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.
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.
Interesting.
I still use XP Pro on my desktop (and often IE for my browser) for exactly the same reason. I regularly (every few months) will try out the "state of affairs" on *nix desktops, but the fact remains I can get my work done faster, with less dependence on the mouse, in a Windows environment. (Though both Win and Office XP have gotten less keyboard-only-usable over the 2000 versions due to idiocy in UI decisions on MS part.)
Ratpoison is nice, but isn't a complete solution to the problem ... (yes, I'm sure I could hack Xresources until I'm blue in the face to bind keyboard behaviors to the menus in Xterm / etc, but no, I don't feel like it).
Check out Mozilla bug # 142584 (it was marked a dupe of 124789) -- I'd love to go back to using Moz as my browser, but mouse-haters aren't numerous enough for bugs like this to get fixed quick. ;) Hell, while you're there, make sure you create a bugzilla account and VOTE FOR THAT BUG (124789) and also 83552 while you're at it.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
I was getting tired of the 'stable' Debian release being so out of date, and the 'unstable' distribution being so...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 believeHmmmm
Apple = Gay
Windows = Stupid
Im not sure which to use?
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Exactly. Why use a proprietary OS when for more money you can get a proprietary OS on proprietary hardware? :)
<Runs back to the Borg cube/>
Looks like Microsoft hired a couple of English Majors for an internship this summer.....
I'm a 2000 man.
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. /
Only if he wants to toss all the x86 hardware that he's invested in, and replace it with mac stuff that's likely more expensive.
(No, this isn't a troll.)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
RTFM is a great idea. Now all we need to do is write an Unix manual instead of the useless shufling of user manual, technical documentation and installation information otherwise known as "man pages".
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.
Sorry I don't have $3000 to drop on a gay computer.
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?
Happily, Windows doesn't require you to reboot your comp that much anymore - just for major things (display drivers, for example). As for you other points, as you said, you haven't really used Windows since 1996 - a lot has changed since then. Win95 was horrendously unstable, yes - but with Win2K and WinXP it's as stable as a Linux box.
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.
Oh please, this argument is so old and so bogus.
Seriously, how many PC-only games have you really
played that were worth playing and didn't
end up on either the Mac or some console? The only
one in my catalog (and basically, the only reason
I even turn on my PC anymore) is Evercrack. In the
future, all I see coming down the pipe is SWG. As
for everything else, feh. If owning a Mac means I
don't get to play Odium or Mortyr,
then hey, I win.
And on your first point, really, how the hell much
hardware are you really gonna plug into your
machine? Unless you've got money coming out the
proverbial wazoo, that routine's not gonna last
long.
OS X is a fine OS. But it doesn't have the hardware and software support many, and perhaps most, want.
Provide examples of lack of hardware support. Hell,
provide examples of lack of software support that
most of these "home users" you supposedly speak
for truly need.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
It is true that there are not as many software titles for Mac as for Windows. However, I have always owned only Macs (I support Windows for a living) and I have never had an instance where I could not find software to suit my needs. Games are the exception, but between Quake and Wolfenstein, I don't have time for much else. For what the article author wants to use his computer for, Macintosh would be a fine choice. Besides, anyone considering Linux is obviously not concerned with massive software support. On the hardware support point, I must disagree. Macs use all standard interfaces. I can hook up video and audio capture cards, external drives, 3D accelerators, etc. And talk about having them "just work"! Windows is still plug n' pray, though it has improved. This fellow in the article may not want to buy new hardware and all that, but I think that OSX would be quite enjoyable for him.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)