Criticism of Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (March 2008)

Criticism of Linux focuses on issues concerning use of the Linux operating system as a desktop workstation.

1 Viability for use as a desktop system
2 Criticism by Microsoft
3 See also
4 References

[edit] Viability for use as a desktop system

See also: Desktop adoption of Linux

Linux has been criticized in the past for being inadequate for desktop use, notably because of the perceived availability of only questionable alternatives to widely-used applications (especially office suites) and hardware support issues,^[1] which is claimed particularly problematic for laptop users as they tend to use many proprietary devices. A steep learning curve of Linux beyond basic use, various incompatibilities with other operating systems, and difficulty involved with setting up hardware are also notable complaints. Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power users.^[2]^[3]^[4]

More recent Linux distributions have directly addressed these concerns and have greatly improved Linux as a desktop operating system.^[5]

A report in The Economist in December 2007 concluded:

"Linux has swiftly become popular in small businesses and the home. That’s largely the doing of Gutsy Gibbon, the code-name for the Ubuntu 7.10 from Canonical. Along with distributions such as Linspire, Mint, Xandros, OpenSUSE and gOS, Ubuntu (and its siblings Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu) has smoothed most of Linux’s geeky edges while polishing it for the desktop. No question, Gutsy Gibbon is the sleekest, best integrated and most user-friendly Linux distribution yet. It’s now simpler to set up and configure than Windows."^[5]

[edit] Criticism by Microsoft

Microsoft has taken part in extensive criticism of Linux through their Get the Facts campaign.^[6] In particular, they claim that the vulnerabilities of Windows are fewer in number than those of Linux distributions,^[7] that Windows is more reliable and secure than Linux,^[8]^[9] that the total cost of ownership of Linux is higher (due to complexity, acquisition costs, and support costs),^[10] that use of Linux places a burden of liability on businesses, and that “Linux vendors provide little, if any indemnification coverage.”^[11] In addition, the corporation published various studies in an attempt to prove this — the factuality of which has been heavily disputed,^[12]^[13] by different authors who claim that Microsoft’s comparisons are flawed.