Slashdot Mirror
A Linux User Goes Back
An anonymous reader says "A friend of mine recently switched to using Windows XP after three and a half years of Linux. I thought the community might benefit from reading his story. Even as a dedicated Linux user, I agree with many of his points. 'Unix on the desktop" has come along way in recent years, yet could still stand much improvement. It is no longer an issue of having a fancy GUI (KDE can't get much better), but rather the real problems lie in the foundation.' Some of his points are wrong, but it's a reasonable article.
Ha!
that should keep you guys posting for days!
Some of his points are wrong, but it's a reasonable article.
/. has posted this article. I'm impressed by the maturity of the staff to do so.
Isn't the first step denial??
I'm joking, I'm joking.
Actually, I'm surprised
Now everyone else be mature and comment instead of flame, k?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If this guy switched from Linux to Windows XP what hope is there for me switching from XP to Red Hat like I have been trying to do? So far I have had problems with getting sound and printing to work on Linux and I havent' even tried to get my scanner or CDRW drive to work. The Linux communities' intentions are certainly in the right place but why does *nix have to be such a pain in the ass for workstation use.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I had to laugh at this...
Stupid users don't doggedly stick at something for three and a half years, trying distribution after distribution in the hope of finding the holy grail of Linux desktops.
Hmmmm.... I don't know about that...
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Tell your friend that if you want to switch, you're supposed to go here:
http://www.apple.com/switch/
not here:
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/
Friends don't let friends use XP.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I'm a bit surprised he didn't go to Win2K. WinXP has some cool features, but unless the latest service pack really changed things, it feels very unpolished (read: Rushed to compete with OS X).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
After reading through some of his points, I have to say I agree.
Unix on the desktop has been a complete disaster. I mean, they tried hard, but compared to the intellect and programming/designing skills at Microsoft, they didn't have a chance.
Remember, Microsoft puts money into actively researching this stuff. Guys who tap away at in their basements on an evening just can't compete.
james
This user's wish:
I wanted something simple. I was getting tired of the 'stable' Debian release being so out of date, and the 'unstable' distribution being so... well... unstable. I got tired of having to recompile my kernel every time I got new hardware. I got tired of using command line to talk to my PC. It was time for a change.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy, again, becomes frustrated with his OS because it sounds like he is looking for something that just works, is refined, and has new technology (wanted to use latest unstable Deb, didn't he?). Well, Win XP scores maybe 1/3 of that criteria. However, a Mac seems to fulfill 3/3 IMO. Sounds like a Mac / OSX user.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Linux was all you tried? You didn't try Mac OS X?
I agree with you on Linux not being ready for the desktop, but I would have tried other things before going back to M$...
Snooze and you lose your sushi.
Linux may never become Windows replacement at all. The beauty of Linux is mostly because geeks can use it, change it anyway they want. Not that it is easy to use, but it is mostly possible to modify.
His complaints mirror some of those from people I know who have migrated from Linux to Mac OS X. To me, that's a better play than a return to Perdition.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Though I will continue to use Linux and BSD because I want to avoid becoming dependent or supporting M$, it is certainly true that I have spent more hours getting *nix systems up than I care to admit. (of which drivers is a major fraction)
Of course, there is an inherent beauty/comfort knowing that once I've gone through hell and back setting it up that I won't have to worry about it again for a long time (as opposed to Windows)
Imagine a marketroid given a linux box with email, a browser, and OpenOffice. He's going to absolutely hate it because of the fonts. I am a hard-core techie and I have a hard time looking at OpenOffice. But give the marketroid the same box with great-looking fonts and his tolerance for linux will go way up.
Fix the @#$%ing fonts!
kNIGits says: "Mr Joe Average is someone who wants to install their OS, boot it up, and it works. He wants to be able to upgrade his PC , and have the hardware work in a few short minutes. He wants to read email, browse the web, talk to his mates online, and play some games."
How is this different than a business user or someone who works in desktop support (aside from the games part)? It isn't. Until this scenario can be neatly met by Linux, it will forever be a server OS.
If anyone out there is support an installation of over 1000 linux desktops I would like to know their experiences.
The greatest point he makes is that, although there are plenty of gurus willing to help newbies with simple questions, there are even more elitests that will either flame your question or give you a "RTFM!"
I say, if you are friendly and willing to help newbies, answer their questions. If you want to flame, or send a RTFM, stay silent. If they don't get an answer, they'll eventually look their, anyway.
Elitests are the biggest weakness of Linux.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
LiNuX is teh r0X0rZ! M$ suX0rZ!
One point the person in the article seems to miss is that he clearly was into chasing the latest distributions whenever they came out, as he seemed to have jumped up the Mandrake/Redhat/Debian releases when they came out, and he even seemed to run the unstable releases too. In the Windows world you don't get to do this much at all (except for installing the security fixes and extra clipart upgrades). It sounds like that a good deal of his problems would go away if he stayed with a distribution when it stopped giving him problems just like if he sticks to WinXP for the next few years.
Golly, it looks as though there's trouble once again in Gotham! Someone appears to have assembled a variation on the tried-and-true Lunix troll and gotten it posted to the front page of Slashdot!
He remembers to point out that X is slow, that Windows problems can be fixed with "a point and a click," and even throws in some prime bait about driver support and stability in Windows XP.
What should we do, Batman?
here's a little bsd based os that i ran across the other day -- seems pretty stable: Puma / Jaguar
go get it
"...I haven't completely abandoned the Linux community. My home server still runs Mandrake, and IPCop on my gateway/firewall. There is no way I'd ever put any form of Windows on my server, nor would I ever connect a Windows PC directly to the internet without a *NIX gateway in between. Microsoft has a history of poor security, so I protect myself the only way I know how; using Linux. I will continue to advocate the use of GNU/Linux in the server arena. This is where its strength lies at the moment."
I am the only IT at my company, and all of our workstations run XP. Why is this? Because,
1. The software we need runs well on them.
2. Our users (not extremely computer literate) have problems, at times, doing things in Windows. How could I ever expect them to run Linux?
I run various flavors of boxen, but only on our servers or at home. I do not believe that Linux can hang with the ease of use of Windows.
Sure, Linux might be a better all around OS, but if it adds training time and cost to our infrastructure, it comes out to be much less useful than letting our employees run Windows with almost no training.
I use Linux (and various kinds of Unix) for the interface. I detest the mouse. Clicking all over the place is much too slow for my tastes. Clicking alternated with typing is even worse.
Tab completion is one of my favorite interface inventions ever.
Just my opinion.
Well I think M$ has found a spokesman for their booth at LinuxWorld. Now if this guy was a hot chick this would be perfect...
Some of his points are wrong, but it's a reasonable article.
Is this what /. commentors talk about when they mention the editorial staffs' maturity and ability to objectively report the news (wrt. Blizzard v Bnetd, etc.)??
If he wanted a killer unix on the desktop, he should have bought a new Mac instead of that MS crap. Right and left, people are switching to macs from Windows, linux, and ??... Or so Apple would have us believe.
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
why didn't he just use BeOS. His main concerns seem to be ease of use, attractive interfaces, stability and cost. Be got good marks in all those areas. If he had really done his homework about OS's, he should have come across BeOS.
my pet machine
Linux on the desktop still needs some serious work before it can become mainstream.
:-)
Linux on a server, that's a different story.
My standard response to anyone who complains about computers, even Macs
*YAWN* .. go buy a Mac.
Wow, talk about bias! jhc...
The article makes good points, all of which are pretty common knowledge. All of the points, with the exception of replacing X though are pretty easily done.
Here's the thing though: nobody's doing them. Could someone write a package manager that hid all of the "critical" packages? Sure. Could someone write something to autodetect hardware, recompile or add a module for hardware? Yeah.
People that write for Linux don't though, because they don't want it. People don't need it. Linux isn't an OS for your mom or your gandmother. It's an OS for elitist nerdy shmucks who code a little and want to dabble with their OS.
Truly interesting*.
*-not truly interesting
by the way your lameness filter is retarded.
You know, I had the same problems with Linux on the desktop - I like it as a server, but many desktop pieces are just a pain in the ass to do. (Change screen resolutions, get some games running, etc).
I went to OS X because I wanted the power of Unix - but I didn't want the hassle - I wanted to be able to enter rm por[TAB] and ln -s and all the stuff I'm used to - but if I want to pop in Warcraft III, I want it to run, not try and figure out why Mesa3D isn't configured right for my video card.
But that's me. Like I said, I still like Linux on the server side, but it just drove me crazy on the desktop.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
for all you people saying "how about max os X".
i would love to switch, oh wait, they dont have it for x86. too bad. im not about to buy a mac to run their OS.
i see no purpose in buying a mac. why pay more for a mac when i can build a computer myself for FAR less than a mac and quite a bit less than a Dell or other pc mfg
anyone know what the hell the internet has to do with iDVD. or any of their other stupid names.
Some of his points aren't wrong, they are just different from yours.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
X-Windows is an idea that sucked over a decade ago, and it hasn't improved much since. The whole concept, dumb graphics terminals tied to application servers, is obsolete. The problem is that it's marginally good enough that it hasn't been replaced on Linux by a better windowing architecture. More than anything else, X is the boat-anchor of Linux.
"Flames will be automatically sent to the Windows equivalent of /dev/null, once I find where that actually is."
/dev/null /d TAB n TAB
Linux:
mv big_meanie_spammer
OR
mv bi TAB
Windows EZ:
Locate mouse pointer
Find big_meanie_spammer
Drag it to Recycle Bin
Click "Yes I am absolutely sure I want to delete this file"
Empty Recycle Bin
Reboot
I will concede that Macs have their good points, but how is using a Mac ethically equivalent to using Linux? If you're using Linux, you're either doing it because it does something better than the rest or you're using it because you believe in the ideals of Open Source software.
Why do people use Macs? Because they like them. Why do people use Windows? Because they like it or don't care enough to look elsewhere. Using a Mac is no better than using Windows from an ethical standpoint because they're both offered by companies that would/have monopolize/d the market given the chance.
Aside from that, you disregard the fact that the author did not (to our knowledge) have a Mac around that could run OS X. Why should he go buy all new hardware just to run OS X? Does that make any sense?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I simply don't get it. I bought the best hardware I could get and haven't had any of the problems I read about. Running RedHat 7.2 and looking at upgrading to 7.3 soon. I'm running an Intel P4 1.6 Ghz system with an Asus P4B266 board and 512 megs of ram. Sound works good. Had one "little" problem with my GeForce 4 card (downloaded drivers from their site.. fixed in 5 minutes).
:-)
Other than my G4 problems it just... works
Amazing how the Slashdot zealots rip people for the smallest things. This guy had ALOT of good points in his "story" and you guys are ripping him for it? I agree with him almost 100% when it comes to Linux on the desktop and at the server level.
Linux at the server level is at the top of it's game in my opinion. Linux at the desktop and end user level needs alot of work. It isn't friendly to the convert or new user, and it is generally targeted to the people that have above average computer knowledge.
As he explained, average Joe User is not going to accept his normal web site viewing to look like it does when you first start Netscape/Konqueror/Mozilla. It does look like garbage and needs work. What amazes me is that there are 100,000 mp3 programs that are being made, but yet nobody has the time nor desire apparently to work on the most trivial things...making it look "pretty".
It's the basis for all human interaction. If you go buy a car and it looks like it's been run over 40 times, you aren't going to buy it. And you certainly aren't going to look under te hood and realise that it manages fuel well. Same with a woman(or man if that's your taste), we all know that you wouldn't give a but ass ugly girl the time of day, but if she looks good you are dying to talk to her.
My point to all of this is that if Linux looked better out of the box, it would have a wider appeal and more people would give it a chance for a longer time.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
You seemed to almost feel guilty, but really, it's not a problem!
You'll be back in 2005, when the privilege of running Windows will cost you $30 a month per CPU
Personally, I've never liked any of the X-based desktops. I've always used the command line exclusively with Linux and Unix. The flexibility of the command line with standard Unix stuff like bash, less, sed, awk and perl is something I don't ever see Windows catching up to. I've never seen a scripting language more adept than Perl, a web server more capable than Apache, or a scheduler that makes more sense than cron. Servers are where Linux and Unix make sense.
Conversely on my desktop, when I want to use a graphical IDE to debug programs, or create graphics, or play games, nothing beats a Windows desktop for me. The clincher is that things work the same across most programs - simple things like copy and paste, or Ctrl-F to search. I'm almost always working with 10 or more programs open at once(including a couple of SSH sessions) and I need an environment that doesn't slow me down.
In fact, I really don't know any Linux or BSD users who never rely on a good closed-source OS for at least some things. The most rabid Microsoft hater I know still keeps a Windows partition for games. Lets face it, the only people who use Linux and nothing else do it for ideological reasons. Most of us just want stuff to work right and pick the best tool for the job at hand.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I have no formal IT/CS training. I'm not much of a programmer, at all. I've been using icewm on Debian with a Japanese environment for about a year now. The latest OpenOffice1.0.0 Japanese distro is here too, so I am serviceable to my M$ using contemporaries. I don't need any fancy desktop, I just use the krxvt terminal and man pages (with less as the pager). Once you've editted on .config file, you can do them all, in just a couple of secs.
But the best thing is that I have paid no money for any of this, and none of it is warezed. It really only took me 6 months to get fully comfortable, and I think slowly the people at work are starting to take me seriously when I say, I don't use Windows and I don't want to.
But I agree with most of the stuff this guy said; but I think that if you read the start of his article, it's clear that he never really had a strong feeling for the philosophy of GNU/Linux, which is something I believe in quite strongly. It is true, Linux still requires either prior know-how (ie, you have always been a computer person), or a strong belief that you really don't want to use M$ or any other proprietary money sucking, spying etc. corporate-ware.
I have no sig
>> Linux was all you tried? You didn't try Mac OS X [apple.com]?
Considering he's talking about his K6-2 233 it seems he doesnt have the cash to drop $1,000+ dollars on OVERPRICED Mac hardware just to try an OS. Last I checked Apple doesnt have a try before you buy program. I've been looking at buying one myself so to diverge from MS completly however to get a decent desktop I have to drop $1400-$1600 bucks. Dropping the G4 cube [and concept] was the worst thing they could have done. Before someone says "buy it used" consider the issues surrounding that particular product. When Apple can put out a G4 box (those Amiga clone boards are unacceptable) for under $1000 wo monitor, I'll switch.
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
I went through the Linux desktop thing a couple years ago, and switched back to Windows 2000 as my primary desktop after some time. While I know the Linux desktop has improved (and I have dabbled in trying Linux as a desktop since then for a month or so), I still thought 2000 and eventually XP was just a better platform with Linux on another box or in a VMware window....
;).
I recently had grown tired of XP, and Linux still wasn't cutting it, so I bought a PowerMAC G4 and love it. OSX offers the best of both worlds. While it still does not have all the programs XP does, it still has more than Linux. On top of that, all the hardware I was running on XP run under OSX, I can easily and seemlessly run X applications using XFree's rootless X server, and ALSO there is a VMware like program called VirtualPC which allows me to run x86 OS's in VM windows (right now, running XP, OpenBSD and Linux in the VM's).
Also, since the mac processors are just a tad better, I get better performance and my machine never bogs down. (Yes, look for me doing those Mac "switch" commercials in the near future!
I just think this is the best of both worlds.
Windows XP has "lightning fast" graphics now???
It's the slowest windows ever for crying out loud.
If he wanted a more responsive desktop he should have replaced KDE not X.
.sig? Get your own damn
From a development perspective I prefer the unix way of doing things...
From a non-development perspective I prefer the Windows environment... although I'm looking to eventually move to Mac OS X
Excluding OS X... all the Unix/Linux GUI applications and environment for a non-development person... IMO... SUCK... CDE... Motif... KDE... GNOME... these Unix/Linux GUIs are way way behind both Microsoft and Apple
Kramer
www.qbal.com
All of Linux/*BSD is built with GCC (g++ for KDE).
This is a good thing for the most part as GCC is a powerful and free compiler, but where GCC sucks bigtime is its forever breaking C++ ABI. This is why you will forever have to download platform (and version) specific binary releases or build the stuff from source code for Linux forever.
A shared lib built from GCC 2.95.2 cannot work with a shared lib from GCC 3.0.x or 3.1.1 or the upcoming 3.2 release. It's a mess. At least Sun and Microsoft _try_ very hard to make this stuff backwards compatible.
How can you get around all this nonsense?
Use a distribution like Gentoo Linux which forces you to always build from source. But that takes hours/days to install all your applications. And it is far from trivial.
Too bad UNIX/C++ does not have more a more sophisticated runtime binding method for its shared libraries. The UNIX/C++ library scheme is just a hack to work with the C shared library loader. It should be completely overhauled and rewritten to feature Java-like late method and variable binding.
But I'm just dreaming - it will never happen.
Perhaps it isn't that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, but rather people aren't ready for linux. I like Linux for the reasons that thus guy doesn't! I like compiling my own programs and I like editing my /etc/lilo.conf and my /etc/fstab. I like compiling my own kernel. It gives me a feeling of intimacy with the Operating System because I know exactly what is going on.
As for his X server gripes, I don't have any of his problems. My fonts out of Redhat and Mandrake are fine, I've got 3-D on my Radeon out of the box and I can play Tux Racer, my 2-d is as fast as on my windows boxes.
He says he hates recompiling his kernel every time he gets new hardware. What is wrong with the default distro kernel? They're usually full of everything conceivable, and you can even switch motherboards and usually have it boot flawlessly. Do that with Windows and you'll be fighting with drivers and IRQ conflicts as Windows tries to initialize the non-existant hardware before your new stuff. In my experience, recompiling the kernel/running kudzu is MUCH faster than messing with drivers. I switched all the hardware on one of my dual boot boxes, and Redhat was working in about 5 minutes with no reboots. Windows98 took about 2 hours before I just formatted and reinstalled.
Unlike this guy, I'm never going back. Ever.
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
All of the power of a *NIX system (with the underlying tools if you so desire) with the best UI around. Truly beautiful fonts (with Quartz), hardware is all plug and play (I've never had five minutes problems setting up any piece of hardware on a Mac), the software he wants/needs, and lots of support (www.macslash.org, www.macosxhints.com, www.macfixit.com, www.apple.com).
Mac OS X this, Mac OS X that.
maybe he wants to use Windows XP because of his x86 hardware? did anyone think of this? does anyone want to bother spending money for a Mac?
switching from Linux to Mac is more expensive than just fdisk'ing your HD and installing Windows XP.
you don't "switch" to a mac. you buy expensive new hardware and then you junk your old computer. Why go throught that step?
on a side note. Windows 2000 would probably be a better choice
He has a few points, sure. A lot of them he obviously didn't try hard enough, despite what he says. Fonts for example, I have beautiful anti-aliased fonts under X, using KDE3/QT3. I've even managed to get some GTK Applications with good fonts using gdkxft. And when there is an application I can't get AA fonts with, I set the fonts to a well drawn font. No problems there. .. However, the one point he does drive home is games. If you are a home user who wants to play lots of PC games, then there is only one real choice, Windows. Sure you can play games on Linux, even good ones like Quake 3, and various WineX emulated ones like Halflife and StarCraft. But to play the variety of games available, without problems, and without having to post to mailling lists on why such and such doesn't work correctly in WineX, then Windows it is.
/X). The only times I use Windows now are at work, or my laptop, and I get just about everything I need done without a lot of hassle. All in all, the article only reiterates what we already known. Linux has come a long way, and still has a long way to go. However, some of this can hardly be blamed on Linux. It's not Linux's fault that popular games aren't written and distributed for it. It's not Linux's fault that hardware is designed for Windows only with propertitary protocols that are closed source and protected by IP laws. Linux is doing the best it can.
I still use Linux as my desktop of choice, and I have been for over 5 years. Before that I had OS/2, and before that DOS with Desqview (not
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
"...flames sent to windows equivalent of /dev/null ...once I find out where exactly that is..."
Here you go: http://www.microsoft.com
I really really want to use Linux on the desktop, really. Since I don't have a spare machine to put it on I try it out on my main machine once a year. After a week or so I get frustrated and go back to Windows for another year. That reminds me, it has been a year since I last tried it. Here we go again!
Linux is great for work because I can get my job done. Sometimes I need to edit 4 or 5 files at once and refresh a web page to see changes, etc...
but at home I don't do that. I come home, play and mp3, watch a divx movie, etc...and I do that on XP. Why? Because there isn't any filesharing app that runs on Linux that has as much content as Kazaa. Where else can I find every MP3 I am loking for as well as hundred of movies. Then if I want to listen to an mp3 or watch a divx, its much easier for me to install winamp or the latest divx codec. I just double click and go. With linux I'd have to download it, install the rpm or compile the source, setup the kde file manager to open that filetype with that application, download and compile xine, get the divx codec for linux (which usually lags behind), etc...
And another big point, alot of the movies are slightly over 700M so I have to recompress them to a hair under 700M so I can burn them to cd. I haven't found a linux divx reconder that is as good as virtualdub.
To put it simply, Windows has better media apps, filesharing utils, video encoders, and codec releases then Linux.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
But it wasn't Windows that was at fault. The motherboards that the K5 CPU's ran on were junk. The VIA and SiS chipsets were horrible. I used to reinstall my Win98 box on a K6-350 monthly. Never had any problems like that on intel CPU's. VIA actually made you install drivers for the chipset.
I like the current AMD CPU's, and have stock in AMD. But anything concerning K6 and earlier was a joke.
This user would like everything to be point and click with out a CLI. Well we know of all the security issues of that alone. Besides how offten was he adding new hardware that required a kernel compile? Hell i installed RH 7.3 when it first came out and never had to recompile, reboot, or anything. The distro's these day do make internet connection easy, and even though I don't like it MDK is the best at helping the average joe/unexperienced person out. I think this person just wants all the glitter with no work, which is fine. At least we don't have a bunch of these people crying to the distro threatning not spend anymore money.
The windows equivalent of /dev/null is where you send your money. (And a very efficient device indeed) ;-)
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Generic PC -- spend a few hundred dollars and you can try Mandrake, RedHat, SUSE, Windows XP, Windows 2000...
Macintosh -- spend over a grand and you can try os x. Tough luck if you don't like it.
And you are able to provide a response with some reasoned rhetoric to his points?
He did stay with Linux for years, after all. He may have a valid point or two. Rather than mocking him for writing this rather well-spoken article, maybe you could offer some counterpoints?
Illegitimi non carborundum
fonts for fsck's are simple
........ /etc/fstab and add the following text .....
find a nice postscript font and stick with it
you proberly thinking about websites that are stupid
X is slow : its not you have not changed the defaults that are made to work with all possible and not speed
people cant use and editor : the stupid rant about people who cant follow instructions about editing a file
try giveing intructions on what you have to do to change config in windows e.g. right click on network neibourhood properties
compared to open the text file
this is so off base its amazing
then he goes and uses mozilla but fails to protect his machine with any sort of firewall when he connects with Microsoft Windows XP
fool's
regards
john jones
"on the desktop" has come along way in recent years, yet could still stand much improvement."
Amusing. Every time I say this I get modded down.
"Derp de derp."
He's got some good points. I'm a linux user (Gentoo) and I can do everything in Linux (minus a few windoze only apps), but the average user (my mom) can't even use windows right. For her to go to the command line is impossible.
The choice has ALWAYS been between -
all hardware more or less working under Windows
VS.
some hardware working like a dream under Linux.
Saying GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop based on you setting it up misses the point slightly... you found it difficult to set it up for your desktop, and as someone has already said, had you stuck to one distro, you *might* have got a nice desktop working. But what if someone came along and set it all up nicely for you? What if they got the fonts working, installed KDE with KOffice so you don't have to worry about Open/StarOffice's silly font system, got all the drivers sorted, put some nice little games on, put almost all of the software you needed on, and then gave it to you?
A friend of mine recently set-up a box for my parents, who have used Windows for the past few years, and freaked when IE crashed on them... the only thing they whined about was the Internet not working, but that's a bug we can fix. Other than that, because it was set-up, they were content, and it didn't crash, and the GIMP was faster than Photoshop.
If a company were to sell vanilla boxes all with the same hardware, one install and ghosting would solve all your problems except for X being sluggish.
My point is that your conclusions are generalised and oversimplistic. Yes, give a CD to a friend and they'll kill you for the stress you give them. But find someone who is able to set-up the box nicely for them, and they're not likely to be *that* miffed. There's still work, but its not like GNU/Linux is a no-go, oh well let's look at Windows and MacOSX... it's just an option. Nobody except the immature slashdotters pretend it matters if certain people prefer one OS to another, just so long as people in the end have the *choice* to go with a more free OS.
From the article:
When (not if) I go back to Linux, I'll definitely try SuSE again.
So on the long-term, we're still doing something good very well. We don't need or even want a 100% userbase at the moment.
My home server still runs Mandrake, and IPCop on my gateway/firewall. There is no way I'd ever put any form of Windows on my server, nor would I ever connect a Windows PC directly to the internet without a *NIX gateway in between. Microsoft has a history of poor security, so I protect myself the only way I know how; using Linux. I will continue to advocate the use of GNU/Linux in the server arena. This is where its strength lies at the moment.
Tony, when you're back in a couple of years or even a decade, remind me to buy you a beer.
My wife and I use Mozilla for web browsing and email, OpenOffice.org for word processing, and Psi (Jabber client) for instant messaging. All of these are true multi-user win32 programs, and are perfectly interoperable with their Linux counterparts.
And all of these are free software, so when KDE 5.0 and SuSE 12.0 are out, you can use those applications without any of the problems a lot of developers are now working on.
3?!?! Insightfule?!?!
He didn't say anything.
You got a nice ass, and are super smart. That ought to get me a +5.
There are good points here that every Linux Newbie should read. I agree with most of them. I think that what wasn't said was that for most Linux Users it is an upgrade for people that want the "Fine-grained control" over the simplicity.
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
- Yes, Officer, this is an original borrowed CD. It is a copy? Oh, yeah, I was afraid the original got scratched. Pirate? Who? Me? What do you mean, pirate?
*clunk*
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
We are finally getting to the point where the software is good enough, it's now just the packaging that is driving people away.
Some of his points that do not hold up well are the source issues. Most modern programs use configure, it does not get much easier than configure, make, make install unless omething goes wrong.
Games. Transgaming works so well I have heard of people using linux for games and windows for everything else.
Sounds like he just needs a better distro. Debian ( nothing personal ) is not easy to get working well. Mandrake 8.x series is just too bloated and useless. Gentoo has been a breath of fresh air, but it's not for the source code phobic. Mabye he would be better off with licorish or whatever they are calling it.
Cheers.
Jeez, some of you obviously didn't read the whole thing before you started commenting. He mentions both OS X and BeOS in his little rant. I can give some good reasons for not using either one, too.
OS X: You need new, overpriced, crappy hardware.
BeOS: Be Inc. is dead. It's got nowhere to go. I don't have enough faith in the BeOS community's attempts to keep it alive.
Hmmm...
Overall I agree with every single statement he said. Somehow, however, whenever I have tried to bring these points up in the past I am called an idiot or a troll. I am VERY glad to see the Linux community growing up a little bit and actually listening to arguments such as these. While I would definately consider myself to be a Linux n00b, the main reasons my attempts at migrating to Linux have failed are:
a) Driver installation is a pain
b) Application installation is a pain (compared to Windows)
c) When I looked for honest help my problem got shoved back in my face x5 because then I was just pissed off.
So now I've been using XP for a good few months. I like it. I know it's not secure, but I don't use Outlook or Media Player or any of that stuff so I'm not too worried about. I knew I'd be hooked on XP when I opened up my MP3 folder for the first time and it arranged them all by artist (in groups) and added some spiffy info from the ID3 tags. I just looked at my screen and said, "Wow." Plus it gives me nice thumbnails of all of my pr0n. =)
When I run Linux I look at my screen and say, "Shit. My sound isn't working."
I want to thank CmdrTaco for paying attention to this and getting these issues brought onto the front page.
-Yoweigh
(forgot my password and I'm at work)
He worries about kernel recompiles for new hardware. Yet Windows more often than not still wants a reboot for a driver install... and if he gets new hardware that often, won't he have some screamer than can build a new kernel in a few minutes?
He says X is big, bloated, and unstable. Yet X is nothing of the sort. It might have been bloated for computers designed in the mid 80's... but computers have grown alot since then. And X crashes very very rarely. An app has to misbehave gruesomely, for this to happen. What he really means, is that he has no clue about the distinction between X and his beloved KDE. And not to be too nasty to KDE, it's not the leanest code out there. Try windowmaker, the damn thing hangs X every once in awhile (read 4 times in 9 months) but I ssh back in, kill X and restart. Still more graceful than when a Windows GUI dies.
He even claims to be worried about DRM. Strangely, he gets over this really quick... to the point that he installs XP instead of a somewhat friendlier win2k. He's playing right into Micro$oft's hands... I'll laugh when he bitches about palladium 3 years from now.
But the most damning of all, he complains about problem's linux has with hardware and software compatibility, never realizing that he is as much to blame as anyone. Sure 3D is faster, nvidia and ati are beholden to M$. They will be, until the average moron quits giving that power to M$. Which is another way of saying "never".
Some people are gluttons for punishment. Just make sure you don't get cracked by standing too close when they beg for the whip.
I recently got sick of Windows 9x. But unlike the author, I didn't switch to Linux. While I am a geek, and I keep Linux running on a few boxes, I agree with the author in that it's just not a desktop OS for me right now. I agree COMPLETELY with his gripes about X. So I switched to an OS with stability and games. Windows 2000. I haven't had any problems with playing games on it, and it's very solid. It's no linux, but then I don't like having to wait 6/12/28/infinity months for a game to come on on Linux. I have avoid XP because I don't need it and because of the DRM spyware type stuff. Just my opinion.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I was getting tired of the 'stable' Debian release being so out of date, and the 'unstable' distribution being so... well... unstable
Ever heard of testing?My experience with X is that it's too big, bloated, slow and unstable to be any good to the home user
how many people have had a proper X crash? I can't say I've seen one on any unix machine I've used apart from a crappy suse box, which brings me on to my next point -that SuSE Linux 8.0 (Pro) is the best Linux distribution that I've ever used.
excuse me? SuSE is horrible - 7.3 was unstable, hard to configure and overly bloated, and from what I have read 8.0 is worse.and there is no standard way to add additional (nicer) fonts to the system.
apt-get install msttffonts i believe"Mr Joe Average is someone who wants to install their OS, boot it up, and it works. He wants to be able to upgrade his PC , and have the hardware work in a few short minutes. He wants to read email, browse the web, talk to his mates online, and play some games."
That's EXACTLY right.
The biggest problem with Linux on the desktop is that there isn't a standard desktop. Which ironically is also it's best feature.
If you want linux to actually compete on the desktop, you need to have one desktop to represent the linux desktop. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the freedom to tweak it to your heart's content. But the starting place for everyone should be the same. To convert an average user (ie. a user that doesn't give two cents about programming, but just wants to use the computer), you need to keep the learning curve as flat as possible. It's unfortunate that every distribution seems to have it's own way of doing things. Which means from linux box to linux box the computer will be completely alien to the inexperienced user.
Again, for an experienced user, this is a feature!
But to the average user this is just pure annoyance. They don't care what is happening underneath the desktop. They want to use their computer the way they use their TV. Turn it on, pick a channel, watch, turn off (repeat).
Not only are the distributions different, but versions of a distribution change too dramatically! I've had to change my desktop appearance at least 3-4 times in the last 2 years. And I've stuck to one distribution. From RedHat 6.2 to 7.3, I've seen gmc dissapear for nautilus, linuxconf go bye-bye and I still can't get zip files to open up within the file manager the way they used to. If this were my mother on her computer, she would have traded it in for WinXP the instant that her favorite webpages disappeared. There's no way that you're going to get her to go spelunking for config scripts!
A common desktop would be a nice start. But if you can't get all of the distributions to agree to one, then at least have a very small common "set" of desktops from which to choose. Upon installation you could have a "What OS are you familiar with?" checkbox, and then build the desktop accordingly (similar to KDE). This would also make the learning curve less steep. Win9x, Mac, OS/2, gnome, whatever... but in such a fashion that the average user would know exactly what to expect. Then the expert is free to go in and modify it to whatever he/she would like!
For a Microsoft Windows 2000 version of this article, see Q247804 .
SUMMARY
This article explains how to remove the Linux operating system from your computer and install Windows XP. This article assumes that Linux is already installed on your computer's hard disk, that Linux native and Linux swap partitions are in use (which are incompatible with Windows XP), and that there is no free space left on the hard disk.
NOTE : Windows XP and Linux can coexist on the same computer. For additional information, refer to your Linux documentation.
MORE INFORMATION
To install Windows XP on a computer on which Linux is currently installed (and assuming that you want to remove Linux), you must manually delete the partitions used by the Linux operating system. The Windows-compatible partition can be created automatically during the installation of Windows XP.
IMPORTANT : Before you follow the steps in this article, verify that you have a bootable disk or bootable CD-ROM for the Linux operating system, because these steps completely remove the Linux operating system from your computer. If you intend to restore the Linux operating system at a later date, verify that you also have a functional backup of all the information stored on your computer. Additionally, you must have a full release version of Windows XP to use during this installation. If you intend to use a Windows XP upgrade CD-ROM, a CD-ROM of a qualifying Windows product must be available. Setup from the Windows XP upgrade CD-ROM will prompt you for this CD-ROM.
Linux file systems use a superblock at the beginning of a disk partition to identify the basic size, shape, and condition of the file system.
The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap). The Linux boot manager (LILO) can be configured to start from either of the following locations:
- The hard disk Master Boot Record (MBR)
- The root folder of the Linux partition
The Fdisk tool included with Linux can be used to delete the partitions. (There are other utilities that work just as well, such as Fdisk from MS-DOS 5.0 and later, or you can delete the partitions during the installation process.)-or-
To remove Linux from your computer and install Windows XP, follow these steps:
- Remove the native, swap, and boot partitions used by Linux:
- Start your computer with the Linux Setup floppy disk, type
fdisk
at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.
- Type
p
at the command prompt, and then press ENTER to display partition information. The first item listed is
hard disk 1, partition 1 information
, and the second item listed is
hard disk 1, partition 2 information
.
- Type
d
at the command prompt, and then press ENTER. You are then prompted for the partition number that you want to delete. Type
1
, and then press ENTER to delete partition number 1. Repeat this step until all the partitions have been deleted.
- Type
w
, and then press ENTER to write this information to the partition table. Some error messages may be generated (because information is written to the partition table), but they should not be significant at this point because the next step is to restart the computer and then install the new operating system.
- Type
q
at the command prompt, and then press ENTER to quit the Fdisk tool.
- Insert either a bootable floppy disk or the bootable Windows XP CD-ROM, and then press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to restart your computer.
- Follow the instructions on the screen to install Windows XP.
Sample Linux Partition TablesNOTE : For help with using the Fdisk tool, type m at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.
The installation process assists you in creating the appropriate partitions on your computer.
Single SCSI Drive
Multiple SCSI Drives Single IDE Drive Multiple IDE Drives Additionally, Linux recognizes more than 40 different partition types, including the following:- FAT 12 (Type 01)
- FAT 16 > 32 M Primary (Type 06)
- FAT 16 Extended (Type 05)
- FAT 32 w/o LBA Primary (Type 0b)
- FAT 32 w/LBA Primary (Type 0c)
- FAT 16 w/LBA (Type 0e)
- FAT 16 w/LBA Extended (Type 0f)
Note that there are other ways to remove the Linux operating system and install Windows XP. The preceding method is included in this article because of the assumptions that the Linux operating system is already functioning and there is no more room on the hard disk. There are methods for changing partition sizes with software designed for managing partitions. Disk partitioning software may cause instability with the Windows XP installation. Microsoft does not support the installation of Windows XP on partitions manipulated in this manner.You can also use an MS-DOS version 5.0-or-later boot disk, a Microsoft Windows 95 Startup disk, or a Microsoft Windows 98 Startup disk that contains the Fdisk utility to remove an operating system from the hard disk and install a different operating system. When you start Fdisk and multiple drives are installed on your computer, you are presented with five choices; use option 5 to select the hard disk that has the partition to be deleted. After that (or if you have only one hard disk), select option 3 ( Delete partition or logical DOS drive ), and then select option 4 ( Delete non-DOS partition ). You should then see the non-MS-DOS partitions that you want to delete. Typically, the Linux operating system has two non-MS-DOS partitions, but there may be more. After you delete one partition, use the same steps to delete any other appropriate non-MS-DOS partitions.
For additional information about how to use the Fdisk utility, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: After you delete the partitions, you can create partitions and install the operating system that you want. You can create only one primary partition and an extended partition with multiple logical drives by using Fdisk from MS-DOS version 5.0-and-later, Windows 95, and Windows 98. The maximum FAT16 primary partition size is 2 gigabytes (GB). The largest FAT16 logical drive size is 2 GB.
For additional information, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: When you install Windows XP, the Linux partitions can be removed and new partitions created and formatted with the appropriate file system type during the installation process. Windows XP allows you to create more than one primary partition. Windows XP does recognize the FAT32 file system. During the installation of Windows XP, you can create a very large FAT32 drive. The FAT32 drive can be converted to NTFS after the installation has completed, if appropriate.
For additional information about how to multiboot with Windows XP, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: For more information, browse to the following Microsoft Web site: The third-party contact information included in this article is provided to help you find the technical support you need. This contact information is subject to change without notice. Microsoft in no way guarantees the accuracy of this third-party contact information.
The third-party products discussed in this article are manufactured by vendors independent of Microsoft; we make no warranty, implied or otherwise, regarding these products' performance or reliability.
MicroGanda. Most people should be able to see through this crap. Basically it says "I mastered Linux, even Debian, and now I don't like all that power and freedom. Now I'd like someone to dictate things to me. I'm a lapdog.. a sheep, hear me bleat.
kNIGits: "I expect that the Linux community will have something to say about this article; I welcome comments and constructive criticism. Flames will be automatically sent to the Windows equivalent of /dev/null, once I find where that actually is."
Try to pipe it to the NUL: device (an old DOS trick)
// Fraxinus
In conclusion, I'd just like to make it known that I haven't completely abandoned the Linux community.
abondon it? please do! for the sake of all that is holy!
go back to windows where you belong and stay there. most of the arguments you have against linux are half-baked concepts that you've done little or no research on.
perhaps this paper was written as a publicity stunt; shame on slashdot editors for letting this one thru.
It's really clear for me that linux was NOT made for the average user. Sure, it's great, it's stable, it's fast at most everything except graphics (which is getting faster all the time these days). But what does the average user do all day? Browse the net, rip mp3's, get on kazaa, play game after game after game, and maybe pop in the occasional DVD, we won't go into the porn.
Now, for those using linux right now, how many can say that this is how your day on the comp goes? I can't. I browse the internet, yes. I open up my favorite text editor (and to keep this thread on topic i won't mention what it is) and program little bit, I poke around with the source code of programs, load up apache and mess around with it a while, my Office needs are filled with OpenOffice, and of course keep an mp3 going with xmms. In short, I think Linux people like to tinker with things. That's the real advantage of an Open Source OS, and I think people need to realize that instead of trying to mold linux to fit the needs of an "average" user.
Linux is defitively not an OS for newbies, even with Distro like Mandrake that can detect most of your hardware and configure it for you.
;)
:P)
It is in those situations that we can see that modular Projects are harder to achieve what Microsoft monopoly has
but Apple has found some solutions I think (MacOS X anyone ?
I want to like Linux..I really do, but I can't use it because so much of my hardware is either not supported, or so damn difficult to install/configure/rebuild kernel/etc. that it's pointless.
I mean it's one thing if Linux was all we had to choose from, but it's not, and frankly, why choose something that doesn't work as well as the competition? That's just being bullheaded.
Case in point: I was a hard-core BeOS user because it *was* better than the competition. Until it was superceeded and could no longer *do the things I needed it to do*, and so then I switched.
Linux will always and forever play catch-up with the other OSes out there as long as it is content to emulate everyone else's, ah..."innovations".
The squabbling amongst themselves doesn't help either. Imagine what the Linux camp could achieve if *all* of the commercial Linux distro companies banded together, put out one unified distro, and then concentrated like crazy to make it work and be superior (not just different) to the competition....
