 |
What is keeping me from switching to Linux
Posted by kirillcool on March 03, 2005 at 09:30 AM | Comments (23)
Lately I have been thinking a lot about my complete lack of intention to
install Linux at home. It may appear that I am a perfect target for another
successful conversion of tech-savvy Windows user to the free new world.
Most certainly I can follow all steps
in the installation guide (if I don't fall asleep following all the instructions
in a 140-page
PDF guide). I might even enjoy the (reported) two weeks it
takes to completely configure my new OS. I guess I will not have any problem
installing kernel patches, security patches, drivers, modem, graphic card,
speakers and USB drive. From time to time I might feel the urge to write
a missing driver to share it with the community. I would install all the
cross-platform open-source software, my own web and mail servers. In general,
life could be very good.
So, why am I not there? Why am I not a part of the free new world? Why
I am still tied to the old leaky raft that has been called by so many
nicknames that all end in soft? Well, the answer is simple - why
should I?
The opponents of Windows give me two seemingly good reasons to abandon it.
First, it's closed source. Second, it's full of bugs. All I
can say is - so? Indeed it is closed source. But what real value do
I get installing an open-source operating system? I am not going to read
its code, I am not going to contribute to its development, all I am going
to do is download patches and hope they come in time. I get the same thing
from Windows. You may say - it takes ages to fix bugs in Windows, while
some are never fixed at all. It is true, and it may be very damaging to
average Joe the plumber at home. Well, I am not a plumber. I have an
anti-virus and firewall installed, I use web mail
account and most importantly, I use Firefox. I had never have (known to me)
attack on my computer, the anti-spyware and anti-adware programs find nothing
except cookies when I run them, the only time I have seen a blue screen in the
last 7 years was when I got defect RAM sticks and it takes 30 seconds to reboot
my computer six months after I bought it. It can be completely different thing
for average Joe the plumber, but I am not him.
And now about the bugs. I can proudly say that I have never written
a function longer than 5 lines that was free of bugs in its initial version.
Why proudly? Because it's an integral part of the profession. Java
has 22764
listed bugs on its site,
with 1158
being Swing related (good luck, Joshua).
Firefox lists 6783
open bugs, Eclipse lists 13793
open bugs, Oracle's JDeveloper is strewn
with fixes
and workarounds,
a study by a single firm has discovered 985
bugs in Linux kernel and packages. Bugs in Linux and other open source projects are found
on daily basis. It gets
even worse when the bugs are security related. Mozilla line
has 19083
reported problems, Apache's "secure" alternative to IIS was not so secure in 1.3 version,
and it didn't get better in 2.0.
Linus keeps his security bugs a secret
and security flaws in various Linux distributions are found
on daily basis. A free
new world, they promised. Well, it is free, I guess. According
to Secunia
reports,
not so new.
And now the real answer to the question. Why am I not moving to Linux?
It's really simple - I don't want the OS to stand in my way.
I immensely enjoy new "bleeding edge" Java-related technologies and
try to use them in my home projects. Do I really need to install the
kernel patches for that one? I am perfectly at ease with Windows
Update Manager. Whatever it brings to me, let it install the stuff.
Do I really need the source code for them? Couldn't care less. All
I need is to bring up the Eclipse or IntelliJ and start working.
New JDK? Give me an installer that asks as little information as
possible. Why? Because I know that the default options are fine;
I rely on Sun's engineers. Bought a new USB drive? I just want to
plug it in and start working. I will most certainly not enjoy hunting
the web for the drivers. I get my excitement developing applications,
not installing drivers. Those who prefer Mac because of
the icons or
Linux because it gives them full control over the operating system - nice try,
but Windows will have to get much worse before I join you.
Bookmark blog post:  del.icio.us  Digg  DZone  Furl  Reddit
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment
-
It seems that you're thinking the only part of an OS is the drivers and kernel and that kind of stuff. Some people find GNOME desktop to be much easier / more convenient / nicer to use than Windows. Maybe you would too, maybe not. Personally I don't. Anyway, most things work out of the box these days. I'm sure a USB drive will work on a modern Linux OS without having to install new drivers. Linux distributions exhibit the ultimate in "installer that asks as little information as possible" - RPM packages which you simply double-click, and they're installed, no questions asked. If there are any dependency libraries, they are automatically downloaded with many distributions.
Posted by: keithkml on March 03, 2005 at 10:04 AM
-
Some people find notebook is enough to code Java, and some of these "some" are even sure its kinda cool... but I can't imagine myself not using IDEA...
But lets be honest to ourselfs - as a desktop platform Windows is lightyears ahead of GNOMEs, KDEs and alikes. It will take years for them to achieve same level of integrition between the different desktop applications...
But no doubts, as a server platform Linux is cool, not that cool as Solaris, but still cool... ;-)
Posted by: pharod on March 03, 2005 at 10:46 AM
-
What a wierd blog entry to have...
You basically say: "The reason I never even tried to install Linux is that I hear people saying its harder to use."
Come back when you actually bought that cheap Lindows CD and install it in under 10 min only to notice that it just works. Just as well as Windows. Maybe even better, since linux is much more developer friendly.
Posted by: zander on March 03, 2005 at 11:55 AM
-
I've recently (well... by now it is not so recently at all) switched to Linux (I decided to go for SuSE as a starting point) and I'm very sure that I will never go back to Windows.
There are a couple of reasons for this. I will list some of them now.
- ease of use
- real multi-user-systems
- great WindowManagers
- increases my productivity due to its high configurability
- it simple looks great
- almost no viruses
Now, let me explain it a bit:
I've installed SuSE in just a few minutes. It was much easier than all installations of Windows I ever did. There were no "critical errors" or whatever windows has thrown at me.
When I started it was quite hard to figure out where I would get the required software (like GCC and make), but I found a small tutorial on this. I've just had to add an FTP-mirror to YaST. After doing so I was able to click through YaST, selecting software I wanted to install/update and that's it. Ever installed twenty applications on Windows without any effort? I hadn't had to search for downloads, read installation instructions or anything else.
When it comes to self-compiled software I would say that those aren't a real problem.
Just type something like that line:
./configure && make && su -c 'make install'
That's it. Software will be configured (optimized for my plattform), compiled and installed.
I won't even need to restart my computer (a thing I really disliked when I was using Windows).
Another point was this: I'm sharing my computer with my little sister. You might know how they are. Just clicking on every damn link available... I've been very happy that she was using Opera instead of IE but know I can be sure that even if her files get hurt my own wont get hurt in any way. She has simply no access to my files (or the systems). That makes me sleep a lot better. ;)
I'm not using KDE or Gnome (I've used KDE when I started - it is very much like Windows) but Fluxbox or Enlightenment (I'm wating for the new version to arrive).
They've some things in common. For example: I've a menu instead of a big toolbar at the bottom (sounds wired? Yeah... it is, but you can easily modify that menu, open it whereever you want, etc.) and one thing I really love is that I'm able to reduce the frames to their titlebars. They won't appear in the toolbar because only minimized frames will appear there.
With Fluxbox I can even use "tabs" to place multiple windows in one frame. It's great.
Did I mention how easy it is to modify that menu? It doesn't take more than 5 minutes. I can organize it just like I want it, include whatever I want. Great.
Of course the huge amount of free tools is also very helpfull.
I don't think I need to explain the other points, or should I?
Posted by: pago on March 03, 2005 at 01:18 PM
-
If one really have to honest, both Windows and Linux operating systems are good. Any argument I heard to the contrary is from people that are fanatically biased and often their bias are directed at the one they do not use. The question really is, why change to Linux if I already have a perfectly running windows system. Installing the operating system is not the only issue. One needs to back-up ones documents, email folders etc. to attempt to restore them again on the new operating system. This can be quite a time consuming process and even costly if one misses a few valuable files.
(To be really honest, my hesitation to join the Linux “revolution” is greatly because of the fanatics around Linux. I view computers and operating systems only as a tool, a means to an end, and not as an ideology to sacrifice ones life for.)
