2007-08-10
Having used Linux solely for nearly four years now, I’ve gained a respect for what Linux can and can’t do. By no means is it the perfect solution for every problem, but there are some misconceptions heard repeatedly that I plan to set straight.
1. Linux is Behind the Times
One comment heard often is “Linux was five years behind XP, and it’s ten years behind Vista!” Well, here are some facts:
- Windows began separating the basic user from the administrator account by default in Vista, over 15 years behind Linux.
- Windows added a firewall in 2001, over seven years behind Linux’s 1994 addition of ipchains.
- Linux was the first operating system with x86_64 support, beating Windows XP Pro x64 by two years.
- Windows added an attractive 3D accelerated graphical interface in Vista, a full year behind Linux’s XGL.
- Linux’s package management system can install, uninstall, and update software from one interface. Everything installed from Apache to OpenOffice.org and Quake 4 is updateable with one press. Windows has nothing like this on the roadmap.
Moreover, Linux isn’t slowing down. The Xen project has added an incredible level of virtualization to Linux, with more work going into the kernels development to add enterprise ready virtualization built-in. Microsoft promised built-in Xen-like virtualization in Windows Server 2008 next year, but has announced that feature is delayed and should be available sometime after launch, possibly in its first service pack, meaning Linux will lead with built-in virtualization by at least a couple of years before Windows catches up.
2. Linux is Hard to Use
YaST allows centralized management over many various functions.
Many have never realized they were using Linux and haven’t used it on a desktop. More troubling is the fact that many technically inclined persons tried Linux during the hype of the dot-com bubble, wrote it off, and never revisited it. These along with other factors have left many thinking Linux is hard to use. Well, enter modern Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu.
Ubuntu has an elegant and approachable graphical interface that’ll remind Mac fans of OS X. Optionally, many other interfaces are available ranging from Windows XP duplicates to interfaces focused on certain areas, such as low system requirements or high-end graphical effects. Beyond this, many common tasks and features, ranging from system updating to system wide file indexing, are all handled automatically by default. This all extends to every level of Linux use. Novell’s YaST for example provides an easy-to-use GUI for everything from installing and updating software to managing DNS, email and web servers, and anything else of which an administrator can think. No command-line or configuration files, unless you desire them.
To top it all off the installation is excellent. Ubuntu installs from within a fully functioning environment allowing web browsing, game playing, or even the writing of a report all as the installation wizard ensures the install goes off not just without a hitch, but in a manner where the user doesn’t need to know anything beyond how to click “Next,” unless they want to.
3. Linux isn’t Compatible with Anything
Everything from Maya and Oracle to Firefox run on Linux natively. Games ranging from the Doom, Quake, and Unreal Tournament series to smaller gems like Darwinia all run native on Linux. Beyond native applications, free (non)emulation software called WINE, as well as commercially supported options like CrossOver and VMware, allow users to run everything from iTunes to MS Office and Photoshop, and the $5/month Cedega lets gamers play hundreds of Windows games, from Battlefield 2142 to World of Warcraft.
Finally, alternatives to Windows-only software can replace current systems with little to no extra work. Apache can run ASP code, OpenOffice.org can read and save Microsoft Office file formats, and every major distribution can join a domain, or just browse Windows file and printer shares, with ease.
Hardware support is equally incredible; in fact, Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. From handhelds to mainframes and everything in between, including equipment considered legacy and no longer supported by Windows, the chances are if connected to a Linux box it’ll just work. Despite popular belief, this does include a majority of consumer equipment as well, from digital cameras to iPods and 3D accelerators to wireless cards.
