[doktrin]

I did state that Linux was appropriate for enthusiasts as well as those with minimal needs.

The reason I feel Linux to be appropriate for novices with bare-minimal needs, is that when operating within very narrow constraints the most popular Linux distros are both efficient and safe. For basic functionality, the price can't be beat.

However, hassles really do begin to manifest themselves once users begin to really engage their PC in any number of ways. The vast majority of PC users fall into this category. In other words, they have non-minimal needs but are neither enthusiasts nor developers or otherwise employed in IT full time.

WiFi, external displays, software limitations (e.g. video editing) are only a small number of issues that can and will manifest themselves. For the vast majority of PC users, this constitutes an unacceptable hassle.

Enthusiasts, on the other hand, know what they need and how to fix the above if necessary. I personally think OSX is a superior choice. I value productivity, and don't consider (for instance) mucking around in xorgs to be a good use of my time. However, I respect and understand those who choose *Nix over OSX.

edit : Can one of those who felt this was worthy of downvotes explain what they felt was factually inaccurate?

[MatthewPhillips]

I didn't downvote but I generally dislike these types of comments:

> The vast majority of PC users fall into this category.

This comes up all the time on HN. "The vast majority of users think X", "the vast majority of users live in Outlook", "the vast majority of users only need an iPad", etc. etc. The reality is that you have no idea what the vast "majority of users" want or need, you are projecting your own biases and micro-observations onto the world.

Actually I think we need to get over the idea that there is some 80+% of users who all need/want the exact same thing. Seems to me that there are probably a lot more categories out there than the black/white you're either a total novice or a power user world that is constantly constructed here.

[kaolinite]

FYI, I upvoted even though I disagree with much of what you've put.

A number of these issues that you mention are only present with a lack of planning. If you go out and buy a computer with the intention of running Linux on it, you plan and you pick a computer with good compatibility. With each release of popular distros such as Ubuntu, compatibility improves massively. My Dad's laptop used to have issues with WiFi a few years back, now it connects fine (faster than Windows too) in Ubuntu 10.10.

External displays? I've never had an issue with this and I'm actually typing this on a dual-monitor Linux setup. If you have an Nvidia graphics card then this should be fine. Again though, if you plan this isn't an issue.

Software limitations, granted. Just like for OS X, there are professional wine layers which offer Windows software on Linux. But sure, that's not perfect. There is quite a bit of good quality software (plus, obviously, web applications work fine) and especially for development work. But this is definitely an area that needs improving.

Personally I'm waiting on Canonical to release their own computer (or partner up with a hardware provider) for then there will be no issues with hardware compatibility or many of the problems you mention, for that is the reason they exist: attempting to run Linux on a device that was not designed specifically for it.

Just my $0.02 anyway.

[ekianjo]

I'd add that when you install a Linux distro (at least a good one like Ubuntu, OpenSuse, CentOS), you end up with a working environement with all your hardware recognized at once (except ATI issues). You just can't do the same with Windows. You have to download every part's driver and install them one by one before you got something working. Linux distros have come a long way and now they are simply amazingly easy to setup.

[pm90]

attempting to run Linux on a device that was not designed specifically for it.

Couldn't have put it better. Those who complain about how linux doesn't "just work" often overlook this point.

Personally though, I don't think Canonical coming up with their own computer isn't really going to help; I wish that there were a hardware vendor that designed really beautiful computers so that I could run linux on it (Currently, the best design is by Apple)

[Xylakant]

I think you'r missing out on another large group of users: Those in a large organization that need a defined set of features, often provided by a custom application under control of the given organization. Those users have well-defined requirements and do have an IT department backing them. Pretty much all of the administration falls into that category: They're not supposed to go wandering off changing config settings or downloading and installing software. They have a handfull of programs that they need, nowadays often server-based, and if those programs can be made to run on linux, they couldn't care less about the underlying OS.

[DanBC]

You got downvoted because you included some traditional anti-Linux troll subjects with nothing to support those points.

> However, hassles really do begin to manifest themselves once users begin to really engage their PC in any number of ways. The vast majority of PC users fall into this category. In other words, they have non-minimal needs but are neither enthusiasts nor developers or otherwise employed in IT full time.

The vast majority of PC users do not fall into your category. They will be people who need to read email, do a little bit of simple web-browsing, create and open simple office documents (the vast majority of which would be fine with Libre-Office) and maybe run some awful accounts / stock / ordering software.

> WiFi, external displays, software limitations (e.g. video editing) are only a small number of issues that can and will manifest themselves. For the vast majority of PC users, this constitutes an unacceptable hassle.

WIFI is fixed in Linux and has been for a while, you don't want to run wifi in a business, and if you are using it anyway you'd have it set up by IT.

I'm not sure what you mean by external displays. If you mean dual monitors than very few people need two monitors, and those that do would have them set up by IT, and they'd work with whatever software being used. If you mean projectors then I have no idea what the Linux situation is. I accept it might be a problem, but that's a problem faced by a very small number of people.

A tiny number of people need to edit video. In the context of a local authority we can say that almost no one will be editing video.

OS X, in the context of local governments trying to save money, is - and I say this as politely as I can - a stupid suggestion. The hardware is much more expensive, is a lot more desirable to thieves, it has similar (or worse) dual monitor problems as you suggest above, it has similar (or worse) lack of software as you suggest above.

[doktrin]

>> You got downvoted because you included some traditional anti-Linux troll subjects with nothing to support those points.

I only mentioned the items I have personally had issues with. If these are in fact "troll subjects", there's probably a good reason for it.

>> OS X, in the context of local governments trying to save money, is - and I say this as politely as I can - a stupid suggestion. The hardware is much more expensive, is a lot more desirable to thieves, it has similar (or worse) dual monitor problems as you suggest above, it has similar (or worse) lack of software as you suggest above.

Maybe you're upset because you are purposely mis-reading what I wrote. My choice of OSX over Linux specifically referred to enthusiasts, and had absolutely nothing to do with the Munich local government.