Posted by: rpienaar on March 04, 2005 at 01:35 AM
-
Excellent article Kirill, you almost exactly mirror my opinions on the matter.
I've several computers (as do probably most of us) and run Linux and Windows side by side. The Linux machine needs constant attention to keep running (and that's not hardware related) despite being pretty static in what's installed on it, the Windows machine just ticks over and keeps going despite being used heavily.
I've several USB stickdrives of different makes and models. Some of them work on the Linux machine, others don't. I had to buy another network card for the Linux machine because the one I was using (which worked perfectly under Windows) wouldn't do anything under Linux.
And that's with a current version, not some old distribution found with a book.
Linux has its place, it's a nice OS if your hardware and software requirements work out such that it works out of the box, but for most systems it just doesn't cut it.
Posted by: jwenting on March 04, 2005 at 02:08 AM
-
Thank you for the Secunia pointer. While there, I ran across this interesting link that your readers may find interesting.
I am glad that you have found a "home" OS. We all need to be mindful that there are other solutions that provide the "zing" for others. Personally, my choice is Mac OS X, for a lot of the reasons you outlined above.
What I am looking forward to is the day when the different camps decide to focus on cross-platform collaboration and functionality. Now, that will be the ultimate OS! :-)
Posted by: mozkit on March 04, 2005 at 04:22 AM
-
Um, there are more choices in the universe than just Windows or Linux.
Have you not considered why a large number of longtime geeks are using
Mac OS X systems?
Consider my case .. Unix user for 25 years, and used every other OS as well.
I wrote at length here:
"I never thought I would be a Mac user"
Basically, OS X has huge advantages over Windows in terms of security and stability and quality. Plus it's Unix underneath. Plus it has a pretty face. Plus it doesn't take constant tweaking and the "writing device driver" rigamarole you discuss, because when you have a Mac it just works.
I usedta make fun of the Mac, but that was the old Mac OS, not OS X. The old OS was silly, cooperative multitasking ?? BAH! But OS X is a dream come true.
Posted by: robogeek on March 04, 2005 at 08:05 AM
-
If you believe (as pharod posted) that Windows, w.r.t. desktop application integration, is lightyears ahead of GNOME, et. al. you should check out Mac OS X ... because it is lightyears ahead of Windows. Mac OS X really does give you the best of both worlds.
(A little background -- I just switched from Windows to Mac as of 2 weeks ago).
Posted by: bsiggelkow on March 04, 2005 at 10:43 AM
-
It seems like there are plenty of people here who support Linux based OSs. I started using Linux less than a year ago and can't stand Windows XP any longer, I refuse to use it. I know you're not actually attacking any other OS, I enjoyed reading the article and, frankly, my sentiments mirror yours. However, I'd bet that, like me, once you start using Linux you won't go back. A few quick points; first, having a detailed manual is actually a good thing. Secondly, according to the link you posted, Linus *absolutely does not* keep bugs a secret. When you say "bleeding edge" are we talking software or hardware? Certainly you'll agree that there's plenty of bleeding edge software for linux that simply will never be seen running on Windows. Witness Gentoo Linux as opposed the latest version of Microsoft's OS. Gentoo Linux is constantly updated, you can have the absolutely latest version of the OS all for free! Windows Longhorn, well... maybe 2006, but by then I'm sure I'll have bought a Mac.
Posted by: golgo_13 on March 04, 2005 at 06:09 PM
-
It doesn't sound like you have any issues with Linux in particular. All UNIX-like operating systems are extremely similar across the board when you discount the various GUI extensions. The method of installing and updating software on Linux varies from distribution to distribution just as it does from OS to OS. If you think installing Java development tools on Linux is arcane, well, that reflects more poorly on Sun than it does on Linux ;).
I've used BSD and Linux longer than I've used any other operating systems. I hate being forced to mouse around to accomplish anything, and I don't like feeling as if my OS is trying to second guess me. In other words, migrating to Windows would be a hassle. There's nothing more to it. The topic doesn't even deserve a rant.
