Recently, I came across Redmond Magazine, which is geared towards people who administer Microsoft Windows on a daily basis.  Columnist Doug Barney wrote an editorial regarding Microsoft alternatives in the desktop arena in the March 2006 issue (pp. 4), which I have to take issue with.

Barney compared Macintosh OS X and Red Hat Linux to Windows XP, which I do not feel is a fair comparison.  Red Hat Linux is not, nor was it designed to be, a desktop operating system.  Red Hat's biggest strength is the server market, and because of this, does not require the crutches that a normal desktop environment must provide to help people with all skill levels accomplish their goals.

A much more suitable comparison would have been Ubuntu Linux, which is specifically geared for the end-user experience.  I have been a Windows user for a very long time, and I can honestly say, I have never seen a Linux operating system as easy and fun to use as Ubuntu.  Installation is extremely easy, and the mechanisms provided for installing software from the desktop is top-notch.  I feel that novice computer users could easily use this operating system, as the interface is very intuitive.

It comes prepackaged with OpenOffice2, which is a very capable (and free) Office replacement.  Firefox is installed by default, as is applications for businesses, the arts, and home productivity.

It seems that a big portion of the media only considers Red Hat as a viable Linux operating system, which could not be further from the truth.  I urge you to take a look at Ubuntu (website) and give it a fair review.

[tags]Redmond, Microsoft, Windows, XP, Linux, Red+Hat, Ubuntu, OS+X, Macintosh, operating+system, desktop+environment, OpenOffice[/tags]