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
People are so fickle, here's the average computer users laundry list of reqirements of their computer:
/.ers know, most 'average' computer users don't ever change their OS, so he's not the average computer user. He's not an idiot, he just got tired of all the crap that you have to do in order to get computers to work easily. There's just more development in the windows world, which is why it is faster and easy to use.
Cheap, fast, easy to use, powerful, works with all current hardware, works with all future hardware, plays games, looks good, responsive, did I mention cheap? Point and click, keyboard friendly, makes the internet go fast, and most of all must look good.
When it comes down to it, most people don't know what they want with their OS and it seems like this guy is yet another person that trys to install everything in order to get what he thinks he was promised by the computer salesmen. Seems to me that he installed many different versions of linux over the 3.5 years, as most
People don't know what to expect from computers anymore. They can do so much, but yet so little at the same time.
Though I haven't read through the article as yet, I do find myself occasionally (and more frequently, of late) almost consider "going back" myself. I've been on Linux for, hmm.., four years now. I have stuck with my distribution throughout, and have really only bought the CD's to upgrade twice. (That since people are saying "well, if he didn't chase every upgrade, he wouldn't feel that way.) I try to leave my system alone; I'm quite adept at causing myself plenty of grief and stress w/o changing kernels, distro's, or the like. That stress I do have in "dealing" with Linux, granted, stem from my messing with other stuff: NFS exporting a network directory, poking at NIS, poking at NTP, getting wine to compile/work, and other Unix/Linux things. Don't get me wrong: I love the command line; I grew up on (MS)DOS before I knew, much less had, windows 3.x, so the command line is comforting to have around. On the other hand, when my NAT'ed boxen stopped resolving names via DNS other day, it took over an hour of pouring back through man pages, HOWTO's, and /etc/foo.conf files to figure out that /etc/sysconfig/??/forward_ip4 was now "0" instead of "1". (And I'm not sure just what happened to cause that.) Dumb little thing, sure, and granted when I understood what the problem was, I knew what else to go looking for. Thing is, I just can't find enough time in the day to fully comprehend every nuance of the underlying structure that makes Linux (and perhaps UNIX) what it is. Who's failing is that? Mine, perhaps, if anyones.
Anyway, those times I get the tempting voice to "go back", I remind myself that, more than the above issues I inflict upon myself, I stay with Linux since the philosophy suits me. I don't pour through source code myself, but I trust there are plenty of you out there who can and do. The whole open-ness of approach, for me, offsets the problems I have in the preceding paragraph as I'm not that worried about having "modify-system-at-will" stuff secretly lurking under the surface of the OS. If I was to switch back over, I'd just have stress associated with untrustworthy computing practices. I think for the near term I'll stick with that stress which is mainly self-imposed.
And spend yet more money on a machine? No thanks!
... You get what you pay for.
Well
I was once given a free car. $1500 and 3 months later I had to pay to have it towed away after the engine blew up.
Another car of mine cost $4250 and after one year needed $3000 of repairs.
My latest car cost $13500. I also bought a $1200 extended warranty for it. I've yet to have a single problem with it.
Sure my old cheap (even free!) cars got me from place to place. They also cost me a lot in repairs, maintainence, fuel, and headaches. My new car cost more, but it's a pleasure to drive and I won't have to worry about mechanical problems until 2007.
In the end, you get what you pay for when it comes to hardware (software is often a different story).
It's the same with computers. If you buy cheap hardware, expect reliability problems. If you buy a Mac, you can concentrate on using the computer, not fixing it or fighting against the OS. If something does go wrong, you know that you can call Apple and they will fix it for free. Heh, they even sell extended warranties.
t'nera semordnilap
This guy already has a computer, he doesn't need another one. Even if a Mac is comparably priced to a PC it is still superfluous.
It's a little perverse, but I think one of the strengths of Windows is that it's such crap, and no one outside of Redmond really tries to convince you otherwise.
Take some other OS, like MacOS: My experience has been that if something breaks, you generally get useless answers like "Well, mine works fine" or "It shouldn't do that" or "I don't know how to help you," largely because normally, the thing works ok. People who can fix really difficult problems on Macs are few and far between in my experience.
Likewise, on Linux, intractible problems are answered with "You're doing something wrong" or "You're stupid" or "You don't want to do that" or "Recompile the kernel." There are lots of experts, many of whom are helpful, and can often help fix the problem, albeit without ever imparting to the naive user what they have to do to dig themselves out the next time. In the mean time, the user just feels stupid.
Windows, on the other hand, breaks and breaks often. Go to your nearby expert, and they'll roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, that happened to me, too" (probably because it did). First off, we have a community being built: users screwed by Windows. The nerd comes over, eats beer and pizza while he fixes your problem, all the while reassuring the user that it isn't because he was stupid, but because Windows sucks. User feels a lot less slighted, and because the tweakability is so limited on Windows, he might even learn to do it himself. Probably not, but at least he won't feel bad about asking for help again, 'cause he knows he won't be blamed.
We're all in it together.
This is why I don't have a UNIX system at home: (Though I do have a shell account)I want a computer, not a hobby.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Linux is designed and written by programmers, for programmers. If what you do most often on a computer is programming (like me), there is no better system, as far as I'm concerned,
Windows is designed by marketroids for a market. If what you do most often on a computer is what most people do, and you don't want to learn something different than what you're using in the office, there is no better system for that (with that second stipulation in mind).
MacOS is designed by a entirely different set of marketroids plus UI experts for a not-entirely understood market. But if you don't care about perfect interoperability with your windows buddies, there is no better system for that.
The point of all this is that I couldn't care less about desktop users not being able to use Linux. Both they and I will be much happier if they use something else.
Things have gotten much MUCH better in the last three years, for example XFree86 -configure. I was able to get Quake 3 running with a minimum of fuss. Likewise it only took a few minutes to get a USB cam up and running. Crossover plugin installed easier than most windows applications. With a decent package management system (I like Gentoo's portage) and a good internet connection, it is *far* easier to maintain a Linux desktop, and must more rewarding. He's bailing out at just the wrong time!
I'll bite..
:)
/dev/null is your brain.
>My experience with X is that it's too big, >bloated, slow and unstable to be any good to the >home user.
X is a protocol not an implementation, I think he is talking about XFree86 here. There are better implementations of X for linux. (Personally I think XFree86 handled right is fine).
> I got tired of having to recompile my kernel
> every time I got new hardware
Then your doing something wrong
> I got tired of using command line to talk to my > PC
Duuuuhhh. What an idiot. You can achieve more with a command line in less time than you can clicking on pretty pickshurs.
Besides, if he wants to click on things, thats not too hard to setup with the likes of KDE etc.
If you want Windowisms that is.
>Most crashes that I ever experienced with Linux >have been X's fault
Then your not hacking the kernel enuff mate.
>Home users need a small, fast graphical >subsystem, with built in 3d support
So OpenGL is chopped liver then is it?
>Fonts are truly awful under X. Most >distributions ship with appalling fonts, and >there is no standard way to add additional (nicer) fonts to the system.
Yes there Is! You can have nice antialiased fonts, you can even use the fonts from windows for your linux distrib.
I'm getting bored of picking this guys article to pieces line by line.
It's clear he never really wanted to put any effort in. You get out what you put in.
People like you are better out of the linux scene anyway.
Go feed the Bill Monster Trollman!
(But dont come crying to us when the next Worm eats all your data)..
ps The Windows(TM) equivalent of
I have been using Linux (RedHat in paticular) since the 2.0 release, wanna talk ugly...:)
But I have stuck it out and I always maintain at least 1 linux workstation.
I had almost for about 2 years gotten away from Win32 all together only using it for VB6 application maintenece.
I am an application developer mostly web-centric applications, so PHP and I became quick friends.
BUT for my home desktop I installed XP for the kids and wife. They loved it , I tolerated it. I installed Visual Studio 7 and was hooked, development, things I used to fight with, mostly gone.
For a no brainewr desktop enviroment XP is bar none the best MS has put out to date. Its pretty brainless, very stable, and has all the eyecandy crap the wife and kids like.
I then realized something, I dont need a desktop machine for 80% of my work. By the time I had PHP running and MySWQL under it along with an Xwin32 to connect to some of my linux systems, and ports of all the damm Linux tools I use EVERY day , I had 2 weeks investedin making my XP box act and feel like a linux box.
Problems SOLVED, I made a VERY serious decison, No more evening work from home, no more trying to make XP like linux, I decided Home is XP Pro Land, At work its Linux Land.
It also gives me a PRIME excuse not to do anything but play games when at home and have to be on a computer.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Let's assume you are not shelling out hundreds for a commercial Linux distro. I say you get what you pay for. Also, you don't go into the Linux world with the intention of making it Windows or a Mac. If you want that kind of lifestyle, then go shell out the big bucks and get Windows or a Mac and stop complaining. If you want a lot of control over your OS and environment, enjoy fiddling and tweaking things, and don't mind digging in to figure out how to make some new peice of hardware work on your system, then Linux might be for you. Let's face it, Linux is not for my mother-in-law. There is no way in hell I'd ever recommend Linux to someone who just wants to get online and read emails, surf around, play games, and do some digital photography stuff. Get a Mac or Windows system and go wild. Linux, to me, is still a developer oriented OS and environment. Don't expect more out of Linux than what's being put into it. These guys writing free software and hacking the kernel deserve praise for their accomplishments, not comments like "gee-wiz, can't you make it do this and that - Windows can do it." If this is your attitude, go buy Windows and enjoy the new hell you just put yourself into. If you're like me, you'll get Linux, work hard to make it do what you want, write a book about it, and enjoy a MS free life.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
Mr Joe Average is someone who wants to install their OS, boot it up, and it works. He wants to be able to upgrade his PC , and have the hardware work in a few short minutes. He wants to read email, browse the web, talk to his mates online, and play some games.
Um, no. Mr. Joe User is crackhead who thinks that he should be able to turn on a computer and magically understand every aspect of it's operation. Mr. J wants to call tech support and have them tell him how to use his computer because he paid all that $499.00 for it, and they owe him some help. Mr. Joe User doesn't want to take any training or read any books or manuals. Mr. Joe User takes his car to Jiffy-Lube to get the oil chainged, but thinks he can install ram himself? No, no, not Mr. Joe User.
Mr. Joe User is the guy at our office (we run linux desktops) who doesn't get to have the root password on his box. Mr. Joe User is a user, he gets to come into work. Type in his user name, type in his password (he can do this because he keeps it on a sticky on his monitor) and lauch an office suite. In support, we don't hear from Mr. Joe User much any more, since we switched to linux, he desktop is stable, and he doesn't have the power to mess it up.
Is linux ok for Mr. Joe User? Sure, my grandma uses the system I setup for her to browse the web and send email, all on linux. Does she have the root password? Does she even know what a root password is? No, to both.
Mr. Joe User is a fool is he thinks he can be a system administrator without any training, reading, or studying, regardless of the os. My father uses Windows, and he called be all the time because he fouled something up, grandma rarely calls about the computer. She knows how to use her car and she knows how to use her linux computer. Would she try to change her spark plugs or oil? Nope. Would she try to recompile her kernel? Nope.
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
I've been telling people for years that Linux just doesn't have what it takes to compete with MacOS/WinXX; And for years I've heard, from people living in a fantasy land, that:
a) Linux is better, and
b) Even if it isn't better (which it is), it will be.
I feel vidicated.
It was nice to see this guy mention that WinXP was everything he wanted Win95 to be. It's nice because maybe it will wake some people up: If you think Linux is improving, just imagine whats going on at Microsoft and Apple, where they have dedicated, experienced people working round the clock to make your OS experience even better.
Lets just face reality. Linux users want an OS that works. Windows/Mac users HAVE an OS that works.
Cheers,
Will
Well, you can buy perfectly high grade PC hardware for what is still a fraction of the Mac equivilent cost. True, when your PC costs $400 including your monitor you will have problems. However, for $1500 these days you can build a fast, high quality PC. Puts to shame Mac prices.
If not now, when?
I agree with almost everything that Tony Collins writes, and I want to provide an alternative to Linux and Windows and Mac. Something that would run on your generic PCs and is simple enough for my mother to use, but is not as limiting in preferences as Windows, while being open source. I am looking for like-minded people to join us. The project, Middle Earth OS , is still looking for ideas and opinions as well as people interested in HCI and OSes. You can check out the many different ideas that we have decided to include in the OS in the Forums.
I once heard a song by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie called Every OS Sucks, where Linux users were described as 'elitist nerdy shmucks'. Sadly this is true for much of the 'community'. Too many consider themselves better than the rest of the world because they run Linux. Can you believe that? It's just a computer operating system, but somehow they think that it makes them better than those people who run systems such as Microsoft Windows! Elitism drives people away, as does saying "RTFM" or belittling people who choose a different distro from yourself.
Exactly. There is no better way to drive people away than to act like a know-it-all asshole. In open source culture such as Linux and applications for Linux, we should be very careful to be more personable. "RTFM" does certainly apply to some people, however, when a linux newbie is trying to find out how to compile an application, saying "RTFM" doesn't help anyone. Send him a link to a specific man page, or maybe give him a short answer, but when you know nothing about the OS and are presented with the mountains of literature that goes along with it, Reading TFM will take forever, and isn't practical. If the people in the know will help out those who aren't, more users will come and more of them will become more advanced, and some will even contribute to Linux itself which will benefit us all.
~ now you know
Linux still has a shot on the desktop for a couple of reasons:
1. OSX does not and will not run on x86 based hardware. (And since 90%+ of the machines are x86 based...)
2. Microsoft is well...Microsoft. You don't have to be much of an activist to detest the way they do business -- And anyone who continues to use products produced by them is "dancing with the devil".....(Just my opinion)
Still -- this guy makes some valid points. I don't really agree on the hardware side. I have actually had better luck with my hardware in Linux than I ever did in Windows. My SCSI card, WinTV PCI card, and Sound Card never played along with each other in any version of Windows. I have never had any problem with them getting along in Linux. X is ultra cool in areas where I need to spawn desktops around the house -- or even around the country....But it's a heavy price to pay when you add in the negatives he talked about. (I guess that is what intrigued me to play around with BeOS and QNX at times --- it was *nix like with nice fonts and performance on the graphical subsytem side of the house. A breath of fresh air if nothing else.)
The problem with finding a solution for application packaging and graphical subsytems is not so much technological rather it is the lack of mass acceptance to any 1 solution. You could end up with "100 packaging solutions that kicked ass" and "25 of the best graphical subsytem solutions ever" but you would then have the bigger problem of usage base and fragmentation. (No 1 solution would get enough mass acceptance to make it a viable standard.)
What apple did with OSX is to take all (most) of what was good about "*nix" and mix that up with what was good with Apple. The problem still being that most people cannot afford to replace all of their x86 hardware with PPC hardware --- and a majority of us would not like using such a high percentage of closed source software in our solution.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I don't think it's elitist. Most people I know who run Linux run it for the ability to tweak the system, get down to the bottom of things, but most of all, to enjoy the freedom from a monopoly that is MS.
;-) best.
Of course you'll always have the elitist kind flocking to linux user group meetings wearing t-shirts proclaiming "I read your e-mail" or whatever, but still the prevalent reason to run Linux (or any kind of free OS) is the freedom of choice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Linux is an OS from the people for the people. Windows is an OS by Microsoft to make money. You choose what suits your bill (pun not intended
Regards,
hoover
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
>>Tab completion is one of my favorite interface inventions ever.
Wow. I want to take this moment to thank you for this invention.
Elitism drives people away, as does saying "RTFM" or belittling people who choose a different distro from yourself.
I totally agree. I sat in a meeting with a cocky systems administrator wearing an RTFM t-shirt. When it came to deciding who got layed off, he was the first to go. He may have been very good with UNIX and Linux systems, but speaking in a condescending tone made people who worked with him feel small. He had to go.
I had better luck when I picked up Slackware and X11R5 with FVWM than I have with the latest Ximian.
I can't evevn configure the window manager that comes as a default.
Not to mention I spent money for a distribution that wasn't even compatible with itself. They have files on the CD that fail the dependency checks with the other files on the CD. You can't even install from the CD, unless you download half the software. I have a 56K modem. I wasn't happy. If I would have known that I was going to have to download half the software, I would have downloaded all the software, and saved the money.
In fact, it seems like to only software that works properly is non-Gnome software. Ximian did a real bang-up job with this release. At least I feel terribly bruised.
Hmm. Here's a guy who purports to be an "average user", yet he is listed on SourceForge as a Project Admin!!!
Oh yeah! Here's his page on Freshmeat listing other projects.
If only the average users I know could do these things. By the way, I wonder how much he is getting paid by Micro$oft to promulgate these lies.
It seems like this is really necessary. I assume we can't just include the MS TrueType fonts with a distro. I just installed NetBSD and added the MS TrueType fonts via kde from my Win2k partition. KDE looks great! It would be great if we could bag the old 75 & 100dpi fonts. But obviously NetBSD can't just install with default MS fonts.
If you know of any Free versions of these fonts, perhaps you could provide a link?
Maybe there should be a project somewhere for the development of quality, free TrueType fonts for use with every system.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
See subject title
Also, if theres someone running sparc or mac architecture, switching to x86 is just as expensive, so thats a BS reason.
I also switched from Linux to Win2k for my home machine after using tux for a couple years. Win2k is a stable OS and is the best product that Microsoft has right now. I sit in front of a Linux machine all day at work using vim and a shell. I know Linux inside and out and have done kernel work. I really do appreciate Linux and think its a fine OS. However it is refreshing to come home to a consumer OS that was designed as a GUI-based OS from day one and has the polish and responsiveness that Gnome/KDE/etc lack. I get my techno-geek thrill of using Linux at work. My machine at home is an entertainment/productivity/information device and I don't need the power of a UNIX environment.
Plus I have recently become addicted to games (ones that cost millions to produce)!!! Even Mozilla on Win2k is just better...can't place why, it just is.
However my next machine may be an Apple running OS X as it combines the best of both worlds!
Some of his points are wrong
Such as? Don't you back up your assertions?
I have seen many people complain about fonts in X. I've been using Linux for 5 years and have never had any complaint about the font situation. Could someone please explain to me what this "font problem" is, without simply stating that "the fonts are too damn ugly". A link to a comparison between Linux, Windows, and OSX fonts would be helpful.
Flames will be automatically sent to the Windows equivalent of /dev/null, once I find where that actually is.
It's named NUL in Windows.
linux based gateway and firewall running on an former desktop
linux on my hp laptop
dual monitor windows 2k machine I have to run 2k on for work--primary desktop
xfree cygwin on the 2k desktop that remotes to both the gateway (rarely) and the laptop (always up)
this way, I've got my linux desktop (all linux in this house is gentoo), i can still run windows apps if necessary, and all is right with the world...
X is very speedy if you stay away from KDE and Gnome. Run the same window manager you ran on your 386/33 and you'll be shocked how fast everything goes.
If the person that wrote this article used Suse 8.0, for sure he must have noticed that in one of the KDE 3 submenus there is an item that says get Microsoft fonts.. with verdana and trubruchet (sp?) and built in anti-aliasing with X 4.x and QT, I have fonts that look that same as in Win XP.
Also, I tried out Nero.. I am NOT a newbie in anyway, but I had to look through about 5 pages of HOWTO's and Google in order to find out how to burn an ISO to cd! Personally, I stick to cdrecord for burning iso's onto cd-r's, dd for copying cds, and GnomeToaster for making music cds from my mp3 collection.
Also, many 'regular' computer users dont add any hardware to their system, but if a user is going to go out and buy a cd burner at least read dozens of howtos on how to add and use a cd burner.. just enter 'linux cd burner ide' in Google, and it'll take.. at the most 5 minutes to set everything up.
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
SF Project Page
Project Forums (feel free to post in the "General Ideas" forum with no login required).
I think that this project has a lot of potential and could provide a viable alternative.
Mirror: http://openglforums.com/switched_back.html
He is right in X11 is bloated and also in
:-)
why you have to use SCSI emulation for a CD-RW.
On a technical view the SCSI emulation thing is
logical the right way, but it confuses normal
users.
The other major point is X-Window.
It is slow and bloated. But I suggest that an
Framebuffer only interface is not the solution.
A good windowing system should be a able to
show local and remote applications. The solution
offered by vnc goes in the wrong direction. I think even more Interface funtionality should
move to the display server. Because nowadays Pximaps are stored in the widget set in the application and in the X11 shm.
Also the antialiasing in X11 is not as good as
in MacOS X and Windows.
But I am not such an average computer user so
I will stay with my stable "unstable debian GNU/linux"
reiner
What is a liability in the home may be a boon to the harried IT guy. By relegating package management to SU, and by having a server / client windows system, Linux makes the management of a large office of workstations a bit easier than windows can. This (along with price) partially explains their greater acceptance in municpal offices, Europe, etc.
In a home environment, the user must be able to add and subtract hardware and software. It's certainly possible to "set up" a linux box for grandma, as long as she sticks to the old "just mail and web" paradigm. But the moment she decides to buy a digital camera, or start playing bridge or something, she is going to need to get comfy in a console as SU. Not good enough. So, home use will be the final frontier, and we know what we have to do to get there. Can it be done?
The guy doesn't really want a Unix system. He wants Windows, but that doesn't let him pretend he's 'leet to his mates.
So, he wanted Windows, he knew where to get it, he wrote a whine and put it online to avoid losing face, all's well all around. Why it this news though?
The price of freedom is, it seems, the price of faster screen refreshes and easy installation of cheap hardware.
For that he is willing to give the control of all electronic communication in the hands of a single corporation.
Paai
I used Linux for about five years. Recently I started using win2k, so far I think it's OK.
But...
What I don't like is the bigness and complexity of it. Compared to my linux system, I know a lot less of what's really going on under the hood in windows.
Also, win2k didn't seem as quick and snappy as Linux, as far as booting and disk activity go.
I also like Linux' finer grained configurability. I like fvwm2 (with my custom config) a good deal more than windows' default "window manager" (or shell, or whatever it's called.)
I'm a minimalist though. An OS choice should depend on what you like, I guess. Unless you're at work, and your boss makes choices for you.
I didn't intentionally switch back to using windows on the desktop. Whenever my system dies or I get a new one I usually put some version of windows on it first, because I know I can have it up in a relatively short time. Now with Windows 2000, I've found no reason whatsoever to use FreeBSD. W2k doesn't crash, and although it's a lil quirky at times, it's generally good to me. That and it plays games.
As for servers, it's FreeBSD all the way. I wouldn't dream of using anything else.
--Roy
You can get an eMac for $1100 with monitor. Won't work if you specifically want a Mac without a monitor, but for a lot of people, it's probably a viable option.
---
Open Source Shirts
I have installed Linux on my computer about a year ago, and liked it. There were some medium painful moments (i.e. getting and installing Redhat 7.2 after upgrading the video card and finding absolutely no way to get all the packages installing new X required. Then, trying to fit Redhat with GNOME & KDE into somewhat limited hard drive space through the dependency hell), but it was OK.
Later, however, I installed Cygwin. Then, I suddenly found out that there is absolutely no reason for me to reboot into Linux. Right now, more or less the only reason I would reboot is to get a good debugger (gdb for Cygwin is unstable on Windows 98, and MSVC can't run arbitrary functions. But I'll install Windows 2000 someday...). So, I boot into Linux from time to time but really see no major reason to use it... And I can't use it all the time (or even most of the time) because:
1) I like The Bat! and MilkDrop.
2) It's more pain... If something goes wrong, you have to search Googe Groups. Then, sometimes you find nothing.... I'm lazy, darn it!
3) KDE & Gnome are slow; GNOME 1 is ugly; WindowMaker is better, but still sometimes just feels wrong (i.e. when you resease right mouse button, and the menu doesn't disappear).
-- Ilya.
Ok, I've got to get this off my chest. I'm sick of hearing how Linux is unready for the desktop. I know everyone has different experiences, but I can't be that much out into left field. I've used Linux as my home workstation since RH 6.2, and am completely satisfied (the only hole being the Sorenson codecs). My last installs were Mandrake 8.2 for a laptop, and RH 7.2 for my workstation, and everything was fine. RH even detected and configured my CD-RW, and my DVD player just works. When I bought my TV card (back in dual boot days), guess which OS the card worked in fastest? Linux. When I set up a dual monitor configuration, how much blood did I shed? None. I'm no programmer either, and I didn't start using Linux in the "dark old days", but nowadays there's no reason for much bitching about using Linux on the desktop, it just works!
The real question is, like we asked before, why does Joe Sixpack get a pass on reading documentation? No problem I've run into on Linux couldn't be solved by a little RTFM. Sure, bitch about point, click it works, but then don't turn around when the latest virus has you by the balls cuz you pointed and clicked!
Peace out, happy hacking
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
I had a company, it was tanking, and they hired me back. So we ported over NextStep, pasted on some croft from the failed OSes Apple wasted millions on in the mid 90's, and called it OS X.
-Steve Jobs.
Come on people, you're putting false hope into another system that doesn't even exist yet. Preoptimization is the root of all evil. Yet, X is slower then Windows graphics, of this there is not doubt, but do most people actually know why?
Windows is 'faster' then X-Windows on the same machine for many reasons.
It has better drivers.
This is probably the most important reason. All drivers are faster on windows because most drivers were designed by the manufactures of the cards with the specs in hand. Graphics technology IP is probably the most guarded in the industry, and as such most X drivers were not written with full knowledge of the card in question.
Windows purposely accelerates all graphics operations.
Unlike linux which treats every program the same, windows lets the current 'foreground' application have a priority boost. You can turn this off, but most people don't. This makes the current application 'seem' faster. It also expidites all drawing code by giving it priority over other non-drawing code.
No matter which system you use for drawing, be it a direct frame buffer or X, you still have to deal with these issues in a linux enviroment. There are some real quality drivers, I use the nvidia driver and it's very fast (IMO), it blows the standard X driver out of the water on my TNT2. However, X and whatever application are still not given priority over when using the GUI, so sometimes things get 'slugish' when they shouldn't be.
And also, how many of you use the graphically intense desktops and then complain about how slow X is. How many people use twm and complain about how slow X is?
However, for $1500 these days you can build a fast, high quality PC.
Yes, you can and I have. Then again I admin my own systems and don't bill myself. The average user has to call for help when his Windows system chokes. Novice Linux users have to call for help a lot too -- I remember my first few months with RedHat and XFree86 constantly crashing from misconfigurations.
My point is that beyond the initial cost of the computer, you have to factor in support costs when you are talking about the mythical average user. The average user does not build his own PC. He buys something from BestBuy. He will also need lots of support because he won't know how to tweak the network control panel to connect to DSL and stop whining about dialing when he finally ditches dial-up.
With a Mac, setup, administration, and maintainence are easy for the novice user, but powerful enough for extreeme customization. It really is an easy to use UNIX.
t'nera semordnilap
If I can comment on two points I'm seeing people make....
1. "He should switch to MacOSX"
This guy already owns a PC... and from the screenshots his article links to, it looks like a very nice PC that he's put a fair bit of time and/or money into. (Love that case, and the switches on front!)
Since I assume he wants to keep using his box, this is a good reason for him not to want to buy a Mac, even if its hardware does give better performance than a PC (as some comments have said).
2. "He'd be okay if he didn't always run to the lasted Debian/RedHat/Mandrake release"
New *NIX software, in my experience, is usually targetted to the leading(bleading?)-edge new releases. Since OSS is still catching up to established Windows software (by leaps and bounds, I might add!), having the newest versions of the software can give a real boost in productivity to someone using *NIX as a desktop. Hence, you need the new releases (especially if you want to run your box like Joe Blow, and never compile anything from source!).
I'd also like to add a point of my own. I've spent a year using (GNU/)Linux, mostly sticking in KDE, with Mandrake and Red Hat automatically detecting and configuring everything, etc. Getting caught up in trying to set up a nice *NIX desktop takes away time that could be spent learning to be a better hacker.
He also makes another point I've noticed myself: most of the really good open-source desktop software is available for Windows (Mozilla, OpenOffice, GIMP, Dia, for example). So it's entirely feasible to use the OSS you like on a Windows box, while maintaing a *NIX box for servers/programming/learning hacking.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1. 4/release.html
"Mr. Joe Average" does not want to install their OS. From that point forward he's dead on accurate but they want that OS pre-installed and they want it to hold their hand while they fire it up for the first time.
deals to preinstall Windows on personal computers helped put OS/2 in the ground and Windows in the hearts and minds of millions.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
My computer cost me $1200 (monitor and all), I have yet to have any problems with it. If OSX ran on x86 hardware, I'd try it in a second. But, I (and I'll guess most others) don't want to drop another $1000+ on a machine just so I can try an OS I might not even like.
Michael Loves Me!
Why XP is better: Drivers: Point and click to install (as a superuser, of course). Windows warns you if the driver isn't likely to work properly, and can roll back to working drivers if you deliberately choose to install one that hoses your system.
Yeah. You WISH. I've REALLY had much better luck with linux and funky hardware, than Windows and funky hardware. Most recently I have an ATA-66 controller with a Highpoint chipset. Sure, the BETA drivers are stable, but guess what? They have a different NAME than the drivers from the OEM. Guess what happens when you UNINSTALL a driver? It gets removed from the 'listed' products, but the DRIVER STILL EXISTS. I had XP (win2k also I think) crashing on me on bootup because it was trying to load TWO DIFFERENT DRIVERS FOR THE SAME PIECE OF HARDWARE. What the hell does 'REMOVE' mean to MS programmers?
In any case. I also liked the 'As good as Mandrake 8.1 was, it wasn't what I was after' and 'Eventually I became dissatisfied with Mandrake, and briefly tried a number of other distros until I finally settled on Debian.'
Apparently, he had good luck with both distros, but all of a sudden was BORED with them. At least that's how I read it. That's not a reason that linux isn't for the desktop, it's a reason that linux isn't for HIM.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
i agree with alot of that, but there's a problem...
so what if linux sucks for desktop? cant ppl realize it isnt meant for that and shouldnt be. linux is and should be an OS in development for developers. thats what it is. i dont care if its easy for joe user, he can use xp if he wants and he should.
some mistakes: source code. it is good for more than modifying programs. compile code on your machine and get a more optimized product. look at sourceror. and there are windows apps that come as sourcecode. rare, but they exist.
and yeah, X does suck. it should be replaced. firstly we need a system doing nothing but giving access to video. no windows or anything. just video. build a seperate window system over that. toss in a network layer (default should be local, so its fast!) and there you go.
packages. we try to standardize, but there are always choices. we dont all want the same thing. solution? a system that allows all package systems to be used the same; rpm, deb, and tgz.
good luck in xp. but, id recomend win98. ive yet to see a system run xp faster. and joe user doesnt need to be super. single use is best for him.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
Linus started work on Linux by himself. We can all remember his famous usenet posting :) Back then, Linus did everything himself (and with a few others), but everyone contributing was a kernel hacker. Now, there are lots of people contributing, some just send patches every once a while, others work on large projects that need kernel patching, creating problems. One such project that I will use as an example is vserver, which lets you run multiple "virtual servers" on one Linux machine. They have a kernel patch, and from watching the dev list, grow frustrated from some updates in the kernel that break their patch. The same can be said for drivers as well, companies don't want to keep a developer just so their linux driver is up to date. Linus isn't about to let them put it in the kernel tree either, so what can be done?
Believe it or not, being closed source has some advantages. One of the strongest points of Windows (and there aren't many) is that of binary compatibility. Why? Because there is actually a need for an API that doesn't change with every release.
Linux must provide a stable, non-changing API for lower level functionality, if it is going to suceed in the mainstream. You can't keep writing your own drivers forever! This is something that most hardcore kernel developers don't think about, because they are constantly updating things.
I think that he's confused...it seems that what he wants is a TV. When the computer turns on, it needs to work. In tech support, we see it all the time...the magic box syndrom. It should work. Period. Make my magic box work. Since this guy went through a few years of linux use, I'd figure he's way beyond the magic box thoughts, but a computer isn't the same as a tv or a radio. It's not going to /just work/.
Hitler's views weren't wrong, they were just different from ours.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=35705&cid=3858 615
>Stupid users don't doggedly stick at something >for three and a half years, If that were true Microsoft wouldn't have all those antitrust problems (or all those users) Karl
For everything he cites except X11 (it's not going away -- ever -- it sucks but true), all he has to do is switch to FreeBSD.
I really can't understand how people use linux after having all of the hardware on every machine I've ever put it on detected, and the ports/package system is just a *minor* [sarcasm] good thing.
FreeBSD is basically debian thats more up to date than 4 years ago, and it seems silly to use debian while it is an option.
I live in a giant bucket.
Elitism drives people away, as does saying "RTFM" or belittling people who choose a different distro from yourself.
Bingo...'couldn't have said it better myself. My brother and I set up a server for our web site GameNerd and neither one of us had touched Linux before. Now, I can hardly stand to look at our litte box in the basement. It's a frustrating mess to do anything simple. Even setting up the NIC required an IRQ value and all the control panel settings were in random places. Getting help from any of my CompSci major friends at school (University of Nebraska) was a lesson in futility. Every time I asked them anything, I was yelled at for being a newbie. Really, how can you fault someone for being new at something? I read the FM, I fiddled with the system for weeks, I got some books, I reinstalled a few times...in the end I just wanted to ask someone. But that never worked.
It's like capitalism...nerds get nerdier...others just switch to the Mac.
http://www.walkingtaco.com
I'm lucky enough to have a lot of machines at home. I always have had. I still have my C64 here... and my amiga... and another 12 machines which are much more up to date and current.
I've been using linux since 1992 when I first downloaded it at 19.2K onto 11 floppy disks.
I've never _just_ used linux though. I've always used a mixture of linux and other operating systems. At the very least, I've always had a dual-boot machine around for playing games on. For the last three years or so, I've used a couple of windows2000 boxes as workstations, and the rest of my 8-10 machines have run either solaris, linux or openbsd.
Now, maybe I've just been sitting here reading slashdot and theregister for so long that I can't read the word Microsoft without seeing red, but I finally decided I'd got totally sick and tired of viruses, continuous reboots, mythical uptimes which simply don't exist if you maintain your machines properly, and overpriced broken software.I'd always kept Windows on my main workstation because I need to use Visio and Word for my work... and of course there's the games too... But regardless of this, I thought I'd see how I could get along with linux on my main machine for a while. So far, the 'while' has been about 4 months, and I've no plans of switching back.
mplayer is superior to media player. Full stop. No messing. Don't argue. It's faster, it looks nicer, it doesn't try to download 'Media Guide' from microsoft every time it starts up, and it works with _everything_ these days.
Mozilla 1.0 is superior to IE6. Don't argue here. I'm not trying to bait you. It's just my opinion.
Mozilla Mail & News can do everything outlook express can, except for spread viruses.
KDE3 is a superior GUI to Windows2000. I can't comment on WindowsXP's gui because I haven't allowed it anywhere in the house.
KvIRC 3 is as good as mIRC, but there's a couple of annoying bugs that still have to be fixed. It's totally useable now tho'
Kate is a perfectly good text editor. I'd rate it significantly better than Notepad, but not as good as ultraedit.
Samba support is fine. Konqueror makes a useable interface for browsing/copying files like you do on windows. I double click movies.. mplayer loads... I double click mp3s... xmms loads... Just like with windows...
Word and Visio.... now there's a problem... but.. I figured.. if I just need Windows to run Word and Visio, then why not do that... so I set up a vmware machine, installed windows2k, word and visio on there... problem solved...
Just one left....
Gaming under linux isn't too great yet. but.... I've checked out the cvs for the transgaming stuff and it's well on the way. I figure that in about 6 months time, all the games I currently own will be supported, so I decided to be patient and try to help them out by sending them money and support. If I don't, who will?
I can't honestly say that I never boot back to windows... but I can honestly say that the last time I did was about 3 weeks ago when a couple of mates came round for a gaming session. I'm hoping that my patience and attempts to actively support gaming on the linux platform will save me from having to reboot in the future.
The moral of this story....
Guy who's been using Linux and Windows both together for 10 years finally ditches windows altogther because there's no longer any good reason to run it...
Did I mention that it's written by criminals, and it's not liebellous foe me to say that because it's true... Proven in a court of law in front of god.
That's why I tossed Linux for MacOS X. It's gives you the best of both worlds.. I still believe in Linux and OSS but I just can't futz with it at work.
You can use a screwdriver as a pry bar but it is not always the best use of that tool.
Linux is good at many things, and there are many ways you can use Open Source tools at work to save money, and at home to learn and have fun.
But you can not or should not use linux for everything.
Games at home is one example You can cludge together something with Wine that will enable Linux to play most of your windows games but why make life hard for yourself? It is much easier to use that Win98 disk that came with your system and dual boot into windows if you want to run a game.
I've recently totally switched over to Linux and I love it. I think that you just have to find the right distribution to suit your needs. I am not saying that Linux is perfect (Windows and MacOS aren't either), but there will always be future improvements.
Find the right hardware that is properly supported if you are wanting to use Linux. hardware manufacturers still aren't interested in being all that supportive, but it is getting better.
The writer of this document makes some very valid points... However... I think that he misunderstands a few things about Linux. You have to compile programs because the OS is designed for multiple architectures and variations of Posix OS's. It isn't like you have Windows available for much of anything other than x86 machines. This is the reason for compiling programs.
Perhaps his conclusions about X11 are based upon the distribution that he is using, and the drivers that are installed. If you have good hardware, with good drivers, you can get great performance out of it. Framebuffer drivers don't cut it, and there is a great possibility that is what he was using. My fonts are beautifully anti-aliased under KDE 3. I can use Windows TrueType fonts, and in my opinion it all looks as good as the fonts on MacOSX, and most certainy is prettier than the font anti-alising in Windows 2000.
3D graphics in Linux are just fine, if you have the proper drivers. My video card has BETA drivers right now, but I get about a 10% increase in speed over what I got in Windows 2000. Games like Wolfenstien and Quake 3 are very fast and stable.
But all isn't perfect. Sound devices are still goofy. Programs like ARTs help alleviate some problems of devices hogging a sound device, but it all boils down to having properly written drivers. Programs for gnome/kde/etc. kinda seem awkward when mixed. Standards aren't set very well in many cases. There are wuite of few problems, but for some the advantages to Linux outweigh the problems.
It is all about deciding what you need. Linux isn't for everyone (yet). Windows isn't for everyone. MacOS isn't for everyone. Amiga Desktop isn't for everyoing (boing!). But I found that over the years, the maturity and eas-of-use of Linux has grown at incredible rates. Over time, certain desktop features will get better and better. For what I need and want, it does the job well.
Things just have to happen one step at a time. Linux will improve, and one would assume that Windows will do the same thing. I for one know that I am a Slackware fan for life. I think that Slack 8.1 is the best OS that I have *ever* used. But it did take a bit of tweaking to make it perfectly suit my needs.
The writer really didn't need to justify his switching back to Windows, but his story was a bit interesting I suppose.
according to "HKLM/SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\DOS Devices"
he can find this under "\Device\Null"
There is a slight difference with linux, though,
- You have to master the whole visualstudio and know all the visualbasic idiosyncrasies before you can use that.
- It s not documented or standard in anyway.
So, I wish him happy clicking and to get back to his senses before he sacrifices half his bodyparts to RSI.
"It is no longer an issue of having a fancy GUI (KDE can't get much better), but rather the real problems lie in the foundation."
You're right. KDE is the perfect UI. There's no room for improvement. All the KDE developers should just quit. Not one thing could be more useful or simple or powerful. Nothing is more confusing or complicated than it should be. I could use KDE as it is forever and be happy.
Looks like Microsoft hired a couple of English Majors for an internship this summer.....
I'm a 2000 man.
I guess he wants lots of e-mail.
There's a difference between along and a long.
Learn how to spell, please...
This is absolutely wrong. If you build your own PCs, that's one thing - by going to the Apple store, you're buying a complete system, same as if you went to Dell or Gateway or IBM. Now, don't compare apples to oranges - every Mac is GUARANTEED to work with the system software. No ifs, ands, or buts. If it doesn't work, the hardware is flawed - take it back and get it replaced. Furthermore, every Mac comes with a warranty - something you don't get if you build a system yourself, but you do get (and pay for) it when buying a Dell, Gateway or IBM.
... the dual-proc system *might* go for $3-400, if I'm lucky (and cost in excess of $1.5K originally).
