General discussion


What everyone's forgetting about Linux is....

By ulrichburke ·
Nothing runs on it! It's got hardly any programs that work on it (yet). It can emulate Windows enough to fool some Windows progs to work on it, for sure. But it doesn't have anything much of its own.

The whole argument's sitting in the early days of Apple vs. Microsoft. If you're a geek who wants to look cool and virtuous and seem One Up on the Rest of the Computing Community, feel free to use Linux. You won't be able to get any work done much but hey, man, you'll look goood. If you want to get SOME work done and spend a WEDGE of cash on a machine that aint that fast, get an Applemac. You'll still look cool but you'll have a few more pieces of software (not counting Bootcamp!)

If you want to get a LOT of work done, on a fast machine that cost as much as an Imac but has higher specs all round, I'm afraid the world's still PC based. Like it or not, the vast majority of software is built to run on Windows. Emulated windows is always going to be slow and clunky and only some things will run on it. That goes for Bootcamp and the Linux equivalent, the name of which escapes me.

The other problem with Linux is it comes in SO many builds, you have to be Ubergeek to install it, let alone use it. It's WAAY back in the Seventies. Then, you had Apples, BBC Micros, Spectrums, Commodores, all similar, all with differences that meant you couldn't use their software on eachothers systems easily. Now, you can find programs that will only run on ONE PARTICULAR FLAVOUR of Linux. And it's not necessarily Red Hat or Ubuntu.

When Linux has got its act together so any Linux program can run on any Linux machine, when it's got at least as much software as there is for Applemacs, doing as many things, when it's got a decent GUI (Gnome 3 DOES look promising, have to say) then it will be worth looking at. Until then, you can bleat all you like about how safe it is, the bottom line is how USABLE an operating system is. And an operating system sans applications is, frankly, a waste of time. (I write computer music. Is there ANYTHING that would let me run Sampletank with Miroslav Orchestra and a decent notation package on a Linux machine? Nope, didn't think so.)

Sorry, Linux guys, the world is PC and will be for a long time to come.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I dont know where to start

by Slayer_ In reply to What everyone's forgettin ...

Uh, All workstation computers and personal computers are PC's.

Uh, Apple hardware is frequently faster than Consumer PC hardware (hence the high cost) though that doesn't necessarily mean a faster system.

Uh, Don't consider Linux an OS, consider Ubuntu, or Red Hat as an OS. And there is no rule saying that Red Hat programs have to work under Ubuntu.

You could almost say there is more Linux programs than there are Windows programs. But that is because Linux programs tend to be more like 1 use Apps.

Collapse -

Tell that to Apple

by Oz_Media In reply to I dont know where to star ...

"I am a MAC, and I am a PC."

The PC (Personal Computer) is a product of IBM (originally known as the IBM PC), Apple makes Macintosh computers.

The term personal computer is universal, yes, but I think it's pretty clear what the OP was getting at.

However, while a "personal computer" (note lower case) can be built to use Linux or anything else for that matter, MAC is an Apple and PC's are most often used for Windows installations.

"This article is about personal computers in general. For computers generally referred to as PCs, see IBM Personal Computer and IBM PC compatible"

Other than that, I agree it was a bit of a rant, but a pretty common public view towards Linux too.

Collapse -

Mac vs PC

by kjgslg In reply to Tell that to Apple

Lines are blurred. MAC computers were different prior to the inclusion of Intel architecture. MAC use to be RISC processing which at one time was faster than the Intel architecture. Now they are one and the same. Your argument is moot. Now that Mac uses Intel processing the difference is OS. Linux has been able to operate on both RISC and Intel as well as Alpha processing. Usability is up to personal choice: Windows, Mac, and Linux/Unix

Collapse -

Sheesh guy, you've been a member for three years

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to What everyone's forgettin ...

and your first post is bollocks.

There was no smiliarity between those machines they all used different processors ffs. They all had their own OS's their own flavour of language, their own hardware.

I coded on all of them, even f'ing basic was wildly different.

In three years between now and your next post, try and learn something.

Collapse -

He has said a few outrageous things, but...

by NexS In reply to Sheesh guy, you've been a ...

But he does have a point.
Windows has the monopoly on most everything in the "Consumer" computing world. Macintosh hardware AND software are far more expensive and often work only at a similar speed to that of a consumer Windows computer. This makes it almost completely unaffordable to have a custom built machine.

I also tend to agree that any flavour of Linux comes with a similar lack of compatibility as the MAC users experience, except that the Liniux engine is open source, therefor a multitude of non-commercial apps would be available.

But in corporate and industrial scenes (which is where the <b>real</b> money is in IT) Windows, Macintosh and Linux fall way behind.

Collapse -

Outrageous I can live with

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to He has said a few outrage ...

Complete bollocks I can't countenance.

Windows compatibility, such as it is, comes at a great cost in performance, reliability and security, and they still use enforced obsolescence to get us to shell out more money for more bloat we didn't ask for.

Mac is something I've only seen on telly, and thats the way it's going to stay, don't see the point of them.

Collapse -


by NexS In reply to Outrageous I can live wit ...

There is always method in madness (almost always!) but I do not see that a windows machine has lower performance or reliability than that of a Linux or a Macintosh.

The only real problem I find, is security.

The world would be in trouble if they all moved over to Ubuntu (or any other Linux based OS for that matter) as the open source of it opens it to easier attack. As it stands (and only generally) the majority of Linux users <b>ARE</b>, as our "bollock" talking friend here said, Ubergeeks. Meaning they understand more about it than Joe and Janice Bloggs. The majority of 'useful' computers to 'hack' (and I use the term loosely) are not linux for that reason.

Don't give hackers a reason to hack.

Collapse -

This one is moving towards the "Bollocks" end as well

by j-mart In reply to re:

And worst of all he's in the trade.

Collapse -


by Tony Hopkinson In reply to re:

Because it is open source no one even thinks of obscuirity as a security mechanism (which it isn't)

Peer review is a great way of improoving software quality.

Linux is an OS for the informed, there are however appliance user distros that aim at MS's traditional market of the appliance user.

I popped in the CD on my entered date and time a user names and password and shaxzam it was there. That was a portable as well even the wifi came up witha stanbdard configure. OK that might be nore than mosr windows user can manage, but it comes pre-installed doesn't it.

Useful to hack isn't about content, it's about most windows installations (usually through simple ignorance being profoundly insecure.

Reliability is much better on linux, you can go months even years without ever rebooting.

Performance, well now you are having a laugh, you look how much of your machine is devoted to running the OS as opposed to what you want to do, how much of that you don't need, often ever. That's not even counting the burden of anti-vurus, anti malware, software firewalls etc.

Stop with kool-aid you are getting embarrasingly close to talking bollocks yourself.

Collapse -


by NexS In reply to Wrong

But you have to look at this from a corporate point of view as well. It's a 'given' that you aren't going sit the workforce in front of a linux machine. Unless, of course, you're prepared to spend time training people on how to use said machine.

Please, don't accuse me of talking bollocks. I am simply seeing this from a real perspective. Think of this: What would happen if every machine suddenly ran a Linux operating system and Windows ceased to exist? The same thing would happen. People would target Linux users and we would need anti-virus etc. Commercialism would take over etc etc.

Related Discussions

Related Forums