Apparently we’re supposed to take a pundits word that Windows 2000 was far less reliable than Windows XP and that Linux is now mature enough for the desktop market. Or maybe not. The article actually seems to double back on itself and tries to throw doubt on Linux’s preparedness to work in the Enterprise market. Because it’s just not enough like Windows Vista… which hasn’t been released yet.
Now. I’d just like to clarify one thing for our author provacature. Much like GNU is not Unix, Linux is Not Windows. LNW just doesn’t make as catchy an acronym. But seriously, it’s not Windows. Doesn’t even try to be.
Don’t get me wrong, Compiz makes a pretty sweet composite OpenGL rendered desktop. But Windows doesn’t have that, and won’t from what I hear. Ditto on the extensability of the sourcecode or your choice of window managers.
And nevermind the kernel. When’s the last time you were able to recompile your windows distribution to optimize it for a lab? Or purchase a pretty package containing one optimized for your AMD64 arch with a nice support package and online updates to thousands of software packages?
So in conclusion Linux is not Windows. Not at all. That’s not to say that there aren’t merit’s to either but to say that one will fail when the other does okay or well is a falatious argument.
