In this article, I examine the reasons people give for not using Linux desktops, and ask myself: If Linux isn’t “ready for the desktop”, then is Mac OS X?
1. Linux doesn’t come with all the codecs installed for industry-standard video formats like Windows Media Video!
Neither does OS X; it comes with support for its own proprietry standard, and Linux comes with support for an open standard. Maybe Windows and OS X are the ones which are “not ready for the desktop”, as they don’t come with support for Vorbis and Theora?
2. Parts of my computer hardware don’t work with Linux! It should get better hardware compatibility, like Windows!
OS X doesn’t run on ANY part of your computer. Funnily enough, people who want to switch to OS X seem to have no problems with buying a whole new computer (at a premium, too!). And you’re so averse to the suggestion that you buy a new wireless card?
3. Most of my existing programs/games don’t run on Linux!
None would on OS X. Zero, zip, nada. Some will run on Linux though, through Wine.
4. Nobody except super-nerds will want to use a command-line, even occasionally! That’s why people will always use Windows.
Hmm, funny. Windows 3.1 and 95 relied on the command-line, especially for installing software, and yet more people used it than the GUI-only Mac OS. In fact, more people used DOS than used Mac OS.
5. Some programs don’t automatically add themselves to the menu!
OS X doesn’t even have a menu for programs to add themselves to, and you always have to manually add them to the dock.
6. It takes too much time for me to figure out the new operating system. The interface should be just like Windows, so I don’t have to retrain myself.
I’m sure OS X users say the same thing about Windows. At least with Linux, unlike OS X, you can run KDE and install a Windows-lookalike theme. Heck, you could even download a picture of a BSOD and put it in your Cron tab, to give you that special homely feeling 
7. A Linux desktop is a mess of programs whose interfaces have completely different looks! [they are talking about Qt and GTK programs co-existing]
On the Mac OS, there are also two officially-sanctioned look-and-feels; Aqua, and Brushed Metal. Oh wait - now there’s a titanium look that Apple must’ve licensed from LG. Plus, if you’re running programs in Apple’s X11 server, they will have their own looks and feels too. And Windows programs run through virtualisation will look different again!
Most of the programs you will use on Linux are either Qt or GTK, so that’s only two sets of looks, and GTK programs will look like native Qt if you’re running KDE. Even if you’re running Gnome, you can choose a theme that is available for GTK and Qt (I am using BlueCurve for QT and GTK at this very moment).
So really, Linux can easily have one consistant interface look, unlike Mac OS X.
And what do the aesthetics of the interface have to do with desktop readiness anyway?
8. When I tried to run Linux in Microsoft Virtual PC, [the sound stuttered / the colours looked grainy]!
Well duh. Linux is one of Microsoft’s competitors. Virtual PC wouldn’t be the first piece of Microsoft software that purposely tries to stop a competitor’s technology from working. But try this: Install Mac OS X into MS Virtual PC. It won’t even install, much less have stuttery sound or grainy graphics. Does that mean that OS X isn’t ready for desktop use, because you can’t try it out in a Microsoft virtualiser before committing to it?
If you want to try Linux in a virtual machine, use Virtualbox - it’s free and works fine with Linux. Or bite the bullet and do a dual-boot - you’ll get faster operation and the ability to try out some Linux games. Isn’t that worthwhile?
Entries (RSS)
AMEN. Nothing more need be said.
just a note for the look/feel:
just for kicks, i once installed a second copy of ubuntu in virtualbox on my existing ubuntu, just to see how quickly/easily i could get a default install to emulate the look/feel of a Mac/Windows install… the screenshots fooled native users. the time it took me:
WinXP: 15 min (had to find/download some themes and an XP menu clone, and set compiz up)
Vista: 2 min (switched GTK theme, the XP menu had a ‘vista’ setting so nothing new there, and had to redo compiz again )
OSX: 15 min (change GTK theme again, install AWN, and redo compiz)
a fun little experiment overall!
then for games/programs:
When i still used windows, i was a pretty heavy gamer… and i was trying to get even heavier into them. I also did a lot of art with photoshop, dvd authoring, etc etc… lots of stuff that really tied me down to windows.
When i switched to using linux, i Dual-booted for a long time because I really liked my games and other programs, and I had a hard time letting go. Now though, I find that I really don’t miss them much at all.
For a lot of them, i’ve found FOSS variants that i like so much better (the GIMP, QDVDAuthor, games like Hedgewars instead of Worms, Nexuiz, etc…), got native versions of the stuff (like Unreal Tournament), or the programs i used to use run good through WINE (CounterStrike, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc…). Out of all of these options, WINE has been the most troublesome, but it’s far less of a problem than trying to run windows was on the same hardware
I even still go to LAN Parties and play with all my windows-buddies on all the same games (CSS, UT) and I usually get better performance that off my rig than anybody else there (Including the guy with the 64bit XP running 6 GB 800mhz RAM, Dual 8800GTX’s etc… I’ve got a Radeon 2600XT and 4G 800mhz RAM)
As another note to any gamers that read this: for Graphically intensive games like CSS running in WINE… you DONT take a performance hit on the game if you set WINE up right. In fact, you can get BETTER performance than running natively in windows if you’re willing to put the effort in (and REAL GAMERS/OC’ers willing to drop a few grand on a top-end quad-core, liquid cooling, etc etc and overclock the crap outa their hardware should not in good conscience be able to say they don’t want to).
[...] A Man and his Penguin : Is OS X ready for the desktop? [...]