blog entry: "Installation Face Off: Linux or Windows"

John dingo at coco2.arach.net.au
Thu Dec 15 15:59:59 GMT 2005


grethe at bek.no wrote:

> 
> When it comes to eastetics, aestetics was of course never an issue. At
> least not among linux-people. My impression is that the Linux-community
> hesitate against anything that might look like "eye-candy" or something
> that simplify the uses of technology. This anti-didactic attitude is based
> on an argument that it would direct the user and the user should have
> total freedom. I know this is changing, but it still seems that grapical
> design still is regarded as something one has to do to reach a general
> audience - but that one would prefer all the world to have the simple
> terminal window as their favourite.But here I my impression Ubuntu is an
> exeption. I may be right. I may be wrong.
> 
> I find the comparisment done at TechRepublic interresting. It does not say
> that Ubuntu is worse than Windows XP. It says that Windows XP is "just as
> good".This is because the topos - or the starting point - of the argument
> is
> that "People claim linux is better".
> 
> But to begin at this point seems like a change to me. In my world the main
> argument when the issue "Linux vs. Windows" is on the table, is that Linux
> is for very skilled users, and that your grandmother will have problems.
> 
> So to me, the argument seems to be upsidedown. Maybe you have other
> experiences than me, it would be nice to hear what you think of this.
> 
> In my opinion it is ok that Windows XP is just as good to install as
> Ubuntu. There are so many other sides of Ubuntu (and free software in
> general) that after a total evaluation, Ubuntu will come out as a stronger
> choice anyway.

Remember, most people only install their OS once, if at all: Windows 
mostly comes preinstalled.

The reason that it's fairly important for Linux to be easy to install is 
  it's often done by the ultimate user, quit possibly one without easy 
access to help, whereas a Windows user typically takes the machine down 
to the local computer shop and pays a few dollars for it to be fixed.

In my experience, installing generic Windows is a royal pain because, 
having installed it, one must then load drivers for this, that and the 
other whereas most Linux distros come with the requisite drivers.



> 
> Right now my focus i divided between frelancing as an art critic/doing
> interwiews with people working at the small electronic art centers in
> Norway, and installing linux. I havent tried out Windows XP, but have
> recently tried out several distributions - skolelinux - edubuntu, kubuntu,
> ubuntu - mandriva, suse - vectorlinux.

You really should take a look at Mepis. It's another Debian derivitive, 
but very different from Ubuntu.



> This has of course made me think about"the act of installing", and how the
> various distros communicate to its users.
> 
> The debian distros are of course the same, and Suse and Mandrake has also
> some similarities with their graphical interface, while Vectorlinux (a
> slackware-based distro) was something for itself.

Interesting you don't mention Red Hat. One of the HEL users asserted 
that the quickest way for him to do a bare-metal recovery is to install 
from scratch which he can do in under three minutes (I guess he's using 
something better than what I have here), restore the configuration and 
restore the data.



> And here I also have to admit something that might be a deadly sin: I am
> happy to have this little girl instead of that annoing little Tux. Ok.
> Penquins are nice.

Now don't you dare tampa with our Penguins!




More information about the sounder mailing list