Yet another Linux on the desktop article

[Brian Densmore]

Ok first mistake I found in this writer's article:

'The truth is that we don't have Oracle or Java for "Linux" but for some "certified" distributions, 
in essence, conceptually "different Windows contenders". So, at the end of the day, a "Linux 
application" is source code that you expect to compile on most distributions, and the kernel alone 
is not granted to make it compile, the host will probably need a concrete shell and a precise set 
of shell utilities. It's not uncommon to find out that a make script calls some shell utility that 
our distribution of choice doesn't happen to have. When we refer to a "Windows" application, we 
refer to a program that we expect to run in any kind of "Windows" flavour [sic] (unless it is a 
specialized software that needs some special feature of the NT kernel series such certain server 
applications). If I have a CD-ROM Encyclopedia for Windows I expect to run it without problems on 
Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, 2000, etc. If I have the same product for Linux, it will be compatible with 
very specific distributions and if the software is in binary form it will probably brake after some 
years because we all know that binary longevity in Linux is not granted.'

1) This is simply not true. All of the distributions I've used of late have a 
software install mechanism that installs let's an application and it works, period.
While this is certainly not true of "every possible" application. It is mostly true for
the mainstream applications.
2) It is certainly *NOT* true that you can go down to the store and buy say Microsoft office
and run it on Windows 95,98,ME, XP,2000, etc. You may be able to run it on some of them,
but you have to read the side of the box that tells you which versions are supported.
It may be that it will run on any version from 95 thru to XP. It may tell you it only runs
on NT, XP or 2000 and still work in 98 or ME. It's just as likely it won't. I know my
Oracle 8 server will most certainly *NOT* run on 95,98 or ME, period.

Conclusion: So that argument fails, and I've only skimmed the first page.

If, city governments can run Linux desktops (Munich,Barcelona,and Largo for starters) then
it is certainly ready for the desktop. This argument that Linux is not "ready for
the desktop" is only so much FUD. While I will agree there is still much to do, it's really
a simple matter of buying a shrink-wrapped version of the software and install it on every machine
that needs it. I of course do it all the hard way.

Which brings me to a further point. Debian *ROCKS* as a server distribution. 
This morning I ran 'apt-get update' and 'apt-get upgrade' and it updated apache and my mail
packages shutting down the services one by one and restarting them. Bada-bing, bada-boom. No 
restart. No crash. No extra baggage. It just worked.

MNSHO,
Brian

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of
public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree
which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the
Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should
be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it
is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him
when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both
base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any
one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or
unpleasant, about him than about any one else." 

--Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Kelsay 
> 
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7813
> 
> Rant, discuss, enjoy.  There are a few points in there I 
> agree with, but I won't say which unless you stick hot pokers 
> in my eyes.
> 
> Brian Kelsay
> 
> 
>