Linux Today: Linux News On Internet Time.

More on LinuxToday

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

Jul 30, 2004, 13:49 (26 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Sean Parsons)

WEBINAR: On-Demand

No-Size-Fits-All! An Application-Down Approach for Your Cloud Transformation REGISTER >

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.


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