Dale said:
Those are maintenance tasks that, once configured, you don't have to
worry about much.
What could be easier than not having to configure such tasks at all? I
don't permit any maintenance to happen unattended. And it is not that I
do not have or use windows either. I currently have four xp, one vista
rc2 and one linux box on or available to my home network. I have had
very few issues in maintaining any of them.
What is easier is installing software, finding software, selecting
hardware accessories, etcetera. I don't have to think about whether or
not the hardware I order will work with Windows and I barely have to
think about the software- a quick glance on a box to see if my version
is listed.
With ubuntu, I can search software repositories for what I want, click a
button and the download and installation takes place without me having
to worry about whether it will work or not. It has not been any more
difficult to upgrade hardware and continue to have the machine work with
the upgraded hardware.
There have been, and will be more, Linux viruses. And spyware is
spyware. Most free software is spyware. The prettier and more
sophisticated the free software is, the more likely it is spyware or
adware. That applies to whether or not that software is for Windows or
Linux. The difference is, I can easily find easily-to-install and
easy-to-update anti-virus and anti-spyware software for Windows.
You would not have to look far to find anti-virus/anti-spyware apps for
linux. Many of the anti-virus manufacturers now have a linux version
available. The question still unanswered, at least for me, is whether or
not they are necessary now or will be necessary in the future. Opinions
found on the issue varies widely.
Windows works for every one. And I am a techie. I am a MCSE, MCDBA,
MCAD and make my living developing web applications in C#. I certainly
have the intellect and ability to learn to use Linux. In the past, I
was an AIX (IBM's Unix) administrator. Even at home, I use Windows
because it is easier for me. I don't have to think about it.
Windows does not necessarily work for everyone, and in some cases it may
work, but not work well. But the same can be said about linux. But what
is easier for you or me and the reasons why it is easier may not be at
all the same for the next person. There is much about linux that for my
purposes I do not have to think about. I don't presume to think it true
for the next person, though.
Linux on the desktop is mostly for hobbyists and techies - and the
French Parliament. If you like thinking about it and like getting into
the nuts and bolts, Linux is a good choice. Even MacOS hides the Unix -
as it should - for most Mac users. Unix is not an OS for the masses.
That doesn't make it bad and it doesn't make Unix users bad. But
Microsoft's market share just shows you that most users don't want to
know that much about what goes on in their PC.
Are many windows home machines used for much more than hobbyist
purposes? Do not windows machines appeal to techies? Why should linux be
pigeonholed as appealing to only those two types of users. (And then
lumped in with the French parliament to boot?
) Unfortunately,
regardless of market share, the statement that most windows users don't
want to know that much about what goes on in their pcs may be one of the
prime reasons that there are so many victims of malware. It might be
fair to state that many, as new users, were led to believe that pcs were
not much more than appliances that only needed to be turned on and used.
If only it had turned out that way.
)