TheLinuxBox: Why MS Windows Isn’t Ready for the Desktop

Now as you have most likely surmised from the title, this
article is intended to spoof the plethora of articles proclaiming
that ‘Linux is NOT, has NOT, and NEVER will be ready for the
desktop’, but the content of this article is also intended to be
both factual and informative for those that have been schnookered
by the anti-Linux hype.

Introduction

In simple terms, we should define what ‘ready for the desktop
means’. A simple definition would be a graphical user interface in
which applications have icons and can be launched in an intuitive
manner. Well certainly MS Windows 95 achieved that, but then again
so did Commodore 64. We should probably set our standards a little
higher than this.

Here’s my expanded definition of what I think should be required
to be ready for the modern desktop:

A modern desktop system should not just sport an intuitive
and pleasant look and feel, but it should also be secure, stable,
offer file compatibility, and be easy to configure for a plethora
of uses ranging from office tools to multimedia handling. MS
Windows is so far behind in these various areas that it may not
ever catch up to its GNU/Linux counter part.

Above all, an operating system aspiring to compete with
GNU/Linux must be able to build a community with the same level of
end user commitment as what the open source community has achieved
with its vast multitude of online forums and Linux User Groups
(LUGs). Now while we all agree that if I had a question I could
call a proprietary company’s help desk (which may potentially
involve a fee); although, I am quite likely to get an
unsatisfactory answer from someone that barely earned their diploma
in Information Technology from the Sally Strother’s Correspondence
School.

Complete
Story