4. Linux isn’t Enterprise Ready / No One Uses Linux
Amazon and Google would disagree as they’ve built their technology off Linux. PSA Peugeot Citroen, the second largest car manufacturer in Europe, also announced earlier this year they’d be moving not only their 2,500 servers over to Linux, but also their 20,000 desktops. Other companies like IBM and Novell have reinvented themselves using Linux as the base, and government deployments from Brazil and India to China and others promise to add tens of millions of new users to the Linux community. This isn’t even including the countless smaller government deployments like the city of Munich, the Indiana school system, or the U.S. Army’s Land Warrior program. Paired with millions of users via the One Laptop per Child initiative and massive academic deployments, this means that outside of the United States the world is positioning Linux as the computing foundation for their children.
Linux also works outside of the enterprise. Be it browsing a website, chatting on a cellphone, checking email, getting cash from an ATM, or just kicking some anti-lock brakes into action, there’s a fair chance Linux is in control. Since Linux also accounts for ~70% of the super computing market, that means it has huge footholds in the embedded, server, and high-end markets, leaving only the desktop.
5. Linux isn’t Professionally Developed or Supported
It’s true Linux started at the hands of a single college student, but that’s not true today. Linux is now a multi-billion dollar global technology. The majority of code is now contributed by professional programmers. Over the last year IBM, Intel, Novell, VMware, and countless other big technology companies have submitted major code changes. Beyond actively developing code, others, such as Dell, have begun pushing vendors to develop higher quality Linux software. This isn’t even going into the academic or government development, such as the security patch set developed and deployed by the U.S. National Security Agency for internal use, but available to anyone who wishes to use it, SELinux.
Support has taken on the same level of professionalism. Countless forums, IRC channels, and wikis are, of course, still available. However, beyond that, help is available from one of many books, certifications, or by contacting any one of the major players from IBM and Oracle to Novell and Red Hat. If you require 24/7 global support in a dozen different languages, it’s just as available as free community support.
This about covers it. There are many other areas of interest, but those listed above are certainly some of the biggest misconceptions heard about Linux. Overall, it just comes down to ignorance, be it having never used Linux, or having not used it in the past few years of heavy evolution. Of course, Linux isn’t without its faults, just like all software, but that’s for another article. What it really boils down to is a responsible administrator has to do what’s best for the company cutting the checks, and that includes keeping an open mind and evaluating all options, even open source ones.
Not pro or anti-Microsoft, but here’s some info on the bleeding edge of Windows Server 2008: Betanews – Top 10 features in Windows Server 2008
First off in all fairness to Microsoft – I like where they’re going. They’re finally doing some things I think they should have done awhile ago (like standardizing errors), but that brings the question: why are they playing catch-up with Linux instead of innovating?
To address a few of the items from that article. Why is Microsoft still using NTFS? Linux solved the problem of file fragmentation years ago but Microsoft has canned WinFS so they just keep hacking away at something that’s almost 15 years old.
I’m also turned off by the mention of the kernel transaction manager as its a fix for registry corruption. Why not focus on the core problem: why does Windows still use a binary registry? You can corrupt Linux configuration files all day and you won’t lose any more data than the part of the given file you corrupted. They can accomplish the same job and configuration files also have the added bonus of being much more user friendly to power users as they allow commenting. There simply is no advantage to the Windows registry.
Additionally to build upon my main article Linux has had ASLR for seven years now via the PaX kernel patch – meaning Linux will have beat Windows there by over eight years by the time Server 2008 is out the door (though to be fair Vista has this, meaning Linux was only seven years ahead on the client-side). Then they’re also playing catch-up with PowerShell and the Server Core feature – both features Linux has had since inception. These are simply ideas I can’t imagine have taken so long to get into Windows.
Nice write-up.
Just a couple additional points:
RE #1: Not to mention, Linux was born around 1992 and still had true preemptive multitasking before Windows did in ’95.
RE #2: I’ve gotten to where, depending on the definition, I find Windows much harder and I’m sure many others have too. The more I’m exposed to Linux, sure the solutions can be more difficult (for the things I’m trying to do, that is, not normal computer junk) but once they work, they generally just work. Forever. Windows is much “harder” in the sense that there is not single place where error messages are logged, no single place where configurations are stored and can be copied, etc.