With base systems starting at $799 (and even less if you get 'em refurbished), this argument about getting PCs for cheap is ridiculous. Never mind the quality of the components - get a commodity motherboard and compare it to a Tyan board, big difference in price and quality. Build your PC using quality parts and you'll find it getting expensive much more quickly.
Every time I've built a PC from scratch, I've ordered the components from different retailers. Each component has its own shipping+handling costs (costs that aren't refunded if the part is bad, which happens at times, that's what commodity is all about). If a part doesn't work with the rest of your system, you better hit the 'Net and figure out how to fix it or send it back and get different parts. All this takes time and if you value your time, this is a big deal.
I have three PCs at home, a dual PIII 450MHz, an Athlon 700MHz rackmount and a P75 for my firewall. All run Linux, I'm happy with all of 'em, but the time I spent ordering the parts, building the system and debugging problems with 'em are far more than it took me to unpack my two iMacs. Furthermore, both iMacs, running at 400MHz and 450MHz respectively, are quite a bit snappier under OS X than any of the other systems (running Mandrake 8 on the dual-proc and RedHat 7.1 on the Athlon). Those iMacs are each about 2 yrs old and they still retain much of their original value. They were purchased for $1K and $1.2K and I could get around $600 on eBay for each of 'em
Don't confuse "commodity" hardware with "quality" hardware. You get quality hardware with a Mac and guarantee that everything works. Put a price on that.
As much as I wan't to, I can't go back from linux to windows.
The main reason being galeon. This browser is just one step ahead from enything I know (opera sucks).
The other thing is that it is so darn easy to maintain my debian box. Running unstable and upgrading aps. It is just so much more convineint to search for an app in apt-cache than downloading some shareware software from the web.
And then just use one commando to keep my box up to date.
It is also important for me that my windowmanager works the way i wan't it. Sawfish and gnome panel is sufficient for me, but everytime I try windows i feel 'trapped' by the windowhandling.
There were some points in there that were a little undefended, but I didn't see any that were wrong. All in all, I'd say he hit the nail on the head. He even pointed out that he intends to switch back to Linux, when it is ready. I think this article really lays out soemthing that seems to be lacking in many Linux circles: Pragmatism. Eveyone is talking about "linux on the desktop" on how it's this big goal right now, but they seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter how stable or configurable something is, if you want it "on the desktop" Joe User has to be able to _use_ it. And it's not ready for that. Granted, I use Linux as my desktop OS at home and for my independant work, but I'm not "Joe User", and even that is likely to change soon. OSX is exactly what I want and need in a work machine. But even then, I'll still keep my Wintendo, since that is practically the only platform for decent games, with a few notable exceptions.
At my day job, I use Win2k, because it works easily and I can do my job with it. That's the very reason I'm taking the server farm to Linux, away from MS server products. With Linux there, it works easily, and I can do my job with it.
If the Linux community wants Linux to become a serious force in the desktop world, we are well on their way, but we would do well to heed the points that were brought up here. Especially about X, it really is a pretty clunky system for desktop work. Apple seems to have the right idea, IMHO.
Packages are a nightmare right now, and it seems to be a real sore subject with a lot of people. I read somewhere recently about a guy who wanted to remove sendmail and use a differnet mailer system, but couldn't get the package to install. The general response was "who cares that it didn't work? that system sucks anyway, just stick with sendmail". They totally missed the point, it doesn't matter that the other system sucked. What matters is that he wanted to use it but couldn't, because the package system is so clunky. On other OSes he would have simply installed it, played with it, then _decided for himself_ that is sucked, and then switched back. Probably in less time than he wasted with the RPMs. Apt is a step in the right direction, but it's still not there yet.
This is getting too long and I'm rambling. I'm stopping now. Have fun.
At that time all I wanted to do was:
So as soon as GAIM was released I could do all this and I made the switch. My feelings were, as long as Linux did what I needed, I would use it....I was a CS student who could handle its complexities.
5 years later it's a different world. Yes, Linux has made a LOT of progress, more than I could have imagined. But Windows has come a long way (especially with 2k and XP). While X is struggling with fonts, XP has cleartype fonts that look great on LCDs. XP is almost (or equally) as stable as Linux. More and more sites are IE specific. Lots of flash-only sites don't work with Linux's version of flash (yeah I hate flash only sites too, but the point is, they're out there). Realplayer used to me enough to watch news videos on cnn.com, now you gotta have the version that you can embed into the html in the seperate browser window that will open up. And there are a few Windows only programs coming up that I would really like to use. Not that I wouldn't love to see Linux suceed on the desktop, but it probably would have been MORE likely 5-10 years ago.
So in the end, I'll probably obtain (or buy, if I really have to) a copy of XP pretty soon. I'm going to be moving and I want to set up my computers fresh, start over on a clean slate. And in my new setup I'm keeping Windows on the Desktop, and Linux on the servers.
While reading this article I couldn't understand why he would go to windows after becoming so much more fluent in Linux and *nix use. Ok so he listed his points, and yes, they are valid, X11 is a pain in the ass, esp for a single user environment where not more than one person is accessing the machine graphically. Point 2 so yeah the fonts suck.. Point 3, so compiling gets to be boring some times, and the other points( i dont feel like going on repeating his article) hold true to a certain extent. But why back to windows, when osX is built on Unix, with a strong GUI( that also looks great), and a very decent application base(considering you get to use both *nix and mac software). Hardware is not an issue considering that Apple makes sure their hardware works with their own OS. Plus you dont have to deal with the Microsoft BS that seems to grow each day.
"After all, we're all alike."
Slashdot is a front for those who would oppse the open source movement. Beware. They gather you in one place and slowly point out the faults of open source. This story is a plant.
My case is much the same. I used to dual boot - Windows for gaming, etc. and Linux for development. Then came Win2k and XP. And I discovered that, with Cygwin, I get all the convenience of unix tools and a commandline with all the convenience of running games, having hardware work, being able to watch quicktime trailers, etc.
I don't dual boot anymore. 2k/XP are more than stable enough and Cygwin gives me all the Unixy goodness I need. Hell, I even installed Deskwin so that I have multiple desktops, one X11 feature that I really miss on Windows. Funny thing is, people come up behind me, see my typing away in vi, hacking from the bash prompt and say, "Is that KDE?". "Nope, XP", I reply. Always good for a laugh.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
WAAAAAAAAAH Linux isn't pretty!
Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Truth be told he does have some (slight) points. I've had my share of nightmare linux installs, hardware pains, and general irks that make me pine for the ease of windows. Not the stability, just the ease. Linux has some ground to gain in the home market, given time it will get there.
Oh, and if you've got that much of a hard-on for fonts, buy a goddamned mac.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
How is clicking alterated by typing worse than only using the mouse? With a well designed GUI, you can do more complex things with a one second mouse click than a series of commands, which in turn can be reduced to a fraction of a second by using a shortcut. Sadly, not all programs have a good GUI. But that's another story.
:) If you aren't pleased with Windows' built-in tab completion (works good enough for me), there are shell replacements.
Clicking alternated with typing usually speed up work tremendously, although it's probably something you need to get used to.
And, of course, tab completion is definitely not anything *nix specific.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Look, People here don't want to buy $2000+ in Mac hardware to do what a $1500 PC will do, only the PC will be compatable with more software and won't cost an arm and a leg to upgrade. I know that Mac has a better UI, but with that UI comes crappier and more expensive hardware.
For me, the trouble with X lies in the many different X toolkits out there. When running X, it is easy to end up with a window manager built against one toolkit running along with applications built against another. It can be unslightly, to say the least.
I try to prevent this on my NetBSD box by sticking with a small core of GTK applications:
1. Sawfish (Window Manager)
2. Mozilla
3. The Gimp
Everything else I do in XTerms or ATerms. This looks pretty good and I get to keep the bloat of Gnome and KDE off my system.
I'm not a troll, but jeez, most software is extremely easy to compile. Read the README, ./configure, make, make install. Some programs (wine, for example) come with already created install scripts that ask you what options you want, where to install it, etc.. Maybe it's not the prettiest interface, but it's not hard.
This weekend I had to upgrade my machine. My old motherboard blew so I had to get a new one. Boards with ISA slots are almost impossible to find these days!
Because of the new board, I had to replace my ISA->PCMCIA controller with a PCI->PCMCIA controller. This controller is required because I use a wireless network adaptor.
The Windows drivers that it shipped with seemed to work. My wireless card was recognised and I could connect to the network at home. But every now and then it would lose connectivity.
3 hours and gods only know how many mouse clicks later I found out that it was a known issue. All I had to do was upgrade the drivers. No probs I thought
First I had to download the new drivers. Then I had to go into device manager and remove the device completely. Then I had to unzip the drivers and I needed a password to do this. Then I had to install the drivers and reboot. On reboot, all of my NIC information was lost so I had to re enter all of my network information.
And this is easy? To who exactly?
Next issue - Install my new GeForce 2MX card, download the latest nvidia drivers and install them. Start a game and wonder why my monitor is flickering. Check the refresh rate and it is set at 60Hz. So I hunt around and find a tool to fix nvidia refresh rates in games for windows XP and 2000. It won't install. Some more reading shows that it only works with older versions of the drivers.
Now I have a choice of using outdated drivers or playing games with headaches.
And this is simple and just works for the Joe average home user?
WTF ? ? ?
It doesn't. http://www.apple.com/macosx
/etc text files were gone, some were still there but didn't actually do anything and some behaved normally. You didn't know which ones which without trial and error. The Unix file hierarchy was also destroyed with /Apps directories scattered about and binaries in /usr/etc (I still don't understand that). The schizophrenia has gotten better, but that was done by making OSX even less Unix like.
It really depends on what you want to do with it. The people from the fink people have done an excellent job of getting *nix apps working but if you think a *nix person will sit down and be instantly at home, think again.
When I first bought my NeXTStation I thought it would be like sitting down in front of a Solaris box... boy, was I wrong... it took me a while just to get used to NeXT way of configuring stuff, THEN I had to actually make it work for me. You were supposed to use the config app to configure stuff, but it couldn't do everything so you had to drop back to text files. Some of the standard
If you want a usable system that works the way it's supposed to, OSX is great. It's a beautiful system, but it's not "pretty Unix", it's a Mac workstation and selling it to people as anything but isn't telling them the whole story.
I brought my Redhat 7.3 CDs with me (burnt from ISOs) and went to work installing as minimal a workstation setup as I could. These baby boomers aren't going to break out gcc and go to hacking on CVS source any time soon. I left off as much as I could without running into RPM hell with dependencies. An hour later, we were up and running.
We subscribe to a local DSL provider, a telco, and the Internet is just a /usr/sbin/netconfig away.
Went online and downloaded OpenOffice 1.0 and Mozilla 1.0. All that was left was a decent personal finance package. Off we went to grab GnuCash.
Acclamating my folks to OpenOffice and Mozilla was easy, because after all, a web browser is a web browser and a office suite is an office suite (licensing aside, of course). GnuCash was a little tougher to sell to my dad who is a MS Money fanatic. Time will tell if he'll stick with GnuCash long enough for this experiment to pass muster, but I'm optimistic.
So the weekend over, I leave satisfied that I've freed two more human beings, my parents no less, from the confines of proprietary software. The drive home is a beautiful thing.
Then my mom calls. She wants to know if I can reinstall Monopoly (by Infogrames for Windows 95/98). And dad wants me to reinstall SimCity. These are their two favorite things to do with the PC. They've probably etched a couple of deep grooves in their hard drive where these these two programs reside. In short, we're fucked in full.
To make a long story short, I was able to satisfy my mom's Monopoly jones by installing Kapitalist, a free Monopoly type game. She missed the animations that the Infrogrames game provided, but she got by. My dad however was SOL. I was hoping to find a copy of SimCity 3000 Unlimited by Loki, but as most of you know Loki is no more. My dad took it in stride, and explained that he'll just find another game to get hooked on. As you can see my parents are gamers, and I do love them so for that.
Problem. Finding and installing a quality game for Linux that a Linux neophyte or general non-hacker can install is difficult. Remember, my folks were running with AOL before all of this. They don't want to worry about glibc versions and the like.
So my folks were happy that they could get online with one click to Mozilla, happy they could read and compose documents and spreadsheets, and curious about GnuCash's abilities, but they seriously doubted they could have any fun in between.
I would say that a Linux distro, if properly tamed, can be a quality desktop solution provided you're willing to bite the gaming bullet. How many of us dual-boot for this alone? Sorry to hear we lost one to the dark side, especially after 3.5 years of grinding it out.
Thank you.
Someone here isn't just full of boloney.
just need to have their hands held while you do all the real work. It's just a fact of tech support. When you are paralysed by either fear or stupidity over a machine it's hard to follow instructions.
If you have to think about changing directories for more then a second then yes, installing drivers is hard. Take the nvidia driver for example, You have to download the file, find the file, goto the file, extract the file, go into the new directory created, find the readme, goto the readme, read the readme, maybe compile the driver, and then install the driver. Maybe having to reboot the system. And if you think the system is your x server then yes you have to reboot. Nvidia does provide rpms for their driver and though I haven't used those, (I have a non-standard kernel) they should work. But I'm fairly sure that you have to quit the x server to do it and most people are scared of the command line.
I have Solaris for my servers, Linux for my firewall/router, and Windows for games and office stuff. And, I can still beat the $1100 price of the Mac you quoted. I have a hard time justifying buying a propriatary OS that runs on propriatary hardware. If I could run OSX on my x86 system, I'd run it in a heart beat.
Michael Loves Me!
My reasons for not using Linux on the desktop are similar to this guy's, and I'd be willing to bet that very few of the people reading this are more technically able than I am so maybe it's another interesting data point. I was in the kernel group hacking the guys of a sophisticated SMP UNIX ten years ago and nowadays I write distributed filesystems for a living. I hack all day at work, then I go home and often hack some more. Conventional wisdom says I should love Linux, but it - and XFree86, which for all intents and purposes is part of the same package - has always been a big pain in the ass for me. Some examples:
OK, let's compare how Windows did in these areas.
Pretty stark comparison, isn't it? Now, the point isn't to say that Windows is all that great. As an OS professional I can recognize some of the very serious design mistakes they made, and their business practices deserve plenty of condemnation. It's also not my point that Linux is bad technically, although I have to say it's nowhere near as cutting-edge as its proponents would have you believe. The point is that one OS lets me add capabilities quickly and painlessly, while the other forces me to waste hours on broken builds, broken installs, and general dicking around with stuff that in my own professional life I'd barely even dignify by calling it a prototype.
As a result of all this, I don't consider Linux suitable as a user environment. When I'm doing development I prefer to do it on Linux...by logging into a Linux box remotely from my Windows desktop. It's not because I'm stupid, or lazy; as I said, I love to hack. It's because when I sit down at a computer I have a task in mind other than babysitting my OS. Maybe some people enjoy doing that for its own sake, but I went through that phase a long time ago and I have very little patience for it now. Windows simply wastes less of my time.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Anyone can claim that Windows is the best or that MacOS is the best or whatever. How many OS Zealots have actually tried to use another OS before making their decision?
//e, mac //ci, powermac 7500, used Windows of various flavors at various workplaces, got exposed to lots of unix and linux and windows and mac while at Netscape, and I've settled on what works for me (debian on x86 hardware, and some other toys).
Personally, I've experienced the big three and then some. Worked at Apple for a while, owned a
If someone takes the time to test the waters and then decides that Windows is what works for them, or maybe AmigaOS or Open BeOS or *BSD or MacOS or Plan 9 or whatever, you really can't fault them for that.
Who is this 'Joe Average' and why are we always thinking we have to play to his level? If we applied this way of thinking to everything, cars would run down embedded tracks in the road, preventing collisions yet also preventing you from leaving the pavement for picnics, road trips, etc.
If we applied it to telephony, we'd still be cranking up the dial for Gertrude at the central switchboard and asking her to connect us to long distance... Then asking Mary at long distance to connect us to Albuquerque... Then... You get the picture.
Nowadays, we LEARN TO DRIVE and we LEARN TO DIAL A PHONE NUMBER. Joe Average just has to keep up.
I have successfully held out on XP here at work. In fact, we have but ONE pc running it, and only that because it was a laptop that came preinstalled with it. Personally, XP feels like a crazy gene-splicing experiment using DNA from Windows and the Fisher Price Little People. I have yet to discover any significant improvement in the OS. It is a memory hog--and for no reason other than the fact that is now needs RAM to present this gaudy, new Colorform-type GUI. Additionally, I find extra steps where there used to be none, specifically catering to the self-inflicted mental retardation of this 'Joe Average' person. Screw Joe Average. Joe Average is the guy in school who was a screw-up and a class clown and never learned anything, and whose antics kept YOU from learning anything, either. If Joe Average wants to use a computer, make him turn off the pro-wrestling and crack open a 'Learn Visually' book on the subject.
CASE CLOSED.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
I enjoy using gnu/linux.
/w 24 bit color on my gForce2, running KDE 3.1. I used the very easy and menu driven font installer and installed all the .TTF fonts that were in my parents c:\winnt\fonts directory on their XP machine. Now all my fonts are gorgrous anti-aliased, and reminiscent of windows. I'm using the high perfomance liquid 0.9.5, with the keramik or glow window decors, and the light blue aqua color config. I'm also using the crystal icon theme by the very talented everaldo. Needless to say, when I use any Windows XP machine I smile a little bit thinking that everything about my desktop just *looks* better. The stability is improving with every release of KDE, and the interopability/drag and drop/whatever just works. file previews of pics, text, whatever, even if I hover the mouse over a movie, I get a preview window playing the movie until I move the mouse away.
/w 230 MB ram, and an 18GB scsi drive. loading KDE takes about 8 seconds, and everything after that, konquerer etc... is near instantaneous.
I first installed it around the same time as you, after a friend walked me though it. it was absolute ass-backwards to everything I had ever learned to do on a windows machine.
Over the years, I started learning new skills, software, and commands. Once I had a very thourough knowledge of the files, the configs, what does what, and what means what, I was able to accomplish most anything that I set out to.
This includes building, installing, configuring, and maintaining servers for most every protocol, keeping them safe with a firewall, and yadda yadda, everyone here does the same, i'm sure.
By far, the most rewarding part was only recently when I fell in love with the pre RC versions of KDE (cvs) that evolved into the current KDE 3.1.
My desktop is simply stunning. 1280x1024
I've never seen or used a windows computer that looked this good! A co-worker recently bought a g4, and osx was very pretty. It wasn't enough to make me wish I had one, as there are a lot of little *tweaks* and extras I've installed on mine to give it an edge over osx. However, there were some nice features of OSX that I wish my linux box had.
That said, everything you see done with windows *can* be done with linux, but you're right, I was installing all those kde versions from CVS, downloading and compiling on my own, configuring, and doing it over and over again everytime a new cvs version added a new feature.
Others have mentioned I'm sure by now that gentoo has a somewhat improved logic behind it's package management, and whatever, but that's okay. i'm happy with slack because it can do everything I want.
last point: I'm running a pII 300,
Looking at my desktop I realize that *nix desktops are advancing very well. they are in their infancy, but what OSX prooves is that even the "plug and just work" is possible on my platform of choice.
2nd "last point": the most powerfull message of your story was regarding the users. woop de do, we run linux. now let's grow up and start educating ourselves.
3rd "last point": one of the hardest things I had to do was get my cdrw working. using a fake scsi-ide adapter when I have a real adaptech adapter for my root partition was a pain. i was told to RTFM at leaast 50 times, but eventually after rebooting i saw the 2nd adapter, and xcdroast works. you gotta stick with it buddy, but if that's not an option (and no one should blame you), then you can take a break -- when you come back linux will have advanced just that little bit farther, and eventually it will be a viable alternative to the 'joe average' user -- and I whole heartedly agree that even though absoltuely everything is possible (i'm a good example of how sticking to it even if it takes 3 years *does* get you there), the jo average user will find it too daunting and realize that he can go install XP again, and the same night be doing what took me 3+ years to get right.
4th "last point": some of use (i fall into this category) are with it for the ideology. i think the way that linux and *bsd's were developed are the proper way to build/license/maintain operating systems and software.
anyway -- cheers mate, it'll get there.
dmarien
Yea you can run darwin on x86, but that doesn't address the problem of a smooth running user expirience.
If you want a superior OS to windows, and linux is too difficult then route people to OSX ON ppc. Goregous mac hardware, great commercial support, shielding from cli. You can use the computer as a set-top IM, email, game box as this guy likes OR dig in, get root and build fink and get all the unix goodness. Simple learning curve with the potential for real power. But yes you do have to run PPC, but PPC hardware is soo much nicer anyway, can we say OpenFirmware? ohh yeaaaa
Printing problems are solved (see CUPS based printing in Mandrake).
Font problems are mostly solved (see KDE in Mandrake).
Simple upgrading isn't solved completly. Mandrake Update is fine, but apt-get is better.
80% of the problems would vanish, if a a distro as user friendly as Mandrake, but with Debian package management as a foundation, came out. Corel was way ahead with their distro two years ago.
The only really valid point is the case of missing drivers. I guess, that his slow moving windows were caused by missing/mediocre/bad drivers as well. My windows aren't slow moving. X is not the problem here.
Stop telling that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. RedHat is not, Debian is not, but SuSE perhaps is and Mandrake is even more. Could be somewhat related to their focus. RedHat for example quite clearly states that they are mainly focussed on the server side.
Distro makers should focus on hardware detection and support, installation and upgrading. And not on maintaining 3500 packages for their distribution.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
"Some of his points are wrong,"
No, I believe he mentioned the elitism being a problem with Linux.
Even more frustrating is my experience with my Sidewinder joypad. It worked with the previous version of Mandrake but it doesn't work for me with Mandrake Gaming Edition. I did do a little searching on it to try to get it to work, but I came to the conclusion that I didn't need it particularly and I hardly ever used it under the previous version of Mandrake. I just thought it was ironic that I had more problems with it when I upgraded to Mandrake Gaming Edition then I had with the previous non-gaming edition of Mandrake.
None of this has made me want to get rid of Linux, but it has hampered me from making my system MS-free. (Mind you, I have no intention of buying a new version of Windows as an upgrade. When I replace my desktop PC, I'm sure I'll be stuck with the latest version of Windows.) Hardware is not going to "just work," it won't until Linux supplants Windows as the desktop OS of choice.
I still prefer Linux to Windows, but then I like programming unlike the author of the article. I bought a Mac Powerbook, and I find myself using it most of the time for computer related stuff. But if I want to download programs onto my GP 32, I still boot my computer into Windows. (Though I will check again soon to see if the Mac or Linux software is out for it.)
Of course, sometimes the PC hardware won't just work with your Mac either, but people are more accepting of PC hardware being incompatible with their Macs.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
About three years ago I decided to give linux a spin. I had used a command-based OS (DOS) extensively on my first computer, and I was somewhat accustomed to Unix from my account at college.
At the time I had a custom (shop built) system with a lot of wierd hardware. Very few of my components were detected. It took me a week to get my monitor working in X Windows, since its configurator crashed everytime I tried to change settings, leaving me to alter the file by hand. Once I finally got my monitor working, I concentrated on the modem. Although I never got it working, but I did manage to destroy my monitor's functionality in the process. After about 2-3 months I gave up, concluding that Linux was not ready for prime time (and certainly not ready for my hardware).
So I figured they needed time. I've got a newer system now, and I was much more careful about getting standard hardware. I waited for mozilla and openoffice.org to approach 1.0, and finally put linux on a dual boot a few months ago. I even paid for a copy of lycoris (because I like what they're doing) and was generally pleased with it. My install was pretty easy; my DSL modem and printer worked.
I used it for a few weeks, but was ultimately unhappy with it. I couldn't install KDE 3.0 or Evolution and couldn't figure out how to get my CD burner to work. So I decided that even though I like this distribution, I needed something more flexible.
So I put on Red Hat 7.3. The install seemed to go smoothly, but it barely autodetected anything. My netgear fa-311 doesn't work, instead it sends the message "link up" every three seconds for reasons I cannot fathom. (I'm connecting through a DHCP server). Deja-google can't help me with this problem. My windows drive doesn't mount automatically (without text editing of cfg files - ugh), I can't browse my roommate's files via the network, my modem won't dial, and I still can't burn a CD in it. In short, I'm not happy with it.
I'll admit I haven't invested more than a few hours into configuring Red Hat, but that's the whole point. It doesn't matter how many spiffy features you put into the OS if I can't get it working easily. Quite honestly, I've got better things to do than mess around with config files. I spend 8 hours a day at work on a computer, and the last thing I want to do when I get home is jump through hoops so that I can check my e-mail.
Come to think of it, I haven't even booted into linux in about two weeks because I just haven't been in the mood to deal with this kind of crap. I was planning to try another distribution, but I'm not sure I have the energy or the patience.
Yes I remember how long it took windows to get plug-n-play right, but you guys have got to realize that easy installation is key. It looks like I'll still be waiting to convert my desktop (but still using mozilla and openoffice, which are incredible programs).
We have been field testing it as a cheap way to support linux machines. You set up one Uber server and Joe workstation acts like a remote keyboard and screen. One boot floppy and the computer phones home. How is that for install time? If the boot floppy is asking too much, you can burn the bootstrap to your network card.
Doesn't hurt to have some big iron in the basement and a 100base fiber network. No wait, I'm bragging.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If you had RTFM, you would know that.
His major complaint seemes to be the fonts. The reason that linux distrobutions can't have nice fonts is because of COPYRIGHTs. (Also many related methods to produce them are pattented.) Mnay of the websights that let yoou download fonts are doing it Illegaly, but because the majority of those copyrights are held by Micorsoft, Apple, and publishing companys, if a distrobution did this they would be sued in a minute. That is why we can't have nice fonts. (And yes OpenOffice is worse because it can't rely on system fonts)
This is improving however with the use of AntiAlising.
His other valid point is where he complains about recompiling the kernel and 3rd party apps.
>"I'm a home user, not a programmer. Why on earth should I have to compile the software I want to use?"
But one thing that most former windows users are not used to, and are not warned about is sofware in developement. Most linux software is freesoftware and the developement process is open to everyone. So many users assume beacuse they can download it is stable and should work "out of the box". This simply is not, and cannot be true. If you want some thing to work "out of the box" wait untill it is 'in the box' (is included in your distrobution.) The same applies to recompiling kernels. You should never have to! Most distorbutions include a solid kernel with EVERY driver built as a module. The hardware configuration utility should do all the work for you.
I've never had any real problems with modern distros out of the box or with new hardware. However that will olny remain true as long as you don't try to add 3rd party software.
Or you could use sourcemage, where doing a 'sorcery update' is about as trivial as it gets.
I was getting tired of the 'stable' Debian release being so out of date, and the 'unstable' distribution being so... well... unstable. I got tired of stable too, so I apt-get dist-upgraded to unstable and I can't believe he found it too unstable, especially if Windows was the alternative. As long as my server isn't mission-critical, unstable is plenty stable for me where I can't remember the last time I needed to reboot for a crash. But perhaps as a home user, his demands are more than meets the eye...
I've nothing to say here...
Hi, my name's Marc - I switched back 6 months ago...
But seriously forks.
I'd just like to commend you on what you've done. I mean telling everyone about switching back.
I too began using linux around RH5 and done the distro switch back and forth, dual booting windows, linux, 98, NT4, 2K Caldera, Suse, Mandrake etc. (even tried winME)
I agree that unix isn't a viable desktop OS. I'm a unix admin by profession and love what it does for servers - I listen to the guys at work bitching about their 2K server needing to be rebooted *again* or how the latest new virus took them out for 3 days. I've never encountered any of that.
But in the desktop world, where I've had to turn to unstable X releases for my latest ATI card (suckered onto my 3rd ATI card now) and like you said about burning, it was a hassle.
Although I am a developer by trade I agree about having to recompile everything - not worth it. Everything should come in a binary package (yes with a separate package database from the OS) with source on hand if you want to tweak it or review it.
I have since stuck with XP on my laptop and desktop, and left linux (OpenBSD too) to my firewall and server. I know there's more like us out there, my friends are a few of them, and hopefully Linux will change, and hopefully the elitists will become non-elite.
I have to agree with you on this...
In my cases, there are two situations with hardware under Linux:
It doesn't work at all due to lack of a driver or
It works great if a driver is available
Rarely is there a middle ground.
But with Windows, you can reasonably expect to spend at least 2+ hours with any new hardware getting it to work, and then it may not always work. I often wind up using Linux to perform hardware detection (Finding out where quirky devices are putting their IRQs, etc) - It used to be you had to use Windows to identify hardware for a Linux box, now it's the other way around.
I recently spent 4 hours trying to get an ISA Zoom 56k modem working under Win2k - Not a winmodem, a genuin honest-to-god-looks-like-a-UART modem. My Linuxcare BBC found it after every jumper switch, and it worked in 75% of the configurations. (Other times, I knew from bootup that it was conflicting.)
Did it ever work under Win2k on my cousin's machine? Nope.
On the same machine: My dad swapped the mobo, and later reformatted Win2k. Apparently, 2k's reformat utility isn't the hottest (NT's is the same) - I have very often found a "reformat" leaving vestiges of the former OS, which were in this case causing symptoms that made me think the IBM HD had gone Deathstar on me. 2k consistently reported bad blocks, and the HD made funny noises.
Run badblocks in destructive R-W mode from the BBC - Not a single sign of problems.
Reinstalled 2k on the wiped HD - The mysterious "hardware" problem was gone.
XP is wonderful - If you have it configged for multiple users, the mouse cursor sometimes disappears in the login screen, leaving you unable to do anything with the machine except pull the plug and deal with Scandisk on the next bootup.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
... I just can't afford the hardware. The day they find a way to release OS X for x86, I (and i would bet a large portion of the market) are there. It's just got to be so hard to support so much hardware.
Berto
That's the real bottom line behind the Open Source Movement. You want Microsoft software, you're going to pay for it. You want Microsoft support, you're going to pay for it.
But if you want Open Source Software, well, you're going to have to think for yourself a bit. That's the primary reason why it's so inexpensive.
When you reduce the Anti-Microsoft flames down to a cogent argument, one of the points you'll find is that all too frequently, software support under warranty is poor to non-existent.
I wish this guy well in his search for stability, ease of use and performance on the desktop. The problem with Microsoft software these days is most of all, issues of outrageous terms in the EULA and expensive pricing.
With Microsoft, it's hard to tell what you get for what you pay.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
MS doesn't write drivers for new hardware either.
This is so frustrating when people complain about what it takes to get the latest hardwre up and running on Linux. MS doesn't have to worry about writing drivers. They know the manufacturers will have to write them to sell any hardware.
This is all part of the undo influence their monopoly exerts on the market as a whole.
Linux will never match MS on the desktop, because the game graphics crad companies don't care about linux desktops. And why should they, you don't really need your new fangled 4D graphics accelerator for Tux Racer do you?
I hate people whining about drivers. It is a real problem, I agree. It just isn't Linux's fault, but the community has taken up the challenge very succesfully, IMO. The printer support in GV filters is a fine example of a lot of work that should never have had to be done. X11 (not linux, I know) support for undocumented cards and the like is another.
Apple has the same edge. There just aren't that many hardware manufacturers, and they have to make hardware that supports Apple.
My suggestion is only buy hardware that you already know works. Make a special effort if that company has taken steps to write linux drivers, or helped the developers. 3Dfx was one such company, right before they folded.
He said X windows was not as fast as he would like on his K6/233 computer. I'm sure Windows XP was just blazingly fast on that machine. (sarcasm)
Why not run both on two separate boxes connected with a KVM (thus to cut down on the desktop space but having the benifit of direct access to both). Hell, that's what I do. I can fiddle with my ipchains all I want and then cut over to hack through Neverwinter Nights for a few hours.
Ok, so there is a cost associated (ie two boxes) and it doesn't solve the "single machine => single solution" everyone seems to be championing.
But is there ever a single best solution at anything? Maybe I'm greedy but now I have the strengths and weaknesses of both OSes. Personally I hated having to live with one and not the other.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Do the number of apple geeks who read slashdot exceed the linux weenies now? I've lost track of how many occurrences of "Just switch to a Mac, a mac, a mac!" God damn, I'm typing on a Mac right now, and you know what? I'd rather be using Windows 98. Javascripting in every webbrowser under OS 9 & OS X is slower than on an equivalent PC. Loading up javascript intensive pages even under a G3 @ 600Mhz iBook chokes and farts. A G4 is *just* useable, if you can afford the premium for it. Some browsers are better, Netscape seems a tad faster than Internet Explorer and Opera, but overall, the web browsing experience on the Mac is sub-par. OS X also likes to hide common things you might need from the user, like adding a printer. It's nested within a utilities directory in system preferences. Boy, that's intuitive for a new user. And then there's the helpful user interface, like when you have an ethernet cable unplugged and try to join an appletalk network. What error message does it give you? it says, "Click on the Appletalk menu to join an Appletalk Network. Click on the stupid looking icon to open the help craplet to join now!" And of course, the appletalk menu is ghosted out so you can't select it. Brilliant, just brilliant! And then there's the invariable problems you get after doing a Software Update under OS X, where after a reboot, for no explainable reason at all it will ask you for a new username to log in as. Better make sure you remember the exact case and spelling of the name you made when you first installed OS X, or you'll be using a different user and need to fart around! There's also the neat way OS X can totally hose your hard drive if you power off or don't shut down properly. A coworker of mine has OS X Server go down in a power outage and not come back up, and no amount of nortonning or apple first aiding would resurrect it. Apples aren't bad machines, but they're not the second coming like every Apple moron keeps telling us.
Oh, besides Batmann, you should preview your post because "Lunix" is a "Linux" for C64. You need to set the example for the youngsters watching your show.
My hats off to this guy. I've been doing UNIX admin work for over 10 years now and I've been using Linux since 1994. It has NO PLACE on my desktop. As the old saying goes:
"Linux is only free if your time is worthless"
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
Bleah.... after close to 10 years of doing PC support, consulting, and technician work - I'm convinced that there's really no "better way" of dealing with the new hardware purchases.
If you constantly chase down compatibility (EG. Our new systems must be able to boot using the same Norton Ghost drive image we built for the last ones!), you cheat yourself out of better deals for the money spent. Manufacturers don't just change around system specs because they enjoy frustrating the consumer. They do it because they can add new functionality, better performance, or simply because old components they used are no longer in production.
On the other hand, if you don't insist on "nearly identical" hardware - your productivity suffers as your techs have to learn to deal with all those different configurations.
So in effect, it's pretty much a wash. You either save $'s by always getting the best value for the money in new hardware and lose some of the savings in added support costs, or you blow it up front paying premium prices for outdated but compatible hardware, and make your support jobs less taxing.
Given those considerations - I'd typically opt for getting whatever hardware is latest and greatest for the money. Modern OS's generally behave pretty well on modern hardware, and by buying large number of systems at a time (instead of 10 here, and 5 or 10 there a month or two later), you minimize the headaches of multiple system types scattered all over....
You may have figured out my devious plot bat duo.
wah wah wah wah.
But I will those Linux users back for making me into a cute and cuddly little icon.
Wah wah wah wah
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
he should have moved to a Mac running OS X.
If you want a platform that has absolutely ALL the benefits of a BSD unix platform, including security by design, stability, reliability, on TOP the ability to use your machine as an everyday desktop operating system to perform any task such as accounting, web surfing, office documents authoring, J2EE web applications development, mess around a tcsh shell, author and run scripts, play with your /etc/hosts file to filter ad servers, mixed-network-protocol networking at both server AND client levels, open any document from any other platform, create PDF documents from any application from which you can print, then OS X is the operating sytem for you.
you don't believe me?
Check out my journal to see my migration story from a win2k laptop to a titanium powerbook.
You want to see more gorey details on some of the crazy things you can do with OS X?
Then you might wanna take a look at this journal entry.
Face it. OS X is by far, and i'm carefuly measuring my words here, the absolute best operating system whether you're a unix geek, a business development drone, an engineer or ... my Mom.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
I'm a former Solaris software developer and sysadm. I use Windows systems and a Red Hat 7.3 system at my home office. I can handle pretty much all the Linux speedbumps that newbies have to contend with. But I feel I still need most of my systems to be Windows, in spite of my strong distaste for it. Why?
The main reasons are:
Virtaully all the hardware and software that you can buy at a large consumer electronics store like Fry's or Best Buy will install and run with no problems on Windows. Much of it will work on Macs. Precious little will work on Linux. This isn't to say that there aren't great alternatives (software anyway) for Linux. Indeed there are, and in many cases the free Linux software is better than commercial. But what doesn't exist is simple plug-and-play for things like MFC printers, USB 2 disks, Adobe Photoshop. For sure, there are, to some extent, alternatives. But in many cases they either aren't easy to find, or don't work on any but the latest Linux. In some cases (e.g., Microsoft Project, some IPSec VPN clients, Musicmatch) there aren't good options, including WINE.
This is sort of a catch 22, because vendors won't develop software & hardware for Linux until at least one Linux distribution gets at least as many end users as Apple's Macintosh. With the Linux market being so fragmented, it's unlikely that will happen soon, UnitedLinux notwithstanding.
Another major stumbling block is that even a GUI like KDE that most Linux savants would consider really simple is still way to complex for non technical users. One company, Lindows, is trying to address this and may have some luck. But until there is a way to make "the linux GUI" as "simple" and familiar as the MS one, people will remain gun shy.
Sorry, but this is just the way things are. I love Linux and personally prefer command line work over point & click. And I thrive on technical challenges. But 99% of *real* home users don't, and in the work world, no CIO is going to propose switching his company to Linux on the desktop until it's a *lot* simpler to user (by end users) and manage (by the IT support group).
Dual 1Ghz Mac G4 is the shiznit.
You get what you pay for, and no matter how much you tweak the minix kernel and name it after yourself, it's still a training OS on a shitty platform. Furthermore, it can be argued that Linux is a proprietory OS, does it run well on anything but above mentioned shitty Intel platform?
I've had a very similar experience with Linux, installing various distros over the past two or three years. Early on, things mostly didn't work and now I'm at the point with RedHat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.1 where most things are working. (Yes, I should upgrade both of those boxes).
It's true -- there are constant frustrations. Regarding his points about CD burners, digital cameras, fonts!!!, etc. -- I hear 'ya loud and clear!
In truth, WinXP may be a better desktop experience than Linux, but that's not why I use Linux. I use Linux because it doesn't constrain the way I use my computer. It doesn't try to obscure my data from me with convoluted binary formats for textual data. It gives me the freedom to configure the machine to fit my needs instead of the other way around.
I want some of the same things that the author wants -- simpler hardware support, fonts, etc. I also wish Linux people would stop using the word "perfectly" so loosely. (How many times have I seen something someone say "such and such device works 'perfectly' in Linux" or "xyz is 'perfect' replacement for Office." It's like a sick inside joke, but I digress...)
I found the author's assessment refreshing for his honestly. Still, I'm willing to live with an OS that's 70% - 80% there for the other reasons I mentioned.
Plus, Linux is going in the right direction so those percentages (whatever they are) will get better and better. I just hope that in a rush to fix the problems with Linux, people don't lose sight of what makes it special.
I overwhelmingly agree with his point on the separate user/system application databases. This is one of the things that absolutely infuriates me about linux. You install something - well, where the hell did it go? Who knows? I haven't found a way to get rpm to tell me, there's no standard place that things go you can look in, and half the time you have to be root or something. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it should be more clear cut. If anyone knows a solution to this - I'd love to hear it also.
$45 per U Colocation Special
I have used various flavors of unix extensively for years in school. Yet, when I tried to install Redhat Linux on my home PC a few years, I got so frustrated. To start with, the installation asked me for the vertical and horizontal refresh rates of the monitor. Do you actually expect a home user to know this? Of course, I couldn't find this info for my three year old monitor and it took me weeks to figure this out over the internet. And then, the mouse refused to work under X. After a few days of searching, I read somewhere that the mouse might not work if another daemon is running. And so on and so forth.
Long story short, I have a windows desktop and a Linux desktop at home and everytime I look at the latter, I feel proud (I installed Linux, I am a genuine geek!). But, I don't use it much. Windows is just easier to use. There is not much use for a desktop system that never crashes, when I don't use it much.
As far as the flippant replies from Mac users are concerned, I am sorry but I have never had to use a Mac in decade of involvement with the computer industry. I like the looks of the iMac, but it costs about $1400. I can get an emachines PC with monitor and printer for $500. Is it worth paying three times as much? I know Steve Jobs doesn't like the idea, but allowing Mac clones seems to be the solution. I would seriously consider buying a cute iMac (clone) if it cost me around $600. Till then, it will remain a cult.
