I have been testing a lot of different dists the last one and a half month, mostly because i really wanted to give Linux an honest chance to prove itself worthy of being a desktop replacement for Windows. I´ve tested, amongst others, Xandros 3.0, Debian Sarge (stable and unstable) Suse 9.3, Knoppix 4.0 harddrive install, Fedora Core 4, Ubuntu/Kubuntu, latest RedHat Enterprise Workstation and so on. I consider my self being an intermediate user with knowledge above the ordinary Linux newbie. I started with this operating system long before there was such things as Gnome or KDE and stuff, but it is just recently i wanted to give it a real chance as a desktop OS.

Linux been pretty hyped the last years and companys are talking about moving over from Windows to save money and such. I just want to advice them, dont ever do such a thing!

The OS is far far away from being even a close competitor to Windows/Mac. If you, as an Average Joe user that only uses your puter for web browsing, email and office tasks, would like to try Linux out, by all means do that because thats the areas where it comes closest to a correct (read: Like Windows/Mac) functionality, but if you want to install other software, want proper support for your hardware, want to have anything different than the out-of-the-package stuff that comes with the desktop managers, dont even think about it if yer not a computer wiz kid with extensive knowledge of programming. Let me give you a few examples, i know theres a lot more of them but i´ll try to narrow it down a bit.

1. The lack of proper hardware support. My graphics card (ATI Radeon) didnt work as supposed before i manipulated some settings and read a ton of webpages with tips and tricks. And theres even dedicated drivers for Linux but they dont work for most of the people according to all the troubles i´ve read about it. My printer, Canon Pixma 4000........well, theres no drivers for that one. My fax modem, Intel 536EP, yes they have drivers at the Intel site, same s**t there, dont work out of the box without hours of manipulating other files. And so on and so on........if the hardware got Linux drivers, enjoy, but dont expect them to work without tons of tedious, time consuming and very un-userfriendly work.

I know what you all are going to say know, "blame the hardware manufacturers", right? No, i wont do that, i´ll blame the open source community for not engaging in driver development with the same enthusiasm as writing silly little programs that no one has any meaningful use of.


2. The software point of view. Yes, theres alot of open source software around, but does that automagically means that quantity counts higher than quality? Of course not. The open source software, with exceptions of course, are mostly hard to install, needs a lot of fiddling with correct permissions, needs compiling from scratch because of the fact that theres 999 different Linux dists and all of them behaves differently. Ask of a newbie to find the correct source, compile it and then install it just to find theres no menu entry for it........i tell you, show me that dude and i´ll show you a dude that formats the harddrive and installs Windows asap.

3. The lack of wish to somewhat unify the Linux project and try to make one big, unified dist that gets the most experience from software developers and in the long run gives the end user a decent possibility to install hardware and good software without spending days after days screaming and tearing your hair to pieces in the terrible frustration that occurs when nothing works.

Well, my Linux experience is over for this time, i dont have the mental nor physical strenght to sit 7-8 hours a day just to get simple stuff to work, stuff that takes a newbie Windows user 10 minutes to fix.

The fact is that Linux is very far fram even being close to decent Windows/Mac competition for desktop use. The important word here is UNIFYING.

Hasta la pasta, i might be back again in a couple of years to find out what ever happend to this IKEA or LEGO piece of "operating system".

On a side not: It is really an excellent server OS.

Try the "Search" button - it will unlocks TONS of threads almost exactly the same as this one. Please don't make these kind of threads, it will just cause havoc in a community where most people actually enjoy the experience of using Linux? If you are unsatisfied by it, then no-one's going to stop you from reverting to Windows. People who join LinuxQuestions.org are usually the ones who actually want to learn more about Linux - why then, on your tenth post, have you decided to say that Linux is completely pointless?

This is not going to get a good response from the LQ community
Just a word of warning.

edit: At least they are knowledgeable enough, and can actually be _bothered_ to write complicated programs when they know they aren't going to get any money from them. If you think that the hardware detection is so bad, then may I advise you to start learning a language like C or C++ to professional level, and then make a driver for each and every tens of thousands of electronical devices (which actually work perfectly on every distribution and kernel)!? You just crack me up....

And just for the record:There are only about 100<distros<150 (correct me if I'm wrong) out there, so you slightly over-exaggerated the issue. I think you'll also find that many distro come with great front-end package installers - like apt-get. Dude, get your facts right before you start rambling on about your bad experiences!