Posted by: wbkw on March 04, 2005 at 06:41 PM
-
Frankly, try installing Linux and running it side by side with Windows first and then post your comments. Talking about it without trying it first is simply not fair, imho.
I have used Linux and Windows for more than 8 years already. I have developed applications using both platforms. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, of course. Personally, here are what I have found:
1. Windows has better driver support because manufacturers give priority to Windows over any OS. However, this is no longer entirely true. Manufacturers are coming out with drivers for Windows, Linux and Mac. Bleeding edge, you might say, go for Windows might be the most logical choice. However, I have experimented on ATM on the desktop and I have not found any other way to do it than in Linux.
2. As a developer, there is nothing worst than having your system crash on you while compiling and testing. This has happened to me several times on Windows up to the point of literally kicking the CPU for doing so. Funny thing, though, on the same machine, Linux would just keep on running. Again, try it and compare.
3. Try doing system level development in Windows and chances are you will just get frustrated because you will not be able to fully tweak the system to your liking. Compare this against Linux.
4. GUI. I agree that Windows has far more 'friendliness' than Linux GUIs. This is where Linux developers are also rapidly trying to catch up but then again, real programmers do it in 'vi" or "notepad". :)
Again, this will boil down to an individual's preferences. Personally, I use a Mac. Mac OS X simply kicks the butts of Windows (more stable, more secure, more reliable, better user interface) and Linux (all the benefits of Linux plus better hardware-software integration, better GUI, better peripherals support).
Posted by: rferia on March 05, 2005 at 12:36 PM
-
Just a note on bug-comparisons.
You noted that Linux has 985 bugs in your listing (which all have been solved now, btw) and you also note that Java has 22764 bugs listed. Most of those have been listed for at least a year.
You know what the funny part is? Linux (the kernel) is about 20 times larger then the Java codebase (in megabytes of code), and it has 23 _times_ less bugs.
Now; to me this proves that Linux is more bug-free; by several orders of magnitude. What exactly did you read from these numbers? Oh; you are right its still free too :)
Posted by: zander on March 06, 2005 at 05:03 AM
-
Zander,
The entry says: "a study by a single firm has discovered 985 bugs in Linux kernel and packages". This doesn't mean that there are only 985 bugs, it's just the number that single firm discovered. I doubt that there is something like BugParade for Linux, as there are too many distros.
Please don't try to view this article as an attack on Linux. It only reflects on why i am not going to switch to Linux. You may view it as "Why i am not going to abandon Windows in its present condition".
Posted by: kirillcool on March 06, 2005 at 05:33 AM
-
Kirill, I think you should try to learn more about Linux. Saying "I doubt that there is something like BugParade for Linux, as there are too many distros." is ridiculous. There are absolutely bug trackers for Linux and its associated programs. There's a bug tracker for the kernel, and for every individual project that makes up a typical Linux distribution. Red Hat has a bug tracker for the RH-specific parts of Red Hat Linux, and so on.
Posted by: keithkml on March 06, 2005 at 05:18 PM
-
Keith,
Why is it so hard for Linux followers to read an article that is pro-Windows and not respond defensively? Read carefully - I said that there is no single place like BugParade for Linux. Of course there are trackers, one for each project. But no single place to give you a number of bugs in al known Linux modules.
Every piece of software out there has bugs. Windows has (a lot), Apache has (a lot), and Linux has (a lot). Just mentioning that Linux has bugs has nothing to do with its quality.
Posted by: kirillcool on March 06, 2005 at 09:29 PM
-
At least most Linux users here are not so shortsighted and religious about their chosen OS as those at sites like slashdot (and as are many Mac-addicts).
Linux is a tool which has its uses, so is Windows and so is a Mac.
Maybe if Apple were to release their OS for other hardware architectures (read, x86) they'd get more acceptance. As it is the price point towards trying their offerings is so high that many people won't take the step (personally, I'm not going to spend thousands of Euros on hardware just to see if I may like Mac OS/X...).