All your favorite sites in one place!
If Linux was a car, it would still be that old junker that Uncle Fred keeps in his garage and tinkers with every weekend. He's having fun, but most everyelse just wants to drive someplace.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Saying A Linux User Goes Back" means that the starting point of linux was a desire to switch away from MS.
I'm no history buff but I don't believe that Linux started devloping his kernel because he hated MS.
Statements the compare and contrast MS and alternatives, open sourced or not, GPL'ed or not, makes the d00d who wrote the essay feel the way he does regarding users of those alternative OS's.
We are our own worst enemy.
Those most poingt (sp?) part of the his story was summarized in this quote:
"Can you believe that? It's just a computer operating system, but somehow they think that it makes them better than those people who run systems such as Microsoft Windows! Elitism drives people away, as does saying "RTFM" or belittling people who choose a different distro from yourself."
Even the way taco Stated definitevly, almost as if it were an obligatory trade off for allowing it on the front page: "Some of his ponts are wrong".
I'm sorry but it's that attitude which makes us all look like kids. there's nothing special about what we do, no more so than those doing simmilar things with closed source operating systems.
dmarien
To Pipe output In Windows/DOS to NUL:
dir > NUL
SomeProg > NUL
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I, too, agree with everything you've said. I had a friend who would take it upon himself to install Linux on someone's home machine if that person promised to give Linux a try (and see why it is "better" than Windows). Now this was back in the mid-90s and a good install really required a Linux expert to get everything set up correctly (I know it's better nowdays). So my buddy had a standing arrangement: if it took him more than 3 hours to do, you'd have to buy him dinner. But he was happy to do it because he'd seen one too many Linux desktops that had been configured by a moron so that lots of stuff wouldn't work correctly. "This is why people think Linux is junk!" he would scream. "The problem's not with Linux, it's with whoever did a crappy job installing it!" So he felt that if someone was willing to give Linux a try, they should compare Windows against a properly configured Linux desktop. Something that was set up so that an application wouldn't spew lots of missing library or font errors and refuse to run when you typed the command.
I know full well that most Linux people love to tinker with the settings of their machines. But Joe User does not want to have to tinker with settings. He wants the thing to be properly set up out of the box.
GMD
watch this
A while back someone wrote to Linux Journal asking for help getting FTP server working. The editors printed the letter with an answer from some Shmuck who said basically "You don't want FTP, you want SSH, so you can use SCP to move files. SCP is way better. Just go download SSH and install it."
How very arrogant.
How does the Shmuck know that this guy has a client that can run SSH? I agree the SSH is nice, and probably better, and I agree with advocating it. But he should have answered the question about FTP at least.
While it is true that Linux has a number of niggling problems, Windows does as well. It seems that ultimately the reason he moved to XP was because of two things:
1) frustration with graphics in general (both performance and fonts)
2) frustration with hardware support
As far as #1 goes, I'll back him on that one. Fonts have continued to be an amazing pain to deal with. Both MacOS and Windows have systems that make managing fonts trivial. I susppose the source of the complication is that X provides multiple ways to provide fonts which complicates any unified easy means to add fonts.
As for performance of graphics, I find that the performance of Linux is on par with windows. And though admittedly I'm a power user, I find it rather handy every so often to be able to run remote applications so easily (thank heaven for SSH).
Now as for point #2, though his point is true, this should not be attributed to any inherent limitations in Linux itself. The problem is simply a matter of market share. Why support the few percentage points of the market who use Linux when you can just support Windows and cover 90+% of your users.
Personally I find that for 95% of what I do, Linux is as good if not better than Windows for doing it. Evolution is an excellent mail program, both mozilla and konqueror are great browsers. With crossover I'm now able to view a lot more of what's on the Internet. Honestly the only long running grip I have that hasn't been adequately addressed is the font problem.
If you've got problems with hardware support, just make sure to research your purchases before hand to suit your needs. I've only had problems when trying to install on very new hardware that wasn't built with running linux in mind.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Yes, fonts can be quite frustrating, but kfontinst (which is now in KDE 3) makes it much easier. It's in Control Panel->System->Font Installer
:>)
btw - I am a marketroid with a linux box, using Kmail, Konq and Open Office
Hmmm.... this is weird. The destop is hard to use yet he uses only the applications that you can run on any linux desktop. All he neglects to do is look for the right hardware.
When one falls to the darkside (M$), two join the rebellian. I'll never own another M$ product, I've paid for the same crappy code since Win3.1. That's 4 or 5 times that I have shelled out cash to the empire for the same f*(&king code. I switched to RH and am damn proud. I have no problem buying older hardware...besides being significantly cheaper, it is usually supported. I haven't had one instance where it's not been. KDE3.0 is a nice desktop, and the notepad like editors aren't bad either. In about 1.5 months I have built a significant network complete with custom firewall, mailserver, webserver (apache) and database (mysql) all running without ever rebooting!!! Linux ROCKs, and has a new convert!
I agree with you to a point. People do need to make *some* effort to find resolution to their own problems before running for free help. That's why I say "You can't save the world." Some people trying to get Linux going just don't need to be using it. They tend to be the type that doesn't enjoy problem-solving, doesn't really "like computers", and expects free hand-holding for every little project they embark on.
Commercial packages are best suited to these individuals....
But by the same token, it's not fair to ignore questions because you personally feel the time can be "better spent" answering "more worthy" questions instead. The guy asking a simple "how do I set up ppp" could be doing some important stuff using Linux - and can't get there simply because he can't get his box on the net to download the files he needs to proceed.
Meanwhile, some esoteric and complex question that sounds like a "real, worthy question" is often asked by a guy who can figure it out on his own anyway. He may just be asking, hoping for a quick solution found by someone else like him. If he doesn't get one in a few minutes, he'll proceed to use his pretty-good problem solving skills to find it for himself.
"You get quality hardware with a Mac and guarantee that everything works. Put a price on that."
pffttt...how about zero
no,actually...how about 1k over what comparable standard components cost...and don't give me that crap about shipping+handling...
where do you live,the frickn yukon? no computer stores there?? get real
I'm a 7 year Linux user and RHCE so I don't consider myself a Linux newbie. I decided to try Debian out recently. I was getting tired of the RH bloat and wanted a thin but functional install to run on a P75 w/48MB without X. No CD-ROM so I built net install floppies for stable and unstable. This is an IDE system with S3 video (no X anyway) and an Intel eepro100. No other peripherals at all. Should be cake, right?
Stable works perfectly every time, but the damn unstable install was shoddy at best. The initial floppy load would go, but upon rebooting for the additional package loads, it would pull packages from the stable directory off the mirrors, resulting in many failed package installs. It would eventually get to the point where it would say, "your system has failed to install critical packages. you may choose to ignore this error, but your system will most likely be rendered unusable" or something along those lines. It finally got to the point where the package database was locked and I couldn't add or remove any packages from the system. Just a complete failure, on many attempts, too. I'm sure the CD install goes better, but the Woody floppy install is just plain useless.
I'll stick with stable for now. I get a usable system in just 96MB of used disk space.
Intelligent Life on Earth
On my system XP runs circles around 9x. Of course, *everything* runs circles around 9x, so nevermind.....
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
I should have clarified "mainstream"... What I should have said was "ready for the masses".
I run Windows XP on my laptop because my time is better spent actually working on my Linux servers vs. working on my Linux laptop. Hardware support isn't all that great for my laptop, but it's manageable.
I guess it is like living in a foreign country . . . some people learn the language and culture and never look at the world the same way . . . other people get tired after a couple years and move back, perhaps bitter about the time they have missed back "home".
There will eventually be a flavor of Linux that will provide the same kind of features this guy needs. However, I will never use it.
Enjoy it; it's your life. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
In the beginning of the article, the author refers to the average user who knows "a little" about their computer. I find that even high-techified IT professionals such as myself, with a vast knowledge of the hardware, software, networking, etc. are often not attracted to Linux, simply because their company is on the windows platform and their software development processes depend on it. I can't put Linux on my work machine, so why should I make my life more complicated by trying to nerd-around with it on my home machine? Windows XP is kicking ass on my home machine - I wouldn't trade it for anything.
I beg to differ. It is not obsolete, and it's getting bigger every day. I have a huge number of users who now interact with *nix X apps purely via Exceed. It's simply not economical to have two boxes under people's desks.
But it's not just that, in the Woindows space, terminal server just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Published apps via Citrix to thinner clients, or even pure thin clients.
And then look at XP itself, from an enterprise stanpoint one of the best things about it is that it comes with a terminal server built in to every client.
This isnt met to be flamebait so please dont mod it down too much.
After debian, redhat, mandrake (which satisfied my linux fetish the longest of all distros), and SuSE I recently "went back" to windows (XP) because of several reasons:
1. X is clunky for desktop use. It's just not fast enough. This isnt a 386! I shouldnt have to feel like im using one. For home use a smaller, more efficient X is definantly necesary.
2. Interacting with the command line does suck. Especially editing files with cryptic names just to get things working "like windows comes out of the box".
3. The filesystem - POSIX filesystem is a bloated piece of junk! Couldn't we get some standards on where files are put? I'm sick of checking 4 bin directories and having my icons and pixmaps in different folders. The FS is confusing to people who are used to a nice C: drive.
4. Hardware - despite improvements, i still cant burn CDs or watch DVDs.
5. Dep-hell - apt-get is great for debian but the rest of us with RPM's are constantly in dep hell.
6. KDE Applications take too long to load - KMail is way slower than outlook, Konqueror. takes many times longer to load, render pages, and open new windows.
Thats all i can think of, Like i said this isnt met to be flamebait cus i love many aspects of linux.
Here's the rub: cost of ownership.
...just my $.02 on it.
If you figure in the time you spend tweaking your machine just to make it work, you might look at the costs differently.
Slashdot readers are kinda geeky (grin) and do well with this sort of thing--it's a bit of a hobby for most of us as well as our livlihood. However, the *average* user as our "mate" puts it in this article, is just not willing or able to deal with the learning curve, limitations, or administration of Linux.
You get the same sort of thing on Wintel. MS forces you to go where ever they want to go today.
Either way, the hardware is cheap, but you pay through the nose in the end--if you're not savvy enough to patch your linux box or keep out MSTDs on your windoze box.
Me? I use my trusty Mac OS X box and I'm happy...but that's not for everyone either.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
The problems outlined here are what make most linux desktops unsuportable to non technical users. Thin clients and linux application servers (ltsp/k12tsp) being the only realistic exceptions to this that I see.
The only solution I see to this problem DOES involve redesigning the kernel so that hardware drivers are handled by a pluggable framework, with only API calls being made to the kernel. These modules would then install as seperate packages from everything else. glibc hell and other such issues could also be handled useing the same framework. This would vault Linux WAY ahead of every other OS in terms of driver support (imagin if a HW vendor could just release *1* binary driver for Linux?!? We would have suport for over %99 of all hardware just about overnight. And if that same linux I for one would love to see linux as a real alternitive on the desktop. I'm even tempted to try to write such a beast myself (OK, this goes WAY beyond my own programming skills, but maybe I may try some kludge to prove its possible...).)
"I would much rather upgrade my desktop than buy a bunch of Mac hardware to see OS X in action."
Think this through for a second.
These PC users, who say having to purchase a new mac is too expensive of an option, have no problem upgrading every single piece of their computer every two years.
They are effectively replacing their PC every two years.
I decided to try Linux as an alternative to Win98SE on my laptop right about when Red Hat was releasing the betas that became 7.1. I let the Red Hat installer walk me through things, and basically everything (with one exception) worked right off, with no tweaking. The default KDE setup was quite useable - I did later switch to Gnome (and then Enlightenment) because of speed, but since I was coming from Windows I didn't realize how fast a desktop could be. ;-)
I've been surprised by how well my various devices have worked without tweaking. A Microtek SCSI scanner, a USB Sony CD-RW drive, an Epson Stylus 800 printer (with CUPS, admittedly) - all worked right away. It's been impressive how well Red Hat has done to create a useable system out of the box. The one exception was my Xircom modem/ethernet card, which didn't work with that first RH beta (but has been just fine from the second beta onwards). Heck, I could even plop an audio CD in my CD/DVD drive, and it would start playing - just like Windows. Also, the apps in Gnome and/or OpenOffice pretty much cover my desktop needs. Then once I learned to use the GIMP, I really had very little use for Windows anymore - pretty much everything I used in Windows has a perfectly functional Linux GUI counterpart.
My Linux-using friends are a small group, but their experiences have basically been the same as mine. We all now tend to tweak things anyway, but that's more in the category of playing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H making things work more efficiently. When I use Windows now, it's not by choice - and I spend a good bit of that time grumbling at the slowness of the system.
#DeleteChrome
A lot of people are attacking this author over his stance that Linux should come down to the level of Joe User. The most common response I see is "Well, Joe User should come to Linux! Not Linux to Joe!" That is just idiotic. Computer geeks make up a very small chunk of the overall computer using populace, it's Joe who makes up the majority, and if we want a technology to become popular and successful on the desktop, we have to bring it to Joe... because Joe doesn't know, nor does he have the patience to figure it out otherwise.
:P
The point of technology is for it to serve users, to make tasks easier for them to accomplish. If you want Linux to succeed on the desktop, it has to become as easy and mindless to use as MacOS or Windows, otherwise it will always be a niche OS useful only on servers and for geeks who have the time and knowledge to mess with it.
Face it, when it comes to widespread success, we are not the people who decide what lives and what dies... it's the people who know far less and need far less out of their computers, because they are the majority.
And let the flames and negative karma begin
The fact that it's free, and not controlled by any one individual is it's biggest strength but also it's biggest weakness
The reason people bitch and moan about the fact that at the moment, desktop linux is not 100% perfect is simple: they've never seen this development model before. I can guarantee you, if I'd shown this person an early version of Windows (by comparing timescales, current Linux would be Windows 3.1) he'd barf. Ditto for showing people early betas of Mac OS X. I did in fact see some early betas of OS X and they sucked. Font support wasn't there right. Graphics was SLOW! Ditto with Mozilla, ditto with most software in fact.
People tend to forget that you can see Linux in all stages of its development. There is no period of hidden years with developers scurrying away under NDAs, you see it all the time. Yes, I know SuSE is on version 8, and KDE is on 3, but that's not to imply they are "ready" for anything, only that some people want to see them. Pretend the versions have the word beta in front of them. Happy now? Because that's basically the state of play at the moment.
All the problems he raised will be sorted out, and at the current rate of progress soon:
- X: why do people bitch about it so much? I think this guy heard "X is slow dude" and believed it. Seriously, I don't see any serious speed problems with X, maybe this was a problem a few years ago but I wasn't using Linux back then. SHM means communication between the server is basically instant. I would be more impressed if I could see statistics that demonstrate that X is much slower than anything else, not subjective impressions. Fonts are simply a technical issue, they will be fixed in time.
- Drivers: I was under the impression that kernel modules were pretty version independant. Of course this point wil always be valid to some extent, because people can and do make their own kernel versions. Anybody can change it enough so that kernel modules no longer work - I can't see how this point is valid as the majority of users need never recompile their kernel (I never have).
- Hardware setup: Linux doesn't have a few billion dollars lying around like some other platforms I could mention, and hardware vendors don't play ball. I can't see how this is the fault of Linux per se, it's merely an inevitable result of the fact that Linux is an open (non-proprietary) platform without any resources to buy the stuff, and currently without enough market share to make it worth their while. In time, hardware vendors will start producing drivers.
- Software distribution: yep, he's right here. As a side project, I'm working on a solution, as are many other people. This one will be solved in time, and is basically caused by the fact that there is no software management engine powerful enough to deal with the myriad differences between different Linux versions.
- Support: in time, this won't be a problem. Besides, has every Windows techie always been smiles and helpfulness? Most windows users rely on technical friends/family for when things go wrong - you have to rely on a stranger if you're unlucky and don't know any other Linux users. Elitists can be a problem, especially on IRC, but as Linux usage goes up, this will recede into the background.
To be honest, with the difficulties Linux has faced, I'm amazed it's here at all. All it's current problems will be solved given time, and at the end, we'll have an open platform that is available to all on equal terms. I think that's a fair reward for not having a tight hierarchy of leaders/dictators writing platforms for profit with everything under their control. I, for one, am not going back.I wonder if they'd actually do that? I wouldn't put it past them. They have more money than... well everyone. Have you ever been interviewed by them? They ask stupid riddle questions and could care less about your work experience. I turned down a job with them because they 1) are the devil and 2) wanted me to be a programmer, and that I am not. I have no doubts that they at least have some coops who are told to submit to Slashdot. Looks like this one is getting overtime pay for it.
~ now you know
I just bought a mac. Until now I have always wondered what it was exactly that Apple brought to the table. Until OS-X it just wasn't worth it, but now... I don't even bring the WinXP notebook home anymore and my Win2000 machine has become a big chunk of DASD on my network.
Sure, I tried Redhat and Caldera. They are nice, but Apple got it right. Unix stability with a beutiful GUI. Unless there are drastic changes to XP, I have no doubt that my next purchase will be a Mac.
Go buy a Mac. Nix on the desktop is wonderful.
i had 3 linux boxes that i used everyday. now i have none. i've switched over to XP and i'm very happy. i got very tired of the crashes. he says it's X server doing it i don't know. my first install of linux was 4.2 my last was 7.3. i use linux at work because i have to. but i hate it. when i was doing contract work i had the time to tweak everything. now that i'm working full time i don't have the time. if i come home and want to write an mail to someone and my computer crashes what good is it? back when i starting using linux the crashes were rare and then you could recover from most of them kill the process and go on. the ones i had with 7.x locked the computer up! i had to reboot.
i don't think i'll go back to linux again. or maybe when i retire and have 12 hours to tweak it.
I know there are several tiny GNU/Linux distros around (muLinux, etc.), but of the "big" distros, the one that I use on really low-end equipment (I recently dragged an old AMD-486 machine with 16M of RAM back into service) is Slackware. RedHat and SuSE won't install themselves on a machine as small as the one I dragged back into service.
Slackware did.
I think the key to "Linux on the Desktop" is to break Microsoft's monopoly control of the OEM channel. Linux already configured for your specific hardware is the easy way to go.
Didn't IBM kill off OS/2 years ago, and sell it to another company?
I vaguely recall seeing an article (somewhere) that showed the "new" OS/2 version after the new company got ahold of it. Looked pretty much the same, sans the WARP moniker.
Having worked at IBM (supporting OS/2) I can say it was a superior OS at the time. Unfortunately, no one was writing software or drivers for it (compared to the WIntel combo) and every time we turned around, IBM was pointing both barrels at its feet in regards to the OS.
Hell, they even gave copies away to IBMers to try to get them to use it and spawn a quasi-grassroots campaign to get the fire fanned. You would've been amazed at the number of internals that called our support desk bitching about what a big POS it was...
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
"Some of his points are wrong"
Its called an opinion, and seeing how you didnt back up your comment with any proof, one could say the same about you...
Linux looks good, open source is good too if/when you have the tech knowlege for it, inexpensive, lots of power without the price Web ready and some cool development tools.
But!
The rest of the world uses Microsoft, documents in Word, Excel, Power Poiint, etc. (I know star office addresses some of this.)
Staff want training in their programs (they are business people, not computer people) and what training they are getting is usually only available in Microsoft (case in point, a recent organizational training focused on Project 2000, which is now only on Windows).
Third they have specific needs like fund accounting software - which our current product of choice (which is a must for several key admin spots) seems to be following the Microsoft Windows/SQL Server and/or Terminal Server bandwagon.
Like GEM, Be, GeoWorks, OS/2, AmigaDos, etc. It doesn't matter how good the computer or OS is, if you don't have the applications people need, all you have is a fancy box with blinkin lights.
Of course if some 'burned by windows' software company were to start developing such 'required for business' applications for linux, the market is pretty open for making themselves a leader in linux business apps...
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
No Premiere,
No After Effects,
No Illustrator,
No GoLive.
So basically if Adobe ported everything to Linux I'd be in... At least A|W Maya is available, only five more apps to go, c'mon Adobe! [Let the GIMP flamers fly.]
This statement is false.
r sd e
Although I do agree with this user's views on somethings, e.g. his disstaisfaction with the (lack of) truetype fonts in X I also think that he isn't exactly right in his findings.
./configure script provided with about 95% of all source packages custom tailors the Makefile (the file that the compilers use to actually build the program) to the particular system's needs. If he doesn't have a certain library installed, it will let him know, or in some rare cases it will build that needed library. If he doesn't have some function call then the script will make a workaround, This in itself is far better IMO because it analyzes what your computer really needs rather then shoving a bunch of crap into %systemroot%/system(32)
.02
He states that he's no programmer and he doesn't like having the sources to his programs, he doesn't want to have to compile his programs in order to run them. In actuality, getting the sources and compiling is doing your system far better then downloading a huge kludge of packages and figuring out which go where. I don't know Crap about programming yet I know how to compile a program and custom-configure it should I need to.
The
If he's having to compile his kernel every time he needs to add new hardware, then he isn't doing something correctly. THe kernel has the ability to directly compile drivers into the kernel, or to have them as minor chunks of code called modules. When I compile kernels, i have everything possible as modules, less some of the more signficant hardware that gets compiled straight in. If he's coming from the "educated average user" that knows what's in his box, then I fail to see what the problem is unless he's going at it from a diffrent perspective.
I also agree with the fact that he states that Linux is in force on the server platform, but is lacking on the workstation side. I have several large linux servers and have never had a lick of problems with, Some run X some don't. I think it's kind of ironic that there hasn't been a divergence of distros where Server and Workstation are custom tailored for each application. Does a workstation really, really need sendmail? and I doubt very seriously that a server needs OpenOffice. Right now, it would appear that RedHat has become a server-side standard and that Mandrake has become the client side standard. (don't flame me about distros, I'm only calling it as I see it) I think that other distros are improving well though they haven't had as much exposure then either RH or Mandrake.
I would like to question him as to why he is deciding to use XP? IMO XP is just as bad as windows 95, It may look pretty on the outside but it's as crappy an OS as Win95. If he's really trying to avoid the DRM garbage I would've recommended Win98SE or Win2K. Both have excellent support in hardware and software, are reasonably crash-resistant and have the capability to run games, office stuff, Internet, etc.. I do applaud the fact that he's not using Internet exploiter and Microsoft Outlook as well as the fact that he is more responsible than most of the XP junkies that I know because he has put his computer behind a firewall(linux or otherwise.)
I too have considered rebuilding my desktop computer so that I can play Unreal Tournament and Half-Life again... (insert sound: MONSTER KILL) because the support for OpenGL and games in Linux just isn't there yet.
just my
Partnership for an idiot free America!
check out the darwin projects page at apple.com
I love Linux. I have made a living doing nothing but Linux development and integration for over two years. Mostly stand alone applications and servers are the meat and potatoes. But I do NOT push Linux on friends and family for desktop use because I will end up being their support lifeline, and I do not have enough time. Even when I help set up broadband firewall servers, It takes a couple of days to get the people out of my hair after the server is doing everything it is supposed to. The people realize the power and versatility of Linux, but they always want to do more, and they cannot do it themselves. How many times do you have to explain that you have to log in as root to stop/restart servers (how do I log in as root?)
Another issue that I would love to have someone explain to me is - how does a vendor support a device under Linux, when most times a binary driver needs to be compiled for every popular distribution as well as the version of distribution or the driver could fail. Even if source is supplied by a vendor, the average Windows type user would be lost.
There will always be two levels of computer users - my type and the type that will get frustrated by Linux's sheer overwhelming visible complexity. Hell - I am so tired of being asked why Windows locked up again, but supporting the same crowd on Linux would make me crazy - even when it never locks up!
Hey Linux runs excellent on old hardware under crappy conditions with noone at the helm - but it requires an above average user to change the way it works.
There is a very good reason I don't switch to OsX. I don't feel like giving a company control over my PC. As long as Apple monopolizes the hardware, I'll never switch. I've been a M$ user since DOS 5.0, and for the most part I've been happy with it because it lets me do want I want with my computer. I'm running win2kpro now, and pretty satisfied. However I don't think I'll ever upgrade to XP or Longhorn, I'm seriously considering moving to Mandrake instead. M$ has gone to far, Register my computer every time I change the hardware? I don't think so, none of their damn business. Palladium, no way, its my box, not yours. .NET, aren't we having enough security problems as it is? Replacing the filesystem with a central database, talk about the end of user intervention.
Basically, any one company that thinks they can control my machine and how I use it, is going to go the way of the dodo as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, there were a couple of times when I had to scratch my head and figure out how something works. But it's not like I never had to figure something out on other operating systems (which for me include VMS, CM/VMS, and Windows). How could Linux be any worse than that motley crew? I
I can understand why the guy went back to using Windows after his troubles in the Linux world - but I can also understand why so many people go to Linux after the headaches in the Windows world. Let's face it, no OS to come out yet is perfect, and until one is, there will always be people leaving OS A for OS B.
But really, if you enjoy the free-as-in-speech aspect of Linux, then it shouldn't really bother you if somebody else would rather use Windows. The freedom to do whatever you want to do with Linux includes the freedom to not use Linux on the desktop. You can still use Linux wherever you please; it is not affected in any way by this other person's choice. Even if nobody else uses Linux, you can still use all the open source software that exists today, plus modify any of it.
I am glad to hear that he liked SuSE, though, as I am planning on installing 8.0 myself within the next few days.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
There are still a few things missing from Linux to make it truly popular as a Desktop machine:
- Multimedia playback and recording support. Hard to count how many times I've read a comment asking for Apple to port QuickTime for Linux.
- Low kernel latency for music professional: 2.5 is definitely promising here. OS X is really impressive with average latency under 2/4 ms.
- Better support for printers/scanners/cameras. It's a chicken&egg problem. It will happen when Linux is popular as a desktop platform because people will realize that they can sell more of their stuff if they support it.
- Customer support: It drills down to getting IRC working and posting questions that you can get answered by others in 2 mins 24/7. However, to get to that point, you already know enough to find the answers yourself. Google is usually working ok, but you probably need another box if your problem is howto connect to internet.
- Reputation: lots of people shy away from Linux because they fear that it's too complicated. One answer for them: use Mandrake or Redhat and things will probably be smoother than you think. Move to something else like debian when you feel confortable if you ever need to do that.
- Newest hardware support: For the exception of rare cases, Linux lags the support of new systems. You better make sure that when you buy your system, someone has already put up a page that details the gotchas on the machine you are getting. If there is not and you are really crazy about this system, then why don't you put a page with your experience installing Linux on it.
- Fonts: that's a major pain because it's not that obvious. Also MS has a clear advantage with the use of ClearText in IE (and other viewers.)
- Web support: it's unfortunate but pretty much all web sites are designed with IE in mind. There are some sites that are not even letting me enter with Mozilla. Plugin support doesn't work for some of them. It's a pain to have to reboot to do banking online or trade stock.
- UI: until before KDE 3, it was true, but now it's pretty much solved. KDE is a better Windows (I hate WinXP Jimboree LnF).
- APM: It took me a little while to figure out on how to give my laptop as much battery life under Linux as under Windoz. Tweeking all these cron and initrc files was not what I would call obvious and intuitive. But I got help from lots of folks on IRC, so it was fun and rewarding to get there.
- Major apps: I miss a few apps that I used to run (mostly Adobe stuff.) But the price the companies were charging for upgrades wasn't realistic in the long run anyway.
- Upgrades and new kernel: It's not obvious to find out when is a good time to upgrade and why you should or not (unless it's on a server and the reason is security.) It's also really easy to break the system and find that is really hard to get back to where it used to work. For that reason, a distro like RH or Mandrake is really appropriate.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Even though I develop for KDE, I must agree about the current status of Linux on the desktop. That is probably why I work on KDE in the first place.
I've written a response (might still be in the voting queue), mostly aimed at the KDE community, argueing for new efforts for system configuration and integration. Yes, this is a difficult task with all the distributions and *NIX flavours around, but it is a must.
If you feel at all involved with the development of a distribution, system application that needs configuration, a user friendly environment, or whatever, please let me know. This is the one thing that keeps Linux from the desktops and the ability to configure servers graphically with ease (in addition to the beloved edition of text files).
Watching for changes to configurations should be easy, the kernel supports file change modification and so does KDE for example, with KDirWatcher.
I even play games, native Linux games, and using winex, no need for windows. I use winex because it's easier than rebooting all the time. I don't even bother mounting my winblows partition in Linux, nothing useful there.
IMO, best of both worlds would be Linux and OSX desktop machines, and Linux/*BSD servers, screw windows, it's the only "modern" OS around trying to limit what the user does instead of trying to empower the user. Fuck that, computers are supposed to be general computing devices, not restrictive appliances like DVD players and VCRs.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
XP is the best for home-entertainment
I use Linux, Mac OS X , W2K, NT4, and XP.
XP is by far the best for home use.
I normally use OS X on my ibook for work and I have three linux boxes at my house.
I have it as an obligatory machine in my bedroom. I tried Linux on my Thinkpad 600 but
it just gave me problems with APM, my Xircom ethernet card,3COM 802.11b wireless and sound card. I tried SUSE
between lan ethernet or wireless without rebooting (changing IRQs).Yeah, I've done ifconfig in the console
but it is bad with multiple WLANs. OS X is actually the best
for multi-networks, Works like a charm. Now,I relagate them to servers but that will change as
I move to FreeBSD. I want to use FreeBSD because I like to integrate a platform (OS X and BSD).
Plus, I hate the package managers that exist in linux today. The BSD ports system is much better.
My obligatory Linux desktop in my bedroom is going back to Windows 2000 because I can always run Win32 or
some sort x-client to run my remote X apps from the server. I gotta have DVD in the bedroom.
I agree with everything the user said in his article and add some of my own.
I use XP as my HTPC (Home theater PC) because there is no comparable platform for this type of use.
It drives a HDTV at weird resolutions. It supports AC3, Dolby Digital, DTS PCM sound from
my Sound Blaster Live to my reciever. The DVD software (PowerDVD,WinDVD) puts both
linux XINE and OS X Apple DVD to shame. Windows Media player manages my 25,000 MP3 collection
and over 100 mpeg music video in a nice format from my wireless remote control (StreamZap) and
wireless keyboard/mouse. It is truly a home entertainment device. Firewire video
plug-n-plays very nice and I can capture video easily and burn DVD movies.
Mac OS X is close but it lacks the HDTV video support (1080i) and AC3, multi-surround sound in DVD.
I am hoping OS X 10.2 addresses those. But for now, it is XP. BTW, games are better too.
Thats why I have XP in my home entertainment system. I also like the new Free-style thing
I hear where the UI is tailored for TV screens.
When I get home, I pull up my remote, press power on. The TV comes up. I hit another buttonm Windows Media player comes
up, PowerDVD, winAmp and I can browse through my media collection.
Soon, I will add a HDTV recorder and satellite nav system.... Can I say the same for linux or macs here. NO.
I think XINE sucks and I think iTunes is over-rated.
As for X-windows, it does suck. Fonts are horrible, no matter how you try to work with it.
Each app uses its own font system. You may have nice ant-aliases fonts in Konqueror and Nautilus
but in Mozilla it sucks. Abiword uses its own font system. Screen fonts don't match with
printer fonts.
For now, XP is the best home type system and OS X is the best overall OS. Linux is not intuitive for home use.
I understand how he could feel the way that he does but much of what he says WAS true a few years ago but Linux is changing rapidly.
I find it much easier to install Linux than an old copy of Windows 98. The new Mandrake, and I'm sure other distros as well, will pick up all of my new hardware without a glitch whereas Windows 98 requires that I laboriously load each driver from support CDs that came with my equipment. This process can easily add an extra 30 - 45 minutes to the install process.
Newer versions of Windows will come with better built in support but as time goes by and new equipment comes out you end up right back in the same position. This happens with Linux distros as well but the big difference is that I can upgrade for free if I can't afford to pay for a distro.
His experience with being able to get on-line is totally different from mine. I have a cable modem that is attached to a routing switch which connects my home LAN. With mandrake I simply tell it to auto detect. No hassles. Maybe he has a regular dial up modem that isn't well supported. WinModems for example are not well supported.
I only have one piece of equipment that didn't get picked up by the default installation. That is my scanner. I purchased it without doing the research first and have regretted it ever since. It's a Cannon scanner and the reason Linux doesn't support it is that the specs are unavailable. It's my own fault and I will never gain buy without doing my homework first. If it doesn't support Linux it doesn't come into my home. I purchased an Epson printer that is actually better supported by Linux than by Windows.
As far as X being slow, it's interesting that Quake 3 for Linux runs faster than Quake 3 for windows if you use a NVIDIA graphics card and OpenGL. So, obviously Linux can be a gaming OS if people would write for it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I must have screwed up my latest Linux install, because the fonts look pretty good. Mandrake 8.2 with KDE 3, Celeron 850, 256 Mb ram, runs pretty fast, looks good on an old Princeton Graphics Ultra 17+ running off a 16 Mb ATI All-In-Wonder Pro at 1024 x 768, bajillions of colors.
I haven't gotten that TV thing working yet under Linux, but hey - I love the chase....
I tell people it isn't hard to install Linux - I've done it thousands of times - sometimes dozens of times in a single weekend!
How the fuck is this "insightful?" Looks more like a troll to me.
Mac OSX on x86 hardware? jeez, get real. It's the mac hardware/software relationship that makes the 'overall' mac experience so great. I've actually converted last year, and now, I'm preaching Apple's wonder called OS X to almost everyone. And their reaction? 'Where do I buy one?' (do i sound like a salesman? cos I'm pondering to pursue that career path.. ;)
anyway, the moral of the story is.. well.. you get what you pay for. Buy some shitty generic £300 PC.. and that's what you get.. get Apple.. well.. I'll leave that for you to decide.
sorry if wondering a bit offtopic, but it HAD to happen.
Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
Much is made of the fact that X is fundamentally remotable. However, WinXP editions other than "Home" support running remote GUI applications using terminal services technology. The machine is still fundamentally single user (you either "take over" the main console session or that session is suspended for the duration of the remote session), but I've found for home use it gets the job done nicely.
I used this capability routinely while traveling on business, proxying the terminal services session over SSH running on my OpenBSD gateway. It actually performed usably when dialed up to an ISP from a hotel room halfway across the country. And by usable, I don't mean "it could be used if you're a masochist". I mean, I used it to send / receive home e-mail and do Quicken regularly. Although X has it's strengths, working well over high-lag, low-bandwidth connections is not one of them.
For a hardware company, Mac has put out a real killer OS. An underlying engine as powerful as linux with a polished GUI and more decent commercial application support as well as the ability to run most all of the open source projects out there... All of his issues are addressed by MacOSX.
For him, and the many users like him, it would be a great platform, if the price/performance ratio wasn't crap...
Personally, I would like both Linux and Mac. For all of its spit and polish, I think I would miss some things about fine tuning my system and having ultimate configurability I have in linux. If I could afford it, I would add a Mac system to my collection. I probably wouldn't bother with yellowdog (the whole reason I use linux over FreeBSD is thanks to some oddball hardware and applications that are linux/x86 binaries, and wouldn't work on PPC..). If only linux had an API-compatible graphics layer, then getting a company to compile for linux mgith be easier... oh well..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This guy is posting about his experience. How can anyone on Slashdot know more about his experience than him?
What factual errors are there in his article?
If there are things he could not find (like a decent way to handle fonts) it isn't necessarily wrong. It just means that it was more difficult than should reasonaly be expected.
If you don't code for IOTTMCO compliance, you don't code very well.
The reason desktop linux will never beat MS is because MS pays its programmer's to do the stuff
everyone abhores. MS says to its programmer's in an indirect way either you do code this module or there's the door....
Linux programmers write code to do something because they have a passion for it. What they don't want to do is write code to handle all of the trench and gruntwork.
Because of this, linux programs will always be difficult for the average Joe to use.
I use Linux for all my home servers and embedded projects, but still use Windows 98 SE for my desktop bacause I find it is easire and more efficient to use than the Linux Desktop.
In other words, Linux is an OS specifically for developers and server admins who have some extra cash. It's a niche, to be sure, but it's probably a large one, so maybe Linux has a chance.
>|<*:=
Agreed. My old box was a Win2K machine, which worked fine for everything I needed to do. Last week I had the dubious honour of setting up a new WinXP box. While there are certainly things to like about XP (it's almost worth it just to lock the toolbars so you can't accidentally drag them around), I have seen plenty of irritating niggles.
I have other reservations as well, but the poor UI work and lack of performance/stability are enough to rule it out as an advance over 2K as far as I'm concerned, before you even get into the whole IE/Media Player/DRM/M$ 0wnz U thing.
I'm about to get a new top-of-the-range box, and I'm looking seriously at what type of system and what OS I install. Right about now, the options under consideration are Win2K, Linux and MacOS X. After my experiences at work, WinXP isn't a contender.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
who gives a flying fuck..
I think we want 'good users', and don't want 'bad users'
If they read the docs, ask questions and work with you to solve their problems they are good users.
If they flat out lie, or are unwilling to read the appropriate documentation, we don't want them.
All non trivial tasks have a learning curve, you have to put in effort.
If they aren't ready to put in the effort for laces we can leave them in their velcro shoes and rubber boots.
Well. I have opposite experience than this guy.
1. My X never crashes. He mentions he has
NVIDIA - well, this is his problem, binary
drivers not X.
My Linux never crashes. XP crashes regularly
even though I use XP 5% of the time - just
for Spanish and for hardware config: my Spanish
program crashes XP and d-link configuration utility
crashes XP if I plug the AP in the different hub than initially. The only program on XP which I
use and does not crash it is DVD movie viewer.
2. I agree fonts are far from perfect but
I do not care about them anyway. The only thing
is that I do not like anti-aliasing - my eyes ache
from it.
3. Binary kernel drivers are a bad thing.
They are usually far less stable than OS ones.
He mentions he has NVIDIA, he complains that
X crashes, yet he still praises binary drivers?
This guy contradicts himself.
It is stupid he argues for them.
He should rather be much more carefull in what
he is buying. If you buy right hardware - you
have no problems with drivers. Even better -
drivers are in the system so you do not have
this nasty CD-juggling/OS-rebooting as in Windows.
4. You do not have to compile the whole
kernel. The whole idea of modeuls is that
you compile just the module - just the driver.
With right Makefile made by someone foryou
it is quick and painless.
5. cd-writers : adding a single, well defined
line to lilo.conf or grub.conf is not
a big hassle. Also some distros do it for you.
Why not suse- I have no idea.
I do not know about GUI. CLI with simple
basic scripts is far simpler and faster for me.
6. most of the time you do not have to compile
software on Linux - just get rpm. You need
to compile only when you need the latest version
or you need a new driver.
Now about XP: well I had a lot of cases when
drivers are crashing XP while the built-in driver
does not work. Honestly - I had many more
problems with Windows XP than with Linux.
But I am buying hardware carefully - after
insuring it does work with Linux.
Bill's Switch Commercial
Linux is still the best solution, just look at these numbers!
.sigc tors.h tml
Recidivism rates after three and a half years:
Acts of Violence: 37%
Theft of Property: 52%
Abuse of Drugs: 51%
Using Microsoft: 1/18,000,000=0.000005%
These are my sources, and this is my
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/fa
http://counter.li.org/estimates.php
So far I haven't seen this mentioned, and this article is getting old, so hopefully somebody will see it.
I tried switching over to Linux, got the latest Mandrake distro, got through a very easy install, no problem. Then I wanted to add some software to my very nice KDE interface. Since I didn't have 'net connection for my Linux machine, I DL'ed the Linux versions of OpenOffice, Mozilla, and a few others. Then came the point to install everything. Ack!! I'm not a programmer, I've never compiled anything in my life, and I sure didn't want to start when I simply wanted to install OpenOffice. This was the main reason that my Linux install didn't last, for the simple reason that installing apps requires compiling code, there's no setup.exe. Call me a newbie, call me a simpleton, but I simply do not have the desire to start compiling everything that I want to install. Before that changes I'll be dorking around on my Win2K machine, thank you very much.
