Nice flamebait, but I have to agree that the eye candy can still be hard to set up in linux. But give Ubuntu a try. It installed everything I needed off one CD and it notifies you of available updates with a nice icon on the desktop.

I feel your pain, brother. I was once (and still am to a lesser extent) a Linux advocate. When Mac OS became UNIX, my desktop became a Mac, a decision I have not regretted. I still work in Linux on a daily basis, but I use my Mac for "fun".

I notice that you spend your time ragging on "commercial Linux distributions", calling them overpriced and under-documented. I completely agree. Many Linux companies started as supporters of a community of "hackers" (in the good sense of the term). Then they decided there was more money in the "Enterprise Software Space". As soon as they went Enterprise, their software became useless. In the Enterprise, software is not paid for by users, but by CIOs who are not users, so the company has no need or desire to build products that *users* like.

Before you give up, you might try one of the community-supported Linux distributions, for example Ubuntu. It's as easy to install as any OS, and as easy to use as any Linux I have seen (be your own judge as to whether that is a compliment). Software that is built by the people who use it is bound to be more "user friendly".

At the bottom of it, whether I am using Linux or Mac OS is less important to me. As long as it is UNIX underneath, I know I can drop to the command line and do my geeky business. In my mind the badness here is "Enterprise Software" vs. "User Software".

I have to agree with you Tom--especially the Linux is good because "It isn't Windows" line.

I have friends that love Linux because they can customize it to look and work like they want. That's not me though. I can't afford to go back to 1982 and play with an operating system for the sake of seeing what I can make it do. I need my computers to handle the tasks that I need them to do without getting in my way.

That means the interface better be clean, the operation flawless and reliability solid. No computer is perfect, but the Macs running OS X Tiger at my house are the best by far.

Thanks for stating the truth even though the flamers might burn you a bit.

Some people can build that race car pretty quickly. I can. And I don't consider myself to have "devoted my career" to Linux. I just took some time to learn some things so that I could have a *free* and kickass system. It did take more than two weeks for me, so sure. But the cost savings at my center vs. OSX is huge. What can I say, some people call a cab because they don't have time or are too lazy to walk.

Sorry but ... since you have shared your pathetic faillure with us I hope you feel much better now. Good luck next time.

Thank you! I've gotten pretty tired of Linux proponents walking around telling everyone that Linux is ready for general users. No, it isn't. As much hassle as Windows can be, it's still light years ahead of Linux in terms of installation and general day-to-day ease of use. And Mac OS X is ahead of Windows in that category. I did recently install Ubuntu using Parallels and it installed without a hitch, but then what do I do with it? There's still no software available unless you're willing to delve into the world of drivers and config files and the command line. Mac OS X lacks some software in some categories, but Linux is completely without usable end user software for the average Joe. It's still a hard-core geek platform. Good software, mind you, but still hard-core.

While Linux is still too disjointed by far in many dimensions, I think the signs are pointed strongly that a considerable degree of maturity and sophistication is coming quickly. Several cases in point:

--XGL advanced GUI interface, coming soon to desktops near us all. Extremely slick, fast, and a good foundation for desktop systems.

--Consolidation work on UI issues, such as the Tango icons rapidly coming on and designed for consistency on all desktops.

--Advanced installers, such as the one in the new Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu family. Easily the best I have seen in thirty years in and around computers.

--Increased attention to a common file arrangement, allowing many different flavors of Linux to begin running the exact same applications.

I do agree that the documentation available--while voluminous--is often frustrating and disorganized. In fact, I think there should be a major documentation effort to bring some consistency and organization to the entire subject. Although it is getting better, there is still much to do.

So--to an extent, I agree with you. I happen to think, though, that there is considerable value in being in control of my data without having it tied up in proprietary formats. That is a primary criticism I have of the Apple approach, and the reason I still don't have an Apple. If I was happy with proprietary and willing to trust the vendor, I would have stayed with Windows.

You are quite correct, though, that you should use the system with which you are most comfortable. Fortunately, no one is holding a gun to your head about it, so long as you are willing to deal with the trade-offs inherent in any given system.

David

Sounds like your issues are mostly suse based. Myself, I am a Debian user, and am very happy with the system. Perhaps you are right about "commercial Linux distributions are overpriced, poorly documented" but that is not to say that linux distributions in general have the same fallacies.

Congratulations!. This should get your hit counts up and sell you a lot of advertising.

Next I reccomend you do a similar hatchet job on the Mac so that all the mac zealots see your ads too.

What a way to make a living.

Sorry, but have you ever run MacOS-X Server? It doesn't sound like it. Apple updates are not as flawless as you claim. I have on numerous occations had updates ruin configuration files.

The Apple documentation succs major. It seams as they are sales letters with extremely low information density written to show how easy it is to use MacOS-X Server. If, or rather when, something goes wrong only the obvious reasons are covered, and they often suggest remidies that could be questionable with respect to data integrety and security. It is also full of errors, as Apple somtimes make undocumented changes to commonly used fres software packages, but fail to change the man-pages. Sometimes, the included apps are shipped only in part, e.g. missing admin tools for cyrus imap that can be very useful when recovering from system failures. another example would be missing parts of php that are useful when developing or debugging php Applications.

