My Letter To A Linux Desktop User

By Daniel Miessler on January 31st, 2007: Tagged as Linux | OS X | Productivity | Religion | Windows

I know you don’t believe me, as we’ve had this conversation before. But there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools. This will likely lead you to Windows or OS X — both of which, if you avoid tweaking, offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do.

So again, let me restate my blasphemous claim:

Linux desktops are currently still for hobbyists and tweakers, i.e. those who enjoy tinkering constantly with the very platform that they work from. Those who wish to actually *work* — in an uninterrupted fashion through multiple, major updates — are left with the options of either installing an extremely stable, non-cutting-edge distribution and not updating any pivotal packages, or going with an alternative operating system. In short, I equate “fixing” my operating system with “repairing” a hammer: I might do it once, but the second time the head pops off while I’m trying to work — it’s getting replaced.

I know a number of Linux desktop fans that consider Windows and OS X to be the “dirty” options for a number of reasons, but virtually every time I speak with them I get another reinstall story. They’re constantly repairing this or that in order to get the experience they want. And again, if that’s what’s fun for them, and they enjoy hacking their system and making cool new features work, then that’s awesome. In that case I think Linux is the ultimate desktop.

But for those who just want to work, I find that even my friends who love the Linux desktop more than anything are constantly frustrated with it. You take something like Ubuntu — it’s designed from the ground up to be a stable desktop. I have a friend that uses it and complains constantly about the fact that if you update it enough it breaks. The solution, if you want stability from it, is to basically not touch the thing and wait for the next version to get new features.

So from me to you, I ask you to probe your own thoughts on the matter. Do you want to use your system as a transparent tool to accomplishing something, or do you want your system to be in the forefront — constantly requiring your attention because this feature isn’t working right, or that part just broke after an update? If the answer is the latter, I’ll just shut up, because that’s obviously perfectly legitimate. But if it’s the former I ask you to take another look at your OS choice on the desktop.

I know a guy who’s been doing hardcore C programming for 25 years, and is an absolute Unix GOD — but he uses Windows for his operating system. Why? Because he has work to do, and he doesn’t want his OS getting in the way.:

– Edit: I probably should have pointed out that I am an avid Linux advocate. I am a member of the Free Software Foundation and give to my distro regularly. The site you are looking at is running on Gentoo, actually — a distro I’ve been using since 2002. At work I use Ubuntu Linux as my primary operating system, and while I’m no super-guru, I’m decently versed in Linux in general. In short, my comments come from a familiarity and love for Linux, not from some random troll world.

← Older Comments
  • http://www.coulier.org/ Wim

    Honestly, I think that with any OS the stability depends a lot on what you do with it. If you install lots of junk software on it (freeware, “the latest and greatest”, …), then you can expect problems. However, if you just install your basic needs with tested and robust software, Linux proved to be very stable and effort-low to me. You can have it updated automatically with security updates (if you want stable, stick to security updates only and steer away from the functional updates), don’t need to bother about virusses and spyware and other malware. In a whole administering a linux desktop to be stable tends to be downright boring because it is so easy and takes so little time. There are however only few people though who want to stick with the stable and not “latest and greatest”. I’m not sure about the reasons, but can think of multiple possibilities: - people using Linux today are mostly people who are not afraid to try new things,… - it is so darn easy to install new software via a package manager, that people are almost invited to install all kinds of software, including less stable packages - etc.

    So coming back to the article content itself (I did not read all of the comments): I don’t think the statement that Linux is not stable enough and needs too much tinkering is correct. It just depends on what you do with it. And in my experience, it does better then Windows in comparable scenario’s, although everyone might have his own experience in his or her way of using their computers.

    Just to close down: two years ago an acquaintance had his W98 machine messed up with a virus. When asked for help, I introduced him to and installed him Mandriva Linux. He knew he could contact me in case of problems. The only exchanges about Linux we had since, was him thanking me several times for that (oh, and he asked me once to help him connect to a new broadband provider). This guy uses PCs just to get work done. He does not tinker. Been stable for at least one year and a half. There surely are other examples, but to generalize that Linux requires too much tinkering to keep it stable seems very incorrect to me. And saying that that will drive people back to Windows even more.

  • http://www.coulier.org Wim

    Honestly, I think that with any OS the stability depends a lot on what you do with it. If you install lots of junk software on it (freeware, “the latest and greatest”, …), then you can expect problems. However, if you just install your basic needs with tested and robust software, Linux proved to be very stable and effort-low to me. You can have it updated automatically with security updates (if you want stable, stick to security updates only and steer away from the functional updates), don’t need to bother about virusses and spyware and other malware. In a whole administering a linux desktop to be stable tends to be downright boring because it is so easy and takes so little time. There are however only few people though who want to stick with the stable and not “latest and greatest”. I’m not sure about the reasons, but can think of multiple possibilities: - people using Linux today are mostly people who are not afraid to try new things,… - it is so darn easy to install new software via a package manager, that people are almost invited to install all kinds of software, including less stable packages - etc.

    So coming back to the article content itself (I did not read all of the comments): I don’t think the statement that Linux is not stable enough and needs too much tinkering is correct. It just depends on what you do with it. And in my experience, it does better then Windows in comparable scenario’s, although everyone might have his own experience in his or her way of using their computers.

    Just to close down: two years ago an acquaintance had his W98 machine messed up with a virus. When asked for help, I introduced him to and installed him Mandriva Linux. He knew he could contact me in case of problems. The only exchanges about Linux we had since, was him thanking me several times for that (oh, and he asked me once to help him connect to a new broadband provider). This guy uses PCs just to get work done. He does not tinker. Been stable for at least one year and a half. There surely are other examples, but to generalize that Linux requires too much tinkering to keep it stable seems very incorrect to me. And saying that that will drive people back to Windows even more.

  • Pingback: Karsten

  • Pingback: Jessie

← Older Comments

Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs