Linux Still Not Ready For Prime Time
Posted by
tgirsch
Every now and again I’ll get a bug up my butt and decide to install Linux on a couple of my computers around the house. I even intentionally leave partitions available so that I can try this exercise. Mainly, I’m curious to see how close Linux is getting to being a viable alternative to Windows for John Q. User.
As of Fedora Core 5, it’s getting better, but it still isn’t close.
The biggest problem it currently faces, as I see it, is that it’s very, very picky about wireless internet, and wireless internet is quickly becoming the norm. I have two different laptops, both with wireless NICs. One has a Linksys WPC54G PCMCIA card, the other has a built-in Broadcom NIC. The latter is recognized by Linux (if you know where to look) but doesn’t work — attempts to get an IP from DHCP fail. The former isn’t even recognized by Linux.
This may not seem like a big deal to some, but without wireless, these computers have no internet access (sure, I could use wired internet, but that’s not always viable when traveling), and without internet access, they’re overglorified paper weights. And in Windows XP, it all just works, seemingly like magic, as much as it pains me to say nice things about Windows.
Mind you, I’ve got 15 years of UNIX experience, so I’m sure with enough digging I could figure something out. I’ve even found several Web FAQs on Linux and Wireless (consensus: it can be done, but it’s a pain). But that’s beside the point in this exercise. I’m not interested in just quasi-expert users like myself. I’m interested in what John Q. User is going to be able to do. And if I can’t get it to work in an hour of futzing, John Q. User’s not going to want anything to do with it.
Anyone else have different experiences? I’d be interested in hearing.
I’ve used different varieties of SUSE and Red Hat over the years, and I’m about to install SUSE 10.1. The only problem I’ve had has been with secured wireless networks, open ones work just great. On my current Compaq laptop, SUSE installs even easier and with better device detection than WinXP.
Comment 9/20/2006
I’ve been using RedHat since RedHat 2.0. But Fedora 5 has just about convinced me to give up on RedHat and look for a better distribution. For my laptop, I wanted a working device, not a hobby, so I bought an Apple and everything just works. A couple of co-workers of mine use SuSe and Kubuntu on their laptops and say they work fine with wireless networks.
Comment 9/20/2006
I’ve had some decent luck with Ubuntu and wireless. The whole situation would be simplified if designers would pick a better method for wireless access (how hard would it be to miniturize an Access Point and connect it through a normal network card?). If any distro will become popular with average folk, Ubuntu is it…
But it’s still a PitA.
None of the Linux distros can really appeal to John Q. User in their current incarnation. Mr. User can’t tell the difference between GRUB and LILO, ext3 or NTSF, IDE and SATA (dubious compatibility with SUSE 10.0). Just the basic installation pathways on these suckers will drive him batty, nevermind what happens when he boots up. Then the real fit hits the shan. He’s got to figure out how to get his USB flash drive working, set up SIMBA in case Mrs. Q User wants a working home network, and (:shudder:) get his sound card working.
Linux has its place - I’d hate to run a mail server with anything else - but I can’t see that place being the average home.
Comment 9/20/2006
I bought an Apple and everything just works.
You mean the Mac OS, or are you dicking with the underlying Linux core?
I thought one of the cool things about OS X was that it incorporated Linux, but I don’t hear Mac people really talking very much about that. They all seem content to stay in the Mac GUI. Is OS X a good choice for someone who really wants Linux, or is it still mainly a choice for someone who really wants a GUI that actually works?
Comment 9/20/2006
Tgirsch
I linuxed up one of our old laptops and it was awful. the screen resolution was lmited and wireless just flat refused to work in any fashion. I gave up after about five hours.
Go with OsX, if you want an alternative OS. It has the BSD core and a very stable GUI and minis are reasonably priced. Linux is fine for server work, but I have never seen one Linux desktop that wasn’t significantly flawed in some important fashion.
Comment 9/20/2006
KTK
The core under OsX is BSD, not linux. they are very similar but pwer users will find some differences. I can use our mac as I woudl a linux/unix/bsd server or as I would a Windows desktop - -so, yes, if you want to play around with a unix flavored OS and still have a solid GUI, then OsX is the way to go IMO.
Comment 9/20/2006
[…] So I took the plunge and decided to set up a Linux system - all the caveats notwithstanding. From what I know, the current Ubuntu distros are stable and offer a choice of usable GUIs. Still a few bugs in the system, but wireless Internet (Tgirsch’s concern) is not my current problem. My biggest worry was MS Word compatibility - I like Open Office despite its slightly weird interface, but it really only emulates Word about as well as any “emulator” does, meaning that formatting gets significantly futzed when you move files from one to the other, as I often have to do. But when Windows ate its own registry and refused to boot - and MS’s Web site confidently encouraged me to copy the old registry file onto the corrupted one to fix the problem, not stopping to realize that you’d have to boot the computer to do it!*, I just gave up. Anybody who wants to trust themselves to Word and the rest of Bill Gates’s demonspawn is welcome; I’m bugging out. […]
Pingback 11/20/2007