Between Linux and Desktop Domination - Linux

This is a discussion on Between Linux and Desktop Domination - Linux ; Here are a few points that I believe are preventing Linux from becoming a serious desktop OS. "People" as used below refers to non expert users of PCs (who in all probability have sampled some form of Windows) just like ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

  1. Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Here are a few points that I believe are preventing Linux from
    becoming a serious desktop OS. "People" as used below refers to non
    expert users of PCs (who in all probability have sampled some form of
    Windows) just like me. I am a noob in the Linux arena, and the
    comments may seem stale.

    0. Linux Inside
    A distro should prominently have the Linux version. The fight in the
    market should not obscure the fact that it is the Linux version which
    will influence the capabilities of the OS. And rather than have the
    version as x.xx.xxx.xxxx, it is more user friendly to use just x.x. So
    any distro based on Linux 2.5 should have this information prominently
    displayed (rather than pushing their own version number like Ubuntu
    7.0X).

    1. Confusing flavours.
    True, it is a representation of the freedom associated with Linux, but
    there is a need to categorise the distros into "certified" and non
    certified. A distro earns a certified status if it fulfills certain
    criteria. ("Which criteria ?"is best left to the experts, but the
    following points could be worth considering).
    If all certified distros functioned similarly, the user can be
    precluded the confusion of figuring out the navigation of different
    distros (even distro versions).

    2. Reduce versions
    There is a need for the powers that be to hold back the urge to push
    out a distro every year. Let one version sink in. It is better to
    release updates or patches rather than a newly labelled distro. This
    habit of releasing distros besides being confusing makes users
    impulsive to try out the newer version. Non experts are not good at
    this (though they would like to try it nonetheless). Updates,
    obviously, should be easier to "apply" and not screw up existing data
    or require OS reinstallation etc.

    3. Uniformity in Diversity 1
    The Linux core is the same, the Gnome is the same, and yet distros
    differ in many aspects. Rather than have a different setup to start
    with, distros should have a similar interface; but can allow users to
    change the layout if needed. For example, the (OS or software)
    installation procedure can be of *7* steps, no matter which distro is
    used. This makes it easier even for someone trying to help a noob.
    Explaining that the system is having problems at a particular step,
    need not be accompanied by details about which distro and version is
    being used (something which the noob may not be aware of ).

    4. Uniformity in Diversity 2
    There is a great need to follow a single application installation
    format. This will also reduce the burden on the great souls who write
    programs for Linux. Expecting the noob to open a command prompt and
    type in all the commands is far fetched. Double click is the way to
    go. Either RPM or DEB or anyother double click format. Now, will RPM
    work with all distros? No? See step 1.

    5. Reorient focus
    Desktop Linux does almost everything off the shelf. I tried out Ubuntu
    and Mandriva and all hardware was properly detected and installed
    without any input from my end. This is a critical first step to Linux
    acceptance, the feeling that everything is all right. I believe the
    present focus is to create a better Linux by adding to its
    functionality AFTER it has been installed. This needs to change, to
    creating a better Linux, DURING the installation. No matter how
    esoteric the hardware, a desktop at 640 resolution should be the bare
    minimum. Being left with a command prompt is a frightening experience,
    as happened to me with Freespire. With a desktop, a user can start
    fiddling with the mouse and navigate his/her way to the help files and
    feels in control.

    6. I'll need more time to come up with this point.


    The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when
    it is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    population as well - both in form of application development and
    troubleshooting.

  2. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Htnakirs wrote:


    < snip bull**** >

    Do you actually have a point?

    Hadron Quark has already utterly failed in getting us to buy that idiocy you
    spout
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.


  3. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:

    > The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    > Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    > single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    > "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    > is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    > population as well - both in form of application development and
    > troubleshooting.


    Sounds more like Communism to me.

    What rubbish.


  4. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Robin T Cox wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:
    >
    >> The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    >> Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    >> single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    >> "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    >> is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    >> population as well - both in form of application development and
    >> troubleshooting.

    >
    > Sounds more like Communism to me.
    >
    > What rubbish.


    Yes. This "choice is bad, as long as it isn't *my* choice" lunacy from
    Hadron Quark with a different kind of lipstick on that pig.

    Total, complete bollocks

    Now Hadron also wants to have WGA, WPA and DRM on linux systems.
    After all, his beloved windows has them also, then those simply have to be
    real great ideas, as otherwise linux users are thieves
    --
    Who the **** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?


  5. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Robin T Cox writes:

    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:
    >
    >> The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    >> Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    >> single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    >> "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    >> is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    >> population as well - both in form of application development and
    >> troubleshooting.

    >
    > Sounds more like Communism to me.
    >
    > What rubbish.
    >


    Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.


    --
    Amad. Es el unico bien que hay en la vida.
    -- Aurore DupÃ*n. (George Sand). (1804-1876) Novelista francesa.

  6. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:29:38 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Robin T Cox writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:
    >>
    >>> The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    >>> Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    >>> single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    >>> "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    >>> is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    >>> population as well - both in form of application development and
    >>> troubleshooting.

    >>
    >> Sounds more like Communism to me.
    >>
    >> What rubbish.
    >>

    >
    > Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    > more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    > fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.


    How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?

    --
    Kier


  7. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Kier wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:29:38 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Robin T Cox writes:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    >>>> Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    >>>> single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    >>>> "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    >>>> is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    >>>> population as well - both in form of application development and
    >>>> troubleshooting.
    >>>
    >>> Sounds more like Communism to me.
    >>>
    >>> What rubbish.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    >> more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    >> fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.

    >
    > How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?
    >


    It is. For MS
    That is the reason Hadron Quark is so intend of it
    --
    Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.


  8. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    > more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    > fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.


    Hardware support is a function of the kernel, and pretty much all
    the distros use the same base kernel tree, so this is really a
    non-issue. Some distros make different choices about what to
    probe for at boot-up, but that is typically a function of what
    audience they are targeting and doesn't stop one from loading
    up the driver after the fact (no different than Windows really).

    Similar arguments hold true with other major components like the
    Gnome or KDE desktops. There is not a different Gnome project for
    each distro; they all pull from the same common tree and benefit
    from the centralized developments and bug fixes that happen there.

    Yes, there is some duplication of effort, but that is where the
    experimentation and advancement happens. Calling for some type
    of uniformity of purpose among the OSS community is like trying
    to streamline democracy by getting rid of all that pesky voting.
    It is just not going to happen, and would be counter-productive
    if it did.

    Thad

  9. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Htnakirs :
    >
    > The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    > Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    > single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    > "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when
    > it is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    > population as well - both in form of application development and
    > troubleshooting.


    Several people are trying to do this, one is RedHat, another is Ubuntu,
    still another is Mandriva. All are trying to get more people using their
    distro. RedHat has certifications, why dont you join on up with them?

    --
    Real fur: the ultimate sadist symbol.

    www.websterscafe.com

  10. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800 (PST), Htnakirs
    wrote:

    >Here are a few points that I believe are preventing Linux from
    >becoming a serious desktop OS. "People" as used below refers to non
    >expert users of PCs (who in all probability have sampled some form of
    >Windows) just like me. I am a noob in the Linux arena, and the
    >comments may seem stale.
    >
    >0. Linux Inside
    >A distro should prominently have the Linux version. The fight in the
    >market should not obscure the fact that it is the Linux version which
    >will influence the capabilities of the OS. And rather than have the
    >version as x.xx.xxx.xxxx, it is more user friendly to use just x.x. So
    >any distro based on Linux 2.5 should have this information prominently
    >displayed (rather than pushing their own version number like Ubuntu
    >7.0X).
    >
    >1. Confusing flavours.
    >True, it is a representation of the freedom associated with Linux, but
    >there is a need to categorise the distros into "certified" and non
    >certified. A distro earns a certified status if it fulfills certain
    >criteria. ("Which criteria ?"is best left to the experts, but the
    >following points could be worth considering).
    >If all certified distros functioned similarly, the user can be
    >precluded the confusion of figuring out the navigation of different
    >distros (even distro versions).
    >
    >2. Reduce versions
    >There is a need for the powers that be to hold back the urge to push
    >out a distro every year. Let one version sink in. It is better to
    >release updates or patches rather than a newly labelled distro. This
    >habit of releasing distros besides being confusing makes users
    >impulsive to try out the newer version. Non experts are not good at
    >this (though they would like to try it nonetheless). Updates,
    >obviously, should be easier to "apply" and not screw up existing data
    >or require OS reinstallation etc.
    >
    >3. Uniformity in Diversity 1
    >The Linux core is the same, the Gnome is the same, and yet distros
    >differ in many aspects. Rather than have a different setup to start
    >with, distros should have a similar interface; but can allow users to
    >change the layout if needed. For example, the (OS or software)
    >installation procedure can be of *7* steps, no matter which distro is
    >used. This makes it easier even for someone trying to help a noob.
    >Explaining that the system is having problems at a particular step,
    >need not be accompanied by details about which distro and version is
    >being used (something which the noob may not be aware of ).
    >
    >4. Uniformity in Diversity 2
    >There is a great need to follow a single application installation
    >format. This will also reduce the burden on the great souls who write
    >programs for Linux. Expecting the noob to open a command prompt and
    >type in all the commands is far fetched. Double click is the way to
    >go. Either RPM or DEB or anyother double click format. Now, will RPM
    >work with all distros? No? See step 1.
    >
    >5. Reorient focus
    >Desktop Linux does almost everything off the shelf. I tried out Ubuntu
    >and Mandriva and all hardware was properly detected and installed
    >without any input from my end. This is a critical first step to Linux
    >acceptance, the feeling that everything is all right. I believe the
    >present focus is to create a better Linux by adding to its
    >functionality AFTER it has been installed. This needs to change, to
    >creating a better Linux, DURING the installation. No matter how
    >esoteric the hardware, a desktop at 640 resolution should be the bare
    >minimum. Being left with a command prompt is a frightening experience,
    >as happened to me with Freespire. With a desktop, a user can start
    >fiddling with the mouse and navigate his/her way to the help files and
    >feels in control.
    >
    >6. I'll need more time to come up with this point.
    >
    >
    >The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    >Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    >single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    >"certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when
    >it is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    >population as well - both in form of application development and
    >troubleshooting.



    The one thing missing is users.....

  11. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:39:27 +0000, Kier wrote:


    >How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?


    Linux has two things going for it:

    1. It's free.
    2. It's secure.

    The one thing it doesn't have is desktop users so obviously #1 and #2
    are not important to the populous at large.

  12. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Htnakirs wrote:

    > Here are a few points that I believe are preventing Linux from becoming
    > a serious desktop OS.


    Linux is already a serous desktop OS. Or did you mean obtaining a large
    percentage of all desktop installs?

    > 0. Linux Inside
    > A distro should prominently have the Linux version. The fight in the
    > market should not obscure the fact that it is the Linux version which
    > will influence the capabilities of the OS. And rather than have the
    > version as x.xx.xxx.xxxx, it is more user friendly to use just x.x. So
    > any distro based on Linux 2.5 should have this information prominently


    Bad example. Odd number decimal releases are development versions that are
    not used for any final version, by any distro.

    > displayed (rather than pushing their own version number like Ubuntu
    > 7.0X).


    You do have a point there. It does add some complexity for the newbie.
    I've seen a number of cases where someone bothered to try Linux only to
    inadvertently install an outdated version.

    Unfortunately, it needs to be the way it is. Users need to exercise due
    diligence in determining the distros that are most likely to meet their
    needs. Some distros are more likely to be based on an older kernel
    version. Distros such as these emphasize stability, with all bugs patched.
    It is what some people need and want.

    Others, such as Ubuntu and Mandriva use the latest kernel version for
    maximum functionality and features.

    It is freedom, and you need to learn to exercise it.

    > 1. Confusing flavours.
    > True, it is a representation of the freedom associated with Linux, but
    > there is a need to categorise the distros into "certified" and non
    > certified.


    Certified by whom? One of the core freedoms of Linux is that you free to
    modify it, and your new version is as legitimate as any other version.