J_K9

Yawn. Why did I think there'd be anything groundbreaking with this thread? Nope. Same old FUD.

Yup! I haven't been a member that long here, but I'm already feeling some sort of anger towards these threads....just what's the point? Anyway, I'm off to bed. Maybe that'll get this off my mind!

J_K9

P.S Wow I really do feel sorry for the older members!

Somebody please make a sticky for this question.

This is silly. Everybody sees Windows and being "unified" because it's supported by one vendor. So, why can't they purchase a particular flavor of Linux such as SUSE and abide by the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) provided by that vendor?

Well said Kdr Kane...but I feel that this thread should now be closed. Mods?...

J_K9

This goes with the rest of these threads - into General.

To address the "issues" - without the support of hardware manufacturers no OS can run any hardware correctly. Try plugging a new video card into an OS and see which ones give you more than VGA functionality. Now do the same with the rest of the hardware - and it should all be new. It's pointless adding Macs to this rant - the OS manufacturer is also the hardware manufacturer. Duh.

Most software has an equivalent in Linux, it's not always perfect but then much of the Microsoft software is written that way because MS tell you it's what you want. Don't like OSS software? Write some yourself.

And who said Linux wants to be a unified OS?

If ISP's supported Linux I assure you they wouldnt be getting calls about Linux issues pertaining to getting online but I cant tell you how many times a day that I get Windows calls that require winsock fix, rebuilding the TCP/IP stack because spyware has corrupted it, registry edits, system restore and such so for everything you name that is wrong I could name things that are right with Linux.

Yes well I just installed SuSE 9.3 on my laptop and getting wireless to work has been no less then a nightmare let alone between the frequent lock ups I get. Maybe I will try gentoo on my laptop its on m desktop.

I agree ebuzz, Its almost impossible to get a Printer, Flashdrive or Digital Camera working under Linux.

ebuzz only makes it clear that he himself is in fact the incompetent one, and M$ISBS or whatever the hell that nick was is a dope to make such a claim that you cant get a flash disk, printer or Digital Camera working in linux.

I too have tested just about every distro available, however i was more objective than morons like ebuzz who have a cry if they actually have to do a little brain work while using their computer.

Yes, windows is a lovely eye-candy distro that can be used by the average baboon, so if you find more merit in windows because of it's simplicity, then I totally agree that you should stick with it, and continue to stick your head in the sand. Linux isn't and never has been designed for users like you ebuzz, and to be honest, it's doing just fine without users like you. The linux community is growing at an enormous rate, and the funny thing is, there's a reason for that. Most linux users enjoy the complexities surrounding linux distros, and love learning about what their computer is REALLY doing. Of course, windows still has its place in society. For me, it's place is at my grandparents place, so as you say, they can twiddle about, send a few emails, suck their thumbs and profess to others how they've been doing so much on the computer lately.

Your ignorance towards linux demeans you only. And might i add, you state you'd been testing the current distros for the 'past month' or some such. It's so typical of a blabbering brainwashed windows fool to give up so quickly. I don't need to go into just how much more you can get done with linux and in shorter time, if you really know what you're doing. You will continue to find the easiest way out, and for you my man - windows is just that.

I guess my Brother HL-1240 and Sandisk 256 MB MP3 player are just freaks, then, because they've worked on every distro I've tried!

More like anomolies, lol.

propagandhi, why the provocative tone? It's true that many H/W vendors release drivers and programs for M$ OSses first. But we know why. If more clients and customers use Linux as the desktop OS, more vendors would make programs for Linux. Only a moron would keep trying all the distros. For most persons an aim would be to settle down with one and get on to productive use. Linux should not be treated as a toy with various lego attachments to try and untry.

BTW: M$ also has many OSses whose flavour, behaviour and known incompatibility issues are huge. Eg: ME, ... And these from one company!. THis needs to be highlighted.

e-buzz does make one point though. For the <quote> Average Joe user that only uses your puter for web browsing, email and office tasks, <unquote> linux comes close to "correct". Also for "telnet"ting and otherwise connectiong to corporate servers. For me, these are a good start. If we have an "each one teach one" policy or bring Linux as the client OS into a corporate or development shop, we would be doing great.