Stupid users don't doggedly stick at something for three and a half years, trying distribution after distribution in the hope of finding the holy grail of Linux desktops
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
This guy has no idealogical or ethical reasons for choosing one way or the other. From a functionality standpoint, he has valid reasons and I can understand them. I choose to run Linux because I like the challenge it brings, and I cannot any longer support Microsoft ethically. I still support MS in my job (hey, I gotta eat) but for that which I personally pay and build it's Linux or some other OS. I find that for me to send money to MS is to further purpetuate the iron-handed tactics and illegal activity that has created the monopoly in the first place. So for me it's Linux for myriad of reasons but I cannot "switch back" because I can't bring myself to support them personally. >
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
IMHO, I agree that winXP and 2K are completely stable. This used to be a major reason to run Linux, but I don't think it applies anymore.
Many of the items pointed out by this atricle are among the reasons I exclusively use the BSDs. (OpenBSD primarily)
With (Open)BSD, while it may be behind Linux when it comes to support of oh-so-many sound cards, anything it does support is extremely easy to get working...
BSD is really plug and play. You stick in new hardware, and when you boot up your system, you'll see a message for every piece of hardware, and a note if drivers for it are not loaded.
This may not sound to exciting, but you NEVER have to recompile a kernel (it does not need to be recompiled to operate as fast as it can). You never have to screw around with hdparm, or anything like kudzu. Support for everything is in the kernel, so no debian-like setup is needed.
Despite the fact that not all sound cards are supported, the same can't be said for other hardware. The BSDs really do support just about every piece of server hardware in existance... That means SCSI cards, network cards, IDE, USB, et al.
That really only leaves X to configure manually. I've often wondered why the system could not just pass along the detected video card and parameters to some XFree86 program, which could modify the config...
But I digress. I must say, to a point, I must agree that X is not ideal. It uses up a good deal of memory to do practically nothing. It's using up about twice as much memory as mozilla (even for someone who surfs with dozens of windows like myself) and about 60 times the ammount of memory that my window manager is using. Even with this, I'm still not mentioning how much knowldge and work is needed to get dri working, a mouse wheel scrolling, and to have X shut off my monitor after a certain time.
Don't think I'm not greatful to the X developers, or think that it isn't much better than Windows' graphics. X's windows don't tend to break up when you move them, and never distort when one window overlaps another (every windows user has has blotches on their screen from desk-mate type programs, and similar). I just think that something more lightweight, more simple to configure, and doesn't have baggage like network support might be a better solution to Unix GUI concerns.
Hell, you don't even need to support all the video cards. Just write a VESA 2.0 driver and everyone will have video on every card. Even X doesn't support every card out there.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"Wanker who jumped on linux bandwagon discovers he made a mistake, rejoins legion of MS using sheep (read: people who just want other people make their computers work)"
Really...who gives a fuck? Is this newsworthy?
I think it's time I went back to those heady good old days of not reading slashdot. I mean really, what would I be missing?
I just have to say it, even though it won't change anything around /. ...blah blah blah /. is capable of using it for THEIR desktop, but I wasn't talking about "us".
So you're scanner won't work, okay. I guess that NO USB scanners work w/OSX then, right? Previous posters have been saying "check hardware specs" blah blah blah before you buy
So take their advice, even if it was directed to a Linux user, it holds true for ANY user purchasing goods.
Also, I have just got to say that all the OSX buzz is beautiful, even if most zealots are in denial. I work for a medium size custom pc shop, been in business over 15 years. I know ALL MS products very well, run a number of flavors of *nix (whatever gets the job done, usually free/openbsd), heck, our shop still has more than one novell box around. At home I am fairly average, just a few comps, mostly for game/surf/email/chat and limited web/progamming (when I get time)....What I'm trying to say is that I have moved to Mac (1st time ever) and I feel that I made an EDUCATED and WELL RESEARCHED choice. Not everyone would agree, but it works just fine for me. So anyway, I am
both sick of and happy to see the reaction from the linux zealots over MacOSX, as it reminds me of MS's early reactions to Linux, especially their denial about it having any merit whatsoever. Get over it fellas, OSX isn't perfect (again, what is?) but it's a damn sight closer than you are all giving it credit for.
Seriously, why do so many Linux nutjobs insult it, then I find that the default windowmanagers for linux almost always resemble windows or Mac, and I don't mean just WIMP, I mean widgets, themes, icons/placement/start bars/ etc etc etc (and I specifically mean Liquid)
Debate it all you want. Sure there will be lemons (hehe...lemons, apples...hehe), but I'm sure that you already know that NO INDUSTRY or COMPANY can truly claim 100% satisfaction (though I'm sure you'll find some goofy example that you'll post for debate). The truth of the matter is that Apple, with MacOSX, has a great product (it's okay, you can still deny it, I expect you will). Linux, though an outstanding server, is just not ready for the average user's desktop. Notice how I worded that, since we know that EVERYONE at
thats about it though unless you're running a server. If you want to run a cool new app, better have windows...
Set this registry key:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar to 9 - voila! Tab completion!
Other option: install Cygwin and bash. Ahhh, the joys of a real grep command in Windows.....
I used Linux for a couple years, and dropped it when Windows 2000 came out. Now that XP is out, I find it to be an excellent OS. Here are some of the apps that I use:
1) Powerquest Drive Image. After a perfect installation of my system and applications, I take an image. I take images in steps so that I revert to one or another at any time. Fifteen minutes sure beats 6 hours of installation. Drive Image is a gem for any windows users. It preserves perfect installations from viruses, trojans, and other possible system problems.
2) Virus protection. Any file should be scanned prior to use. I have EZAntivirus since it has a small footprint. I use it in manual scan mode only.
3) Firewall. Nuff said.
4) Regcleaners or reg tracking software. Windows poor design makes it challenging to keep the registry clean. Of course I can always use Drive Image to revert back. This gives me the means to try any software with zero risk.
Windows XP is a huge advancement over previous versions. With the addition of some thrid party apps, you can take control of it easily and avoid any catastrophe.
Regards,
javajeff
Linux users (and many arrogant solaris admins) think that their OS is so great that everyone should use it. Then, when people do use it and complain, they insult them. Next, when those same obtuse jackasses copy a function from windows or mac, they NEVER give credit, but demand it when someone else "innovates" off of their program. Whatta bunch of hypocritical morons, if you ask me.
Three years ago I permenantly deleted Win95 from my computer and made SuSE my only OS.
Three months ago I switched from SuSE 8.0 to Mandrake 8.2. SuSE is good but, IMO, Mandrake is better. (I disabled the supermount because I prefer to control mounting and umounting myself.) Mandrake detected and automatically installed all of my hardware, including a PleXstor CDR, a Toshiba DVD, and my rr toshiba cable box, something SuSE 8 couldn't do with out manual help. Mandrake allows me to easily switch to accelerated video for games, etc., and back to non-accelerated video for regular use. (Because the r128 drivers are not as stable as they will be, I use them only when I am in a gaming mood.)
GIMP does my graphics, XSane does my scanning, StarOffice 1.0 (nice manuals!) does my office work, VLC drives my DVD, XCDRoast burns my CDs, QCad does my drawings, MuPAD does my math (but I like Sci-Lab too), the Crossover plugin does both QuickTime and Windows Media Player, KMail and KNode connect me to the world, and Galeon is my prefered browser. KDevelop+PostgreSQL+QT3+QDesigner are a killer GUI-RAD Dev combo.
I have never had a kernel crash, but I have had some beta apps blow up on me. Not to fear, I use ReiserFS on most partions and EXT3 on the /boot partition, which has recovered from power-outages and accidental power cable trip-ups. I have never lost any data, except through my own stupidity.
My prefered desktop is KDE3 and new apps appear every day. It is like Christmas 365 days a year running GNU/Linux+KDE. (GNOME is nice, I just happen to like KDE better. To each his own.)
Get yourself a scsi scanner and a scsi cdrw, and they both just pop in, and linux already knows how to use them both.
Oh, you wanted to use the Windows Proprietarty USB devices.
Well, why don't you complain that a ford enginve doesn't work with a chevy transmission.
Linux is an never will be an _alternative_ to any commercial OS. Neither MS nor Mac. Because there is no company behind the System that *wants* everybody to use it. Sure, Linus Torvalds would be happy if everyone on the world uses Linux as their home OS, but he will also not cry when they use another system.
...
But IMO it was the wrong way for him to use the SuSE distribution, because they are building stupid tools whith which you don't *want* to learn more of Linux. And I bet that any Debian-User would get his system to run without any problems. Because they are beside of yast
It is terribly easy to install either of them.
And you are only the 104th incarnation of a standard variable name, so do you think we really care what you have to say?
I'm not calling Windows users ignorant.
I am calling the philosophy behind Windows ignorant.
How can someone justify deliberately limiting their knowledge about how their underlying operating system works?
The owners of the Windows operating system source code want everybody but themselves to be ignorant of how their computer functions.
This should not be a pragmatic discussion because what you are really doing by going back to a proprietary OS is saying that it is okay for someone other than you to limit what useful knowledge you can acquire.
Linux, GPL, OSS, it's all about education to me, not about some fancy desktop.
I too used Linux at home for a while, but as I use NT/2000 at work, I just gave up after a while. (I do still have it installed, but I just don't boot to it too often).
Too many LINUX folks don't understand that Windows 2000 and XP aren't your fathers crash-pigs.
I run 2000 now, and don't have to reboot for weeks at a time. If a process dies, I can kill it 99% of the time without affecting other programs. I also can run an 12-20 apps at the same time without slowing down. This isn't a god-machine either. It's a PIII 500 w/256mb RAM.
Yes, it's got it's issues, but when you can be in the middle of a NETWORK install to a laptop of Office 2000, and pause it, pull the PCMCIA network card out, jot down the serial number, and then plug the card back in and continue the install without a hitch, or that you can install hardware that doesn't even need to prompt you for anything, or when you can add a network printer with 5 mouse clicks, then I'm thinking it isn't that big of a problem.
Jim Slattery
Network Guy (MCSE)
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
This guy claims to have been using linux since 1998 and he can't handle editing a text file? I don't even see why he needed to mess with lilo at all to get a cdburner to work, but hey, I use grub.
:P
I've been wanting to switch to linux for quite a while. About 6 months ago I finally did the switch.
Linux finally has a good office suite, and all the hardware support I need.
I'd been toying with linux for the last few years, and it just didn't have all the apps and hw support I want.
Today, as I sit here and write this on a win2k machine at work, I miss all my linux apps.
I had to go download mozilla, openoffice, cygwin, and emacs, so I could get some work done.
Win2k frustrates me though. It's like having one arm tied behind my back. I have to reboot every time I change network setting (you still can't change DNS without rebooting). I have to waste time reconfiguring apps so I don't have to play hide-and-go-seek with less frequently used menu options. I can't customize Outlook's spam filter. I wrote my own, but a "you have mail" box still pops up every time I get spam, even if the mail gets moved to the trash.
The most important thing I learned when switching to linux is that it is different. If something doesn't work exactly the same way it does on windows (Ex: cut&paste) people act like there's something wrong. To get the most out of linux you must admit the it is not windows and be prepared to re-learn some things. Don't act like it's broken because it isn't windows. You do realize you weren't born knowing how to use MS Windows? You had to learn somehow. If you're not willing to learn, you won't be good with ANY operating system, you may be able to use it, but just barely.
My cdburner works fine
as well as my tv-output, tv-input, webcam, psion docking, 3d acceleration, and sound.
Linux is ready for the desktop.
It is as easy to use as windows.
Note that I said use, not configure.
Getting it configured right still requires someone decent computer skills. But people should remember that most users buy their computers with the os preinstalled, or it is done by a tech. They average joe may not be able to configure a linux pc like I have, but the could buy one preconfigured and use it. I think linux is ready to compete.
It's biggest selling point will be trust.
I switched because I knew DRM was coming down the pipeline. I don't trust microsoft, to control my access to MY data and more than I'd trust them with the keys to my house and expect them to have an employee waiting to let me in whenever I come home.
I value that data on my PC more highly that just about any feature MS could come up with.
The only real issuses that this guy brings up are configuration issues. Everything else is just bitching that things don't work exactly the same as they do on windows or that X isn't perfect. Win2k mangles my background on a daily basis, is that perfect? Linux and X w/ KDE use less ram than win2K or XP how is this bloated? 3d support should be optional. Modular software design is the way to go. You shouldn't need 3d acceleration to run notepad and you don't. Did I miss anything else he said?
Life is too short to proofread.
Olde Cmdr Taco says:
;^)
[Some of his points are wrong, but it's a reasonable article.]
I'm a little lost on how any of the author of the linked article's subjective feelings on the suitability of *NIX on the desktop can be "wrong". I think he's done a good job to document his gripes when they deserve it, and I bet he'd be the first to admit that perhaps his $99 (Australian) CD-RW isn't representative of every IDE drive out there.
But you can't fault this guy for not being honest or for not doing his research. Heck, the only point I could find to argue with at all was in this quote:
[When I move a window [in WinXP], it refreshes so fast that I don't miss X11 at all. While not quite as nice as some other operating systems, font support is outstanding compared to XFree86.]
"other operating systems" links to Mac OS X. I hope he meant font support, b/c the Finder's dog slow in Appleland.
Sounds like a reasonable cross-platform guy who's done his research to me. Though his reasons for not using Linux on the desktop might not be the same as someone else's, that doesn't make him wrong. [-1 Troll] Mr. Taco.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
I'd have to agree with alot of points he makes, but not just for the joe-average user with his box at home, but also all the millions of people who work in companies,....now I do the sys admin for mine, and they all use windoze, now I can't imagine the utter knightmare the support level would be if they were to all switch to linux, not to mention their paranoid about interoperability with all formats with their clients here and abroad,.....I have enough troubles telling salespeople to make sure the power is on!
linux is actually easier than windows for the technicall user, here is why:
1. when something breaks in windows, your only hope is that its gets fixed on the next service pack, and then after a few service packs the product gets abandonded like NT after service pack 6 forcing a costly update.
on Linux you have the source and therefore can fix the problem, even for the non programmers usually a fix is available in rpm and the problem is disclosed, unlike windows the problem is kept secret from the average user.
2. any fix in windows requiered several reboots.
In linux you normaly do not need to reboot when updating software or fixing something, unless you are updating the kernel.
3. Security, linux is much more secure than windows by default, and it can be made even more secure.
4. The uptime in linux is far superior to the uptime in windows.
5. Some people claim X is slower than the windows gui, but this is not true, since it depends on the graphic chipset that is being used, and when you think of X think of total time something takes, for example changing the resolution is only 3 keystrokes, in most versions of windows this means rebooting after going in the control pannel.
6. usually hardware that does not work on linux, is because the manufactures do not provide the hardware specifications, and it is usually very poor hardware like winmodems, or bad scanners.
for example I have an acer prisa scanner wich is very bad it does not work on linux, but on windows it is very slow and uses all the cpu of the system that why you are scanning you can not do anything else.
7. There are things that you can do in linux which would be very difficult in windows, for example setting up x terminals vs setting up windows terminals.
8.In linux you can update programs individualy, in windows in many cases this is not possible.
for example in linux you can update the kernel, in windows this is not possible without updating the whole os.
in linux you can update X and only X, in windows you can not update the GUI without updating the whole OS.
9. Viruses.
In windows a virus can kill your OS.
In linux the most damage a virus can do is limited to the files owned by that user.
10. Technicall support.
Windows has only tech support from ms which is bad and costly, mostly you are on your own.
For linux there are many distributors that offer tech support, and many independent consultants, for example http://wwww.consultorlinux.com offers linux tech support for very low fees, even free in some cases.
Why is linux tech support better than windows, well most users that use linux is because they like the os, in windows for many years you could not buy a pc that was not bundled with windows, and history shows that the average user will use whatever he gets.
I have been using linux for 9 years, and I can see the huge progress linux has had over the years, today it is much more friendly user than in the old days, if you do not believe get your self a copy of SLS and compare that to red hat, and you will see the huge progress that modern linux distributions have made.
One of the biggest problems that linux faces is ms savotaging the stardards, for example ms tryied to destroy java, and created something that run on windows only, then web standards, for example the few times I see mozilla crash, I look at the source of the remote site and it is usually created with frontpage, and it does not display properly with any browser other than ie,
filesystems, everyone knew how fat and vfat worked from a tech view, but then ms released ntfs and the linux gurus are figuring that out, by the time it is figured out ms will release something again with no specification of how it works with the goal of breaking compatability.
For those rare cases in that I need windows,
I use vmware which is very good sadly they increased the price by 300%, the private version used to cost $100, now it does not exist instead the commercial version cost $300. another opcions are www.codeweavers.com, and free www.winehq.org
Linux is not that difficult to use por the average user assuming it was installed for them, the average user would have massive problems with windows if he/she had to do the installation from scratch.
And for the power user linux is much easier to use.
Its interesting for me to read these mac related posts... as an Apple shareholder, I'm happy to see people propose the product and support it, and that many are happy with it... But then again....
I no longer have a Mac. My last one was a Revision A iMac, which continually had hardware problems after 1 year. Being that there are a VERY few places that can service macs in Metro-Atlanta (espescially near me) and those places that can are very expensive, I had to give up on it when it most recently died (again).
I have toyed with the thought of my next computer being an OSX machine, but this last experience has totally burned me on the all-in-one boxes Apple sells (iMACs, eMACs?) as I can do almost no troubleshooting/repair on my own. I currently have three computers up, Win95, Win98 and Win2000.
Come play Moral Decay!
I run X11 on NVidia, ATI, 3Dfx, and some handhelds. It is stable like a rock, small, lightning fast, and it doesn't crash, either itself or Linux.
KDE, Mozilla, and Gnome can be slow, and some misbehaved applications that don't use mouse grabs properly can make X11 appear to "crash" (it's really working fine, you just need to kill the application--happens under OSX and Windows as well).
Those are not X11's problems, they are problems with the toolkits that those systems use. Switching to a frame-buffer based system is not going to fix those problems with the applications.
Just like the rest of X, Unix fonts have different strengths and weaknesses over Windows.
... and all of a sudden, every X workstation has access to the fonts!
Here's something to demonstrate the strength of X's font system, while at the same time one of the primary weakness of Windows'.
You have 40 workstations; half run Windows, half run X. You have to install some new fonts - 5 or 6 hundred or so... To do this on windows, you walk to each workstation, insert the CD, copy the fonts, the
On Unix, you walk over to your FONT SERVER, copy the fonts, then type "killall -HUP xfstt"
If you're administering a lot of machines, X's font system rocks.
Title of parent post is:
Re:Kinda (Score:3)
Is this a bug? Since it's been moderated, shouldn't it be Interesting or Informative or Troll or something?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
This is a problem with Linux today, I agree. But before you lament, try going to GNOME 2.0. It antialiases the fonts :)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
ppl need to read (the fine manual)
I agree with you in principal, but in practice that just doesn't work. Most of the people who ask stupid questions dont know HOW to look up an answer in a manual...
So the boss of an auto shop asks for advice on fixing his car from an employee. They tell him to RTFM. Obviously that won't work, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That's why the guy mentioned by the parent was fired.
It doesn't matter how stupid the question is, if you job is to answer questions than do it (nicely) or get fired.
Life is like pants... fit in or you don't fit in.
I've been using Linux since about Slackware 96 - so I know where the author of the article is coming from. Most of his points were quite dead-on accurate ... as long as you're talking about Slackware 96. These days, I use Red Hat - up-to-date versions (7.2 and 7.3) on all my machines. My Linux experience now is quite different from my experiences with Slackware 96.
:)
:)
...
;))
:)
...
Slackware 96 *was* ugly. Heck, FVWM-95 was atrocious. It took me forever to get it to look and act the way I wanted.
With Redhat 7.2/7.3 and Gnome I didn't even have to edit anything.
Back in '96, there really wasn't much you could do for everyday "office" tasks. These days we have Star/Open Office and other rather good office tools. I find (I'm a teacher) that I simply don't need to use MS Office. Plus, I find that my laptop (an IBM thinkpad) is orders of magnitude more stable with Linux/SO/OO than Windows/MSOffice. I'm not talking about OS crashes here (W2K is fairly stable) - I'm talking about application crashes that cause me to lose data. I don't like losing data.
Internet tools? Give me Sylpheed any day over outlook. It loads in a second - even on a slow machine - and lets me *not* look at whatever silly fonts/colors someone has decided to inflict on the faculty today. (Where is the option to have HTML mail rendered as plain text by default in Outlook? Darned if I can find it). I also don't get the virus-of-the-week automatically executing on my machine. A little fringe benefit, I suppose
I use Galeon, and I wouldn't trade it for the latest IE if you paid me. (Well, you could pay me, but it'd have to be a lot.
Hardware? All the hardware on my laptop was autodetected. I plugged in my PCMCIA network card. It Just Worked(tm). Same with my PCMCIA modem. And my JAMP3 player that I bought from Wal Mart for $20. (To be fair, this Just Works on W2K too, but I've yet to be able to make W2K see the multimedia card instead of just the internal memory. Linux sees it just fine.) My USB Zip drive works great too. I didn't even have to configure anything. I plugged it in, booted up, and RH just added it and added a mount point for me (This device actually DID work with Windows with equally little fuss).
I don't buy all the latest little doodads from CompUSA, true. (I don't need 'em.) But for the most part, Linuc Just Works(tm) for me. And keeping up to date is trivial with Red Carpet.
Of course, half the time I think I need something I realize that it's on a RH CD already.
I guess there's something just wrong with me. Linux does what I need it to do. And I'm a (chemistry) teacher, not a programmer.
But if Linux didn't do what I needed, I'd probably look elsewhere. Maybe that shiny new Mac OS
-- Rick
From what I've read, the guy sounds like a mixed bag to me. Firstly he says hes no programmer, but then runs Windows XP through a server to the internet ?? This is not a home user !!
Other than the two X problems and a cheapo CD drive that need configuring, I didnt see any other problems. So what was it made him BUY half a dozen distros then give up ? I wish I had his money !! A few years ago, we used to call people like this a 'versionist' - constantly updating versions because it was the latest 'thing'.
I'm running X on a Cyrix 300 with 64M of RAM and a 3G hard drive. I've been running successive Mandrakes on this for years, no problem. Fitted a DVD drive recently, recognised straight away. Best thing I ever did was ditch Netscape for Opera. Not had a crash since.
Yes, there are 'issues' with Linux, and he has listed some of them. However, what he failed to note was that Linux is not a desktop OS, but is being pushed that way. Permissions are the biggest stumbling block in this.
I use NT at work, and am no stranger to Windows. After this many years of development, and all the supposed cash that Microsoft had spent on it, you would have thought they would have got close to a good product by now.
I've seen Windows 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, and now XP - I cant wait for Microsoft to spend any more money to make it stable, I dont think I will live that long.
If all installations on all Linux kernels across all distributions are that easy, why hasn't some enterprising chap encapulated "compile the module...depmod -a,modprobe" into a nice little Universal Install Routine?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Being a Linux user for 4 years now, I've noticed that Linux is good for some things, and bad for others.
GOOD: Servers like file, ftp, email; firewalls, etc...
BAD: Multimedia stations, video editing, doing anything with audio, connectivity, compatibility, and all those oh-so-cute USB thingies out there.
Linux makes a DAMN GOOD server. And I think that things will stay that way for a while. It's not mature yet.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
HELLO LADIES!
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Mr Joe Average is someone who wants to install their OS, boot it up, and it works.
Linux: 1
Windows: 0
NEXT!
For me, the big deal-killer is lack of a mature acessiblity framework coupled with Dragon NaturallySpeaking. In fact, I'm still wondering why OpenOffice is the only program on my desktop that does not successfully interoperate with Dragon.
I've been using Linux for 3+ years, and I cant count the number of times I got so fed up with it that I wiped it clean to reload Win2K. Mandrake 8.1 ran slower on a PIII800 w/ 512MBRam than XP did on my PII350 w/ 128MBRam...how is this possible?
./configure, make, etc.....a user, no matter how good their intentions are, shouldn't have to recompile anything, period.
I still use Mandrake 8.1(no X/KDE) for my server needs, but as a desktop/workstation, I can only use Win2K(granted, most of my work is audio related, and I'm sorry, but Ardour is FAR from useable as a Linux multi-track recorder/editor)...though it defintely didnt help that I could never get my M-Audio Audiophile to work in Linux(even though the company swears by its Linux support...if so, then why did they pull the Linux driver from its website a year ago?).
yes, I read all the man pages, how-tos, etc...I got Samba to work...ONCE, and I still dont know how that happened...
granted Im not a programmer. i never did a recompile,
he's defintiely right about the fonts. their ugly and about 10points TOO SMALL.
whatever...just let me run my Apache/PHP/MySQL and FTP and I'll be happy, but it would certainly be nice to be able to use the GUI every now and again...some things you just CANT do from the CLI.
the history of the world
From the article:
I was getting tired of the 'stable' Debian release being so out of date
But it lets you be out-of-date on 11 different architectures!
It may seem simple to *us* to install new drivers, etc., but it is a non-trivial task to those who do not live in cyberspace.
If they don't get hand-holding thru this, they'll never get to the interesting questions.
J!
I was in a similiar situation. I had been using Linux on my desktop for years and only booted into Windows for games and other things. Once I left school started working I was developing on Linux all day. By the time I got home I wanted a system that "just worked" for my simple needs at home. Windows 98 didn't cut it, so I took the plunge and bought XP.
I was hooked. It solved all of my home computing needs.. and best of all.. it worked with virtually no effort (maybe I'm just lucky).
Recently I reinstalled Linux because I wanted to do more development work at home and was just more comfortable developing in a Unix environment. Other than that, at home I use XP full time.
The writer should have used XP longer before submitting his article. He will soon discover IE 6 and the desktop will begin to crash constantly.
I run both Windows XP, Linux Redhat 7.1, and Windows 2000 on some 7 different boxes at home. I have found XP after a period of time will become highly unstable and prone to constant crashes. I finally had to remove it from the laptop I use for work because Outlook (company email client-stop laughing) stopped opening - only to replace it with Windows 2000.
And I raved on XP when I first got it! I soon found out it suffers from the same symptoms as Windows ME. It simply becomes corrupted over time.
I appreciate how Linux stays consistently stable.
The writer of the article might find he will be switching back at the next re-install of windows. Which MS recommends once a year, I recommend once every 3 months (at least.)
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
XFree86 is very fast. XFree86 is far more stable than either the Windows or Macintosh GUI. XFree86, as well as MIT X11, also are tiny and can be configured to run in around 1.5Mbytes and will live happily on a 66MHz handheld. Try that with any of the other window systems. X11 font installation doesn't have to suck either--if it does, it's because the desktop you are using lacks the right utilities.
XFree86 is also the most stable window system I have used. I use XFree86 with ATI, NVIDIA, 3Dfx, and some frame buffers. It certainly doesn't "crash Linux" (it's just a user process), and I can't remember when I got the last crash (with some newly released, proprietary NVIDIA driver at that). In contrast, I have seen my share of blue screens on both OSX and Windows, even though I use them less and even though they came preconfigured. When a desktop running X11 appears to crash, usually what happened is that the desktop manager of the desktop you are running died and the desktop doesn't handle that case (this happens with some regularity under Windows and MacOS, but they just quietly restart it).
Run X11 with twm, icewm, or blackbox, and use only applications with toolkit actually written for X11, and you'll see that it is really fast. Look at X11 on a handheld and you'll see that it can be really small and fast.
X11's supposed X11 overhead really is overhead that comes from toolkits and applications that were not really written for X11. Most of the major X11 toolkits aren't X11 toolkits at all, they are cross-platform toolkits with an MS Windows orientation: Qt, Mozilla, FLTK, and wxWindows, were designed as cross-platform toolkits and Gtk+ might as well be. People wrote those with a local frame-buffer API in mind, and it's not surprising that their performance under X11, whose APIs are very different, is less than optimal. Gnome and KDE are also not using the X11 IPC mechanisms or the X11 resource mechanisms, instead substituting their own inefficient and less functional versions. It's not surprising that applications are slow if they need to talk to an object broker; if, instead, they communicate with each other through X11 properties, they are zippier and they work correctly over the network.
Of course, the user doesn't care why the Linux GUI is big or why it appears to crash, and these issues do need to get addressed. But they need to get addressed where they are being caused. Replacing X11 with a frame buffer system will not fix anything, it will just waste many man-years. If you want a faster and more reliable Linux desktop, either Qt, KDE, Gtk+, and Gnome need to shape up, or you need to use another desktop. While it still uses a fairly inefficient toolkit, XFCE is already a great improvement over those other desktops in terms of performance.
'nuff said
Maybe you think this whole 'graphical user interface' thing is a fad?
I once heard a song by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie called Every OS Sucks, where Linux users were described as 'elitist nerdy shmucks'. Sadly this is true for much of the 'community'. Too many consider themselves better than the rest of the world because they run Linux. Can you believe that? It's just a computer operating system, but somehow they think that it makes them better than those people who run systems such as Microsoft Windows! Elitism drives people away, as does saying "RTFM" or belittling people who choose a different distro from yourself.
Now, he says this as one of his reasons for dumping Linux. I would have to say that those of us who put in the time and effort it takes to run Linux can't help but take an inflated view of ourselves. I mean, if it really is "just a computer operating system", then certainly he could and would still run it. No, it's more than that. It's a badge of honor, a sign of someone who is willing to put in some extra time and effort to work with something they love. Don't put us down for making an effort to learn how to use it.
That said, I do more than my share of helping users. I co-founded a LUG in my home town 5 years ago. I taught linux courses at a local training center. I've installed linux boxes at local non profits. Certainly, I understand that newbies need help. . .but, it's only right to help those who help themselves.
If someone asks us a question to which we can find an answer on google in 30 seconds, they clearly have not made an effort to help themselves. Linux gurus are not a linux help charity. If that's what you want, pay some to be there for you whenever you want it. . .
Next time you want to say that elitist Linux gurus are causing a problem, remember that in order to become a guru, we all had to start from scratch too. . .
** Martin
No, I believe this is what happens when a post is modded as Overrated or Underrated
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I use testing and I'm pretty happy with it. It's more stable than most distributions and it's fairly up to date. I agree with most of your buddies other points, but there is a nice middle of the road Debian distro.
Mr Joe Average is someone who wants to install their OS, boot it up, and it works. He wants to be able to upgrade his PC , and have the hardware work in a few short minutes. He wants to read email, browse the web, talk to his mates online, and play some games. Feel free to disagree with me, this is merely how I see myself. Note: I'm not referring to Grandma using Linux, or even my mum using it. I'm referring to average users who know a little about their computer.
Sounds like you want Mac OS X.
Step forward, not back. It's real, it's powerful, it's easy, and you can sleep at night.
"First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
It isn't in my best interest to get Liux on every bodies desktop.
It isn't in my best interest to have every Johnny-Come-Lately know how to install it.
Windpws doesn't have a real community, because there are too many damn people as users. Once a community grows too large, it starts to break down. Most people are dissastisfied most of the time. Most people aren't truly unhappy, but most are dissastisfied.
Elitists aren't a weakness for Linux. I like cutting edge stuff, hell bleeding edge stuff. Tech support and markettroids don't program that. The people that do program that stuff don't have the time to answer every FAW wuestion over and over and over again.
Are you really going to answer "How do I set up PPP?" with anything other than "There is a great step by step howto that you can't really screw up." No, you aren't. And I would rather tell someone right away than here the question 20 times before they give up and stop using Linux.
Linux won't fail because people don't use it.
Linux will fail when it stops being developed by elitists.
Look closer. It's been moderated Underrated, which increases the score without changing the text.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Suggestions: 1. Say "It's in the manual." Relatively inoffensive, and universally (with Babelfish) understandable. Make an editor macro if it's too much typing.
2. The questioner probably tried looking, but searched the wrong section/document, or used the wrong term. Advice on what to look for, or best way to do it general, is useful.
3. Read the whole question and make sure it's in the manual before you shoot your mouth off. (Obvious)
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
I also switched back to windows XP some months ago, but am now again using Linux.
... until you're used to linux.
You see, in my view the benefits of XP are only superficial. Once you know how to use any unix-like OS, I think you can't live without it. I'm also talking from a user (ok, power-user) perspective. I'm not a hacker, I don't even know how to program in C.
Some monts ago I felt the same frustrations as the author of the article. I swithched back to XP. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised - from a stability point of view I think it was about 1.000.000 times better than the various MS-DOS variations (win 3.1, 95, 98 and ME), that preceded it. At one stage I even thought it could finish all "linux on the desktop" attempts.
However, after some weeks (OK, days...) of use I just started missing certain things, most of which are difficult to explain but I'll try anyway:
1) That true multitasking feel, which just doesn't exist in Windows. Why the f*ck does it still slow down when a network connection is slow??? It just irritates me how the GUI locks up for 5-6 seconds when downloading a webpage..., and how I can't move a window out of the way when an application inside it is "busy", or has crashed.... This seems trivial
2) I am lazy. I don't close windows. In XP, having lots of windows open or minimised slows it down. In Linux I don't even notice. In Linux I can recompile a program, print a photograph, create a 1.2 GB tar file and record a CD at the same time. I tried this in Windows and had to dump the CD.
3) In XP, I don't have fetchmail, leafnode, or squid, all of which make a slow connection seem quicker.
4) After a week of use I had a horrible virus on my HD, in some mysterious way a file called klez or something just appeared everywhere. Of course being used to Linux I thought my girlfriend was copying files all over the place, but no... XP was actually doing this, instructed by some guy in China!!
5) Many things I did on linux could be done on XP, but all of them cost lots of $$$$$.
6) I really tried to find what ports were open, what services were active etc. etc., but never actually managed to find it without resorting to (eg) nmap on another linux box.
In the end I reinstalled XP without any network connection and use it to play games and edit my home videos. For everything else, Linux, thank you very much....
Unless you're me, in which case you can barely afford to upgrade your current PC. Or if you, like me, don't like Apple's hardware. Or, if you, like me, don't like Apple's business strategies. Or if you, like me, like virtual desktops.
Will people please quit it with the "Macs are perfect" routine? I've tried them, they're not. It's getting very old, very quickly.
EXACTLY -- even tho I enjoy tuning my competition car, I want to work on the stuff *I* want to upgrade, NOT be forced to deal with some damn loose end left by the manufacturer.
It is just as important to me that I CAN IGNORE the machining on the oil-filter base plate as that I CAN ADJUST the location of the upper strut mount.
For the record, I'm glad you replied instead of moderating. That's usually the right decision.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Switching from MS Windows to Linux is like fleeing a country run by a mad tyrant dictator.
Sure, in your new home you might have to work a little harder, but at least you are free. You can even participate in the local politics if you want. Maybe the food isn't as good as in the motherland, but at least the ingredients are listed on the label.
Imagine a Godzilla with Bill Gates' face going through a city, crushing little buildings that say Sun Microsystems, Netscape, BeOs, etc. until he runs into a giant Tux The Penguin, and they fight! It could be called Gateszilla Vs. Torvalds.
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
...the Unix on the desktop vote goes to Mac OS X. No, it may not be the bleeding edge of the BSD set, but at least it looks good and runs what I need it to run.
Fair? Fair you say. Who said anything about fair? Who ever it was needs to be beaten up-side the head with a 2x4 of reality. I'm in a similar situation as Phexro. I also spend a lot(too much) time in Linux chatrooms. I try to help those I can, BUT I have no interest in fighting with somebody who refuses to accept my help.
Just a quick little tip: If you ask somebody for advice do NOT argue with them when they give it to you. You're asking them because they presumably know better, listen!.
Anyway, to all you newbies out there hit up google for the smart questions howto. (try smart_questions.html) and
- RustyTaco
PS: No, I'm not some sort of "god". I ask questions of the channel too. If somebody answers they can provide a great direction to start researching.
Sorry I don't have $3000 to drop on a gay computer.
Yeah you got me. Having to compile the module and do all the rest is actually SO much easier than clicking 'Yes'. How could I have been so blind?
The point is one requires work from the user, while the other makes the OS do all the work automatically. It's not that a keyboard is hard to use, it's that I don't want to do any work, which I think is quite an admirable goal. I'd actually like the computer to research the best price for the part, order it, sign for delivery, and plug the unit into itself without me being involved too, but we're not quite there yet. And while we're at it, it might as well cook my dinner for me, bathe me, clothe me, and troll for me on slashdot.
linux is not ready by any means for people who don't want to really play with their computer, windows is, but unfortunatly you need to deal with the garbage that is microsoft. but, where linux succeeds (and i really should stress succeeds) is as a programming environment, servers, and for people who really want to play around and learn something fun and entertaining. in time linux will be ready to support the hardware that microsoft can, but for now, we are limited to what people develop, basically what the smart people need for their personal use. or we have to become the smart one.
I write code.
Fonts are very important to useability, not just eyecandy. My first Linux installation was about a year ago. I can still remember how frustrated I became not being able to read 50% of what I pulled up on the web. That made setup a b*tch, Kind of hard to RTFM if the FM is unreadable! I am not surprised someone would bail on Linux for that alone. It was sort of like...Now I see why no one uses Linux (on the desktop)...What I do not understand is why the guy is still having problems. When I updated to a newer version of the same distribution earlier this year everything looked fine right away with no tweaking. Now its more like...I don't understand why more people don't use Linux. It was enough of a usability improvement for me to try to make it work for everything I used to use MS Windows for.
My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
Just a quick question:
I've been trying to get kvirc to run on my rh7.3 and it seems to require older kdelibs. How do you get around this, since you mentioned you're also using KDE 3.
I'm going to dive into this one as well, since you both seem bent over by your particular favorites.
> I bought a flat panel imac at home. It has worked flawlessly since the first day I turned it on. The screen is great, much nicer than typical cheap PC screen.
The flat panel on the iMac I use is roughly identical to the flat panel monitor on the Linux (Intel) machine next to it. If you'll pardon the pun you should compare apples to, well, Apples.
> The system is faster than the PC is replaces (an "old" 2 year old PII-800 with a geForce 2 GTS card and u2w2 scsi disks).
Again, unfair comparison. Will a two year old iMac outrun your two year old PC? Will a current PC keep up with your new iMac? The answers, by my experience, are no and yes, respectively.
> It cost a lot less than a PC with a similar configuration (you got the math wrong, sorry)
You must have gotten your iMac off the back of a truck, then. For price I've always found PCs to be cheaper. Quality is a different issue, but the sticker war is no contest.
> I saves a lot of money on aspirin now that I do not have to listen to the PC power supply and cooling fans.
I'm right with you on this. The Intel PC is a noisy beast compared to the iMac.
> To get a good PC, i.e something that is not a piece of shaking noisy junk, you need to spend a descent amount of $$$.
True, but the same is true of Macintosh. You just can't choose to build a bare-bones, bottom of the line Mac. Quality is good, but sometimes price trumps it. At least with an Intel box you can go rock bottom if it's necessary.
Virg
Other issues:
Once installed and configured, who cares what OS is running? To say Windows is easier than Mac OS or Linux is bunk. I tried to explain to my mother yesterday how to make a backup copy of her Quickbooks data to another drive -- it took me about 15 minutes. Lord help her if she wants to do it again! With Linux, I could have remotely configured an icon or root menu option that would forever accomplish the task. Or, I could send her a command via email, she could have copy/paste to xterm window. I have a customer using xvscan for document imaging on a Linux box that runs its own Apache for retrieval. She finds the system easier to use than the Windows scanning system with a much more expensive, less-featured retrieval system. She can look up information from any Windows workstation on the network and I can perform remote maintainence.
Click here or here.
I was/still a Linux user/admin (@work) from 1996 till 2000,in 1999 when I installed FreeBSD, all my "linux" problems just vanished. whenever you need install something, just go to the ports, make install, and ur done.
wine, crossover, vmware, these things make ur life easier when ur stuck with some app that requires a winbl0ws arch. to run..
try out FreeBSD! or OpenBSD! }:>
On this issue, does anyone have success using xmame? Is there any support/forum out there? I've downloaded the rpm and installed it on my RH7.3 system. When I run it, everything runs OK but there is no display, nothing pops up.. any suggestion?
Chief software architect for the biggest software company in the world and his personal page breaks in Mozilla. Go figure. Note the image on the upper left. In Moz. he's no longer the Chief Software Architect, and the navbars all break, hit "About Microsoft" in IE and Moz. for example.
If they want people to SWITCH to their product, they should make their site accessible to all browsers and code to standards. This would make it easier to find out about the plethora of fine offerings available to me from Microsoft.
Forcing Useragent in Konqueror to an IE variant will show that the menus work, but don't line up, at all.
