Windows vs Linux: only dummies will be confused.

You can say that those who have never used Linux are talking nonsense about Linux, But I have used Red Hat Linux and feel that there is a big gap between GNOME and KDE and windows. Basically, the essence of Linux is daemon and server. So far, Linux is still not an optional desktop system for ordinary users (also the largest customer community. So far, Linux's desktop system is still in the same level as Windows 95 (although gnome may be more beautiful ). It is still a command line-based system. If someone does not use commands such as rpm-IVH or tar-zxvf./configuare./install when installing the software, it must have never used Linux in depth. Linux is similar to Windows 95 that is automatically booted when the DOS is started.
You don't have to worry about it. It's too early for Linux to compete with windows on the desktop. Since 1985, Windows began to focus on graphical user interfaces and borrowed some apple designs. Therefore, their achievements in humanization and ease of use were not achieved overnight. Linux 1.0 kernel has not been available for less than ten years, and KDE/gnome has little history. What's more, many experts like the VI/emace Editor, NMAP scanner, GCC compilation tool, and GDB debugging tool ...... Which one is not running on the console? The graphic interface is still an "optional" component in Linux.
In addition, because Linux River, Kde and gnome are completely independent of the three projects, to allow them to fully cooperate, and this "break-in" will slow down their respective development. Although Red Hat/mandrake and other companies are developing user-friendly interfaces, which company's R & D strength can be compared with M $? But without these "release" Linux jobs, how many people will try Linux? I cannot imagine a small civil servant who connects to CVS every day to update the kernel, desktop system, and download patches to complete common tasks such as text processing, listening to music, and playing games ...... It seems crazy. It cannot be said to be permanent, but in a short period of time, Linux is still a technical crazy choice for individual users. Windows is the best choice for common users with the largest number of users, the largest profit, and the widest impact.

PS. It seems that some BSD systems can also use KDE. It's also Unix. How is the difference between KDE and Apple aqua so far? Where is the problem?

In addition.
As mentioned earlier, the essence of Linux is daemon/console. Therefore, Linux's biggest market lies in the server market and embedded market. This also corresponds to the profit Department of M $ mentioned in the article. The profit Department of M $ is the Windows client and office series. Both aspects are the weakest link in Linux. The product of Linux compatible that can compete with office is starsuite, which is cross-platform and belongs to Sun Java rather than Linux.
We can see that all the loss-making departments of M $ have many competitors on the same starting line and even on the leading starting line. Among the profit departments, the Windows Server department is the least profitable. Server/embeded OS is the application of Linux. No one is the omnipotent, and no one is useless. It is a waste of life to discuss whether to scold M $ or Linux in one day. In the past 20 minutes, the real linuxer may have updated n rpm, and Bill Gates may have earned $ nm. We only suffer from losses.

(2002.11.19)

Linux vs windows: the answer lies not in the discussion, but in the competition between real technicians. The future of Linux is not determined by several common users who will "despise" The M $ product. You are not qualified. If you love server, embeded, GPL, and free, you can join Linux. If you love efficient work, comfortable life, convenient use, and easy entertainment, windows is still a good choice.

My speech is here. Regardless of the flowers, please send to: g113@etang.com.