Somtimes the reason for the changes seam to be that Apple didn't bother to check the functionality of the application out of the box, and decided to add allready existing features in their own way. One example of this would be LDAP/postfix integration. Doing that would have been OK if they could support it, but anything that doesn't have a GUI seam to be a black hole to Apple support.

Another problem with Apple and servers is that you can't really trust them to be there for you over a longer period of time. They started early with A/UX that was abandoned with no clear upgrade path to an Apple branded AIX version, that too was abandoned with no upgrade option, and now they are switching to Intel with God knows how many problems. I have allready encountered mission critical applications at some of my customers that will need to be rewritten to run on Intel.

You are right about one thing though, GUIs on servers isn't of much use. Unfortunately for Apple , the GUI is the only thing that looks good on MacOS-X server. Apart from that the things that are included in MacOS-X doesn't work very well, it also lacks a lot of functionality you would expect from a server OS. Things like lack logical volume management makes it hard expand the diskspace as the storage needs increases over time. The lack of ability to create disk snapshots makes it hard to create secure and verified backups in 24,7 environments.

I have been a sysadmin for Apple servers the A/UX days to the resonably current MacOS-X 10.3 Server. I would chose Red Hat or Solars for my server any day if I was to decide.

Apple should stick with what they do best - the Desktop on the server side they are totally clueless.

Oddly enough, I have to agree with part of what you say even though I use Linux exclusively at home. And that is that commercial distros aren't the best of Linux. I just built a new dual-core homunker deluxe box and went through all the big distros and was left cold.

Linux's real strength -- and something the commercial side may call a weakness -- is the 300-plus distros out there. I like my OS to get out of the way, so I end up running Fluxbox on Slackware on my desktop and Zenwalk on my laptop (though I continually flirt with Ubuntu). I think you have to look at the commercial distros in light of who they're competing with -- Windows on the corporate desktop -- rather than against, say, *BSD. Even Linspire is aiming at Windows users, so they give you a "better" version of what you're used to. Linux is great when you can show somebody that Damn Small Linux will allow them to put their ancient laptop back to good -- and safe -- use. Or when you can completely customize your environment with your window manager and applications of choice.

I'm forced to use Windows at work all day, and given the permissions I have, having a commercial Linux distro wouldn't be much better. I mean, I'd prefer it, but mostly for political/religious reasons, not for utilitarian reasons. I don't have the permissions to do much that's more interesting than putting up a new wallpaper anyway. I doubt they'd let me switch from the officially blessed Gnome/KDE choice to, say, Openbox, to squeeze some life out of this hulking old computer they've given me.

As for the rest of the article, well, good luck with the trolling.

Maybe you just had bad luck. Most distro's installs are pretty brainless these days. (not like back in the day of Slackware 1.2 where you could fry your CRT). Have you worked with real computers long?

Wow, I love those barbs. A Mac Guy, wow, another modest biggot. You know, there are Window biggots, MAC biggots and of course Linux biggots.

Here is my response. For every 1 system that uses a MAC as interface, there are at least 10,000 stand alone systems that dont. And amongst the stand alone systems, the one that has the best maintenace, price performance, best support, best stability, best freedom from viruses and oh, most modest users, is Linux

I am writing this with what you call the popsicle system. All it cost me was the hardware. What did your software cost to hardware cost ratio come to?

Have a nice day, your outburst made me chuckle.

Which distro did you try? There are dozens of them, and some of them are FAR more polished than others.

And no, Linux is not a drop-in replacement for Windows. Anyone who tells you differently is either unfamiliar with Linux or trying to sell you something. Most Linux folks know better than to try to make such a claim -- the Unix way is *very* different from the way Microsoft does things.

Ah, I see you're trolling the Linux crowd now, too?

-jcr

This was Tom Yager writing? It's hard for me to believe. I have always enjoyed his column in InforWorld, but this is not much more than a rant. There is nothing useful here.

Why do Mac fans constantly deride people who know what they are doing? As if a life spent mastering something is not worth living? What, exactly, is your point? Is there one? UNIX is worthless because *you* don't see the value in it?

Relax hipster. There's room for everyone to do what they want, and Linux' popularity won't impinge on your brand loyalty and consumerist fetish for Apple products one bit. So unless you have something actually interesting and coherent to say, please STFU.

This article has something to do with Xen? Um, where?

Actually to install Xen successfully, I found I needed to know or learn and understand several advanced networking topics, and how they relate to linux:
* MTU
* TCP checksum offloading
* ARP cache
* ARP filtering
* Bridging

Most of these issues pertain to other OS's as well, but you don't often run into them. In my experience when someone does run into these problems on Windows (I have no OSX experience), you see them thrash around like a fish out of water just as you have described above with linux. Also, I am not aware of any GUI functionality built into windows (what about OSX?) for these issues - apart from bridging.

These are issues I ran into after installing the basic Xen product which already requires strong overall knowledge of linux.

I think assessing the potential difficulty of installing an open source product is an unaddressed problem in the open source world.

In summary, I would not recommend anyone but an advanced user attempt a Xen setup when under time pressure to produce a result. An intermediate user
can pull it off if they stick at it.

Tom,

"Xen only runs on Linux"
"I love BSD"

Come on?

Mirrors my somewhat less technical experience a few years ago. Installed Linux distro, battled with driver support, asked question 'Why am I doing this?' erased LInux, lived (mostly) happily everafter with Mac OSX and OSX Server.

Cheers

Greg