The lack of basic HTML skill present makes me wonder. Not that I'm any better, certainly not, but then again, I'm not the Richest Man, and I don't claim to make the best software in the world either.
I like music
Let me put on my asbestos armor and get this going:
;)
I'm really suprised that Bill Gates himself actually tried linux for 3 years
{sarcastic grin}{yes that was kindof a joke}
I only have a couple of complaints, about this article, mostly technical though. Everyone needs to decide what they like the best, if you don't think linux suits you try something else.
But:
Not much credit was given to the fact that he started when things weren't driven for simplicity.
Linux was hard to use, and still can be, given you are working on something non-trivial. However, he didn't seem to notice that after time his dists were getting 'better'. It seems the comparisons were just this was better than that.... Which is a bad way to judge anything, even virii like windows...
Also, the hardware mentioned was a k6-233, a pentium calss machine, I didn't read anything about a hardware/CPU upgrade, but I can tell you right now, not even running X completely out of swap will it be slower than XP's GUI. I think there was a neglect to relate an upgrade somewhere in the 'XP was faster'.
Another pointe:
Whoever wrote this seems to be forgeting something, or just didn't know them. Most of us who work on *Linux/*BSD do it day in and day out, we forget that simple things to us like adding
hdx=ide-scsi as a kernel paramater isn't trivial or common knowledge to a beginner.
Although we try se don't always remember or get them done right away. Had he stuck with it, and tried just a little harder, I think he would have noticed the things he wanted to see.
For as much as I hate both dists, both RedHat 7.3 and the new SuSE both autodetect CDRWs..
Even Slackware 8.1 has some really cool stuff over
other dists, it's all about how much you really want to try.
I think the whole pointe of this is that, that is EXACTLY the problem. The average Joe has to try and has to put effort into it, nothing else in this world comes easy, why should your OS? Windows might be more simple, but look at all you are FORCED to give up in the EULAs, and in all the downtime. For us, things are different, we don't try, we just 'do', we are so used to just makeing things work that we don't even consider it to be 'trying' anymore. I drive around in my car with a server in the trunk. It has USB and ethernet feeds to all the passengers, and a wireless setup too. I drive back and forth from Vegas to LA twice a week. I can watch DVDs, and play multiplayer games, browse the web, and check my E-Mail, when I am not driving. I didn't have to try to make it work, I just did it."wizardsworks.org/chandleg/carputer" {in case you don't beleive me}
It only took me a day to setup the machine, it still takes me an entire day to setup a Windows box to do the exact same thing.
Maybe I am a bigot, I never thought I was, I've never told anyone they 'needed' to use Slackware over another dist because it was my favorite. I've never refused to work on a box that had RedHat installed on it. But I have expected one thing, if you are going to do something, that you actually put forth the effort and actually do it.
Tinkering isn't enough, even if it is for a few years. You may learn a lot, but without the effort and a completion of something you get disheartened at stop working on it. Which I think was the case here.
I'm not asking to learn how to read the kernel source, nor to write your own dist like some of us. {DayDream Linux for the Dreamcast/sh-4}
You complained about not enough cool cdr-tools, there are a dozen tk frontends to cdrecord, not to mention at least that many standalone utils. How hard could you have looked to only find one you liked?
Maybe I am a bigot...
If you give it your all and something doesn't work for you, so be it at least you can say you tried. But if you tinker and just half-ass everything, how can you complain? How can you even say something didn't work for you, especially if you didn't 'try'?
But:
Who am I to pass judgement?
-Sir Ace
Most Linux newbies have the SAME questions time again and time again. How do I configure X? How do I use non-ugly X fonts? How do I configure PPP? How do I install these new drivers? Instead of documenting these procedures in the numerious "Linux HOWTOs", these problems should be fixed in SOFTWARE. Anytime someone needs to download a HOWTO doc that describes some obscure incantation of commands and settings, I consider that a BUG in Linux.
cpeterso
It's not an unreasonable article, but it seems entirely unreasonable for any self-respecting hacker to give a shit.
This guy wants a plug-and-play system that makes him forget he's using a computer. I, and thousands of other hackers, want a machine that we can hack on. We don't mind trying to get some weird piece of hardware to work. We get excited when we see a that we can skin every single part of a window manager (using Lisp). We love trying to crack some wierd file format. It's cool. We like it.
The minute the major desktops become so braindead that anyone can use them without thinking, is the day I find a new one, because things that go that way tend to make things boring for people who like to play with computers. I don't know about y'all, but I'm in it for the code.
I'd rather have a powerful machine that's hard to use than a powerful machine that keeps me in handcuffs with a bunch of stupid installation wizards.
I mean XP is more stable than 95 if that was the only reason he switched then it makes sense. I actually use the power of the command line on my linux machine and like the security of a secure web server.
The biggest reason I still keep some winblows around is the severe lack of Sound Processing software out there. Aside from webby activities the majority of time I spend on my home machines is doing wav editing and mastering live music performances.
..and *Please* correct me if there is good stuff out there. I would love to be wrong on this point but my searches have been fruitless.
Where's my Sound Forge or Goldwave or ProTools or anything for that matter for Linux? Back working in a research lab in Madison I was attempting to write some myself although I found documentation for audio hardware to be crap or unavailable. I really *have* to keep on using M$ until the big audio companies start looking Linux.
> he mentioned osX in the article (itwasalink)
I know he wasn't paying attention to the article like he should, but calling him an "itwasalink" is completely uncalled for. Keep your epithets to yourself, punk.
Virg
Darwin is merely one part of OSX.
Except a car isn't a general purpose machine. It has one purpose...you drive it. You may drive it many different places, but you still drive it.
A computer can be used for so many different things. People need to learn some minimal knowledge about how they work, since you can't expect every program to behave the same way. The programs are doing different things, but as long as you take the time to learn the basic principles of how most GUI interfaces work and how software interacts with hardware, you're pretty much there in terms of knowing enough about how your computer works for an average user.
What really scares me is when you take an MS Word user, put them in front of Wordperfect, AbiWord, or whatever...and they can't even begin to figure out how to use it. Even though the menus and the toolbars at the top are practically the same. If we want to use your car analogy here, how come a Ford owner can drive a Chevy? Because they know enough about the basic principles of operating cars to get by. Basic principles of computing may be a little more difficult to grasp, but it's still the user's responsibility.
I can make the same argument for sitting a Windows user in front of KDE or OS X. It should take a couple hours at most to determine the differences in the interface and what actions correspond to what you're familiar with.
He wants to be able to do work on it. He doesnt' want to have to pick out a computer to match his drapes. I will give Apple credit for a better UI, but as for everything else...
OK, for one, macs are great for getting work done. Have you ever even used one? I don't have the link (nor do I feel like looking for it), but I have seen studies which show that companies which have macs as workstations generaly have more productive workers because the machines have a lower downtime over-all. The windows downtime may have improved since that report, but the point is, you can get work done very easily on the mac.
Apple's back-end is just a pimped-out unix. At least Micro$oft can write its own OS and doesn't go converting to *nix when they realize it sucks.
Linux's back end is just a pimped-out unix too. What's your point? UNIX is a tried an true system that works great. As a matter of opinion, windows still sucks, M$ just hasn't realized it yet. No, Apple has realized that with the advent of Linux and the continued success of SUN, UNIX (and it's varients) is becomming a more widely seen OS. It seems very likely that UNIX will become one of the most predominate OSes. To move the Mac OS to a UNIX underpinning is one of the best moves apple could make. The only reason M$ doesn't do it is because that would sacrifice most of it's control over the OS.
Hardware: Remember back when apple supported BeOS? Ever wonder why they dropped it? Because they realized that if people could run a MacOS on IBM hardware, they'd abandon Apple's hardware like investors from Arthur Anderson.
No I don't, so could you tell me when they supported BeOS? Last I knew, BeOS was simply writen to run on mac hardware, just like yellowdog and LinuxPPC. That doesn't mean Apple supports them. And Apple has made attempts to port to PCs in the past. Each time they did however, they killed the project because a) it went over budget, too many different things to support and b) it wouldn't provide a good source of income.
I don't really feel like getting my ass reamed out every time i want to upgrade my system. Getting raped on IBM hardware doens't make me gay, but pushing back by willingly getting more expensive apple hardware does.
To start, that statement is so blatently flame bait, it truly reveals the fact that you are 1 of 3 things.
1) Uneducated drone of microsoft who knows nothing about computers except how to turn them on and download viruses.
2) A 13 year old trying to be cool
3) A moron who doesn't care about their credability.
Either way, if you hadn't before, you lost all the respect of any reader right there. All macs are upgradeable, even the processor (http://www.sonnettech.com/). RAM, HDs, and just about everything else is standardized.
Do research before you post.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Umm, try more like $600-900 for a machine which will make that Mac look slow.
Dell Dimension 2200 loaded up with 256 Megs RAM, 40 gig drive, 17" flat screen CRT... $900 with WinXP, Microsoft Works.
With the stability of a real XP kernel, and plug-n-play that really works, not to mention a UI with intuitive design instead of just being pretty. Why spend more and get less from a Macintosh?
to all those preaching right tool for the right job, I agree wholeheartedly. I have a single boot linux machine for EVERYTHING I do; my computer is used for work only. I play games on my PS2....
:(
or at least I did until Neverwinter nights came out.... sigh... time to reboot
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Why is it always the most uneducated on the subject of Mac performance that have the most to say on the subject?
Wait did you just say intuitive interface...you where talking about XP right...I must've missed something...I could've sworn you said intuitive...I would say OS X is pretty and intuitive...I have never seen anyone hop on a windows box and get onto the internet as fast as my grandma did on her iMac....
When we say "desktop" do we also mean "developer's desktop" or is that called workstation? Because as developer's desktop Linux (or in my case FreeBSD) is much nicer than any of win32s. I know a guy who refuses to use Linux on his desktop, but he also refuses to do any programming on his win2k and does everything on Linux. So my point is that Unix is not only suitable for servers, but also for desktops used for work.
I passed the Turing test.
Anyhoo, I won't be throwing away my backup systems, after installing SETIqueue server my XP boot.ini got corrupted somehow, and when I rebooted I got "HAL.DLL" is missing or corrupt, operating system cannot boot. System restore that comes with XP only works after booting, so... I consoled in and extracted hal.dll from the XP CD. Didn't work, ah well. I reinstalled XP, and despite having Admin rights I can't access my old "My Documents" because Administrator doesn't have enough permissions to perform a system recovery. So now I'm stuck with "My Documents" from before my system failed, I'll need System rights to access it or delete it
On my Win98 system I trust Roxio GoBack completely, it gives me far more control over everything than linux gave me, I haven't booted into the linux partition for 2 years.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
I'm just curious. Most of the Linux zealots came from the Amiga and OS/2 worlds.
Now they appear to be getting disenchanted with Linux, and now we see a lot of these posts telling how great OSX is.
It appears that we are in the next phase of the cycle. Amiga lost it's luster, as did OS/2, and now Linux falls to the wayside. The zealots have adopted MacOSX as the Next Big Thing.
So this fellow is running Windows XP on a AMD K6-233 and he expects me to believe that the graphics are lightning fast? Must be some slow lightning we're talking about.
WinXP:
.ps file to a plain win user will just make things hard for you and probably a lot of complains. The problem is that Microsoft became an "industry standard" :( and breaking that is hard.
$5 Student price
Dont get me wrong. I am another plain user. Is not that I like MS. I totally hate MS and MSoffice but the other office applications cannot do all that MSoffice does. Word totally sucks but I have learned to work the bugs out. Excel is powerful and i can interact Excell-Access without much pain and its fast. I became kind of pacient when they crash.
Another problem is that a lot of people use MSoffice. Sending a report as a
I keep trying different versions of Linux and I like them but I cannot use them for my work. I have been using cygwin so far with good success.
Why are people who don't like Unix interested in Linux at all? Just because of crashes? I don't want my nice Unix-like environment to be friendly and happy and sunny all of the time if it means it won't be like Unix anymore.
I compile C code because that is how it is done, it is incredibly portable in these days of autoconf (how anyone can complain when they have autoconf, I can't imagine; must not have been around in the days of xmkmf...), and gosh darn it, it isn't that hard.
I use the command line because the command line is where it's at in Unix. I accept the fonts and the occasional crash in XFree86 because it is, after all, X _FREE_ 86, and it gets better all of the time. Not that there aren't commercial alternatives, like those from Xi.
I accept that sometimes my IDE CD R/W device has to pretend to be a SCSI device. Isn't it impressive and wonderful that it CAN do that?
I've never had problems with windows under X moving slowly, but if I did, I'd get a decent video card that XFree86 supports. I'd do that because I like Linux more than I care about what trivial problems I have with hardware I run.
I know these Johnny-come-latelys who actually liked Windows at one time in their life want to play with the cool toys too, and by all means they should, but let's not kow-tow to their whims and turn Linux from Unix-like to Windows-like. Or Mac-like. Or VMS-like. Well, maybe VMS-like.
Floorb.
Wine comes default with redhat 7.3 but actually WineX is much better at handling games, especially those needing directx, but at a small fee, or use the developer's CVS version for free.
WineX even sets up menus (Program files) on my kde menu, just as if it were still windows
Comment removed based on user account deletion
$1500? I just paid about $1000 yesterday for a retail AMD 1800+, slick retail motherboard (from Elitegroup), 40x12x32 CD-RW drive with an included OEM version of Nero Burning ROM, DVD ROM drive, great Radeon video card and great live sound card and 3 speakers, a 512 stick of RAM from Crucial, an optical mouse, a very ergonomic keyboard, and lots of other parts making up a complete state of the art system excepting the monitor and printer (there's a $150 laser jet printer I'm gonna get and I can probably find a 17 inch monitor for $100 or $150 if I wait for a good CompUSA deal). Subtract $90 if you don't want the OEM Windows XP license. I just got that so I can run games and stuff, but I'm gonna try out Mandrake and later Debian since I'd like to learn them. Plus I could save a few more bucks various places if I spent more time searching out other parts. $1500 is much more than necessary for a state of the art PC.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Most of them are trolls, as are many of the "newbies" on IRC. You should know as you say, "I have about a dozen impersonators, so keep your eyes open." One Stephen Barktoo can kill many many news sites and IRC channels with a few robots.
Who could believe that people who spend their time making a free operating system, utilities, programs and all the trimmings would waste their time flaming people? Yet it's easy to belive that a ruthlessly competitive comercial software entity known for such behavior and proven guilty of anti competitive behavior would waste resources on this as part of their advertising budget.
Who here has not been very patient with many newbies and others filled with irrational M$ BS? It only took two knowledgeable people and many manuals to enlighten me to the point of M$ independence. I've never personally met any kind of "flamer" though I've run into plenty of them online.
Read The Fine Manual, however, is very good advice. I spend plenty of time answering questions and helping but at some point everyone has to help themselves. If they have gotten to that point in their use of general computing devices, they would be up to their eyeballs in useless M$ manuals if that was their OS of choice, so I feel little guilt in pointing them to a good book.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Some coward moderators only mod with "underrated" or "overrated" so they can't be meta-moderated. I don't think those show up.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
What about a decent software installer/uninstaller? On Linux, every time I install some software from source, it places various files/configs/links/etc. all over the system. If I don't like the software, how the hell do I get rid of it? I can't. I try to find all the files it installed all over the place, but 99% of the time, I end up running across related files a month later when I'm working on something else.
How about *this* for a concept: install all the files related to that program in a directory created just for that program! That way, if I don't like it, I can just delete the damn thing.
and switch to OS/2 Warp!
Am I the only one out there who still uses this OS?
So, not every person runs Linux. I'll still run it. Here's a couple things, though...
1: Windows Directory Structuring:
How is it that on your "Desktop" there is an icon for "My Computer". In "My Computer" there is an icon for "C:". In "C:" there is an icon for "Windows". In "Windows" there is an icon for "Desktop"?
2: I didn't read where he was using Slackware. I must have just overlooked that line. He did talk about elitism and uber-OS's, right?
3: KDE (and even moreso KDE3)? No wonder he's using Windows. If you want something fun and cool, then use Enlightenment.
4: X11 crashing? Last time I checked, the desktop managers and underlying API's, etc, crash more often than the GUI foundation.
5: WinXP? That's where you went to? That's his operating salvation? Couldn't he just use Win2k and get at least 1 ounce of respect?
"have no problem upgrading every single piece of their computer every two years."
Yes, and Mac users, if they want to be able to run the most up to date software, have to do the same (actually, in talking to people I know who have Macs, it would seem they need to upgrade about twice as often as I do to keep up to date). They are also charged twice as much for the upgrade.
Go check out:
i ty
ftp://ftp.uu.net/vendor/dux/SimCity/README.SimC
Seriously, its motif based... More amusingly, look at the price list.... only $49 for a node-locked license!
I remember seeing that page over 4 years ago, and it was 4 years old then!
This is the body of the E-mail I sent to him:
I read your article about why you went back to windows. I was interested to see what issues you found to be unacceptable, and for the most part I agree with them. Since the first day I installed linux( I started with and still run debian ), I've screamed it will NEVER be a common desktop OS. Trying to force a *NIX onto the average desktop user's PC is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Apple's attempt is interesting but I'm willing to bet it's problems will come to light, and cripple it, as the platform ages.
Quite simply, linux is an OS that was built using a server OS as a model. X will never be the equivalent of windows. Period. Having said that, I don't necessarily want linux and X to aspire to that end. The OS's stability and speed is hinged on the fact that it's not designed to automatically detect and install drivers for any and all hardware. It's not designed to do 99.9% of the thinking for you. It's crude, rough around the edges, amazingly stable, and fast. Being crude and rough to deal with is WHY it's amazingly stable and fast. Just as a good server OS should be. I am a UNIX admin by trade (self taught on linux). I put linux in every company I do work for when it calls for a new server to be added. I've NEVER gotten a complaint from any of them.
At home, I mostly run win98se on my main machine with a linux install multibootable. I run win98 for 1 reason only, games. Because I am an avid gamer as well, I tend to spend most of my time in windows because it's the only OS that runs my favorite games. If those games ran under linux you can bet windows would be deleted. But being that I find it intolerable to reboot to check my email, surf the web, and so on, I tend to stay in windows for those activities as well. You'll get no argument from me when you say that windows is a far superior home PC OS. It simply is, and I see no change to that anytime soon. It's not because of technical superiority or stability. It's because the apps are there, and only there. The OS is (relatively) easy to use and setup, something that is absolutely required to be accepted by the 80% of the population that can barely tell a computer from a microwave.
I understand your plight with linux, but the things you don't like, are the things I crave. The shortcomings you see are linux's strong points to me. They represent the barrier to the average user because it requires you to understand your machine in order to get the best out of it. But while that is a barrier to most, it's exactly what allows ME to get the best out of it. I know linux's place as it stands today. It's a server/workstation os, plain and simple, and I use it as such.
steve
peace, love, respect
The problem with Linux is hardware support. All PC hardware have at least windows driver. Why not make those drivers runnable in Linux? Perhaps a Wine for WDM? Even have a VMware-like sandbox for windows drivers in Linux, so you don't get the Blue-screen by buggy drivers. Problem solved.
is what I tell people to buy if they want a computer to ship with linux. Much easier, better, cheaper.
" Because there isn't any filesharing app that runs on Linux that has as much content as Kazaa"
Try mldonkey. You'll find as much content as kazaa without the spyware and fake files.
Have to MORE than agree with you about divx support though, but then I am using freebsd which is even worse in this area than linux.
As for >700 MB files, you can either overburn them, or sometimes, bizarrely, RARing them up on max compression will make them small enough.
graspee
I am a Linux user. I have been using Linux since 4.2. Working on windows 95 and windows NT was unbearable. They would crash all the time, the software wasn't that good, and vim sucked (have you ever tried running vim in a command window - not fun). So I used linux. Office productivity wasn't that big of a deal in my life, so it didn't matter that much that I couldn't read MS Word. Games were always a problem. You gotta have windows to play those games. Every time I would switch to working in a windows environment (mostly through being forced to as a course of my job), I quickly remembered why I ran linux. Sometimes things are a little tricky to get working, but once they do, they stay working.
Today. The state of the art has changed. Windows 2000 has been around for a bit now, and XP is here. I run linux at work because I'm a coderm but mostly at this point because my desktop is the DHCP server, and I spend my day coding. But at home I run Win2k with Cygwin. It doesn't crash often, if hardly ever. I can start up X, and run an xterm and vim. But it has IE, and all it's plugins. I'm sorry, but I like watching movie trailers for LOTR, and I like atomfilms.com, and I LIKE 3D games. Not only that but I have to use MS Word sometimes, because openoffice can't deal with the 120 page document with embedded diagrams and picutres that I was sent to review from a partner company. But worst of all. Visio. There is no Visio. Dia and Kivio both have key missing features, and neither is that stable.
Oh 3D... the all great new 3D stuff in linux. It hasn't worked with a single system I installed RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 on. People said NVidia sucked, and didn't work nice with free software, so I got a Radeon. I have an nvidia at work, and a radeon at home. I still can't play tux racer on either system. Odd that I used to play Quake 3 just fine on my vodoo card. That doesn't even work now.
I am a server programmer mostly. I want to write GUI programs, but I hate the gtk - we are going to use CORBA but write it in C a non-object oriented language. Qt is cool, but doesn't work with automake well, and the versions come out so fast there is no good book on it. It all kinda sucks really.
So I'm left in windows most of the time.
I like free software, and I will never be able to install XP with a clear consience. So I'm stuck with a crappy Linux GUI, and no games because MS are a bunch of assholes.
I think I'll become a landscape gardener.
Everyone is living in a personal delusion, just some are more delusional than others.
Did I say 1800+? I meant 1900+. And the CD-RW drive is actually 40x12x48 (the ASUS CRW4012A). Also got a nice 80 GB HD and a 250 MB Zip Drive and other nice stuff.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
IMO, this is the x86 combo most likely to please someone looking for an alternative to the Windows desktop. What do the rest of you *nix folks recommend to your Windows-using friends?
I switched too, for many of the same reasons.
A few notes on OS's:
1) If you 'just check e-mail, web surf, and do office stuff', IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE which OS you use. This is the 'dumb' user that can't fix ANY problem, whether it's Linux or MS or VMS.
2) If you like pretty and infinitely customizable, Linux or OS X is for you.
3) If you use specialized software that only runs in Windows, Windows is for you.
4) If you ENJOY tinkering with your computer, Linux is for you. I freely admit that I got a peverse thrill when recompiling my kernel, but it finally gets to be once too often.
Bottom line - different users have different needs. Anyone who says that any current OS is the ultimate solution is a liar. For me, the choice of OS is a difficult, heartwrenching choice. I love/hate linux, I like the idea of MacOS X, but I run WinXP. Why? See #3. WinXP has shocked me with how well thought out and stable it is. I thought I would hate it, but I don't. But I still run Linux on other machines, and I still pine for OS X.
If you haven't used Linux or WinXP for more than a few minutes, you deserve to have your comment modded down to -1.
If we, Linux users, limit ourselves to using hardware that is Linux friendly. For instance, I have Samsung ML-1210 laser printer (600x600dpi) which cost me $180 and comes with Linux drivers (heck, it's got even Tux on the box to attest for its Linux-friendliness). I use Nvidia's cards since they openly support Linux, I use pcmcia-to-pci card that comes from a vendor that supports Linux, I use 3com network cards that have downloadable drivers for many of their cards off of their website, and finally, I use Linux-friendly soundcard(s), RME Hammerfall and SBlive!. And this is not the only choice, there is ATI with TV cards and Radeon GPU's, Matrox cards, and many soundcard vendors.
While not all hardware is supported well under Linux, what is, offers top-quality performance, and that's what matters.
Also, many hard-core Linux fans complain about some of the drivers being closed-source. I simply do not care, as long as it works. Most companies will sooner or later open-source their drivers in order to cut costs, and once they reach certain stability which community can expand upon (like Creative did with SBlive!).
In the end, what matters is that Linux users should buy only Linux-friendly hardware, and if there is really as many of us as the numbers show, these sales will amount to something real soon. Just check ATI's recent investments to get Radeon 8500 drivers going and you'll see that it is possible.
Linux community already has a strong enough leverage for further driver development to take place.
Compile ??? HAhahahahahahahahha .
Mod me down if you like, but who cares.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I saw whatever works for you is fine. I do not have any of the problems this guy has had with linux, but I do know people who have had problems. My problems are always with windows, getting the drivers to work, getting MSOffice not to completely eat my document's formatting. I appear to have bad carma around microsoft products, they crash quite frequently on me and I find MS products frustrating and difficult to use. I just don't understand how I am expect to use windows and the apps microsoft sells.
:(
I'd like to mention that the author of that article is not very familiar with X11 because he overlooked some minor points. For example he said there didn't appear to be a standard way to install fonts, but there is a very standard way defined in the X11Rx documention. Also X11+Linux typically consume less memory than something like NT4, win2k or winXP. (which are the only MS operating systems worth mentioning).
The most important to me is programming on an operating system, and I've found that I hate programming in win api. it's so hacky. a lot of things involve searching for programs in the task list using thier program name. after attempting to write a few applications in win32api i have come to realize that it's non-trivial to write applications for windows that are robust and support all variants of the operating system and can co-exist with all other applications and drivers.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Please? :)
It is just barely over a meg. Good job leaving that out; it makes for some top notch biased reporting.
OSX sounds like its exactly what the man's looking for.
The mantra is: Optimize for the common case
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
In the end, all this nonsense about not being able to get your printer, scanner, etc. working under *nix is immaterial. Microsoft's invasions of privacy are only going to get worse in the future with it's DRM programs. Surprisingly, even worse than MS's invasions of privacy, are those of spyware manufacturers whose software runs under Windows. Add to all this the constant security holes found but never solved(IIS), it invariably leads one to the realization that if you're using a MS based OS, your data is at severe risk. There's no way to know what is going on in the background on a MS OS, no way to know what information is being tracked about your usage, no way to know what private information stored on your computer is leaking out to spyware companies. Is it going to matter that your scanners working when someone has stolen your brokerage account info and cleaned out your account? How much did you pay to get your scanner working then?
Ever worked with end users? Nobody here can honestly claim that they took to linux like a fish out of water. The reason nerds flock to linux to begin with is because the labrynthic nature and obscurity of techniques involved in running Linux - us nerds love that shit because it keeps other people away.
In order for Linux to make it on the desktop with average users and defeat the Evil Empire is to offer tools which make setup, operation, use, and interface with other systems easy. Of couse, Mac has already done that with OS X.
A real XP kernel? I'd buy that for a dollar!!
This just in... not everyone likes Linux! *gasp*
--
I romp with joy in the bookish dark
I liked his article because it makes so much sense in this FUD filled area of which OS to use. Linux needs to be able to accept criticism to grow. Without criticism, the OS stagnates. His points on framebuffers are also interesting. X is the one thing that to me makes Linux ungainly. A much smaller system that would be more modular (not confined to GTK) would be nice.
Good article, well thought out and cleanly laid out.
My only point is at least to me, GNU/Linux was never meant to be a home operating system.
Flame me baby.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
XP is based heavily on VMS. Do you have some issue with VMS, the only OS ever able to compete seriously with UNIX in a server enviroment?
What we don't seem to hear much of, is users going back to their old operating systems
Since when is an avid 3 year Linux user 'going back to their old operating system' and that operating system is Microsoft XP?
How the hell can a 2 year old product have been in use by this guy 3 years ago? What, they think that readers can't count anymore? Or maybe just playing on the ignorance of most of their readers?
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
apple moderators are vicous bastards. They will mod you down if you say anything bad about their OS, without even bothering to argue with you that you are wrong, and even if what you are saying is perfectly logical and sencible.
It is not about logic, it is about religion.
watch your back.
Personally, linux is saving me time. Not only me btw. Thanks to that bloated XFree, my mom now runs a simple Gnome desktop on a simple 133, but uses one of my servers for the X apps, and she loves it. Okay, setting things up did take a few hours, but i really like the way debian is going. Note that she doesn't know shit about linux, and i did have to explain a few things (what is the browser, what is my icq), but a simple user doesn't need more. Users can be content with linux, it just takes a little effort.
True, linux on the desktop is taking more time than we would want it to, but we are getting there. The apps are there, the drivers are there (mostley, but modules work great for any pc with recent hardware), X IS stable as hell, it's up to one distro to bind it all into place. :o)
But in the end, it's a geeks choice what OS he/she uses, nothing wrong with that. Personally, i'm getting used to my freedom, wouldn't want a win32 box, waste of precious hardware
This sig is intentionally left blank
Something to keep in mind here is that the process you described is really pretty easy if you know what to do. Thus, if a hardware company really wanted to insure that it would be easy to run their stuff on Linux, they could probably do so without much trouble.
The fact of the matter though is that most people that run Linux are either technically inclined or their system was set up with the assistance of somebody technically inclined. So they don't bother because they know that as long as the difficulty in setting up their stuff isn't going to lose them sales. Since nobody expects anything better from the market place, nothing better exists.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
IT'S THE GAMES, IT'S THE GAMES, IT'S THE GAMES, IT'S THE GAMES!!!!!
Maybe not for this guy but it is for me. When Warcraft III comes out for linux (yeah right) I'm switching for good. I know there are some ports available but you have to wait an extra amount of time to get those ports while your friends are already playing the latest games on their pc the day of release. I know there are a lot of people in here that don't game, but a lot of the people who can use linux but don't, play pc games.
Look at what I perceive to the average linux home user. He's a dual-booter. Works and surfs in linux, and plays games in Windows. Until that changes Windows will still dominate.
On the subject of rude linux users and the RTFM mantra, I can see both sides of the issue. Noobs should quit being lazy and read the documentation. But as a softare test engineer, I know how programmers write documentation. Something is always left out, and the directions are dumbed down with grudging, painful, gun-to-the-head, joy.
As far as the critical and insulting jerks that hang out in the linux help forums and slam people...I know part of the joy of knowing something someone else doesn't, is being able to make fun of them. Just don't whine when they go back to windows.
Linux rocks as a server but it has a way to go before it can dominate the desktop. And just to head this off at the pass, I don't use macs for gaming because I want to be able to replace my processor, video card, and sound card every year for under $600. And yes I get just as good, if not better, performance than my friends who spend thousands of dollars a year buying the latest Macs.
That's 90% of the reason I started using KDE is because I got tired of waiting for gnome to get it's butt in gear on anti-aliased fonts.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Elitist snob.
./make ./install and even that doesn't always compile right.
cdrecording apps on linux SUCK A$$..
They are either unstable as hell or you have
Do you have the right libs? what are the right ones?
Where can I get them. Oop they don't have that version anymore!
And this happens with apt-get as well as rpm's.
Xfree is a slow gui cause it has WAY to much overhead especially for just plain old home use.
Linux is a server not a home system.
Elephant: a mouse built to government specs
then again, maybe not.
yeah, i was a big gamer for a while. then i slowly started to realize that all the games are going for eye candy and no substance. they've lost their luster.
of course, half a dozen win2k reinstalls in a year to keep things clean and stable has also cooled that fire a bit. i now have a PC desktop and an iBook. my pc sits there unused most of the time now. i don't game as much as i used to, and i realized that computers are actually fun when they don't puke their brains out every day.
the little iBook is stable, easy to use and....trustworthy.
i don't have to wonder when it's going to die on me next. i never worry about getting that latest virus patch. i'm not concerned that apple is worried about what licensce i have installed on my machine. i don't have a care in the world about those strange e-mails when they come in.
why? 'cause it works. it works well, it works all the time, and i LIKE IT!
yeah, i actually like computers again. this little fucker is fun to use, go figure! i don't fight it, it doesn't fight me, we work together and stuff actually gets done. today i learned how to make my terminal window transparent. it's totally pointless but cool.
i can tweak, i can twist and pull, and it doesn't break!
for all of those in the windows world this is something that's slowly been drifting away from us, and i've found it again, and i found it in a Mac.
oh yeah, and WC3 is fun to play, on my Mac. (although i do use my MS intellimouse, need those extra buttons!)
Is there a real PCB-layout tool available for Linux? No, I've looked and can't find one, not even a commercial tool.
Yes, there is a commercial VHDL/Verilog simulator (ModelSim), but they only have the high-end version ($$$$) available for Linux; the "Personal Edition" is only available for Windows (and it's still $5K).
If you do 8051 stuff, the Keil compiler (Windows-only) beats the pants off of SDCC, which hasn't been upated since last September.
And, as others have pointed out, there are no good audio apps available for Linux -- nothing like SawStudio, SoundForge, Cubase, ProTools, etc. (OK, I know, I should be doing my audio stuff on a Mac.)
I haven't found an equivalent for Apple's ColorSync for Linux. (OK, I know, I should be doing all of my photo editing stuff on a Mac.)
The solution to the problem, of course, is to get the various software vendors to target Linux. It's getting there: Xilinx supports their latest (non-free, non-cheap) tools under Wine, with native support expected next year. But, in parallel with urging vendors to support Linux, work needs to get done, so Windows it is.
--
"The Devil has many faces. Yours just fits." -- Swiz
Ti667, the newer one (DVI), w/ the 1MB L3 cache...mmmmmm
of course I'm broke, but at least I stepped up, rather than all these whiners d/loading free software all their lives, then complaining about the expense of apple hardware....
of course it seems expensive, when you're used to NOT paying for a damn thing !!
What NVidia card do you have? I grant that I don't usually run linux on my box that has a GeForce GTS2 64MB card because that's my windows game box (it pains me but I have little choice). It does dual boot and i've run Linux with the NVidia drivers with no serious problems. So it may be my lack of experience with it, but I haven't see major problems.
Oh and as a point of contrast when my box is running Win2K and I play games on it (like Operation Flashpoint), it BSOD's at least once a day. Nothing so fun as being at the beginning of a mission, getting a BSOD, and then having to wait 25 minutes to join back in.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
and a kernel interface for binary-only drivers.
what's the point in having an easy tool to detect and configure new hardware if we still don't have drivers for basic things such as easy-to-find software modems ?
or video cards ? or printers, scanners, and the list go on.
hardware manufacturers are paranoid with their "secrets" and many of them believe if they release specs and/or code they'll be giving too much informartion to the competition.
ideally kernel developers would have all the specs they need, but this is a far from perfect world.
another thing: backward compatibility isn't a top priority IMHO, but a standard architecture for the whole system, to allow Average joe to simply download a pre-compiled binary without worrying with distro/version of distro is a good idea.
if the people who develops Linux and who packs Linux with GNU/OS to form the distribution doesn't get a litle more flexible on these points... well... Long Live Windows, because GNU/Linux will be relegated to a niche smaller than Mac/OS on the desktop.
What ? Me, worry ?
up until he wrote "virii"...
now he's just a jackass.
It's viruses, jackass, viruses.
Anyhow. I have been using debian since 97, and I love it. However. I bought an eMac on Monday, and have been THRILLED with OS X.
You want your un*x and your blazingly fast/easy to use GUI? Should've tried a new mac.
I am head-over-heels in love with this box/OS
[malus]
I have been using Linux since waaay back when. The evolution of the desktop capabilities is nothing short of astonishing.
Folks here are griping about small things..... when I first installed Linux, I spent several DAYS getting XFree86 to run. Figuring out your monitor timings and building an XF86Config file was really, really difficult. And that was just X.... every other program I wanted to run would take large amounts of time. Most of the time, downloaded source code would fail to compile, and I am not a programmer. Figuring out and fixing errors in just the Makefile was hard, let alone errors in the program itself. Nowadays, anything you download just works... and with rpm and dpkg, you get everything pre-configured nicely to run well. Debian's package system is particularly wonderful in this regard.
No, Linux is not as easy or as polished yet as Windows. But it is also not endless frustration, either. You usually CAN do things now, generally with soem effort. Back in the day, there was a lot of stuff that flat WOULD NOT WORK EVER. It was easiest to count the number of things you COULD do with Linux. Now it is far easier to count the number of things you can't.
For the first time, I'm using a Linux desktop exclusively at work. I still use and prefer Win2K at home, but here at work a Linux desktop is preferable. And I'm very comfortable and happy with it on a day-to-day basis. I don't have problems with it, I can get everything done that I need to do, and I have incredible power available at the command line. It could certainly use some more spit-and-polish, but I LIKE it. And for years I thought it was a dismal desktop. Not anymore.
Two years ago I'd have installed Windows for sure..... today, I'm happy on Linux. Don't underestimate how fast progress is being made. If things continue at this speed, in another 2-3 years Linux will be BETTER as a desktop than Windows.
Kudos, btw, to Mandrake tor doing such a nice job on their 8.2 distro. If you haven't already, it's worth checking out.
I've got true type font capability on my linux system, and am "borrowing" the fonts from a directory on the windows partition. It works fine, but only for *some* programs, and then only for *some* parts of those programs. What gives? I thought font management should be invisible to the high-level apps and handled entirely by the X libraries. For example, if I install the "prisoner" font (the font used in the Prisoner TV show), I can use it in menus of Opera, but not in the text of the web page inside Opera - If I select it, a completely different font is used instead that looks nothing like it. I get the same behaviour with other apps too. The only common point seems to be that it happens with the serif fonts (of which the prisoner font is one).
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
We have (about) a 50 person company. Half (development and development-related teams, including some "less technical" users) are on Linux. The other half are on Win2K.
On the Linux side we strictly enforce RedHat (currently 7.2). Mail client is Ximian Evolution, using the Connector in conjunction with our main Exchange/2k server. Exchange/2k is a disaster, generally, but sales absolutely needs the diary functions.
WP etc. for the Linux community is StarOffice/OpenOffice. Absolutely no problems with document interoperability (presentations, documents and spreadsheets). Some minor functions are missing from OO - notable minor irritation is that in presentations it doesn't let me have a different background for a title page. On the other hand, the XML storage mechanisms have allowed us to integrate our internal doc handling with CVS, far better than we could have with Word.
Some people on the "Linux side of the house" are still on Windows, by reason of applications support. Notably our docs person uses FrameMaker, and usability/graphics use a bunch of Adobe stuff (even if they just used Photoshop, Gimp is still distressingly behind).
Biggest issues that I can see:
- font handling, as the guy mentioned. It's better than it used to be, since if you can get xfs to recognise your TT fonts StarOffice will pick it up. Linux lacks the Adobe Type Manager kind of interface Windows had back in 3.1.
- Games, which are the only reason I use Windows at home
- Sysadmins. Windows sysadmins are cheaper, basically because they know less. They don't need to know less, in reality, but windows still leaves you with the feeling that it's simpler to set up and configure, even when it isn't. Linux could do with better, more integrated systems management tools for the server side.
- Evolution should be able to handle offline stuff better.
- Lack of certain apps. There are fewer than you think though. Most of our business apps are web based
That's it though. Maybe 2 years ago you would have said lack of integrated email clients and decent office productivity were insurmountable obstacles. All the obstacles around now are easily surmountable. At some stage a very large (and probably public sector) organisation will realise that it's cheaper to commission open source fixes to problems, and maybe new applicaitons, than to go with large scale windows licensing. I expect that to be the big next step forward on the business desktop side.Blah, have you ever tried using your Linux for anything serious? I've run Linux since 1993, and it still has a long way to go, it's not setup thats the problem, its use.
Use is pain, when you try to use the small amount of software available, only to find out that some stupid library it's dependend on has a flaw which only shows in a "real world use" environment.
Use is pain when you discover a nice program you'd like to run, which requires new versions of 15 libraries that you use in other programs already, only to have the old programs broken because of the new libraries.
-H
He mentions how snappy Windows NT is even on a Pentium 90 box. No way that Gnome or KDE, which are the closest we have to a integrated desktop environment, can ever beat that.
Actually I was running Linux/Gnome on a Pentium 66 with 32MB of memory. Will NT even install on such a machine?
That said, I disagree completely with the quoted statement. Once you get in to the internals of OS-X, you have a much finer level of control than WinXP gives you.
what type of car do you drive then, if you're so utilitarian?
People who want Linux on the desktop to succeed need to do one thing: get the rest of the community to shut up and go away. No matter how many times I ask companies for good Linux drivers, the five hundred flaming hate mails/day from pissed GNU zealots will overshadow my pleas. GNU zealots are elitist, psychotic bastards, and until we can flush Richard Stallman and his followers down out of the community and establish a new community of friendly, happy Linux geeks, we're screwed.
