[SWLUG] linux not really a desktop system yet?

[Neil Jones]

The following comes from the BBC's click on-lie program website.

I used to agree that Linux still had some shortcomings as a desktop system.
I no longer do so. When I installed my current distro I installed it and it 
set up everything for me with very little intervention at all.

I have had to no nothing to configure or alter anything since I installed it.
I know I am a techie but I haven't needed any more techie knowledge than I 
would for Windoze.

Do others agree? If so how do we change the BBC's mind? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4565581.stm


Stephen also said: 


"Desktop PCs have had to wait quite a long time to move to 64-Bit operating 
Systems." And got this response: 


"Not so. 64-Bit hardware has been in the desktop arena for at least a year and 
Linux has been there to run it. Just because Microsoft are late to the party 
does not imply the party hasn't started yet." 
 J Pelan 


Indeed, the AMD 64 chip was launched in September 2003, and Linux can run 
using it. 


Absolutely true. Good point, well made. 


I am not sure you will like Stephen's answer: 


"I believe that it still isn't time to call Linux a 'desktop' operating 
system. It simply isn't as usable for everyone as Windows and OS X are. 


"It will be soon, but, for the time being at least, Click Online doesn't think 
it is." 


We will be taking a look at Linux soon and we will be sure to look at the 
64-Bit distributions. 
-- 
--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk