Is Linux at fault?

I think lack of applications and drivers is perfectly fair game for criticism. It was a fatal flaw for BeOS.

Luckily, as a developer, Linux has a plethora of the types of applications I want (except a decent debugger), and drivers aren't the problem they used to be. (Maybe I shouldn't say that since I wasted all last weekend NOT getting my all-in-wonder card to work - but other than that

Yeah, and I guess fonts are just so extremely important, that you can't run an OS if the fonts aren't good looking?

Because a bunch of closed minded MS kiss *sses CLAIM that linux has:

Horrible fonts, Application crashes, Configuration issues, Hopeless GUIs, Poor distros, Driver problems, etc, etc, etc.

Does NOT make it so. The people who make these claims never seem to be able to back up thier claims. They try silly tricks like posting screen shots that have been resized making the fonts look bad. But when Linvocate ask for post of the full size image we get back 'why bother'.

No, but it's annoying as all hell. As ever, it depends on what you're using the OS for.

The problem is that the definition of what Linux is shifts in the wind. People recommend Linux as an alternative to Windows, the conclusion being that Linux is equivalent to Windows

Welcome Ryan!

So the answer to your question is NO!

There are recurring discussions here over the theory that these anti-Linux people are actually being paid to post this stuff. People generally wonder how they can be present for so many hours of the day, how they seem to have so much technical information/ability yet report so many problems with linux, and so forth. Especially how they are so eager to jump on any problem and declare Linux a 'waste of time' and so forth.

The clear intention seems to be:

-> To soil COLA so that nice people won't come here, where they might gain a positive impression of Linux, and <gasp> try it out.

-> For those who stay here despite the noise, to prevent by any means having these people even *try* Linux.

It is a fact that if you have never used any unix, then Linux takes a little getting used to. Once you have gotten past a small hump, the payoff is far beyond what the 'other popular brand' can offer. The intent seems to be to prevent people from making that small investment of time, because after they grasp the power, flexibility, and stability, they are lost for good to Linux.

You can't prove anybody is being paid without holding the check in your hand, but the theory tends to pretty much explain everything. It is kind of uncanny.

Welcome again, and excellent analysis. Here is hoping you stick around and share some more.

Now I'll agree with everything he said this time.

Linux is a kernel, true.

But when refering to Linux we are talking *ANY* of the *MANY* operating systems begin sold which uses the Linux kernel.

And I agree that we should flow with the world.

Just out of curiousity, have you ever run SUN Solaris 8 and/or later? personally I don't find the font quality too bad, and from what I see, they use postscript, the pre to PDF, which Apple now uses for its unlying font technology.

Matthew Gardiner

No, its more like a seat to far forward. Some people just complain and buy a new car, others simply pull the level and push the set back to get more room. Which one do you think is more practical?

Matthew Gardiner

<nothing of consequence , just some ridiculous trolling>

WTF are you doing out of my bozofile??? nymshifting???

Get back inside...

more to the point... Older operating systems are not being supported by the hardware manufacturers when they release new hardware... at least some are now seeing the light and beginning to include Linux in the list of supported OSes