Lately, I’ve come to two important realizations. One, I’m never going to catch up to the “Linux gurus” no matter how hard I try. Two, as long as I can read documentation, search knowledge bases, and ask decent questions, I’ll never have to be a Linux guru.
RE #3: Most Linux distros are compatible with just about anything you throw at them right out of the box. Whether a ten-year-old token ring card or a month-old video card, it’s rarely stumped on the hardware side and on the software side look at all the crap to chase down after a Windows install: support for various compression formats, PDF readers, DOC and XLS editors, NFS support, etc.
The only places where I’ve seen Linux struggle are (1) full compatibility with Exchange in any mail reader, (2) support for chipsets where manufacturers don’t open the specs, and (3) full interoperability with obscure network “protocols” like MS-DFS and NTFRS. Not that any of these are the fault of Linux developers, but it’s one hell of a track record considering the lack of help and outright bomb-throwing that so many vendors have done.
RE #4: People have no clue how common Linux is in the enterprise class. Although most of my clients don’t get this Linux stuff at all, they certainly like how I almost never ask them for money to cover software at the server level.
In fact, there are only a few reasons why I have yet to advocate wholesale movement to Linux servers for everything:
1. Exchange/Outlook (and that stupid calendar everyone seems to love) is so damned pervasive and there just isn’t a clean transition.
2. There are a few oddball things like DFS (Samba supports most of it but not replication…only took me a year of tinkering to realize that) that I can’t migrate over to Linux without making drastic changes to entire infrastructures overnight.
3. Active Directory makes 90% of the domain administrating tasks so freaking easy that it’s hard to beat as a “LDAP” (note the quotation marks) server. Too bad the other 10% is virtually impossible or requires some sort of hack.
RE #5: It’s hard to set foot on the Web without tripping on Linux support.
From what I’ve seen, the main problem is people are pretty clueless on where to/not to go for help.
None of these are 100% true in all cases, but for example:
1. Don’t go to a Debian forum for help when you’ve installed Samba from source and have a configuration problem.
2. Don’t go to a Gentoo mailing list and expect help with Yum or APT.
3. Don’t go to a BSD chat room and ask whether (Linux-based) Openfiler or (BSD-based) FreeNAS is a better choice.
4. Don’t go to a Mac user (most of whom can’t seem to go five minutes without making some comment about OS X being based on Unix or some such thing) and expect them to know anything about Linux. They’ll probably just convince you that BSD would be better but they won’t know much about that either.
5. Don’t go anywhere to complain about a driver being unavailable except the vendor.
Again, nice article.
It’s good to see some fellow level-headed Linux advocates.
Very good addition on point number one. I didn’t even touch on multitasking and scheduling. I think currently Linux has a bit of an edge but an edge nonetheless – but then lately there have been some big strides in the Linux scheduling scene with the CFS and such which I think will help Linux pull ahead even more.
Also I agree with your second comment; I find Windows harder as well. It’s simple: in Linux I have the ability to fix things and never does a problem occur which I can’t fix. In Windows something like a BSoD will happen and I simply have no way to fix it. I don’t have the source code and in Vista some processes are locked away so they can’t even be debugged. I just have to update things and hope someone fixes the problem. I don’t like feeling powerless as Windows leaves me.
As far as compatibility I agree it’s traditionally a huge problem. But with recent additions like full NTFS read/write support, mainstream Broadcom WiFi support, and vendors opening wide to get Linux support (like the recent AMD/ATI announcement that they’re going to slowly open source their drivers) this is quickly changing. Also for Exchange support check out Evolution – it’s by Novell and has an excellent support. It’s not perfect but has worked well for me for a year or two now. Also I’d recommend checking out SLES10 and ZENworks. They’re not perfect but they’ll do most of what you mentioned regarding AD.
