS is doing. Anyone who is fiddling with their settings in Linux is doing so because they want to.

This is easily demonstrated by the astounding up-times reported. How could such uptimes occur if it was endemic to Linux that it had to be fiddled with?

Just because you fiddle with your settings, doesn't mean you have to. Try stopping for a while and see what happens.

"But there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools."

Actually, that's pretty much why, on my dual-boot Windows/Linux system, I gradually (and unconsciously) stopped using Windows at all.

Even though I'm a non-techie, and considered myself merely a Windows-user with an interest in learning linux, I one day discovered that I was totally unable to recall my Windows password.

I realised that it had been quite some time since I had done anything on the Windows side except install back-logged patches and run scan-disk, whenever a power-failure or hardware upgrade forced a reboot anyways. (Acording to scandisk this hadn't occurred in over a year).

So in a way you're right, but I think that the arguement works even better in the other direction.

I also don't like fiddling with my Linux desktop so I use Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS. I have not reinstalled a Linux PC in 2 years ... nor do I ever plan to again. The longer release cycles offered by Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS provide a stable environment so one can get real work done with a Linux desktop.

Yes, I know this is blasphemous but I actually use Debian Stable (yes, Sarge) on the desktop and get real work done -- mostly with the same programs I use on Windows: OpenOffice, Firefox, Lotus Notes, text editor, and shell.

> You are the one person on the planet who is running Linux as a desktop or laptop and who
> spends less time tweaking and upgrading than a comparable Mac OS X or Windows user. I
> simply don’t believe you.

Well Scott, make that "two people" at least. I've been using linux for about 11 years. 8 of those years as a professional. i ran into what you are describing - but only initially - right after a new installation. that was about 2 years ago when i got a new laptop. but one things settled down, i've had zero tweaks.

i think what is happening here is that you want the newfangled shiny features of certain "cutting edge" distros but are then surprised that things broke. if you were going for tools and the utility and not just eye-candy and the latest-and-the-greatest, you should have picked distros without the certain bias towards distros with eye-candy.

if you are serious about getting work done try debian sometime. you may not get the eye-candy but you definitely will get a system that just works.

Well to say this. A frend of mine keep blowing up his XP box so I install ubuntu and so far 1 month nothing from him calling me back. Yes I did not give him the root password. But it was spyware and viurs that kill his XP box. Now no vius software sucking up resources and no spyware as of yet.
The average user can use Linux to surf the web and check emails face the fact.

As the man said: "Windows is crap. Apple is expensive crap. Linux is free crap."

We still have a lot of work ahead of us. And before you flame me, I wrote my first program in 1972.

Since the question seems to be still whether linux is suitable for a production desktop: I use a SuSE box as my desktop since 2004 ( I did learn Unix long ago but was always lazy to move to linux, I switched after I got fed up with the Windows crashings typically when I had a deadline), never experienced any instability let alone crash, I update regularly, install a lot of progs that are not available in the distro (and I am a lazy bum, I do not compile but grab an rpm from somewhere), and things DO work. Quite well.
One thing where I had to compromise, though: I work on MS office, not because OpenOffice is not enough for everything that an average mortal who writes journal articles and book chapters (with diagrams and pictures) would need, but because all the secretarians use MS and I need 100% compatibility. On wine, Word, Powerpoint and Excel actually run faster than on the same machine when booted up with MSWin; I set up a dual boot but forgot about Win after the initial testing.
Now, I am a scientist. I do know something about computing. OK. What about this: I set up a server (SuSE) for the lab, where I have a bunch of students, many of those self-declared computer illiterate (yes, that's right: we have that sort of university students nowadays). I have Win boxes all over the place, but the server terminal I left in the corner of the lab. What I found out is that, after the first few times a student couldn't find a free Win box and had to sit down at the server terminal ( I did install a similar work environment to my desktop, just in case), he/she tend to return there. So much that the students are now crowding up to use the linux box, and ask me to get a few more. Isn't that a natural preference?

Honestly, I think that with any OS the stability depends a lot on what you do with it. If you install lots of junk software on it (freeware, "the latest and greatest", ...), then you can expect problems. However, if you just install your basic needs with tested and robust software, Linux proved to be very stable and effort-low to me. You can have it updated automatically with security updates (if you want stable, stick to security updates only and steer away from the functional updates), don't need to bother about virusses and spyware and other malware. In a whole administering a linux desktop to be stable tends to be downright boring because it is so easy and takes so little time.
There are however only few people though who want to stick with the stable and not "latest and greatest". I'm not sure about the reasons, but can think of multiple possibilities:
- people using Linux today are mostly people who are not afraid to try new things,...
- it is so darn easy to install new software via a package manager, that people are almost invited to install all kinds of software, including less stable packages
- etc.

So coming back to the article content itself (I did not read all of the comments): I don't think the statement that Linux is not stable enough and needs too much tinkering is correct. It just depends on what you do with it. And in my experience, it does better then Windows in comparable scenario's, although everyone might have his own experience in his or her way of using their computers.

Just to close down: two years ago an acquaintance had his W98 machine messed up with a virus. When asked for help, I introduced him to and installed him Mandriva Linux. He knew he could contact me in case of problems. The only exchanges about Linux we had since, was him thanking me several times for that (oh, and he asked me once to help him connect to a new broadband provider). This guy uses PCs just to get work done. He does not tinker. Been stable for at least one year and a half.
There surely are other examples, but to generalize that Linux requires too much tinkering to keep it stable seems very incorrect to me. And saying that that will drive people back to Windows even more.