You have heard the arguments of the proponents of open source on why you should choose Linux and what you can do for you, and if they are living under a rock somewhere you know that Linux is a free alternative to Windows and Mac is finally coming into its own. Much of the hype in the magazines there are writers who have a vested interest against both operating systems, some of the points are quite valid, the security problems in Windows and the ease with which a user is allowed use the computer to the left open to an endless parade of security updates the operating system slowed to a crawl, Macintosh is a beautiful system that does a lot to the right of the box, but if that never falls Macintosh you were wrong are, and the software is too expensive severely and the main reasons people use is to be different or to make an artistic statement. Much of this is true, but the fact that Microsoft has created applications that were easy to use information democratized and made it easy for your grandmother to get on-line, which is certainly not the sense that the computing headed at the time he reached the scene. Macintosh was taken even further by providing key applications that attract art out of the box set that appealed to graphic designers, musicians and photographers, an undeserved in the PC market until Adobe took advantage of that niche. Who is wrong or who is right, and why can not Linux supporters spread the word through without running into opposition from experts in Windows and Mac? I read an interesting post in the Week of the information about the ideas as to how the new converts to Linux better than spreading good news about what Linux can offer that brought up some very interesting points about why users Windows or Mac do not want, you can convert to Linux. Some of these were: It is better if a user has an emotional experience that binds to the product so they can have a relationship with the operating system. Established, traditional users resist change while others embrace change disgruntled users. I can also add that those who have already invested a considerable amount of time and money educating themselves in the Microsoft products, which you can earn a considerable amount of time and money on Microsoft products, ie technical network, have no real economic interest in adopting an open source product away from any structure of real income, with the exception of those already working for an organization that has made the change or trying to work with similar organizations . At the moment only the smaller organizations that either can not pay license fees to Microsoft or if you prefer not to pay to make the change. Besides even though Novell can spend so much time, if not more, in the implementation of the network, which so far is much easier than it is from Microsoft. The distribution now I'm working on Ubuntu, which has a more powerful package installer that is exceptionally easy to use. My main reasons for using Linux are. It is hard to deny the simple fact that the cost of Linux OS is another blow. Linux is free, I'm not paying for the software and my only real costs are the time spent in learning about how to use and navigate the operating system and my internet connection, which in itself could be free if I was next to a wireless access point. Equality in the software, as I have often found that the free open source Linux software compares quite well with Windows software, depending on who is coming for of course. Free software and open source Windows often sucks or causing problems of interoperability and compatibility with the rest of the operating system due to the stable nature of the Windows registry. I have not experienced these problems with the Linux kernel, even despite the fact that regularly download software that Ubuntu does not support itself. Improved graphics usually have to pay big money for free on Linux. Unless you are running Windows Vista, or Mac OS, the desktop is aesthetically challenged, given that XP was a major improvement over 98 but do not provide the improvements found in Beryl. Vista Aero offers some important improvements in the graphical desktop, taking advantage of 3D graphics engines that your previous operating system could not play, but Beryl is free and does not take much resources as Aero. You have to have dedicated graphics memory to run Beryl, however. Ease of use is not my main reason to use Linux because the access point seems to be his driving, not operational. Even with its graphical user interface, Linux seems to be in a place that should have been, considering that the GUI has been the norm for years. This also brings up some interesting points, after 16 years of being in the market for Linux major advances have been in the form of presentation and enhanced driver support, which was desperately needed for years. Alternatives to Windows, including Solaris, which Sun claims to be courting open source developers when creating your own response to Linux. In any case the fact that a company is willing to take on virtually hundreds of Linux distributions that have proliferated in the OS landscape is very interesting, because a concerted effort often leads to a better product than a niche application rogue which is what Linux was for many years. While the Open-Solaris project has its work cut out for Linux evangelists Sun still has a long way to go. Linux is a natural transition for programmers and developers who are familiar with the abstract nature of C / C + +, but can confuse beginners on the road. For example, while the package manager in Ubuntu Synaptic Package Manager (which I have added an hour later) offers ease of use in the management of applications on par with what is still available in Windows are caught downloading a zip file or bin, extracting files, and then run a setup program from the command prompt if you download software from a manufacturer's website. This was the dilemma faced when trying to install Real Player for Linux from Adobe's website. I could understand if I put so much effort, but I doubt that traditional users would be so willing to do, when you can almost always find another package elsewhere that does the same with less effort. The media player codecs that are included, and others I've downloaded work fine, but I have yet to find something as visually elegant as Windows Media Player 11. There were other instant messaging applications that are cool, but if you do not know to look for them would not have thought of it. The package management in general, was an abstract concept at first, usually in Windows to browse by web sites for software, or rather troll websites that almost looks like, or go to retail stores and left his cash. Not so in Linux open a similar application to add / remove programs and tell what you're looking for and bring back a list of available applications. If you want to get rid of an application, simply uncheck the list, it's pretty easy until you've forgotten about the application you are trying to eliminate! In the future I expect that the distributions that eliminate the programs directly from the applications folder, how often are thrown uninstallers in programs with Windows executables. Linux applications do not consume much memory, however, it can not be inclined to uninstall every little thing anyway. The other thing that users can perplexing is that the desktop itself is empty, nothing, nothing, all applications that are beyond what serves as the equivalent of Linux in the Windows Start menu. Applications are not automatically populated on the desktop and Windows. In fact, I did not really believe that an application list of applications available to me because I was so used to spend more time looking for programs that I was enjoying it. In addition to programs often crash the system if they were free, or not be compatible with other software or install things in the registry running in the background or whatever, while there are a few utilities on Linux that run in the background a time they are opened are not there when you turn the computer back on. It's really strange, a little liberating until you try to install the software in the most difficult, the techie way I should be very familiar with now. All this brings me back to the original points outlined in this Information Week article, the users that are primarily Linux drumming those who have had an emotional bond with Linux, that the experience of being "born again" or those who simply disagree for Microsoft because quite honestly it will not be taken seriously in the long term while the former is living what they preach and lead by example. After 15 years of Microsoft that I'm ready for something different, without any real reason Windows just does not "do it for me," I'm not really excited by it, save the environment clean graphics of Vista. Besides that I will not hand a small fortune buying Apple hardware, but I realize you can do almost everything you need to do out of the box with him, and I think they serve that entry-level, the User immature market very well …
Recent Comments