Also <quote>It is really an excellent server OS.
<unquote>

As xavierP says, "dont like OSS software, write one yourself". It is easier in Linux. Also most companies are releasing their RDBMS packages into the OSS world. Lot of applications exist for some of them. I bet, most programs can be ported.

M$ sells mostly in MSOffice. Consider evaluating other packages if you are a corporate decision makers or support staff.

End

First of all, excuse me for not doing an extensive search before posting this frustrated message. Of course i should have been aware of that it is a lot more posts claiming the same things i am claiming. After all, we are discussing Linux here.

J_K9 wrote: "There are only about 100<distros<150 (correct me if I'm wrong) out there, so you slightly over-exaggerated the issue. I think you'll also find that many distro come with great front-end package installers - like apt-get. Dude, get your facts right before you start rambling on about your bad experiences!"

Ever heard of the word irony? When i am saying 999 distros i am only pointing to the fact that there are to many, not the exact amount. I've tried a lot of distros and sure, some of them come with great package installers, apt-get is great, no problem there. But after that? What if you want something that is not avail through apt-get? I sure have my facts correct dude, otherwise i shouldnt have wrote this post. I started to use Linux 10 years ago, did you know what a PC was at that time? And why are you so anxious to get this thread closed? Did i step on anyones toes here? Or might it be the fact that i am correct?

XavierP wrote: "Don't like OSS software? Write some yourself."

I never said that i dont like it, but i am pretty convinced that the quality would be higher if there was such a thing as a unified Linux OS with major support from hardware manufacturers. When you wrote "And who said Linux wants to be a unified OS?" you sorta pinpoint one of the biggest problems down. For Linux to survive outside the geeky nerds world, it must be unified.

propagandhi wrote: "ebuzz only makes it clear that he himself is in fact the incompetent one.....morons like ebuzz who have a cry if they actually have to do a little brain work while using their computer."

First of all, theres no need to be rude and calling people names. You have no knowledge whatsoever about my computer skills and what i can do or not do. I am a skilled computer dude since years back and i have degrees and certificates to back that up. Also you have totally missed the point in my post. I am not talking about me exclusevily, i am talking about the broad masses that is considering moving over to Linux.

What you basically are saying is that Linux is a good OS for the people that enjoys spending week after week trying to get the most basic hardware to work like printers, scanners, graphic cards, modems, sound cards and so on. Thats why Linux is the OS designed for pimple-faced nerds and not for the broad masses. Thats why Linux will never ever be the replacement desktop OS for Windows. Thats why people like you are considering yourself better than the average Windows user. Well, here's a surprise for you, people nowadays wants their computer and software to work right out of the box, they dont want to spend endless hours making the most basic things suited for their needs. It's like the assembly process when putting an IKEA bookshelf together or trying to build a house using Lego pieces. Like "here's the pieces, now put it together"

You succeded all by yourself to really point out the Linux problem. You consider yourself as some kind of elite dude compared to Windows users. I am glad for your sake that you have found an operating system thats suits your needs, but see it from the average computer users point of view instead. And also, the time it takes for you to set up a Linux system from scratch that suits your needs and can do everything you want from it by far exceeds the time it takes for me to set up a XP system that does exactly the same. The fact is that Windows is for the broad masses and Linux is for the self-proclaimed elite guys like you.

AnanthaP wrote: "M$ also has many OSses whose flavour, behaviour and known incompatibility issues are huge. Eg: ME, ... And these from one company!. THis needs to be highlighted."

I totally agree on that, but you are referring to what might be the worst OS ever released by Microsoft. Also it is pretty old. I am talking about the absolute latest Linux dists avail, and it still cant, in some cases, recognize an ATI Radeon card and install the proper driver for it. Thats just one example.

You must understand that i am definitely not totally negative and against Linux as an operating system for the desktop, i am in fact writing this from Debian sid and my hopes for the future is that i will be able to run a dual boot system with Linux as the major OS. Today that is not possible. If you have needs beyond the usual web, mail and office stuff, then you are in deep s***t.
What really is bugging me though is the marketing of Linux as a full featured replacement for Windows. That is actually not true. See it from the average users point of view, not from the elite Linux pro users. The average dude would surely have killed himself or his computer after weeks of frustrating experiences with soft- and hardware installations. Linux is, as i said, for the self-proclaimed "elite", not for the home user. Dont forget that it was originally written BY programmers FOR programmers. Today much of that is still very easy to find in Linux which makes it unsuitable for the vast majority of people.