True on the support area though. I’m always careful on that topic because there are in fact some bad places to go, but in my experience I’ve found many more positive experiences on which I try to focus.
Anyways – great comments, I love getting some discussion going!
The last couple days has been a perfect example of how frustrating Windows can be. I have a client set up with multiple DFS servers in different sites. About every two months, something screws up and I end up having to recreate a DFS root or do a “non-authoritative repair” or whatever (all ends up the same in the end).
Currently, DFS is the best solution that I have without overhauling everything. I’d like to move to some sort of iSCSI setup but I have to work out the details, build the servers, and do everything at once. I’m stuck in Windows with this because Samba still doesn’t do DFS replication. I may eventually do something with rsync but I can’t find anyone who’s done it yet and don’t want to just throw it out there on a client so that’s where I am.
Anyway, something happened.
It looks like the Jet DB that handles the DFS on one server got corrupted (by and antivirus I suspect…that’s a whole other issue) and so it wouldn’t replicate. As it happens, there is no way to recover. The Microsoft workaround is to do a D2 repair…which is essentially starting from scratch. You can’t pre-sync or anything like that and there really isn’t a nice way to monitor any of the progress. So I’m stuck watching all day trying to catch people logging in as their profiles sync and possibly corrupting NTUSER.DAT or getting a folder collision or whatever.
I could go on all day but suffice to say it’s a nonstop nightmare. People keep telling me how glad they are I understand this stuff, but the truth is I shouldn’t have to understand this crap because it’s totally ludicrous; this crap shouldn’t happen at all. I end up having to check the whole DFS mesh every day to make sure it’s replicating and that it doesn’t just randomly delete a bunch of folders. It’s typical Windows crap, but I’ve never lost sleep or gotten up at 4 a.m. to check on a Linux server, even the ones on crappy hardware.
That reminds me of another point.
If I have a Linux server with some sort of RAID setup, I’m pretty comfortable because as long as part of the RAID works, absolute worst case I can slap the drives in a new machine, make a few adjustments, and I’m back in business. However, with most of the Windows servers I’m exposed to (and their OEM licenses), I can do no such thing without (a) using a pirated key, (b) hacking product activation, or (c) waiting for a replacement part or parts. In real life, it’s usually a combination that occurs to buy time while waiting for parts. None of those are particularly appealing, but even more there is no reason for it to be this complicated. WPA and licensing doesn’t stop any criminals, but it sure makes it harder to provide support for Windows.
You can also add in there that the US Navy uses Linux to power the fire-control and sonar systems on board the latest nuclear submarines. These are critical and heavily relied upon systems for the safety and security of the entire boat.
I have three PC’s (one is a laptop for my wife ). I have XP Pro on one and Ubuntu Feisty Fawn on the other. I need the XP machine for one program, a genealogy program that is Windows dependent. At this stage I get everything I want from Ubuntu and it is getting better with every release.
I personally don’t care what I am running, the fact that I can do Office, browsing, iPod, graphics, email, and a host of other apps for the financial investment of nil or a few dollars donation, obviously makes the argument a non-contest. I have Java, RealWorks, and media players with all the codecs. All apps install or remove with ease these days; the current Firefox and Thunderbird and just about anything else which you can think.
The day that Gates and Ballmer offer me that would be the day I might go back to Windows. Before anyone screams lack of technical support…in ten years of using Linux I have not needed any and I am no guru I can assure you. As for driver support, I bought a $40.00 HP Bubble Jet last week, plugged in the USB and away she went.
It’s Ubuntu hands down!
I would say that most of your conclusions are pretty obvious once you start looking at the history of Linux and Windows, but I would say that your harder point is frankly invalid, and I will tell you why.
Most people doing non-technical work who are under 30, grew up using Windows. That means you have this huge inertia of Windows users who know how to do what they want (Internet, email, music, and maybe a DVD) and they are very stubborn at changing because they will have to memorize a new system. Notice I said memorize and not learn; this is the crux of it: most people who use computers for entertainment or to achieve very obvious things like using spreadsheets, typing up documents, manipulating images, etc. do not actually understand the platform on which they work.
It is like expecting a person to understand a PlayStation when all they want to do is play games. I don’t think it will happen very soon; I think most of the people are just going to upgrade to Vista unless some distro is pre-installed on their box by the OEM.
I think the key to note there is that that’s inside the U.S. Traction of Linux, and open source in general, isn’t nearly at the percentage levels in the U.S. that it’s approaching throughout Africa, Asia, South American, and even Europe. I don’t think the U.S. is going to lead the open source world simply because why would we? One of the biggest motivators of Linux is cost, and we’re the richest nation on Earth.
If you look at the global scale where the other five billion or so of people who don’t own computers that’s where I’m talking about. Outside of Beijing the average Chinese person makes $2-3 a day. Even at a 90% price reduction this means Vista Ultimate will still take a fair portion of their monthly income assuming well, they stop eating and such. Additionally, again, on the global scale, hardware isn’t up to par with ours. If you tour Brazil you won’t find the average computer to be a multi-core monster.
Also, this is assuming Windows is an option there. There are over two hundreds languages currently in use around the world and, I assure you, Windows doesn’t come in all of them. As new markets emerge Windows simply isn’t an option for some. These aren’t problems we Americans have, so it’s why we probably won’t see Windows being replaced soon.
I would say you were right until just recently. Windows was easier for the average user exactly because the average user was used to Windows. However, all this changes with Vista.
The first time I used Vista (and Office 2007) I found it to be one of the most difficult computer adaptations I’ve had to make in recent history. I’m a Mac OS X user at home, Win XP user at work, and I’ve tried out several flavors of Linux. Each time I’ve tried a new environment, there were things to learn and get used to, but they were easy to pick up. The last time I had anything like Vista-shock was actually the transition between the old Mac OS and Mac OS X. Two things helped with that:
1. I tend to believe Apple knows what they’re doing concerning UIs and was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
2. Apple really does know what they’re doing with UIs. Vista-shock is even greater and so far seems pretty senseless from a UI perspective. Perhaps my opinion on this will change once I’ve used it more.
There are a couple of interesting factors that come into play with this. Microsoft is trying something that Apple tried successfully several years ago. However, there are several differences between the two situations:
1. Microsoft’s user base is not as loyal. Rational or irrational as it may be, this is pretty clearly true, and will almost always be the case with the market leader. This could hurt MS. Additionally, Microsoft’s damaged reputation for security and quality (deserved or not) has alienated some of its customers, who may now be looking for a reason to leave.
2. Microsoft’s user base is, on average, not as computer literate or “computer intelligent” as Apple’s. This is not to say that everyone who chooses Windows is a moron. Rather, it is once again a function of being the market leader. It is because the average user will typically just buy whatever his friend or family member has, or whatever is most readily available at the store. Until recently, very few computer stores sold anything but Windows PCs. Choosing something else often indicates that you’ve thought about the choice, although choosing a Windows system does not imply that you have not thought about the choice. This could hurt MS, since low computer literacy makes a person more resistant to changes in their computing environment, and could keep them from upgrading until absolutely necessary.
3. Microsoft is the “safe” choice. That is, the brand is known. People feel safe choosing it because it’s big. They’re already invested (though they’re losing the investment of learning it). This will help them, especially in the long run when people are forced to choose between upgrading and switching to something else. This, more than anything else, will help Microsoft, and might be the most powerful factor. I actually believe that this factor alone will drastically minimize everything else.
4. It’s not at all clear to me that Microsoft has improved their UI. The change represents an immediate loss for Microsoft, due to the unfamiliarity of the interface, and the barrier that erects to upgrading, in exchange for no clear long-term gain. Again, I could be wrong about this, but when it comes to UI decisions, I don’t see the sense in what they’ve done, and I don’t trust them as much as I trust Apple in this area.