Only when software/hardware companies WANT to work with Linux users will we get the support it takes to really move Linux forward on the desktop. Until then, vendors will keep supporting Windows rather than wasting their time coding Linux drivers/SW only to have it spit back at them in month-long flamewars on support message boards because the entire source isn't under the GPL.
Oh really? I installed Linux/ [KDE/Gnome/IceWM] on a Pentium 200 with 32 MB of memory. It ran like complete shit. Back to NT it went.
NT 4 will actually run on a 486/66. I know someone who runs a website (low volume, but it gets some) on IIS on a 486. No kidding. According to MSFT, min reqs are 16 MB memory on a Pentium.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
While I agree that X11 is dated, I disagree strongly with the notion many seem to have that the fix must be to replace it with something that is locally usable only. No, no, no, a thousand times, NO! Making it so each individual application needs to decide on its own if it will support some type of remotablity is plain wrong. It should not be necessary to destroy unix's usefulness as a server in order to make it more useful as a desktop machine. If I wanted an OS that sucked at serving I'd run some variant of Windows.
X's "problem" is that is not really a full-fledged windowing system. Properly viewed, it's more of a hardware abstraction layer for the screen, keyboard, and mouse. The rest of the system on top of that fills in the rest of the functionality - the window manager, the desktop (Kde, Gnome, etc). What needs to be done is to make a subsystem inside X that maps directly to the hardware and doesn't bother going over the network when it realizes the display is intended to be on the local machine. But, Wait, that's already been done. It already works that way. So the problem is non-existant. (or at least, isn't something to scrap X over, the problem is at a higher level than that.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
They why are there numerous posts here suggesting that Debian users can use Microsoft TrueType fonts with the simple incantation "apt-get install msttcorefonts"?
cpeterso
I see that MS is worried as hell that they are loosing their share of desk top to Linux.. And now this marketing ploy. This proves MS wants to rule the world nad Bill shits his pant when KDE & GNOME surpasses broken windows. The Evil Empire is hard at work to disprove Linux and Java but I am sorry MS Windows is history & .Net is dead.
I use XFree86 4 latest and twm on a FreeBSD 4.6, running on a Compaq Deskpro, 300MHz Pentium II, with 128MB ram and a standard issue ATI Mach64 gfx card.
It runs like a charm, very fast, and never breaks.
However, try running KDE or GNOME instead, and everything slows to halt.
-H
My story is very close to his, although the reason for "switching back" was to fulfill a need: school. I started off with Windows way back with Windows 3.11 for workgroups. I migrated to 95, and a bit later got introduced to linux. It got to be where I used linux 23 out of 24 hours a day with Windows for an hour to burn CDs. Then college came along..
I just didn't have time to screw around in Linux when it came to schoolwork. I needed to get stuff done right now and not worry about if the printer will work or if something bad will happen. I also started having some general linux problems like I'm sure everyone has had before and I started to get annoyed.
So pretty soon I was spending most of my time in Windows working on papers and just doing stuff quickly. I currently am still a Windows-majority user and toy with Linux a little bit. But to me personally, and I'm not referring at all to the community or fellow Linux users, but Linux is more of a hobby toy or thing to play with rather than something that will get my work done quickly for me.
So there it is, my version of his story. I'll most likely start using Linux more and more in the future but for right now schoolwork @ RIT is a bit more important. No time for spending 2 hours trying to get my simple USB devices to work.
-Scott
x86 hardware is cool?! Cheap. Ubiquitous. Brutal and Medieval. Hot as an oven with an overclocked Athlon microcontroller in Hell's at 3:00 PM on a sunny August afternoon and sixty miles from the nearest beer cooler. Less hip than your parents telling your girlfriend about your potty training. But cool?! x86 hardware is cool?!??? x86 hardware is about as cool as training wheels on your Edsel, as Pat Boone blairs out of the speakers, with a Latter Day Saints bumpersticker.
If you think x86 hardware is cool, your brain is infected. Have you been watching "Dude, you're getting a Dell" commercials?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
(They probably refer to Intel, not AMD).
There is a difference between ideology and reality.
So many open source hippie zealots (OSHZs) like to flame on about how all the problems that people attribute to linux are the fault of Microsoft not playing nice.
Okay, yes that's true, yes that's because of their monopolistic abuses.
But that doesn't make those problems go away, or make them any less real.
All you OSHZs need to realize that there is a huge difference between criticizing a platform on technical merits and criticizing a platform on practical merits.
Linux is simply not a viable solution, yet, for my mom, my sister, or my aunt. This is not due to *ANY* technical inferiority, it's just a fact. THe software available, the way the industry/market works precludes using linux as a desktop OS in many cases. Why is that so hard to accept?
I know linux well, very well. I know what it can and can't do. I know I *can* use it for my daily operations. I could get by with it quite well, but it would take me more time. Every time there is an upgrade to some MS product, I have to wait and/or fiddle with Linux until I get things more or less compatable again. Now.. I used to like that stuff.
But it takes too much time.
Get a MAC! It's called OS X, it doesn't crash, is nice to look at, and runs major applications, as well as XDarwin, you can do whatever you want! And hardware? Plug it in, it'll work.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride, "You're using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means."
You're not making a statement about the particular points that the poster claimed were wrong, just about some of the writer's points. Sorry, the grammar nazi inside me escaped again. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...
Move on. There's nothing to see here.
After buying a WinModem and discovering that it didn't work on NT4, I then installed Linux, downloaded the drivers from the web and hey presto the WinModem works! The NT4 CD is now used as a coffee coaster.
Be is what the PC desktop should have been. With Linux on the backend, and it on the front, we'd have ourselves a nice system.
Dual Ghz G4 processors
(ultimately faster than a P4 or athlon with higher clock speed.
Mhz isn't everything you overclockers.)
Boatloads of ram
Even more HD space
DVD-RAM, w/ CD-RW
(in ONE drive)
Firewire
(proven faster than USB 2)
Some of the best hardware a geek could imagine
The company I'm working at just bought some new W2K and XP boxes. Although the XP boxes were faster and more expensive, XP takes up almost 128MB of RAM by itself and the desktop is MUCH, MUCH slower than W2K. Not to mention the fact that Word XP crashes every time you go to save a document and XP profile changes propagate throughout the network to make every desktop have that "I'm retarded" feel with giant buttons and fonts.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Terminal Server. Much more bandwidth-frugal protocol too.
And I just pinched myself.
Nope, not dreaming.
I predict over 5000 comments on this one ;)
I have been a Linux user for two years because of it's stable foundation and abundance of free and good quality software.
I have been loading it on systems at colleges, at small and medium sized offices, and making my companies products work with it. The flexibility of Linux makes it completely viable for workstations and home PC's. Windows is expensive with the need for constant hardware upgrades. For example, I am typing this on a machine that has been has had a large variety of hardware in it over a 3 year period, having seen at least 4 distributions and countless revisions: I never experienced a hardware problem.
The newest innovations in hardware and software management by Mandrake, RedHat, and Suse are vastly superior to any Microsoft offering. Just take a Mandrake 8.2 system, pop in a cd with all of the new KDE 3 packages on it, select the kdebase package, and watch the software manager update, organize, and database all of your binaries and libraries automatically. You simply log out and log in, and you have a new KDE 3 desktop - complete with all of your preferences, links, and styles intact. Just try changing between "active desktop" and the plain old deal in Windows and see how long it holds, or how many of shortcuts go to shit.
This guy is, I hate to say it, just to stupid.
Been there, done that. Linux/X/KDE/GNOME or whatever all completely sucked ass on the desktop. Case in point: Mozilla when I used it was, and is still not ready for prime time. Many pages just do not look right, tables that look fine in IE (Windows/Mac) are all fucked up, the fonts suck, the cut/paste is counterintuitive. I really wanted Linux to work on my desktop, but I do MIDI and audio production and there is no Sound Forge or Cool Edit Pro (or anything for audio that even comes close...my ideas cannot wait. So.... I run Linux on my servers, and talk to it via an SSH client.
All of my coding and Web development is done in vi, I read mail in Pine, and use all of the power of *NIX, albiet via the Windows interface. Plus I can test my Web pages on the targeted browser (sorry guys, its an IE world. Get over it. Imagine if TVs were like browsers -- Things would look different depending on whether or not you were viewing a Sony, Toshiba, or NEC!!!)
I'm sorry, but the Windows 2000 GUI just works better and more intuitivley for me than anything I have ever tried, and I've been thru Amigas, various flavors of X, and MacOS. My way, I get the best of all worlds: Linux on the server/command line where it _truly shines_, plus the unparallelled application and driver support in Windows. Flame on, but my computer is a tool for my professional, semi-pro and hobbyist endevours, not a tinkertoy tha requires endless tweaking.
I have winXP on my wifes computer and I have slackware on my computer and there is no competition. The graphics on the winxp machine is dark it is slow and it isn't near as good as it is on the linux machine. I realize it is probably because it is an older graphics card but that should make it better supported not worse.
Since when are you THE opinion for the rest of the readers?
What Open Source Zealots Don't Get
.doc file. I'm continually annoyed myself by people who send HTML mail, never mind the lunatics who use Microsoft Word as their text editor in Microsoft Outlook. Email is much more efficient as plain text. If Stallman had positioned his screed as "use the right tool for the right audience in the right medium" I would have been totally on board with him.
.doc format. It's a lofty and valuable goal. But until the day when Stallman or someone else can figure out a way to get open source developers to scratch someone else's itch with the same fervor and quality with which they scratch their own, it's just not a realistic goal.
The News Forge editorial, We can put an end to Word attachments [link via Camworld], by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, illustrates perfectly why the free software/open source movement is never going to penetrate the mainstream consumer consciousness.
Caveat: I like open source software. I like the concept and I support it. What I dislike is the zealotry of hardcore open source/free software advocates, like Stallman, and their total disregard for how consumers view and use software. These zealots are stuck in a dogma that is constructed from the viewpoint of someone who develops software, not from the viewpoint of consumers who use software for reasons other than developing more software (which constitute the vast majority). The zealots of open source/free software present the movesment as serving manking, but in fact they have an overwhelming tendency to ignore the needs of any user not like themselves. This essay isn't an anti-open source rant, nor is it flag-waving support of Microsoft's monopolistic practices. It is intended to be a pragmatic look at why open source hasn't lived up to the hype.
Stallman's point in his editorial is that people shouldn't send Word attachments via email. Much of Stallman's rhetoric is justifiable. In fact, I think it's not only counter-productive, but rude, to send Word attachments to people who use open source software incapable of reading a
However, much of Stallman's rhetoric is the usual open source/free software wheel-spinning that shows little consideration for or understanding of the vast majority of computer users. This part of the second paragraph sticks out:
Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, because Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it.
There are all kinds of problems with Stallman's rhetoric, but this is the most glaring and is the ultimate of example of What "Open Source Zealots Don't Get." Here's the underlying concept that the open source movement has continually failed to understand. Ready? Here it is:
Most computer users don't give a crap about studying or changing software.
Get it? 99.985% of Microsoft Word users have absolutely no desire to view -- never mind modify -- the source code of Word. Why would they? They don't know how to code! Nor do they want to learn! It's like asking them to re-design the shovel to make it more appropriate to their needs. Hey, sure maybe 0.015% of shovel-users customize their shovels, but most people use the tool off-the-shelf, as is.
Stallman is right that people would like to freely copy and distribute software, but this is where we run up against the dirty secret of open source: open source developers like to scratch their own itch. And, unfortunately, that attitude doesn't jive with creating consumer applications, so those consumer needs get left up to businesses that need to make money off their product to exist.
Open source developers tend to work on projects that solve their own problems (which usually revolve around building software and working with others who build software). That's why we have great open source operating systems, web servers, compilers, etc., but are severely lacking in open source office suites, graphics and design tools, games, etc. Independent open source developers don't come together to develop those kind of applications like they do to develop web servers, compilers, and databases because developers typically don't have a desperate need for those kinds of apps. No itch, so why scratch?
Yes, I know there are some alternatives out there (primarily because the zealots have this mistaken idea that Linux will compete with Windows and Macintosh for the consumer desktop). I know about KOffice, AbiWord, GNOME Office, OpenOffice, and Sun Microsystems StarOffice.The only competitive contender on that list is StarOffice, which, of course, started as a proprietary application. Sun Microsystem's CEO, Steve McNeally, acquired StarOffice and open sourced it purely to attempt to spite Microsoft; Bill Gates just laughed. The Gimp is a fine graphics program, but it doesn't measure up (especially running under Windows) to Adobe Photoshop, or even Jasc Paint Shop Pro. And where are the competitive open source competitors for Adobe's Illustrator, ImageReady, PageMaker, InDesign, Premier, AfterEffects, etc.? What open source app would professionals choose over Macromedia Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Freehand, Flash, Shockwave, Director, Authorware, etc? Answer: they don't exist.
Open source developers don't care enough about those applications to develop them, and they sure don't care enough to develop them for the non-open source platforms (e.g. Windows, Mac) that most of the world uses. The bottom line is...well, the bottom line. If consumers want these kinds of tools that are of interest to consumers, but not of use to the geeks who know programming languages, then the consumers are either going to have to learn to code themselves (ain't gonna happen; we all have other careers) or the consumer will need to pay to have someone else develop them.
The demands for these consumer apps gets filled by corporations who exercise proprietary control over their intellectual property in order to recoup the development costs, because the companies have to hire developers to scratch someone else's itch. And that proprietary control means patents and copyrights1, because to make money off a product you must, repeat MUST, control reproduction and redistribution. And businesses are about making money.
If anyone had been able to demonstrate a competitive, scalable business model for a company that develops open source software, then I might get on board. But even RedHat, the open source developer with probably the most solid foundation and best shot, is still hemorrhaging money. Developing open source software works as a hobby; so far no one has been able to make developing open source software work as a business.
A bunch of developers might come together to develop a super open source web server like Apache to solve their own problems, but they don't get the same personal satisfaction from developing, for example, an open source consumer desktop publishing application or a GUI desktop -- witness the struggle to get KDE and GNOME to some usable point, and remember that Eazel tanked. Problems like those that have plagued the attempt to put an open source GUI on the Linux operating system illustrate another problem with open source: too many cooks in the kitchen screw up the menus. (Oooh. Pun!)
Choice is sometimes counterproductive to usefulness, and usefulness is paramount for a consumer application. This is where "network externalities" -- the economy of increasing returns -- comes into play. If ACME Industries makes ACME WonderSoap, the soap doesn't become more useful to the consumer (e.g. it doesn't clean your armpits better) if more people use it. That might be better for ACME, but my armpit gets just as fresh whether ten thousand or ten million people use ACME WonderSoap. Not so with software. If ACME industries makes a word processor, ACME WonderWord, then ACME WonderWord is much more valuable to me if ten million people use it as opposed to ten thousand, because we're all using the same tool. The best illustration of the concept of an economy of increasing returns is the Microsoft monopoly. People won't switch to Linux and StarOffice, because everyone else in their workplace or community is using Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. In a networked environment where you have to share your output and input, life is more difficult if you're not using the same tool. This is where the open source approach shoots itself in the knew -- every Microsoft Windows XP desktop works the same, but if I want to get my officemate to help me with something, and I'm running GNOME and StarOffice and he's using KDE and KOffice, then we might as well be working on Windows and Macintosh. There's no increasing returns, when there's no consistency.
The open source response to that is "it's not the tool, it's the standard." If every tool adhered to an open standard, then they'd all work together. Which is basically Stallman's point -- use text or HTML instead of the proprietary Word
1I think copyright is an idea that has run it's course, but we're not at the point yet where it can be tossed out the window. And the little known fact is that Stallman has to support copyright, even if he won't announce it very loudly, because the GNU General Public License is founded on copyright. Putting software in the public domain doesn't satisfy Stallman's zealotry because someone can still use public domain software as the foundation or part of proprietary software. Instead, Stallman advocates copyleft, whereby instead of relinquishing copyright, the software developer retains copyright and licenses the software and source code under the condition that any changes or modifications also be licensed under the same restrictions. It's admirably clever, but I think Stallman ought to be as concerned as the RIAA about copyright. If copyright unravels, so does the GPL. [back]
But I can spend $700 or so and build a much, much faster system in the world of Intel. With a bigger monitor too. And a whole lot more software from which to choose (all the *NIX as well as Winblows®). I know the reason to buy a Mac 5 years ago or so was for it's superior graphics and sound capabilities, especially editing, but those days are long gone now are they not?
My blog can kick your blog's ass
I have a powerbook, in fact MANY apple users have notebooks....so what do the x86 notebooks offer for upgradability over my apple?
Why not just copy it to the C$ administrative share over the network to all your windows machines with a simple batch file?
(Posting A/C so as to not undo my moderations to this thread)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just got a MAC with MAC OS X today. It's my first and I love it.
Your comment says a lot about why software from the early 90's was in such a sorry state (did you work on the Win 95 team?). Much of it was developed by people like you - childish morons, suffering from arrested social and psychological development who had nothing but contempt for the poor suckers who were stupid enough to pay money for your god-awful software and thereby pay your salary. For that you rewarded them with contempt. Your post implies that you no longer work for a software company - I guess that they finally figured out that you were bad for business.
Sorry, but that isn't the answer for people who are really interested, as he seems to be, in just being able to hook things up and have them work. OS X is great; but it doesn't support nearly as much hardware as Windows does. It also doesn't support nearly as much software, particularly important for a gamer--while many of the best new titles get ported to the Mac, many do not, and there's a whole back-catalogue of wonderful games that are Windows-only. I can even play most of the cool older Mac-only games on Windows or Linux using the open-source Basilisk ][ 68k Mac emulator. However, newer games require hardware acceleration, so will never be playable under VirtualPC or similar on Macs.
That's why, despite my love for the look and feel of MacOS (I first got started on Macs), I could never buy an Apple machine. I like hooking up new bits of hardware, and being able to use almost all PC games, and being 100% interoperable with the hardware and software used by 85-90% of my fellow home computer users.
OS X is a fine OS. But it doesn't have the hardware and software support many, and perhaps most, want.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
But your comparison is ridiculous for another reason. Windows NT on a Pentium 90 box is as different from Windows XP on a modern machine as CDE on an old IBM workstation is from Gnome/KDE on today's Linux boxes. The fact that Microsoft marketing calls both of them "Windows" and that they share APIs doesn't change this basic fact.
Gnome/KDE are designed for current machines. That's why they use a lot of resources. The same is true for current generation Windows. And when we actually look, lo and behold, the Windows (and MacOS) desktop environments are just as big and just as resource intensive as currently popular X11-based desktop environments.
However, unlike Windows, Linux gives still gives you the choice of running the older desktops, even if you are using the latest versions of the kernel, OS, and X11 server. And that's really great. In fact, I see no reason really to run Gnome/KDE. Even if you want an "integrated desktop environment", there are more lightweight choices (I think XFCE is pretty neat).
The mantra is: Optimize for the common case
You put this in bold face, so you must think it's important. What are you actually trying to say?
You are, of course, free to use whatever computer system you like. But by choosing non-free software such as that produced by Microsoft, you are giving up some very important rights, such as the right to use your computer the way you want instead of the way Microsoft wants you to.
It's true that the "average user" cares little about this. But they probably should.
"README files". Yes, it takes an extra five seconds. No, it is not more difficult. Yes, it requires a brain cell.
Sure, you can just double-click and reboot in Windows. Or you could read the README and type "./configure;make
make install"
Dunno...
"So in effect, it's pretty much a wash."
Probably not in any large corporation. Hardware is dirt cheap. People time is very expensive.
There's almost zero business reasons anymore to have the latest and greatest.
V N C
nuff said
The only viable alternative to both Linux, Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OSX, and True64/Digital Unix is either BeOS or freeBSD.
That's a very edgy and controversial usage of the word 'both'.
"NT 4 will actually run on a 486/66."
'Run' isn't the word. 'Limp', 'crawl', or 'gimp about' are better terms to use. Sure it loads. But do you really have all day?
Not to mention a fairly edgy use of the word 'only', considering there are two at the end of the sentence.
I had to wait 2 minutes to be able to post this!
No operating system works well on all hardware. After reading his gripes, I've concluded he actually had a bad hardware experience. I'm sure he would have the same experience if tried to put XP on that same system. Sample made up quote, "My system sucks, why can't I upgrade this piece of shit(486SX), none of my games work with it, my dvds don't play on it. Wow!!! Look what XP can do on a brand new computer!!! I'm going to switch back to MacroTakeOver."
Don't take morons seriously.
I've used RedHat since 5.0. No problems here. Sure I keep a 98 box around for a few pesky games but that's all.
I don't actually think he used strictly Linux like he wants us to believe.
Someone has picked an OS based on fonts?
Hm. I think I've heard it all now.
Gimp is a joke in the publishing business. It has no support for color management/calibration which is crucial when you do ad work, magazine layout, etc.
Next, no support for the hi-res formats that is useable. In pre-press, you work with 600 meg files and Gimp sorely lacks that capability.
Lastly, it doesn't run on a mac. OS X is not viable for publishing because of its youth.
Before anyone flames, let me proclaim that I'm pro-open source, and relatively anti-Microsoft. But I have to say, as I read this story, I found myself nodding in agreement. In fact, I didn't find ANYthing to disagree with.
Every point he makes is valid, at least from my experience. I've run various Linux distros on several machines for a couple years now, but never as my "production" workstation, and frankly I can't imagine doing it at this point in time.
The sad truth is that you often can't find the same great applications native to Linux that exist for Windows or Mac. Yes, there are alternatives -- say, OfficeXP vs StarOffice -- or you can use WINE (yikes) or VMware I guess. OTOH, games are a different story, with the rare port or else lackluster performance with an emulator. The irony here is that you can download some really great Linux software for free, yet I think sometimes that's exactly what hinders its development to the fullest potential. The almighty buck speaks volumes.
I have to admit, WinXP has some wonderful eye candy from the moment you boot. Some of it's kinda corny, but it basically works like it's supposed to and can almost be fun to use. The Linux GUIs I've seen are close, but not equivalent (yet), pretty much equal to Win2K at this point. Plus, all MS bashing aside, XP is pretty damned stable now, IMHO. The only time I've ever seen it crash is due to hardware problems. Last but not least, it seems the entire internet is written for IE, and surfing is a big part of my PC use. Now, security is another story entirely....
As this guy says, Linux's true strength is its rock-solid stability in server environments. I couldn't imagine running my gateway/firewall on anything but Debian, and the grace of apt-get is remarkable. I also like that I know what the hell is going on behind the scenes, and I'm ultimately in control.
Great article, it's nice to see an honest evaluation of how things stand today.
on.
I've tried Linux (Redhad and Mandrake) several times over the years. Last time I got just about everything working except for the printer (which was new, and not part of Mandrake 8.1).
Besides hardware problems, the other equally painful thing about Linux, for me, is software installation. Why put hundreds of binaries from different programs in one diretory!?!?!? And there allways seems to be so many depencies!
I hear people always say how insecure Windows is and how they would never ever hook a windows machine directly to the Internet.
I am probably wrong here but I would think a Win98 machine would be much more secure than a *ix box, as long as file sharing is turned off. The Windows box doesn't serve anything up(no telnet, web server, e-mail, etc) what do you attack without filesharing and no services?
I ran a win98 box(without file sharing) for a couple of years directly off my cable modem never had a problem(was I stupid and lucky) or is it fairly secure?
Please note I am not even coming close to saying MS servers products are secure rather their win98 or win95 product is secure from attacks over the internet as long as file sharing is turned off.
Interested in any comments.
I shot off a short reply (still long-winded, as I am prone to do) to say that Linux on the desktop is good enough (including available applications) to justify getting rid of the monopolist's operating system from my computer. I'm serious; Win2K runs *fine* for me but I rarely use the system it's on. My laptop runs Mandrake 8.2 + Ximian, and I couldn't be happier. Well, not much, anyway. It's certainly good enough to allow me to spend my hard-earned money on free alternatives instead.
It was his decision to overlook/ignore this, but I cannot and will not.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
Because Mac has zero of the software I want to run, how's that?
I dual boot back and forth between windows '98 and Rad Hat 7.2 I like my Linux partition: it has some of the best science tools that I've found available for any OS -and for free as well! I like my Win '98 too, I think I have the one and only stable copy ever produced. I've been running this copy for two years, never had to reinstall it, only have to reboot from a lock-up about twice a year, and I use it with Analog-X Proxy so that I can pretend to be a server for the other two computers in the house as well! I know that Linux would probably do just as well -if I could only connect to the internet with it. The solution that every Linux "expert" has come up with for the problem so far has been "buy a new modem." It's not a desktop OS IMHO when this is the "solution" to a problem. The modem worked fine for a year before I decided to dual boot with Linux, I'm not about to replace it for the sake of running Linux. My DVD player actually works better in the Linux partition then in Windows, but you can forget about my burner. And the scanner? At least i can upload pics from my camera -though I can drag and drop just as easy from Windows -and i didn't need to install anything to be able to. I think the guy was right about hardware config problems in Linux. One last note: I don't know where he has been going for advice, but I've received tons of good advice from the Linux community -even if it still all boiled down to "buy a new modem"- and I think I've only heard "RTFM" once, and that was about it for arrogance. Easy to ignore, and I think I'm likely to get more comments like that asking for advice on fixing my car. I'd like to say thanks for all the help, and keep up the good work sooner or later Linux will get all 60 gig on my HD!
I gave Linux a chance. I gave Linux a lot of my time. I'm all but giving up Linux as a desktop solution.
When I hear of guys using linux everyday, they always talk of doing "real work" with it. I can't do MY "real work" with Linux. I can learn to program C/C++ with it, I can throw up a web site with it, I can protect myself from the outside world with it (my gateway/firewall runs linux), BUT I cannot do what amounts to "real work" in my world.
For me, "real work" consists of the following: Music Sequencing/Audio recording, 2D/3D graphic design, and a bit of Flash animation from time to time. I cannot do any of these with efficiancy under Linux. There is nothing available for sequencing and multi-track audio recording on the level of Cubase VST. There are no audio editing apps that have the sheer expandability that Wavelab and SoundForge have. There is nothing like Bryce5, 3D Studio Max, and TrueSpace. Blender doesn't cut it. PhotoShop rules in my world. The Gimp is nice, but it's a pain to use. Oh, Flash simply doesn't exist under Linux.
That's what "real work" is to lots of computer users. It seems that the Linux Elite forgot that many that use computers could care less about programming. They could care less about shell scripts, perl, and whatnot. They would like ease of use over everything else. They want a GUI, not a CLI for their apps. They want something to install without compiling.
They want an OS they don't have to fight with to use.
Before you even begin to write your elitist rant of a reply, understand this: I'm a systems administrator by day. I've worked for companies where I had to administer over 400 Sun boxes running Sybase by remote and I currently work in an environment with Sun servers, WinNT/2000 servers, and an AS/400. I CAN write shell scripts, I CAN compile apps without a problem, I CAN use Linux for what you may consider "real" work (except C programming, I'm using Linux to learn that), and my gateway is configured to act as a samba fileserver, ftp server, AND webserver. At the end of the day, though, I want to record a new dance tune (check my website for more info on that), I might want to whip up a new picture or whatever I want and I can't use Linux for these things.
Don't get me wrong here, I do like Linux and I'll always keep a hard drive in my machines dedicated to it. But for someone like me, Win2000 is the way to go (I hate Mac OS and I own 3 Macs... anyone wanna buy one?). I love the linux desktops/window managers, especially BlackBox and WindowMaker. I can setup a Linux gateway/router far faster than I can with Win2000. I like the ability to pick and choose what goes onto my machine with nearly unlimited flexibility (can't do that with Windows or MacOS). I like what Linux represents. I just can't use it for my "real work".
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
I agree with you, too, but I cannot understand why do you have to log in. Can't you just post as AC's? Logging in seems to be so compromising...
in multimedia?
Much more to come...
God forbid that we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. T. Jefferson.
WTF are you smoking... winmodems work fine on NT4, sp3 and up. You obviously just didn't use the driver disk that came in the package or are using NT4 with less than Sp3. What an idiot.
As to getting a winmodem working in Linux, it's a distro resolved hit or miss process and I have yet to find efficient and stable drivers that can match the Win drivers.
God you are a looser.
And WTF are you using a crap ass Winmodem for anyway?
Actually the term project did this better (anyone remember this baby?). You could simply create a link between port 80 locally to a remote machine also running term. Both ends could be running zlib for compression. Oh this was so great..all done in user space..required no admin permissions. The browser ran locally on your machine and the communication of port 80 was all compressed..oh I'm starting to druel again. Damn I gotta pull those term sources out again and set this up over a dialup vpn connection..BTW, I used to run this term config over a 9800 baud modem and it was quite zippy. Ah, those were the days...8))
I used twm for awhile. Snappy. Actually, pretty damn fast. However, I ended up choosing fvwm2 over twm, because it is more configurable and featureful.
IIRC, fvwm2 actually uses less memory than twm (if you don't run any of the fvwm2 modules). It's too bad fvwm2 wasn't as quick and snappy as twm (definitely noticeable on the lower end machines <=166mhz). I have a 1.4GHz machine now, so it's not that big of a deal anymore.
Neither one can do the job completely. No OS can. Deal. X is the shittiest GUI for the desktop. Windows is unstable and bloated (just like X) Mac OS X is slow (just like windows and x). What the world needs it to flush the GUI down the toilet. Do we really need it????? Remeber DOS????? Remember having your computer boot in about 5 seconds? Applications starting instantly. Etc, etc. I am soooo sick and fucking tired of the OS shit!!!!!!! I am going to burn all my computers in a fire. Dance around that fire naked. Then, I am going to look around.......Holy SHIT!!!!!! There is a fucking world out there!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have wasted so much of my precious time on this planet in front of a computer. wasting away. Let us gather for the first computer burning......
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
I am a Unix junkie. I love Unix. Solaris, *BSD, Linux, you name it.
I agree with you wholheartedly. I was tired of the direction that Linux (how many distributions?) was taking and I sure as hell wasn't going to touch Windows. Solaris is great for servers, and I've always been a BSD kind of person myself.
What did I do? Bought a PowerMac G4 back in January and have not looked back. Sure, there's lots of kinks still needing to be worked out (not too thrilled about HFS+), but there tons of apps (try running WC3 on a Linux box), and Aqua is just beautiful.
Oh yeah, I can muck around with the OS on the shell, too.
Macs aren't only for people that are afraid of computers anymore.
No trolls here. Just using the best OS that there is out there currently and it even feels more mature than Linux in many respects.
Daemon Inside +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ www.freebsd.org +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In other words, did you let MS know that you wanted to use what you paid good money for, and they gave you permission?
I will never never never use any software or give my money to any company that requires that.
I have had no hardware problems (nvidia has closed source drivers, what do you expect). I have a complete system that works very well. I do a regular apt-get update... to keep it in tune. I have no license concerns.
I think that not having a wordprocessor that supports the MS proprietary lock in formats is a feature. Just like binary incompatibility is a feature.
Remember WinME. That is what the noncompetitive environment produced. MS is responding to a competitive threat by improving their software.
Derek
his revaltion was, "wow, everything works here I don't care if it's so easy and there's no challenge! It's also idiot proof, so i can't screw it up! And look at all the pretty colors! I dont know what i'd do without 3D icons and useless mind numbing animation. Even though it's functionally the same as the other windows versions, I dont mind if it treats me like i'm stupid! I'd ratheer not see all the things it does in the background, because i'm an ENDUSER! I'm also glad we got rid of that textbased ...peice of trash.
stuff, fonts are the coolest!And who needs all that techincal BS any way? Computers are for playing games and makin gthe internet go!"
I consider myself average or maybe slightly above average. I'm good at configuring things once they're installed and working properly.
I can use apache, sendmail, bind and mysql quite well.
But there are a lot of things that I can't get to work and I have no idea where to get help sometimes. Luckily I have friends who know more than I do, but whenever I run into a brick wall the only place I know is to jump on openproject IRC. I run SuSE, but more often than not that room is filled with people and dead as a doorknob.
Most other rooms are filled with people who know only as much as I do and I constantly see people giving bad advice or saying things like, "I know it's right because it seems to work." Geez... You should see the DNS advice people give out sometimes... yikes.
Where does everyone go? The how-tos aren't very well maintained and there isn't a ton of consistency to how they are written. Most are horribly out of date.
Google will sometimes reveal answers, but if you have some off the wall question and you aren't even sure what to search for I often find myself up a creek.
I think as time goes on linux will obviously become more and more userfriendly, but like people have said before... it's not for everyone.
I personally only use it as a server platform (I also use Win2k), and I like it much much better than Win2k, but for a desktop system... Ugh...
Besides all the bugginess of it, I can almost use it except some of my favorite software such as Macromedia Homesite isn't available.
In the meantime, to help me transition over to linux as a desktop system, I use cygwin, putty, winscp, wincvs, windiff, and db Browser.
With those utilities I can accomplish anything that I do on a daily basis.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The name itself, "Computer", implies someone or something used to compute solutions to mathematical problems. This indeed was the original intention of people like Babbage and Turing, to make a machine that can solve mathematical problems, and perform tedious, repetitive tasks in an automated fashion thus freeing humans to work on more important things. Clearly, their dream has been fulfilled.
However, the word "Computer", as the masses today use it, implies an electronic device used for a variety of worthless persuits such as projecting simulated, interactive death on to screens; perpetuating the distribution of grossly immoral images and texts for no purpose other than to corrupt and confuse the mind of man; undercutting institutions of business by illegally digitizing and distributing their products under the vain assumption that such things should be "free"; providing a veil behind which cowards and criminals can anonymously carry out their subversions and perversions as they plot to act out the will of Evil; and so on.
But of course, let's not forget about using computers to do your taxes, write your letters, play your music, watch television, design your Christmas cards, automatically detect and configure your new digital camera, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.
If you have fallen into this trap of misappropriating computers, like the fellow in the article, then you will become stumped, disappointed, and filled with frustration when you start using an operating system designed for no purpose other than to make a computer able to perform tasks for which it was originally created.
The solution for you, my friend, is to simply realise your role in today's "Computer Society". If you want your computer to organise your life and provide you with entertainment, then run an operating system designed to prey on your weakened state of mind, such as Microsoft Windows.
If, however, you want to use a computer to actually compute answers to mathematical questions, or automate tedious and dangerous tasks, then choose an operating system that best aids you, such as Unix or one of its clones.
Decide on which side of the fence you fall, and put all thoughts of "the grass being greener" out of your mind. No doubt, those among you who are of a weakened state of mind will find this almost impossible to do.
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
[ Site ]
In fact , he was on the committee for LUV (Linux users of victoria http://www.luv.asn.au) for about 6 months, before he had to go to queensland for work. (I'm now the prez)
/usr/local/etc/ ,not /etc . Not happy to find that out, especially in a deb packaged program. Another example I was told about last night was quota. Apparently it's been broken for ages. wtf?
He set up the gaming group in LUV, and helped out a lot with events we ran. He also set up lan gaming sessions himself (windows users were welcome to come along).
The nature of his job demands he has a low tolerence of stuff that doesn't work properly. I'm a programmer, so I'm used to stuff that doesn't work properly , and I try to fix it. But I'm frustrated about stuff that doesn't work properly either.
One good example was setting up XSANE to use my new scanner. after swearing at it all day, I discovered that XSANE wanted the config files in
Setting up pcmcia on a toshiba laptop with the 2.4 kernel is an exercise in frustration. with 2.2 kernels it works fine. Not a peep out of 2.4
I decided to install mandrake instead of debian on my new laptop, and I must say it's nice having a distro that sets things up well. Stuff just works. I'll probably go back to debian, but for now I'm seeing how it _should_ be. I can't wait until the progeny installer gets put into debian.
If there's a system in linux where you can select a new module, compile and install it without torching your current modules configuration (ie having to recompile NVdriver) then that would go a long way.
XP isn't much of an OS I'm afraid. It's annoying, and I've BSOD'd it three times in two days. one just by plugging in a ps2 mouse, another by trying to fullscreen a dvd movie, and another one... (can't remember) So I don't agree with him there.
Don't call kNIGits a troll , he doesn't deserve it.
Although having package databases (such as the rpm and deb systems use) is great, there should definitely be seperation between system packages and additionally installed software. There needs to be a standard installer and database for user-installed applications such as word processors, email clients and games, and it should be seperate from the rpm or deb databases used for system software such as lilo, init and cron. This will make it much easier for home users to know what applications they have installed on their PC, and to easily uninstall them if necessary, without knowing some arcane commands and weird package names.
/Programs/Program_name/Version/{bin,include,info,m an,etc,...}.
So, there is a 'System/Links/{Executables,Headers,Libraries,Manua ls}' directory which will symlink to every executable, header, lib and man pages of any program you wish to install. There are some scripts which help you to keep this tree organized, so you don't need to specify prefixes and symlink your applications by hand.
I aggree with him about the problem of maintaining a system without having to worry about where is some package installed, or from what package is the xyz file. Although even with Windows you can't figure out from what program is some random DLL in the Win/System directory, there is a good solution for GNU/Linux.
There is a relative new GNU/Linux distribution called by GoboLinux. GoboLinux was born in order to provide an alternative approach for the default directory tree found in (any) distributions.
How can it do that? It maintains all the programs in a special directory called by 'Programs', such as
This is the best approach I ever had find about directory trees, so I encourage anyone to try it out, or even just read more about it.
The GoboLinux distribution and related information is hosted at http://www.cscience.org/~gobo/ .
yes...
yes you are...
Here's something I posted on Slashdot around a year and a half ago that pretty much explains why linux has been having such a hard time getting on the desktop. This is an actual experience of mine and I haven't made it up. While a few things about the installer's UI were changed, the changes have not in any way made the installer any less user-hostile, and a couple of changes has increased it's difficulty.
"Why Linux isn't ready for the desktop"
Case in point:
I was at a restaurant with some of my lug members. I won't name names, the city, or any specifics (so I don't have to pay the price of my criticism at next week's meeting). In my home town, there is a very, very big linux distribution company. Everyone has heard of its distribution and many, many people use it. There are a number of programmers who work at this company who are also lug members, and at the restaurant, I got into a discussion with one of them about the distribution's installer and why I thought its UI was so poorly designed (after the conversation, I found out he wrote most of it. Boy, I felt stupid). Now, this installer is revered by many to be easy enough for your grandmother to use, but I counted a good 15 or 20 usability errors.
As a little bit of background, I am studying to be a UI designer (and a damned good one at that). I can give you the professional opinion that many of these errors involve simple, "duh" kind of stuff. The problems were things like ambiguously labeled check boxes and radio buttons. Or widgets laid out in ways that users do not naturally progress in. In some of the worst cases, the widget layout conveyed information so badly that it could confuse a user into not being able to start up in X (very important for newbies and secretaries). The most annoying error was a modal dialog that obscured information outside the dialog that was pertinant to making choices inside the dialog. The only way to refer to the information outside the dialog was to close the dialog, look at the information, and then re-enter it. All these problems are things that would be easy to change (just modifying/adding 300 lines of code at max). And making these changes would not involve creating stupid talking paperclip avatars or wizards that insult the intelligence of power-users and inhibit their progress. Making these changes would simply add greater clarity to performing the procedures involved in installation, and would allow both power user and grandma to navigate more efficiently and effectively. Real Ease-Of-Use (as opposed to Microsoft Ease-of-Use) is not about wiping the user's ass, it's about not kicking it . But despite the ease of changing the UI code and the benefits it would bring, I seriously doubt this linux distribution company will ever see these problems as problems and make the necessary changes. And I'm certain the programmer I talked to probably wouldn't, either. And probably no one in the linux community will step forward and make the changes, since they all think this distribution's installer is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because it's graphical. And because they can use their linux expertise to get around the most confusing parts of this installer's UI.
Back to my conversation with the guy who wrote the installer, when I mentioned several of the problems I listed above, he still couldn't understand what was wrong with it. "You don't think it's pretty enough?" he asked. I think that moment, more than anything else, defines why Linux just isn't making as much progress on the desktop as it should be.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Such as?
I mean, it seems that a lot of the problem is that X11 is an out-dated windowing system. Why doesn't the open-source community begin building a new lean, mean windowing system. Maybe they could even make some sort of emulator software to run X/KDE/Gnome apps until people started to develope for the new windowing system.
Meh.
Really, the only gaming I do with my Debian system, aside from xscorch, is running emulators for the NES, SNES, and (sometimes) Genesis. I don't feel bad about this because either my brother or I owned all of the "good" games for these systems at some point, and I'm pretty sure we gave them away.
(This was not very difficult for the Genesis; the good games consisted of Shining Force, Shining Force II, and Landstalker.)
Maybe you owned some of these games, or maybe you have a black thieving heart and don't care
Then too, we have a PS2, Dreamcast, and Saturn downstairs. It's not like my Linux desktop is my gaming machine; I've always preferred console games, and unless Square and Working designs start making games for Linux, probably always will.
But do get them xscorch...
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
On Windows, if you change your binary interface, all the apps break. On Linux, if you change your binary interface, you just recompile. Yeah, it's a pain, but it's better.
So Windows doesn't change its ABI frequently. So what? That also means they can never correct mistakes. They can't evolve. Or if they do...all the apps break.
windows has command line tab completion, just download powertoys from ms's site.
...your loss I guess. OS X on a TiBook make a wonderful combo...
Face it, as long as Linux users like to think that we are the 'best', there's no change in hell that Linux will be THE desktop os. :)
Why? Simply because most of the moms,dads and kids just couldn't get linux working, and even if they did it would be something like command line, or basic gnome / kde installation.
And why should we care about those quake kids, moms and dads? Because THEY purchase computers, THEY are the ones to choose os, and THEY make that x>50% of all computer users.
So if they all buy Windows, why would hw manufacturers make drivers for Linux, when only x10% of users are using it.
To get John Doe to use Linux it needs loads of improvements, like not having to read LOTR again just to get those #"*#! fonts working, etc..
I've been using linux for past 5 years as primary os, and have figured out that there are some things Linux just can't do, and some that windows can't.. So use both of them at the same time, get a life, and don't whine about why linux / windows is better..
They are both as good, and suck as much but in different areas
Yes, NT will install on that machine.
I did it, on a p 60 for a while.
Back in the day.
95 or 96.
Dan
I've seen a lot of posts about the difficulty
of up-to-date hardware drivers under Linux,
and I've experienced this myself. Of course
most of us die-hards choose our new hardware
carefully to ensure Linux compatibility.
But why hasn't anyone come along and made
a Windows driver emulation library? Is this
next to impossible? It seems like it should
be possible to design a kernel module that
would appear to a windows driver to be
Windows XP or whatever. Maybe this is
tough to do in a completely general way,
but different pieces could be done separately.
For example, one driver emulation module
could provide all the hooks needed for
a graphics card driver. Other driver
emulation modules could support WinModems,
printers, scanners, digital cameras,
sound cards, etc.
Of course rewarding companies that provide
Linux-compatible hardware with our wallets
is a good strategy as well, but even that
still means we often end up waiting for
some interesting new stuff.
-Rob
I read a lot of people saying how darn great Mac OSX is and how Win XP is quite good really and how everyone should give up Linux and buy a friggin' Mac. (like I can afford one!)
Well I think we can give Linux at least some credit for Mac coming over to the *nix side, and M$ picking up its game.
These are the results of COMPETITION!!!!
Linux doesn't have to be the best ever in all areas, but by being competitive and bringing in new ideas it improves the whole OS arena. If M$, Linux and OSX had a 1/3 market share each I think we'd see great developments in software, just as the development of hardware has been accelerated via intensive competition.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
Sure, I used to run NT 3.5 on my '486 laptop with 20MB of RAM. Office and Netscape ran fine on it too, where as Windows 3.1 always ran out of resources if I tried to use all of the Office applications at the same time.
I never tried Windows 95 on that machine. The stability of NT (which never crashed once, but did hang with an empty desktop one time during shutdown) was much more valuable to me than Windows 95's fancy new UI.
Windows XP could obviously never run on such a machine, but that's because it's got so many features that NT 3.5 and 4.0 lacked. It's nothing magic -- add more features and you increase the resource requirements. It's only a problem if the features are unnecessary for the common case (e.g. the client/server architecture of the X Window System isn't generally necessary on single-user workstations -- Windows RDP is a much better solution).
Same here. Like they say about philosophy majors, they are not in search of truth but rather of argument. OS X is the thing for now, anyone who has used it knows this.
My G3 iBook is the most reliable & most fun to use computer I've ever owned. And I use Win2K on my desktop, with Netware & Linux servers on the back-end. I have very few complaints about OS X (save for some performance issues which I'm sure will be fixed with 10.2 - you realize OS X hasn't even been out two years??) and eagerly look forward to buying more software for it simply because the experience is That Good. I realize now that I have nothing to complain about; I didn't like Windows or Linux, so I set out to find a better solution. I found it. End of story.
Almost all recent games are out for MacOS.
Go down to your local Electronics Boutique, or CompUSA, or whatever game shop you choose. Compare the size of the "PC New Releases" section to the ENTIRE Mac section. How can people continue to say that the Mac has a decent game selection when it's just not true?
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
Well, when I had to run NT on a 64Mb PII 350, it was almost completely unusable. Not enough memory.
Win95 was *barely* usable on a 486DX66, You telling me that NT uses less resources?
dave
Some of us don't have the time or patience to learn another computer language that's only good for writing documentation.
With the stability of a real XP kernel, and plug-n-play that really works, not to mention a UI with intuitive design instead of just being pretty. Why spend more and get less from a Macintosh?"
Alright, enough of your shenanigans... give 'Steve' his script back.... RIGHT NOW!Will a opensource compatible Mac OS would make the active available to support a whole lots of software on a productivity bases.
The JZA
Linux (RedHat and Debian) is installed on all of my desktop machines. Along with some variety of Windows. I hadn't used Windows much over the last couple of years, save for three programs that have no parallel in the Linux world: MS Word, Adobe Photoshop, and Forte Agent. (If you suggest StarOffice/AbiWord, the GIMP, and that whatever-it-was-called Agent clone, you're either high or have never gotten deeply into the features of the aforementioned commercial programs.)
Recently, I resurrected my old Thinkpad 560 after buying a broken 560 from eBay to scavenge for parts. One of those parts was a larger hard drive, and unlike my RH-only original drive, this one still had Win95 on it.
(I'll spare you the rant on how horrible it is to try to get Linux installed on a CD-ROM-less laptop without actually pulling the hard drive and mounting it in a desktop machine, and how it's just flat-out impossible to get networking and X11 to work with certain hardware.)
I finally got an obscure Slackware derivative, DragonLinux, to live peaceably inside a FAT32 partition so I can continue my software development projects, but beyond that, I've been actually pleased to do everything else in unstable-as-hell outdated Win95. It is so refreshing to be able to perform so many simple non-development end user tasks without the endless pain in the ass that is Linux.
Don't get me wrong -- I've been using Linux for seven years now, and I will continue to do so both for servers and on the desktop 80% of the time, but until some real, high-quality, end-user applications are available for it, I am reluctantly obliged to pay my Microsoft tax for the remaining 20% of the time.
And if you are inclined to work on non-sexy end-user applications like word processors and such -- for god's sake, please don't be "creative", just clone what's already out there. Give me innovative system libraries and kernel modules instead. The word processor (and for that matter, the bitmap editor and newsreader) are mature technologies.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I dunno what all the fuss is about.
So some bloke posts why he's switching back to windows and the topic gets 1500 posts ?
Jeez - are Linux users that desperate that they respond so dramatically to something like this ?
Get a life !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
X had ClearType before Microsoft had ClearType.
Except they call it something else.
See http://jmason.org/howto/subpixel.html
It's called Sub-Pixel Font Rendering, and Apple came up with it first.
http://grc.com/ctwho.htm
Meh. IE wishes it was as good as Mozilla. And I'm talking about W32 Mozilla. Use 1.1a1 and you'll know what I mean. Brilliant.
Very interesting reading, and rather brave to post it and implicitly invite flames from the more rabid and unthinking Linux contingent.
I've recently done the same - up until May, my laptop, desktop and server in my house were running Linux; RedHat on the server, Mandrake on the others. I'd been running Linux in a give-up-Microsoft experiment since mid-2000. And finally, in April, I decided to give it up.
I wish there could be a different conclusion, but that's it. I use my PC, I don't see it as an end in itself and I think that's the key point here. Linux is great fun if what you like to do is mess around with your computer. But if you want to use it as a tool for domestic or desktop computing, MS has all the cards. And the cards are not reliability or the elegance of the OS design. They are market share and the fact that any company anywhere that makes a gadget or applicance to connect to a PC will assume Windows. That's the killer and open-source can't do anything to address that. It's not about the software any more.
Now, unlike Tony (the guy in the article), I am a programmer by training and I've been using Unix systems since I was about 12. I like Unix, I like Linux and it's staying on the server at home. But as for most other domestic and desktop applications, it's just Too Damn Hard.
To draw a parallel with Tony's article - I tried to get my digital cameras (two generations of Kodak) working under Linux. It took days of web searching, DejaNews reading, installing, tweaking and finally I had it. Not nearly so seamless a setup as XP has with digicams, but pretty good - connect the camer, click an icon and all the pics get zapped across. But the effort it took to get that set up.
I could never get any of my games to run satisfactorily even after shelling out for TransGaming's software. X would lock up, or the whole machine (a PIII 900/256) would grind to a virtual halt.
Finally, as many others have said... there are too many things I want to use my PC for that assume I have Windows. So many websites that require IE (and no, if I want to do online grocery shopping I can't choose an alternative, there aren't any). Gadgets like Intel's cool USB microscope. Any decent pro-audio/midi packages.
So I made the decision to switch back. And what I found was this - in the time since Win98/NT, Microsoft have improved. XP has never crashed on me. Once. It runs everything I throw at it. It looks okay. It's faster on the same box that Mandrake was because it takes less memory for the OS than X did.
So there you have it.
ben_
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
I have to agree with this guy. I consider myself the slightly-more-knowledgeable-than-average Joe User.
/etc do I edit and change the ff to 00?
I have been trying to run one distro or another of GNU/Linux on my machine for the past three years. I'm using an old, 200 MHz Apple PowerBook, and I don't really want to fork out the thousand for a whole new system (including monitor). But I want and have wanted to try Linux for a long time.
I have tried every Linux PPC distro. I feel like an expert on installing linux on PPC. Getting it to do anything from there, though, is a chore.
Linux is, or at least used to be, lauded as an incredibly fast system. On the command line, there is no doubt that this is true. But point-and-click to get, say, Abiword or even a terminal to open with KDE3 on my machine takes a over a minute and a half. I could write out whatever I needed in longhand faster than that!
Even KDE2 or Gnome1 are incredibly slow, but much faster that 3 and 1.4. X is dodgy, at best, when it comes to stability, too.
I moved to a different country for my current job, and I've had to learn the local language (German) and a scripting language (Perl). I don't want to learn all of this archane CLI/sh/POSIX language as well.
Hardware detection is something of a bugger, too. I've got a PCMCIA modem that I have yet to get to work, even after reading the how-to and asking in various fora for help. Linux is great for the network, but if ya can't get on the 'Net, what's the bloody point!? I also have a parallel printer hooked up to my printer (serial) port that has never been able to work in Linux (needs a driver; I don't know how to write one; if I did, I don't have time to write one; same goes for the one guy that plans on writing it). I haven't even tried getting my external scsi devices to work. Which of the thousand files in
I love free software. I use (X)emacs whenever I can on Mac, on Windoze at work, when I can get linux to cooperate. I use Mozilla, although it, too, is a bit slow. OpenOffice is a great alternative to M$ Orifice. But GNU/Linux itself is not ready for somebody like me. Like the guy said, I want to stick in the CD, click on a few things, click on "dial", read my e-mail, look at a few nudie pictures, click on "disconnect", write a nasty letter to my student loan agency and print it. I've not been able to do any of that in Linux (okay, I can write the letter... but what next?).
I will keep trying with older versions of Linux PPC. The newer versions have fallen prey to the "must upgrade to the newest and greatest" trap (often, because of a bug-fix or security patch). The newer stuff just makes my machine collapse.
Well the cat is amond the OS's now. I agree with alot of what he said, I had switched from Win to Linux and lasted about 3 months. I now run a dule booth, win98 and Suse 7.2pro. I appricate the flexability of linux and the sheer control that you get, but for the basic user windows works. And then there is also the games issue....i like playing games and there are not that maney games to play under linux...that's all i have to say on this.
This is not a test, it is just a distraction.
The one thing that keeps users from the desktop is the availiblilty of applications like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and the like. you could also argue that people want *visual* development environments that fall in line with Visual Studio dot whatever the fuck they call it, and *even* Mac OS X comes with a spiffy set of tool.
Linux zealots will go on and on about Emacs, and While I am with them, I onlu need VI or Emacs for most tasks, getting over the Macho weirdo delusion that joe developer, or joe graphic artist, or joe so and so are completely set with command line tools, is the ravings of a truly *high* individual.
Yeha those tools rock. I make web pages in Emacs.. So the fuck what? I want Dreamweaver, and not so I can paste my websites together. Its os I can have code completetion and all sorts of tools to make my life easier as a developer.
Gimp is great. It has claylike texture and all sorts of cool shit. But man oh man, I am a photoshop user for like 10 years, and as much as I try to use the gimp for certain functions, I truly can't. It sucks.
Illustrator.. Well, its not there.
I think the Linux on the desktop folks should move away from the Office suite thing (which we already now have, in multiple forms) and start looking at development and content creation. This is most important. Until we have this, we have nothing.
That post is actually INSIGHTFUL, not a troll!
I recently got an iBook, and using only my Unix knowledge (I've never been a Mac person before), it only took me a day and a half, to fully integrate it to our mixed Irix/Linux network (NIS, NFS, X, python etc).
:)
When I work from home, I just tunnel everything through ssh (works right out of the box).
Oh and I just LOVE the Java support
-Raz
Free Software is about Freedom. Linux (the kernel) is Free Software. If someone chooses to exercise that freedom by choosing not to use it, that's fine by me.
I've exercised my freedom by shunning Gnome and using KDE, much to the disgust of some of my colleagues. But it's up to me. Why should anyone else care?
I've used windows XP on a lot of systems, and the graphics are not entirely smooth until you have at least a 1500 mhz or faster cpu or a geforce 3 or better gpu. on a P-3 M 1 ghz the artifacting is so bad I have to disable skins just to make things reasonably fast. Even with skins disabled, it's still a little jittery. Although I have seen XP move a window around on a dual Athlon MP 2000+ (OCed from 1666mhz to 1750 mhz) smoothly but it still uses 40% total (or 80% of a single 1750 MHZ) cpu utiliziation if moved constanly. /var/db/pkg/ tree. Any package added through the ports tree, pkg_add, or the system install app will show up there.
And at least one of his issues is (mostly) covered by FreeBSD, with it's
Although I do have to agree, Linux (nor FreeBSD) are ready for the desktop yet. Mac OSX is ready for the desktop though, and I'd sooner buy that for PC than any pre-packaged linux distro that I could just as easily download.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
It depends on which NT and which resoures. NT 3.5, for example, used the old, simple Windows 3.x UI, which required much less in the way of CPU resources than the new UI in Windows 95, and also less memory. NT 4.0 used the new UI, so both the CPU and memory requirements went up. This was magnified in NT4 because a lot of the Windows 95 Explorer stuff used the ANSI versions of the Win32 APIs, which were native on Win95, but had to be thunked to the Unicode versions on NT.
In terms of memory requirements, NT 3.5 was quite small (it ran fine on a 20MB laptop). Even 4.0 was relatively small initially (despite the Explorer bloat), but with the addition of IE, all the service packs and add-ons, etc., it became quite large. The original Explorer was huge in comparison to Program Manager, and the IE-based one was massive. As I recall, I could still pare NT4 down to a commit charge of ~48MB or so, which was fine on 64MB systems, but it was always much bigger than 3.5.
Here's the e-mail I sent to dude:
Hi,
Saw the mention on Slashdot.
While I agree and feel you're 100% right, I'm migrating from Windows 2000 to Linux.
The issues you raised are completely valid, but not being the average home user, they don't bother me that much, especially in the face of the headway Microsoft is making in its (assumed) goal of Internet domination.
I can't say that I blame you:
However, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." - Edward R. Murrow.
Despite all these frustrations with Linux, I can't condone your actions. We're 99.98% to the finish line, and the threat of losing is too great. If the Internet is Microsoft's, we're all locked in to one supplier, one philosophy, one vision. One *architecture*. We're too vulnerable, anyone and everyone.
The next Klez, Code Red, or licensing agreement, 5 months or 5 years from now, could shut the Internet down.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Is Win emulation mature enough to play these files at all or play them as seamlessly as in Win2k itself? If not, then I'll continue to keep one hand on my mouse, and the other on my joystick as I view my sacred lovelies in Win2k!
What about Lyx ?
Hi folks, :))... but if you want a good work environment that you can install one time and use all the time!, choose to go for a Linux/Unix machine. :)
I think that everyone is loosing the point, What do you need to do with your machine?
If you want to play action games with real graphics and a lot of HW requirements, then choose to go for the M$ Platform (or better a playstation
I tried to use game on Linux but it still have a lot of work to do to reach M$ games features.
I tried to work in a M$ environment, but I broke the ctrl-alt-del keys
Cheers.-
Hache
I don't think a home user even wants to install software or hardware. Like who's still repairing his own car?
...
What people actually need is cheap, local service and repair-shops who solve your problems. And I definately think this will happen in the not-so-far future. And with Linux, a lot of service can even be done remotely.
Then, the process of switching to Linux would mean dropping the machine at the local Linux shop and negotiating what would be needed. Ok, that's a word-processor, cd-burning software, etc. Shall we add a web-browser, too?
The next day, you'd pick it up again, leaving $200 at the shop.
So, what when you decide you need some new piece of software?
Well, you call your shop and they will remotely login to your pc and set it up for you.
They didn't do it right? Well, no problem. Just call someone else.
We need service shops that actually serve their customers, because they are both enabled and forced to compete with oneanother for a change. Linux makes this possible, because everyone has the same possibilities of actually servicing such a machine.
We just have to wait for the companies to pop-up
If we look at the history and especially the history of wars (well, Linux vs Windows has become a war), we will see that in every war there has been coward refugees who have not had the strength to stand boldly believing in themselves. They have fleed and changed their sides and minds blindly. Some human just are weak. It is a reality.
...this little allegory actually happened. Although it was a whinging machine operator moaning that fitters were better paid than he was rather than a manager getting the bill BUT -
:Ford Tractor Factory (Basildon, Essex,England)
Time: About 20 years ago
Location
The man with the hammer: my Dad.
Returning to the main point easy to use tools are needed. My kids (ages 15,11 & 4) all have Linux desktops now and I'd rather not be dragged out of my chair to sort the them out *too* often.
Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)
I had a need to try going the same way recently. I had to set up a 2K box to run a web application we developed on Linux/Apache/PHP/Perl/MySQL.
I apologize for the possible percieved political incorrectness of what I'm about to say here, but the only description I can think of for this experience of going from Linux to Windows is the comparison to suddenly having to read Braille with hooks. CygWin only goes so far...
It is tempting to switch back, to at least give XP a whirl. I still have win98 on one box that I can boot into which I do rarely enough but often enough never to feel nostalgic about that fragile, has to reboot if you do so much as sneeze OS. But it is said, including by the author of the piece, that XP has made major progress on these fronts.
But the MS culture sucks, being largely one of greed. It starts in the Baradur of Redmond, then spreads to everything Windows touches. Even the author is trying to cling to such wholesome things as mozilla and OpenOffice, but these things are very much exceptions in the Windows world. Couldn't go back there.
Sometimes it's not the speed of the car as much as the quality of the ride
Disclaimer: I confess, I've never tried using any Linux versions of LaTeX.
That said, I'm surprised to hear of your problems. Installing new fonts using other LaTeX distributions has been child's play. With MikTeX on Windows, it was pretty much as simple as downloading the font files off CTAN, and sticking them in the appropriate fonts directory, for example. The actual bitmaps and such were all generated automatically the first time I used the font.
It also seemed pretty straightforward to get output using any TrueType fonts I had installed using MikTeX->dvips->GhostScript. I've certainly never had to convert any fonts (downloaded METAFONT-type fonts, TrueType fonts or otherwise) into PostScript before using them. Hell, using fonts in LaTeX is so easy that my girlfriend and I designed a whole font for her to typeset Hindi for her masters thesis.
If the version of (La)TeX that you're using with Linux makes it so much hard work, then sadly, it seems this is another case where the Windows/Mac versions are way ahead of the Linux one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm a 7 year Linux user and RHCE so I don't consider myself a Linux newbie.
Here's a quick lesson for you, even tho you're not a newbie. Lesson:
Debian comes in three flavors. Those three flavors are: stable (potato), testing (woody), unstable (sid).
The install floppies for woody are unlikely to help you with installing unstable. However, you could install woody and then do a dist-upgrade to unstable.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
I want open information for all, not information and data controlled by a few.
If the price I have to pay for that is a few (very few, how difficult is apt-get install? ) session tweaking this or that, so be it.
I have not touched Windows at home for 1 year now(I play games, I write and share documents, I make presentation, I scan, I print).
The fonts are ugly you say? Gee, I can read these ones very well, and any way I have in no high regard somebody that chooses restrictive technology based in subjective aesthetic reasons.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You mean NT 4, right?
I installed Lycoris on my girlfriend's P-90 and it runs fine with KDE operating. You must have 128 MB of RAM, but the same goes for most modern GUIs. As a matter of fact, I think that XP needs a reccommended 256 MB of RAM.
That is because of your RAM. You need at least 128 MB of RAM on ANY modern GUI-based OS.
NT4 is like 7 years old. Of course it will run just fine on your machine. Install a 7 year old Linux distribution and it will run well also.
Install more memory in your machine, install Linux, and then come back and try to make your claim. But you can't install any modern GUI on a machine withg 32 MB of RAM, or else you face constant swapfile activity that will drive you insane. But I assure you, a P90 is suitable for KDE, IF you have a proper amount of RAM. But for now, your remarks are just bullshit from someone who can't understand all of the variables that go into running an OS.
Linux (the OS itself) runs perfectly on 32 MB of RAM though.
I can just see the Microsoft ads now:
:-)
Windows XP: So easy even an Aussie can use it.
I am a user. I would love to just boot up the system and work with it. I don't care for hacking and I don't program. Unfortunately I can't do this with Windows. Can You spell R E B O O T ? Or how about R E I N S T A L L ? How about G E N E R A L F A I L U R E ? I tried Windows and got so frustrated with it that I switched to Linux four years ago. I was a pain in the ass, because I didn't know much about computers and started out with Debian GNU/Linux 2.1.
But there was one major advantage. I could fix things. On my computer then my IP broke down for no apparent reason on Windows 98 after a short while. And there was no way to get it back up. I never figured out why. I tried all possible driver combinations and all tech support numbers to no avail. I wasted sooo much time rebooting Windwos over and over and over again. Just last weekend I had another of those nice Windows experiences. I installed XP on the same computer a while ago that is now used by my little brother. IP doesn't break down any more.
Unfortunately the build in Microsoft driver for my Riva TNT chip doesn't support OpenGL for some reason. So when I tried to play Quake3 it balked. No problem ( so I thought), just download the driver from the Nvidia website.
Another thing that Windows claims but Linux has now. Linux ships with everything. You don't have to get on the net to download, install (and reboot!!!) every single f**king app like mozilla, openoffice. Java and OpenGL also come preinstalled. Anyways, after I installed and rebooted the old driver was still in its place. I tried a couple times and then got the creative driver, but nothing helped.
I suspect, that the Riva TNT isn't supported any more, because when I manually install the driver out of the appropriate folder the driver for the Riva TNT never came up. I can only suspect it, though, because Windows has no way of ever finding such things out.
Sure, Linux has problems, too, but You can always solve them, it just takes time. With Windows when I run into a problem I don't know if it is even worth a single reboot, because most of the time You can't solve it and just wast my time. So please don't tell me that Windows is better for the end user than Linux (sophisticated end user that is).
I would have said that for most people, using Linux places more restrictions on them than Windows, simply due to the fact that there is more software out there for Windows (for the average user) than there is for Linux.
You choose your OS for philosophical reasons, but many choose pragmatic reasons.
Where I used to work, those Mac boxen sure broke fast. The motherboard's MTBF whas like 2 weeks, at most, for all models we bought (G3, G4) so I have no reason to believe in the level of quality you talk about.
I'll agree that if you can't troubleshoot your own machines maybe a Mac makes more sense. If you're in the business of routinely mucking around with your machine and know how to fix things if you break them I don't see how you can justify a Mac for the price. If you want something simple, with the slick shiny interface and have no interest in poking around the system Macs may be the better alternative. In that situation its probably being used more like an appliance and wouldn't need the extra muscle a PC has to offer. Hell, if you want to read email, browse web pages, and write documents you can do that with a heck of a lot less than the processing power being sold today.
If not now, when?
nice try, but i don't believe a word of that story.
:/
he worked with linux for three years and didn't get anywhere? didn't learn anything new? didn't WANT to learn anything new? he deserves windows
i agree, he should have switched a mac. linux is not for windows users...
Linux can easily run on a 486/66 doing webserving. But I wouldn't run any web server or desktop of any kind with only 32 MB of memory - and I run NT 4 and 2000 at work - on a PII 300 with 256 MB.
By the way - my firewall is a 386. Great performance. And I'm running Gentoo on a Hewlett Packard 200MMX. Runs X 4.2 and Gnome 2. It's just fine. Granted it has 96MB of memory.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
XP is the graetist oparating sistem eva. I find that i am often to high on crack to use Leenux (crak cocane) and tha graffix of xp windows is bettar that leenux. chiao
I'll put this simply. I'm a home user, not a programmer. Why on earth should I have to compile the software I want to use? I know that having the source available is a good thing, but I'll say it again: I'm no programmer. I just want to install software and run it.
True, but personally I find I've had way too much problems with rpms to be even bothered with them, I go with source first, and as a last resort, I'll get the rpm from rpmfind (recommended site).
You might want to consider reading a bit more carefully. In your rush to bash Linux and promote OSX, you don't appear to have realized that I was talking about Linux in 1993-1994. It is NO LONGER THAT WAY.
At present, a Linux install can be exactly as painless as you describe, or you can take more control and manually partition and choose filesystems/RAID, etc. Mandrake's installer is particularly nice. At the moment, initial install is one of the strongest areas of Linux... there are always improvements to be made, but on the whole it's great as it is. I highly doubt OSX is any better.
Installation of new software is usually quite easy too. You can mostly just rpm --install or apt-get install. I have no idea how that compares with OSX, but compared with Linux of 1993, it's a dream.
Fonts? Because the fonts are ugly in X11?
;-)
What next? People chose Windoze because the colours are more vibrant? The tunes are more transparent? It has a richer bouquet?
Then again, people have sold their souls for less, I guess.
And yes, I'm one of those who 'look under the hood' when buying a car. My '84 240DL Volvo is still runing strong at 184000 miles, albeit not pretty (never was
Don't even think about commenting on my girlfriend! I'm serious about that.
X is fast. Drivers are always a Nightmare with windows. My USB scanner takes forever to get the drivers into 2000 or XP. Edit on line in Linux boom. My CDR burns at 8x in Linux if I go faster than 4x in windows the disks are coasters. This guy is just a complainer/moaner/bitcher. Good riddance.
Get a free ipod.
This discussion brings to mind my major beef with Linux...Netscape is so slooooow. Why is web browsing so friggin slow in Linux?
.exe and be done. If it takes me more than 4 clicks for Linux then refer to original thread for why that is ridiculous.
I have a Red Hat 7.0 server and a dual boot Windows 98SE/2000 machine on DSL. Internet Explorer 5.5 is noticably more responsive and just plain better looking than Netscape or Konqueror or anything I have seen in Linux. It is even a noticable difference between IE in Windows 98 versus 2000.
This strikes me as Microsoft concentrating on one particular aspect to make the whole package seem more appealing but if that one particular aspect is the bread and butter of what you use a computer for every single day no matter what, then that's the part I want to work the best. I won't browse with anything else.
If someone can point me to a fast linux browser, I'll try it. If you would please, also include detailed instructions on how to get another browser installed on Red Hat because in Windows I would simply download for Win2000, doubleclick the
I don't care if the fonts in X11 are ugly. In fact I don't know what he's talking about. I can read them without getting a headache and was able to do so ten years ago.
I dare to suspect that X11 developers think similiar. Since they don't see the need to 'improve' the fonts, it doesn't get done.
The OSS modell works (most of the time) as follows: fix it yourself or find someone you can pursue to do it, by e.g. paying him or her.
This are viable options only for a few.
What if companies like RedHat and SuSE would adopt the Transgaming modell (paying customer vote for features)? This way, features overlooked by developers but (for whatever reason) desired by the broad masses, would make it into popular distributions.
Just my 2c .
Is an incompetent fool, much like my mother or father, who haven't even mastered the basics of windows networking. Slashdot, once filled with BOFHs and NixBeards, has been filled with the lusers and corporate side of computing, all striving to find the latest and hottest "thing." Once strewn with Assembly code signatures and arguments over what the most complicated (thereby fun) programming language was and is, now the banter is between Mac idiots and Windows suits, to see who can download more software they'd never be able to understand, let alone code themselves.
Damn you suits, damn you to hell. This is my last post.
Make a point, man, you're rambling.
"This guy claims to have been using linux since 1998 and he can't handle editing a text file?"
cmon now, of course he can. I'm certain he's just f'ing TIRED of it. So, if you CAN walk to work, or get there by public transportation, why AREN'T you then? Here is where you tell me that you do walk, or use your mountain bike or whatever other goofy argument you spew, but think about what I wrote. Forget yourself for a minute and think if EVERYONE had to edit text files (ALL business, every day) or EVERYONE had to walk to work, just where would we be now, as an industrialized society? Fool
Windows users are more pragmatic.
If something goes wrong it usually is "Oh, yeah, I've seen that before... let me show you how to fix it." It's not some sort of realization that it sucks, it's just a realization that complex software tends to be like this.
The same thing tends to happen with commercial Unix market, etc. Perhaps because it isn't a "movement", there isn't any defensiveness about it?
One of the troubles with Linux is that so few people really have good knowledge of it in a complex environment, and whenever you ask some question like... "Ok, I have a Linux server handling LDAP requests for about 3,000 clients. But occasionally it exhibits this behavior..."
You'll get maybe 1 person who has a clue, and 99 people who will say it works fine on their desktop at home.
This article is the second best ever troll I have read on Slashdot, the first being (and this goes without saying) the BSD troll.
When I first learned about X (X10, I think), I thought a 10MB package was way too heavy. From everything I know about it (all from the outside, not the inside - I did a bit of X programming back on Apollo HW) the UI model is not good at all, among other things. I think most folks who have explored X very far agree that it's time to move on to something new.
:O)
:O) Amazing how fast 25MHz was back then.
I've thought about an interesting way to do just that. From what I've learned, OpenGL has a much simpler, cleaner UI and internal structure, is of course 3D. Many 3D GUIs have been built in OpenGL and other 3D systems, for various specific applications.
I argue that it's time to start going to 3D 'desktops', exploring new UI models - somethings won't work well at all (I've been lost in 3space many times, turned around and outside the clipping box)
But how to migrate us all? By making an X driver that uses OpenGL as the 'device driver'. Open GL would then provide the virtual display on which X is running. Then X applications would run exactly as before, unaware that they're running in 3space. Open GL could even provide multiple virtual X displays, floating them in space and moving them around using an OpenGL scene manager. So all existing X applications could be used unchanged.
When one wants to work in a particular X display, just bring it to Z=0 and it works exactly as before. When done, move it to the 'shelf' and brig another one out. In fact, unless the OpenGL Scene Manager is invoked, the user would see no difference from their existing environment.
Soon, folks would begin building new open source 3D UI applications, and eventually X11 would be historical in the same way curses is now. We'd have a 'workspace' metaphor instead of a 'desktop'
I've thought about this quite a bit and have more complete ideas than this shows, but space is limited. I've suggested this to a number of folks. The only one expressing any interest at all so far was someone at 3DLabs, who wanted to tell MS about it. I said go ahead.
It's true that not everybody is ready for 3D - UI understanding for workstation use is nil. But there's no time like the present to go 'outside the box'
PS - anyone who's used the WWW has to say something nice about NeXTstep - NeXT's multimedia model allowing audio, video, or any type of attachment inside most documents including the mail was the primary inspiration for Tim Berners-Lee in building the WWW. The first browser was, in fact, called WWW, and ran on the NeXT - I have a copy that still runs on OpenStep 4.2 on my classic NeXTstation
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Ok, now Linux is installed, my first thoughts were, "cool it's up".. 3hrs later the thoughts changed to "AHHHHH !! WHAT DID I DO I should have stayed w/ Windows!!"
Now if you were paying attention, in the beginning I stated "I started with linux 4 years ago" Yes I stuck with it. I knew one thing, either I learned this new Operating System or I'd bee doomed with the things that made me change in the first place.
This still holds true, because I took the time to learn what I was using , and how to accomplish what I needed/wanted to do, I not only gained a great system, but also met alot of good people some of which are friends of mine still today.
People who say "Linux isn't ready for the general public have a point in one respect, the general public is usually too lazy to take the time to do anything right. How many times have you driven through a store parking lot and have to slam on the breaks because of some idiot who can't be bothered to look??
To all the windows haters I say this: ;)
If the only Operating system was Mac until today when Microsoft released their "new" operating system.. all these people crying about Linux would be crying about Windows
Did you know MS Cd's travel farther than AOL's?
Did you know Microsoft CD's fly further than AOL CD's ?
It's GNU/Linux you know! Linux is just the kernel - I bet this guy just switched OS to Windows, but is still using a whole load of GNU apps :-)
That article made me sick; i didn't even finish reading it.
You *ARE* a w1ndows user... please go back.
-Brett
Last Post!!
Hopefully...
If you make all windows think they are always completely exposed, you get a lot of useless drawing. This is for windows that constantly update some parts (like browsers with animated GIFs).
The result would be a lot of wasted CPU and task switches, bogging down slower machines condsiderably!
-- http://dapfy.bei.t-online.de/sawfish/
I've only had to do it a few times, and did it from the command line then. Wouldn't know about KDE, I tend to use Enlightenment + GTK apps.
I have recently bought myself and "old" Pentium two, 400mhz machine and dropped Linux Red Hat 7.3 on it. Not wanting to get drowned in a sea of cables, I thought there must be software out there that will let me run this box via my machine that runs Windows XP. Well call me a legume, there exists software by the name of VNC Server/VNC viewer. Now I am running both XP/Linux via one screen, one keyboard, and one wheelie mouse. My biggest problem to date? How the hell can I find the pipe key on a 104 keyboard... Anybody got an answer for that one? Methinks its another conspiracy from Redmond! Anyway, I now have the convenience of 2 operating systems and am enjoying them both, each has their own little particular quirks, and this end user/menu dropper does not mind exploring either. Create your own Network, explore OS's have fun, computing is what you make of it!!!!!
We can't do 8-bit color without flashing because
nobody has the power and guts to enforce policy.
Every app wants to grab all 256 colors, and does.
Our system was designed to run a few apps with
hand-picked colors, plus either Mosaic or xv.
We'd have xterm (2 colors), xclock (2 colors),
twm (a few colors) and a web browser (216 colors).
If you started Mosaic before xv, all Hell would
break loose. If you started xv before Mosaic,
then you got a black-and-white Mosaic!
The solution was damn obvious, but nobody could
enforce it: choose a nice palette and use it.
This works:
216 web colors (a 6x6x6 color cube)
16 VGA colors for DOSEMU
20 Windows colors for Wine
2 middle grays, 0x80 and 0x7f
16 grays (a 4-bit grayscale)
16 console colors (almost like VGA)
Many of these overlap, so they do fit
in 256 colors. It's only 240 in fact,
leaving 16 slots for future expansion.
Of course we never agree on anything,
so nothing was ever done. We're damn
lucky that 8-bit video is gone now.
Linux suffers from three phonomon and that I believe is the source of all it's pains.
First that Linux is not a commertal product:
For all the advantages this brings it means there is no pool of money to do things like TV ads and pay software companys to port software to Linux and other old industry tactics that Microsoft dosen't have to do.
Then Linux dosen't have it's own platform:
Linux lives mostly on other peoples hardware. Microsoft pritty much owns the PC now so all PC hardware is for Windows alone.
If Linux had it's own system all hardware made for it would be for Linux 100% all the time.
No more guess work.
Linux is open source:
Right now the computer industry dosen't know what to make of that.
Many companys like Microsoft and RIAA would like to think "Free" really means "Stolen".
It scares develupers as well becouse a free program could easly compeate with commertal software and they know it.
Microsoft Windows has less free software than preveous systems did mostly by a trick of making the software develupment tools so expensive it's out of the hands of the avrage user. Only professional develupers can make professional software under Windows. Not becouse they are better programmers but becouse the software tools for the avrage user are primitive.
The avrage programmer on Windows has sticks the avrage professioal programmer on Windows has a replicator.
But Linux everyone gets the replicator built in.
That makes programmers very fearful.
Add the Linux community's famous ability to gather together and even the professional infinate monkeys can't compeate as we have our own infinate monkeys...
and ours don't take breaks for anything. I mean NOTHING!!!! Not even DEATH! Well ok once dead someone takes over but.... No company is evil enough to even permit a programmer to code at his death bed.
Solutions: Marketting, donation pool for money stuff and only time will heal the open source fears.
Windows isn't perfict but for a number of things it works pritty well.
I know one guy who can't read.
Well he can read but his brain is wired so if he dose it for to long he has sesures.
Right now Linux even in GUI form requires reading. Lot's of it. Linux never gets away from text EVER.
Windows however runs the other way trying to leave the user in the dark. Thats why the cerebral types hate it. Microsofts whole addatude is "your to stupid to understand".
Apple runs on the more "You shouldn't need to understand"
Linux is "You MUST understand"
I tend to think of it this way...
Linux is a moter cycle... You MUST know what your doing or you'll never be allowed on the road.
Apple is a bike... Some basic rules of the road and you are ok.
Windows is an electric scooter. You can drive it with out knowing how but it's not street legal and it's dangerous could fall apart and leave you dead due entirely to defects in the design.
People see you laying on the street walk over you as you blead and say "Be more careful"
I'm ok with electric scooters but if you demand I replace my minivan for one I'll kick your ass...
On the other hand I'm looking at a nice street legal colapsable. I wonder if I can pack it in my luggage if I ever fly someplace.
I loath taking a taxi
I don't actually exist.
I hear it time and time again..
"Linux can do everything. Linux is great"
Well... no. Linux misses a number of things you'll quickly forget ever existsed after a while of using it.
Windows isn't garbage it's loaded with nice things and really if the underlying technology and corprate addatude were diffrent I'd probably use it.
BUT...
I hear this all the time too...
"Linux uptime is just a penis contest most people shut down at the end of the day and don't need uptime"
Bizz wrong...
Everyone needs uptime... computer is useless with out it... But the user needs uptime of 30 minuts to 8 hours...
Look at WHY Linux has so much uptime or better yet why Windows dosen't.
Windows isn't reliable. It slowly wears down. This is software it shouldn't wear down.
Shutting down dosen't reset the clock.
Some of it is memery fragmenting.. shut down reboot everything good.
Some of it is configuration some of it is defects.
Every time you update the system, add drivers, add updates, add software your altering the system and usually many of the changes are done wrong. Those mistakes built up over time and eventually you'll have problems.
Also defects in applications as well as the operating system pop up at random. The longer your up the more likely they'll happen.
But it's random chance. Sooner or later it will happen.
He's ok becouse it's fresh out the box on todays hardware. It's well tested to give a long uptime today so he can get the same uptime as Linux right now. But give him time for the system to wear down and start to crash not once every 3 years or once a month but every time he trys to pull up his favoret database.
Most people will be stuck at this point. Thats the sneaky part. By the time the defects set in Microsoft has you.
But the avrage Linux person can extract those claws with presission.
He'll be back when he remembers that with the neat features you CAN live with out if you HAD to... comes the loss of a feature you CAN NOT live with out...
Reliability.
Some day I might actually make an open source operating system as nice as Windows that is reliable. It won't be Linux. It'll be something else and I already have a few ideas on how it should work.
One idea is no binarys... load compile and run.. easier on the avrage user and really gives the user the advantage of using what ever hardware the user wants. Right now Linux supplys that advantage only to the geeks who compile source code.
I don't actually exist.