    That said, there is intent among some developers of KDE or Gnome (or
    perhaps both, I don't recall for certain) so standardize menus and tools
    across distros to the extent that it is possible.

    Total standardization neither likely nor desirable since different distros
    have much time invested in developing tools such as package management.

    > 2. Reduce versions
    > There is a need for the powers that be to hold back the urge to push out
    > a distro every year. Let one version sink in. It is better to release
    > updates or patches rather than a newly labelled distro. This habit of
    > releasing distros besides being confusing makes users impulsive to try
    > out the newer version.


    You seem to be suggesting that development should stall because it is too
    hard for inexperienced users to upgrade. Asking everyone else to stand
    still for your convenience is questionable, to say the least.

    If you don't want to upgrade to the latest version, then don't. I'm
    running an old version myself, for the reason that it is convenient for
    me. But I'm not complaining about the new releases.

    > 3. Uniformity in Diversity 1
    > The Linux core is the same, the Gnome is the same, and yet distros
    > differ in many aspects. Rather than have a different setup to start
    > with, distros should have a similar interface; but can allow users to
    > change the layout if needed.


    You can change anything you want to change. Unlike proprietary software,
    the source code for all GPL software is available. Not a programmer? Then
    hire one to make the changes you desire.

    > 4. Uniformity in Diversity 2
    > There is a great need to follow a single application installation
    > format. This will also reduce the burden on the great souls who write
    > programs for Linux. Expecting the noob to open a command prompt and type
    > in all the commands is far fetched. Double click is the way to go.
    > Either RPM or DEB or anyother double click format. Now, will RPM work
    > with all distros? No? See step 1.


    You seem to be expecting every distro to do exactly as you wish. I don't
    think you or anyone else is entitled to that.

    > 5. Reorient focus
    > Desktop Linux does almost everything off the shelf. I tried out Ubuntu
    > and Mandriva and all hardware was properly detected and installed
    > without any input from my end. This is a critical first step to Linux
    > acceptance, the feeling that everything is all right.


    I think you are right about that, and I think Linux does install very
    well.

    > I believe the present focus is to create a better Linux by adding to its
    > functionality AFTER it has been installed. This needs to change, to
    > creating a better Linux, DURING the installation. No matter how esoteric
    > the hardware, a desktop at 640 resolution should be the bare minimum.
    > Being left with a command prompt is a frightening experience, as
    > happened to me with Freespire.


    Two out of three free distros installed perfectly for you and you seem to
    be complaining about that.

    > 6. I'll need more time to come up with this point.
    >
    > The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.
    > Rather than have a 100 on each distro it is better to have 1000 on a
    > single version of Linux (no matter which distro, since they are
    > "certified") and all who will upgrade to the next Linux version when it
    > is released. This synchronisation makes it easier to service the
    > population as well - both in form of application development and
    > troubleshooting.


    Linux development is proceeding nicely as it is. Excellent free support is
    available in the distro specific newsgroups and web boards, especially for
    those who are willing to first try Google to solve their own problems, and
    if that fails, to ask intelligently and nicely in those groups.

    In short, you've well duplicated the first impressions of many new users.
    Nothing wrong with that, but you might want to try to understand why
    things are the way they are before you decide that there is a need for
    major changes.

    --
    Tony Sivori


  13. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    >Kier wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron trolled:
    >>>
    >>> Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    >>> more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    >>> fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.

    >>
    >> How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?

    >
    >It is. For MS
    >That is the reason Hadron Quark is so intend of it


    Yep. **** like Quack would love to alienate the freedom-loving OSS
    developers, by making them get approval from some "higher authority"
    before they could make and release the things that they want to do.


  14. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:39:31 -0600, chrisv
    wrote:

    >Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >>Kier wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hadron trolled:
    >>>>
    >>>> Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    >>>> more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    >>>> fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.
    >>>
    >>> How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?

    >>
    >>It is. For MS
    >>That is the reason Hadron Quark is so intend of it

    >
    >Yep. **** like Quack would love to alienate the freedom-loving OSS
    >developers, by making them get approval from some "higher authority"
    >before they could make and release the things that they want to do.