Posted by: jwenting on March 07, 2005 at 02:45 AM
-
Kirill, first, you did not say "single." Second, there's no single bug tracker for all Windows programs, or all Java-based programs. It doesn't make sense for there to be one for all Linux programs. There are thousands of such projects.
Posted by: keithkml on March 07, 2005 at 11:20 AM
-
Keith, there isn't even a single bugtracker for any one Linux component. That's in stark contrast to Java or Windows or many other applications.
Posted by: jwenting on March 08, 2005 at 01:47 AM
-
jwenting: your statement on there not being a single bugtracker for any single linux part is rediculous; each sourceforge project already has one, and all major projects have one. Just google for bugzilla (the most used bugtracker backend).
A friendly advice; research your facts before posting something thats is way too easy to debunk.
kirillcool: your response to my post appears to implicate attacks between camps. Thats definitely not how I saw it; you simply state bugs present in the bugtracker as being one point why you feel Linux / apache is not up to spec for your liking. You should naturally be open to people that add some info to your statistics which in my opinion make the results swing the other direction.
The fact that you didn't try linux, but also provided (easy to show as being false) opinions and don't want to accept counter arguments tells me you made your decision based on emotions only and are now trying to defend your opinion in public.
The question that this brings me is why you wrote this blog entry in the first place. You obviously did not get very many 'me-too' answers and therefor you should really do more research on the topic and post a followup blog with your real live experiences of a week on (xandros/lindows/linux). Just don't use redhat.
Hope to see an insightful blog soon :)
Posted by: zander on March 08, 2005 at 05:00 AM
-
jwenting, you're wrong.
http://bugs.gnome.org - bug tracker for dozens of GNOME projects
http://bugs.gentoo.org - bug tracker for all Gentoo Linux specific issues
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org - bug tracker for a dozen or so Mozilla-based projects
http://bugzilla.kernel.org - bug tracker for Linux kernel
As you can see, each program has its own tracker. On the other hand, Java has many issue trackers just for Java:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/ - Sun Java bugs
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/ - org.apache.* bugs
http://www.blackdown.org/cgi-bin/jdk - Blackdown JDK bugs
And there are NO public bug trackers for the Apple or IBM JDK's.
Posted by: keithkml on March 08, 2005 at 12:28 PM
-
My 2 cents:
I recently switched _definitively_ to Linux, my reasons are:
- I am a programmer, and I _need_ to know this OS
- (my opinion) windows lacks usability, KDE is way ahead (GNOME is not bad, too)
- windows lets you play with his system's toys, which is bad: it leads to crash and data corruption
- linux runs smoother: when running Windows my HD starts making a lot of noise, apps come up slowly and navigating through windows is a pain (Eclipse, JEdit, Tomcat...). On Linux it is really quiet, period.
- I'm surely not a casual user (remember that I am a programmer) but I was still able to destroy part of my data thanks to the poor quality of some system programs (wonder which ones eh eh)
I will use Windows only for two reasons:
- I've bought it
- some programs (like Buzz www.buzzmachines.org) run only on Windows
Posted by: megadix on March 13, 2005 at 11:54 AM
-
"Windows lacks usability, KDE is way ahead..."
8-)))) Yeah, really? What's so cool and usable in KDE? Could you, please, explain? How, in the world, Linux desktop could be usable??? just imagine a secretary working on Linux machine. Than she changes a job. And there's another distro on a new PC installed. All menus are changed 8-| Web browser and mail client are different. Gnome instead of KDE. She will spend MONTH getting to know new and cool distro. :-)))
Linux is so flexible, it's not for people who want to spend time doing their job, but for those who willing to invest lots of time customizing it... If you are a writer, an engineer, mathematician or an economist - you will NOT be able to simply install and start working. You will face all the text configs, tons of them. You will spend a DAY trying just to change your LCD monitor resolution. You will need to "learn Linux", not your software.
Posted by: pharod on May 22, 2005 at 11:04 AM
|
java.net RSS Feeds
