here's an example: i am running freeBSD 4.9 (OS shouldn't matter), KDE 3.3. on a similar environment, try dragging a desktop icon and dropping it on the kicker (for non-KDE folks, that's the equivalent of the windows quick-launch/taskbar). at least for me, that won't work. i can, i think, give at least 10 other such examples.
i don't think we really need to get too deep into hardware support on linux. i consider it fairly well-accepted that it at best lags behind windows, and at worst supports only a subset. if you disagree, we can revisit the question with more data.
>
>>how about
>>my favourite chat client? (GAIM doesn't even do presence right for
>>certain protocols).
>
> I've had various IMs working before in linux. Xchat is a nice IRC
> client.
>
IRC? what's that? ;-) remember, we are talking about joe-end-user here. GAIM, to be fair, is pretty decent as a yahoo client (though its sorely lacking on the regular yahoo client's fancy features).
>
>>how about sync'ing my pocketPC?
>
> I don't have a palmtop and unchecked several palm apps that would have
> happily installed on setup. Since that's pretty old tech, I'd bet
> there aren't many bugs left.
>
palm-sync (with Kpilot and gnome-pilot front-ends) is fairly decent, though friends have reported problems with newer palms. pocketPC support, AFAIK, is non-existant on linux. you can run linux on a pocketPC system like the iPAQ, but that's a whole new can of worms.
>
>>redhat has done a great
>>job (criticism from the geek gallery, notwithstanding)
>
> Bah humbug. Red Hat has sold out to the corporations and is too good
> now to be bothered with supporting the community who brought them to
> success. I wish them well but I am disappointed.
>
all true probably, but i was talking about their graphical installer.
> KDE has long had usability built in. Gnome and some of the other
> window managers can run faster because they are lighter, but it
> usually takes some work to get them setup with just what you want.
> KDE's Konqueror has the full usability of Windows Explorer, with drag
> and drop FTP and cd burning, full right click features, and lan and
> web browsing all from one window. There is no function I had in
> windows that I don't have in KDE just as easily.
see trivial example at the top of this message. if necessary, i can spend the additional time to document similar holes in the UI.
>
>>however, i fail to see: a) why they will act faster and produce
>>something more consistent than what microsoft already puts out,
>>leave alone, what MS will have in the future, b) why users
>>(individuals at home, or enterprises user desktops) will switch.
>
> Better security and less vulnerability to viruses, worms, trojans,
> adware and spyware, same usability or better, windows apps available,
> more stable, more configurable, no license fee, evading the M$
> monopoly... none of that good enough?
>
as i partially touched upon, windows' vulnerability is a more complex issue than it is made out to be. one reason is its large user base -- crackers find it a more productive target. another is the plethora of features. a third is just user ignorance or admin laxity.
as my trivial example illustrates, windows still scores higher on UI usability. i believe it also scores higher on available apps. who cares about the MS monopoly? i might, but i dont know if the average user does. some CIOs and IT folks are beginning to realize the downside of being at the mercy of MS, but is their discomfort enough to over-ride the advantages of windows? i see no signs of mass defection, the occasional slashdot hurrah notwithstanding.
and for enterprises, i haven't even got deep into issues such as integration of services.
> For one, the crackers aren't out to hurt linux or macs. They are out
> to get M$. And because M$ is so buggy and full of security holes,
> they are succeeding easily. Did you know that opening a jpeg
> attachment has the potential to do damage to Win2000 and XP machines?
> I didn't believe it, but there it was on microsoft.com, where their
> image viewer can have a buffer overflow that could be abused. So now
> its not even just self-executing files that can be abused, now even
> files that should open in a "safe" application can put your machine
> at risk. If that is the case, any attachment of any file type could
> conceivably be a risk. So one tries to keep up with the dozens of
> critical updates and service packs. But even the updates are buggy
> and can cripple a machine. I was fed up and I was only dealing with
> one ME PC. I can't imagine how admins trying to keep an entire LAN
> of PCs intact can have any sanity left. Though I guess that does
> mean that they do have excellent job security...
similar vulnerabilities exist in linux/unix apps. see for example the GIF heap overflow bug at:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/mfsa2005-30.html
> An GIF processing error when parsing the obsolete
> Netscape extension 2 can lead to an exploitable heap overrun, allowing
> an attacker to run arbitrary code on the user's machine.
here's another one:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/mfsa2005-31.html
> If a user bookmarked a malicious page as a Firefox sidebar panel that
> page could execute arbitrary programs by opening a privileged page
> and injecting javascript into it.
entire list at:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html
hey, lets not forget, one of the earliest, if not the first, network based virus/worm was one that exploited a buffer overrun in sendmail!
so, if linux is less the target of crackers because of MS's popularity (i.e., security through obscurity), aren't you making my point here?
its probably true that bugs/viruses/holes per box is still higher for windows than linux. again, the question remains: is the cost of dealing with this higher than the cost of shifting from windows to linux?
note that despite all these bugs (in windows, in unix/linux, in mozilla, etc) i have been using some mixture of all these environments/apps for the last ~ 15 years, and never suffered a single incident of security breach, virus infection, etc. that's not because i am some security genius, and not even because i may know a bit more about computer and OS internals than the average joe. the precautions i have taken are a very small and simple set. when attempting to educate end users (read: non-techie friends and family) my problem almost always has been to convince them that these things are worth learning and following. people like to treat their computer like any other appliance -- if i can get a small shift in that attitude, it would do a lot more to achieve security than a switch of the OS.
btw, what according to you is the greatest tull album, ever? i maintain its "heavy horses", but almost nobody agrees with me ;-).
--ravi