Why I left Linux for Windows. 2153

says...

snip

It will, indeed, and must, because as a desktop system it simply can't compete with Windows. I'm coming back to Linux after a two year absence, and I'm pleased to see that the gap is closing, and closing rapidly. My latest distros are actually easier to install and setup than Windows. The LiveCD installs plus Synaptic and Adept for updates make a *big* difference .. But, see below ..

As a commandline system, Linux hasn't changed much probably since Torvalds compiled his first kernel. I've got an old Unix user manual from the mid 80's (the equivalent of hard copy man pages) and Linux has from the beginning used between half and two thirds of those commands (a testimony to their enduring quality).

The desktop, however, is a problem. GNOME appears to be more stable than KDE. Something in KDE crashes and burns on my system every single day - amarok, kalarm, the panel, one or more of the "toys", KDE itself. KDE has more options than Windows, but it's not as easy to setup and use. Setting up a client network is easier than Windows if your router is the default gateway and IP addresses are buttigned by DHCP. Setting up your computer as a server is considerably more difficult.

There is also the ongoing problem of hardware support. Linux is supposed to be better than Windows in support of legacy hardware, but not in my experience. XP finds my old parallel port scanner just fine, thank you, but xsane in Linux is useless. I continue to believe, though I cannot prove, that my problems with KDE are due to my processor (AMD Sempron) and motherboard.

Finally, the issue of multimedia support has to be addressed. Joe Braindead is not going to be willing to go out and download libdvdcss2 and libexine-extracodecs to watch his DVDs and play his music. That support has to be there out of the box

--

This space left blank