True except for compatibility. Whilst a total convert to Linux as a server on a wired network, I have given up twice trying to get a WiFi card working on Ubuntu. Unfortunately, there is not a big Microsoft equivalent to harass hardware vendors to create drivers for Linux and there is not a big enough user base to create this pressure either. So, from direct personal experience as an unbiased user, it is not yet fully compatible and this will substantially hold it back from greater use amongst the general public.
Dell is starting to serve this purpose. Some say that we have them to credit for ATI starting to open up the specs for their graphics hardware. Now, if they’ll just lean on Broadcom…
Actually, Broadcom drivers were added to the mainstream kernel over a year ago (though it did take awhile to work its way down into many different distributions). My original draft of this article mentioned that as it’d been a huge thorn in the side of Linux for awhile. However, for the sake of keeping it short and not too technical (I was aiming this at being fairly understandable for most PC enthusiasts) I removed it from the final version.
Also, to answer the post that Melissa was replying to: check out the Linux Driver Project. They’re actually having trouble keeping up with requests because so many vendors are interested in free Linux drivers. It won’t happen overnight, but things are changing and the past two years have shown exceptional growth.
The key to remember with hardware is that most people think of hardware as just consumer PCs. I should have been clearer when I stated Linux supports the most hardware. Yes: it does support lots of consumer PC equipment. But, the places it wins hands down is legacy equipment, embedded systems, higher-end equipment, etc. I guess it boils down to what comes to your mind when you think of hardware. Regardless, as I said above the past two years has been amazing for Linux hardware support. Broadcom and iPod support alone have eliminated two of my most commonly heard complaints.
That Ubuntu has compatibility problems may be true, but if you try hard enough you’ll get almost everything to run.
I’m using Ubuntu for two weeks now (haven’t used Linux at all till then) and had problems with my wireless driver. After a bit of research on the net, I found a solution and now have no outstanding problems.
I agree with hobs that many people don’t want to switch. People (me including) are lazy. Changing operating systems costs energy; people will have to use software to which they are unaccustomed. Why do people tend to have a daily rhythm? Wake-up, wash, eat, go to work, go home, watch TV, sleep. Day in day out. Change means stress. Stress is what people definitely do not like. So in order to make people change, it is necessary to run open source applications on Windows (or vice versa) so people can continue using their favorite apps. After that, changing doesn’t make a difference, except monetarily.
Really good points! I have the problem all the time with my non-geek friends that in their minds Linux will always be seat-of-the-pants run from command-line. They’re clueless that most modern distros have GUI’s enough like either OS X or Win XP that they don’t really have to learn, or “memorize,” many new things and most would love to get me off their backs about how often they update and scan with their AV, Spybot-S&D!, Ad-Aware, HijackThis, etc. Also, don’t forget to check the drive for errors, clean up temp files and cookies, and defrag. Hell, I find the maintenance on my Windows box daunting and it still deteriorates in speed slowly over time. Then there’s the ordeal which is “The Windows XP Reinstall, complete with HD format.” Coming soon to a Windows box near you!
hobs, the under-30 crowd you talk of would mostly not notice a switch to Linux. They expect a few changes in Windows from time-to-time from things like long filename support, the move from the 95/98 kernel to the NT kernel for the consumer (I had been using the NT kernel on workstations back in 95) and this huge move to Vista, now. The under-30 crowd tends to be flexible and they have never had trouble with these changes. But, Windows is simply non-intuitive. I remember spending hours trying to teach my mother, who simply wanted a computer to send email, when to double-click and when to single-click. To the geek it seems intuitive, but it’s not. Her other huge hurdle was turning the machine off. Only Microsoft makes you click “Start” in order to stop. She never learned this and resorted to unplugging it, resulting in the usual damage this causes. Damned machine died way before it’s time. (Vista’s change of this not withstanding – why did this obvious stupidity have to last more than ten years?) Perhaps more important than destroying the myth that Linux is hard to use is to overcome the myth that because we’ve grown up with Windows it’s intuitive and easy to use. It isn’t. Not all Linux distros are either. But some, notably (and I’m not playing favorites here) Ubuntu, are more intuitive and easier to learn and use than Windows, and now is the time to switch. Vista’s glaring flaws open a door for Linux and we need to step through.
I have found live CD’s (and USB keys, when the BIOS supports booting to USB) to be great selling tools because I can set them up so they can try out Linux and play with it while still going back to their original Windows install if they want. Ultimately, if I can get them comfortable enough to switch, I gain hours of time back in my life where I don’t have to run to someones house because the computer is “broken” and remove two hundred viruses, spyware, etc. from their machines, clean them up, defrag them, and explain all over again why they have to do this regularly or they’ll keep having problems.
I do agree, hobs, that more OEMs need to offer Linux in addition to shipping boxes sans an OS. Mostly to combat the idea that people have that Windows is free. They consider it free because it came on the machine and they assume they didn’t pay for it. If you go to Dell’s site and configure two virtually identical gray boxes – one running XP and another running Ubuntu, the Ubuntu box will average $90 less. Still cheaper than buying XP shrinkwrapped but a substantial cost. But, most casual users won’t ever try this unless the geeks in their lives point it out at every opportunity and provide help and support (and CDs and USB drives) so they want to switch.
Great points yourself! I was debating how to touch on security but frankly I wanted to stick with facts more than opinion so I avoided it more since arguments like “Linux is safer than Windows!” tend to invite flaming (though from the digg thread apparently I wasn’t careful enough!). I do agree though that Windows is a hassle to maintain. I enjoy not worrying about running defrags, or A/V scans, or anti-spyware programs. I also hate updating applications by hand one at a time and frankly can’t believe Microsoft hasn’t pushed for a package manager of some sort as that’d clear up one of my biggest complaints with Windows. Then again two of my Vista boxes refuse to update (one won’t update Vista itself and the other won’t update Office 2007) so I’m not sure if I should really wish for Microsoft to control updating everything!
Application support wise, I do agree there are a few killer applications out there that are major hold-outs. I think if iTunes and Photoshop were ported to Linux there’d be a nice surge of new users. Frankly iTunes is huge to the younger crowd and Photoshop supports an entire industry. Both run in emulation to an extent but it’s not enough.
On the OEM note I’ve been very pleased with the past year. Plenty of smaller OEMs have offered Linux for years but seeing Dell and HP toss their hats into the ring shows real promise. But, I guess time will tell exactly how much of a difference all this makes!
Linux isn’t usable for all intents and purposes by humans. It belongs in the server room. If Ubuntu is the best you have to offer, at least.
Linux Developers absolutely cannot design an interface that’s half decent for both their applications and their environment. As of yet, there is very little in the way of standards for applications to talk to each other, keyboard shortcuts and so forth.
Ideally, Linux should be like Mac OS X by now in many ways, mainly extremely friendly with a way to graphically accomplish 99% of everything doable by terminal with the default tools, and plugins across every major app on the platform that talk to each other.
Also, why are there 90 people working on 90 different programs to do the same thing when only two do it well and zero meet your expectations?
Using a modern OS to me means:
1. Not reading the Man Pages.
2. The GUI getting a lot of leverage over script and programming/terminal tools.
3. Desktop metaphors being used effectively.
4. Existing technologies and tools being used effectively (your spinning cube does not impress: do something useful and interesting with the technology).
5. Separation between Applications and Application Window Instances: I want to cycle the two separately and tabs are a poor man’s AWI control.
6. Support for software, hardware and user standards.
7. Engineers actually fucking reading Jakob Nielsen’s Ten Usability Heuristics before deciding they’re capable of designing a usable interface.