    Nobody is ptrying to prevent them from making and releasing the things
    that they want.
    However, if they want users they have to release a quality product
    that there is a demand for.
    Some checks, balances and controls are generally needed to produce a
    quality professional product.
    Exceptions exist but they are rare.

  15. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Robin T Cox writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:51:20 -0800, Htnakirs wrote:
    >>
    >>> The aim is to create a large critical mass of users who Linux in sync.

    >>
    >> Sounds more like Communism to me.
    >> What rubbish.

    >
    > Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    > more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    > fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.


    No, it isn't.

    You are wrong about the bugs, to some extent. Sure, there'd be a
    smaller number of options, hence less chance for configuration error.

    However, just try getting people to stick to the distro's stock window
    manager, stock P2P client/server, stock office suite, stock browser,
    stock console, stock games, stock printing system.

    It'll never happen.

    In fact, so many people would be so mad about the restrictions that
    they'd spawn their own distros, and we'd come full circle.

    You need to remember one thing. Linux distros are the way they are
    because people want it that way, and they can do it.

    You can't stop it. Nobody can.

    Thank Stallman and Torvalds for that!

    --
    Tux rox!

  16. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    * chrisv fired off this tart reply:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>Kier wrote:
    >>> Hadron trolled:
    >>>> Sounds like common sense in trying to get Linux accepted to me - the
    >>>> more people who concentrate on a single version the more bugs will be
    >>>> fixed and the more HW verified to work with Linux. It's a win win.
    >>>
    >>> How is removing everything that makes Linux good a win?

    >>
    >>It is. For MS That is the reason Hadron Quark is so intend of it

    >
    > Yep. **** like Quack would love to alienate the freedom-loving OSS
    > developers, by making them get approval from some "higher authority"
    > before they could make and release the things that they want to do.


    What a clog in the system that would be.

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    * flatfish fired off this tart reply:

    > Linux has two things going for it:
    >
    > 1. It's free.
    > 2. It's secure.


    It's fast.
    It's flexible.
    It's generally easy to maintain.
    It's has a ton of easy-to-get desktop apps.

    > The one thing it doesn't have is desktop users so obviously #1 and #2
    > are not important to the populous at large.


    Actually, I think it has more desktop users than you think, even in the
    U.S. Just ask Asus and Dell.

    --
    Tux rox!

  18. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    * flatfish fired off this tart reply:

    > The one thing missing is users.....


    Jejuzz Cripes, over half the people in our Windows shop use Linux
    regularly.

    Sure, we're techies, but I'm seeing more consumers, slowly, adopting it.

    --
    Tux rox!

  19. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:59:51 -0500, Linonut
    wrote:

    >* flatfish fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linux has two things going for it:
    >>
    >> 1. It's free.
    >> 2. It's secure.

    >
    >It's fast.

    Depends. Most Linux's sure seem slow to me. PCLinuxos is an exception
    as is mepis.

    >It's flexible.


    100000 different varietes doesn't make it better.

    >It's generally easy to maintain.


    Nope.

    >It's has a ton of easy-to-get desktop apps.


    Easy to get.
    Difficult to use/figure out due to poor documention or a total lack of
    documentation.


    >> The one thing it doesn't have is desktop users so obviously #1 and #2
    >> are not important to the populous at large.

    >
    >Actually, I think it has more desktop users than you think, even in the
    >U.S. Just ask Asus and Dell.


    Doubtful.
    All these companies, along with Walmart, are testing the waters.
    I'd love to know how many boat anchor Linux systems Walmart gets
    returned because people think they can run Windows applications on
    them.
    Please don't even mention wine.
    It's a joke.


  20. Re: Between Linux and Desktop Domination

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:59:51 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > * flatfish fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linux has two things going for it:
    >>
    >> 1. It's free.
    >> 2. It's secure.

    >
    > It's fast.
    > It's flexible.
    > It's generally easy to maintain.
    > It's has a ton of easy-to-get desktop apps.


    It's fun.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast