Slashdot Mirror
Linux Users Are Spoiled
Dozix007 writes "NewsForge carries an interesting
article
on how spoiled Linux users are. It sites examples such as the
availability of wide ranging software packages that Microsoft can't hope to provide.
Microsoft has to be careful about what kind of application software it
ships with Windows. Microsoft reps sometimes point to Linux
distributions and ask why they can get away with shipping stacks and
stacks of applications without getting in trouble. The answer to that
one, of course, is that the Linux distributions give you a choice. You
aren't locked into one particular application. Most Linux distributions
include several choices for most program classifications; even
single-CD distros usually include several Web browsers and email
clients."
As far as i know, there is no legal agreement between manufacturers and distributions and software vendors that disallow a competitors application to be installed as well. I believe this is the entire problem with the wintel world. For example, dell cannot ship a dual boot system, nor can they ship firefox on the windows platform. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Not to be YAGZ (Yet Another Gentoo Zealot), but one thing I love about Portage (and this applies to RPM/apt-get based distros to some degree) is the easy availability of up-to-date packages in a single location. With Windows, it would take all of a day to browse around the Internet and update my programs; with Gentoo, a simple "emerge sync && emerge -UD world" keeps my system cutting-edge. Microsoft couldn't hope to match this ease, simply because of the relative lack of free/GPL'd apps for the Win32 platform.
The key thing about Linux distributions is that there's more than one, and in fact if you're not happy with the Linux kernel you can go with BSD...
In Windows-land, Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager, Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
That's the difference. A Linux distro is the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel. And from the most basic use of a kernel, the shell, there's already several to choose from. There's several window-managers.
It's okay to bundle when you're in a COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT... that's the one thing Microsoft seems to be forgetting.
The programs packaged in a distribution are from different vendors, hence there's no monopoly here. Nobody would sue Microsoft if they would ship Apache and Mozilla with Windows.
Most of the software distros ship weren't even developed by the distro in question.
Most software Microsoft ships with windows was developed by Microsoft.
It isn't RedHat OpenOffice or Debian binutils.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So it cuts both ways: installing and not installing. Choosing the best apps and environment for your needs is not something that Windows allows you to do.
Whether you like them or not (or even use them or not), Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and Outlook Express are installed by default under Windows. Under Linux, it's up to you to decide what you want and don't want/need on your machine.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
- no difficult choices during setup (pre-configured PCs)
- no need to read difficult manpages and other such stuff
- most hardware just works out of the box
- no need to choose between distros
- no need to choose between multiple software packages that do the same job, just differently
I cannot imagine the days when my system didn't automatically have a comprehensive package management system that could track and update everything. This is something that even only very few linux distributions have. BSDs have it in their ports system, gentoo has it, and debian has it.
The simplicity of typing a few commands to automatically determine what is out of date and what can be updated and then proceeding to just do it is very very neat. Right now portage shows that I have 1604 seperate packages installed, tracking all these by hand and making sure each are at their latest version would be a nightmare.
Even applying experimental patches is simple and happens automatically with various use flags. Of course that's a gentoo-specific feature, but the huge amount of flexibility that is inate just but having package management systems of any kind is huge.
I shiver at the thought of installing something outside the package management system... how are you supposed to keep it up to date? How are you supposed to verify that it has it's dependencies? How are you supposed to make sure it can uninstall correctly?
Package management has changed the way I select software.
I touch computers in naughty places
From what I can tell of watching people use their computers, often what people want is one good app. to do whatever their current task is, not lots of choice.
The only people I know who use more than one web browser are web designers/developers checking pages out.
Multiple editors? I've seen that, but only to handle different languages, and only rarely.
Multiple word processors? Never seen that.
For most people, having one set of programs that cover exactly what they want to do is what they want. That's partly why Microsoft have done so well. Get a PC with Windows and Office and you can browse the web, do your e-mail, word processing and spreadsheet stuff. It even integrates relatively well between the apps. That's covered the vast majority of computer users in offices worldwide.
Going through a Mandrake install you get at least half a dozen options for each application. Really, what I want is one set of applications, each of which are very good at what they do, quality over quantity.
I've seen several people start using OS X over the last year. By choosing the Apple platform, they're generally getting less choice, unless they get down and dirty on the command line. But, I get lots of positive comments from them because they've got a set of good quality programs bundled with the OS, each of which does something specific very well, and although there's a more limited number of programs on offer, they tend to be perceived as being of good quality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with the number of open source applications bundled in with distributions, and the huge number of others you can download and add. But really, one smaller set of really good apps is what I'd like, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
"What if they're using IE?" "I've dumbed Mozilla down to cope with it." - BOFH
hat's a really stupid argument. At least be rational with irrational arguments. I mean sure, I really need 5 different Word clones, none of which successfully open a complete word document...
Actually they are not "word clones" but word processors, and this may surprise you, but "opening a word doc" is not the ultimate goal of most people using one of these word processors. Different people have different needs, and so the choice is a good thing to have. As to the formatting problems in some complicated ms word docs opened with various word processors, guess what? even different versions of ms word can't open the same docs correctly. pot. kettle. black.
I do find though, that openoffice handles all the ms office files I've received lately - and when I edit them and send them back, the peecee users are none the wiser, and it never enters their head that I wasn't also using ms office.
If anything, Windows users are spoiled because they can click the install button and the program works.
hmm, OK... linux programs also come with installers that are activated with a click... and your point was...?
Many or most of those programmes have Windows Versions. I myself use windows XP in combination with opensource software (Firefox, GIMP, etc) with no problems. Windows users are not required to use proprietary applications, when there are free (as in beer AND as in speech) options available.
You can use CVS, MySQL, Photoshop, Open Office, apache so forth and so on under windows.
Worse comes to worse you can install cygwin or coLinux to run 'em.
Open source does not mean linux.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Spoiled by arcane command line syntax.
What do you mean by this? Linux's CLI seems to ME to be leagues ahead of what windows offers. The shells in OS X seem to be about the same as a Linux shell. If you're rather saying you'd rather do GUI-only, I'd say that that is possible in several distributions.
Spoiled by the absence of decent documentation.
This I have to take real issue with. Most windows software, for example, comes with a minimal online help system and a ~10-page install/getting started guide. The proper "documentation" is often sold separately. Most mature linux apps ship with a similarly minimal electronic install guide & often have very extensive TeXInfo or Docbook manuals.
A lot of Mac software also has good documentation, but many of the programs I use in OS X gathered most of their documentation from whatever *nix application they were ported from.
I think "happy" would do better. Freedom of choice isn't being spoiled. It's a basic right that satisfies the majority of people. By setting up monopolies, Microsoft are only preparing themselves for heavy hits like Firefox and anti-trust lawsuits. By Linux leaving themselves open to whomever wants to develop on their platform, it can only flourish in my opinion.
The only difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits.
Excuse me. I'm being punished.
:E
Ever tried to set up a 56k modem in linux? Don't go there.
Get a printer working under CUPS? Faster to ask your neighbour to print it.
Firewire support in Fedora. Don't get me started.
Migration to Linux has never been easy. Sure the tools are advanced, but you regularly need 2+ years of a computing course just to begin to understand them. Not only that but most have (en)crypt(ic/ed) names like xmms,cups,esd and mdadm. And when you get right down to it, what the hell does hpjs DO anyway? The situation is made worse by that ONE guy on the messageboard who will always provide the genius solution of recompiling the kernel. I side with the majority here and say, I do not want to do that. All I want is for yum to work. Pity up2date dosen't, I actually knew what that stood for. (Sigh).
Windows is like a flashy SUV. Looks great, illusion of safety,easy to drive, buts WILL tip over at a moments notice.
Linux is like a Space Rocket. Yes it can get you home, hell it can get you into space. there's just a hell of a lot of buttons, and controls, and warnings and a NASA geek on the radio telling you to recompile the booster rocket software.
Still, the good ship Linux, against all reason, marches on.
May the Maths Be with you!
It sites examples such as the availability of wide ranging software packages that Microsoft can't hope to provide. Microsoft has to be careful about what kind of application software it ships with Windows.
The major Linux distributions that I've tried don't include a media player for fear they might get sued, don't include a NTFS driver for fear they might get sued... This makes it very hard for people like me, who don't know how to find and compile all the right modules, to use linux. I've tried three times, always ended up frustrated and gone back to Windows. Mind you, I am the top 1% of users. If you can't convert me you are going to have a very difficult time converting others.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Linux distributors don't write the bulk of what they distribute, that's why it's called a Linux distribution. They bundle what's out there already. They're non-partisan -- a better widget appears on the radar and it'll go into the next release.
Microsoft on the other hand writes the OS and everything in the release. They're partisan. They might want to ship you everything you ever need but's that uncompetitive and people obviously get upset.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great free program but Gimp is no replacement for Photoshop CS buy any stretch of the imagination.
Windows users should look at Jasc's Paintshop Pro or Windows/OSX users should look at Photoshop elements for a cheaper alternative for light editing work.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Get real. Even Microsoft programs don't share the same interface as each other. KDE or Gnome are much better in this respect. Other Linux programs may not fit in so well, but neither do third party programs on windows. Your claim is bogus.
I like having simple configuration dialogs for almost all my programs which let me easily change program settings, instead of messing around with obsure configuration files. I'm glad I don't have to spend hours trying to find a good program to do what I want, I just want one that works well enough and is easy to set up and use.
I could spend hours searching the web for the right windows program to do the job, then probably have to buy it, but instead I search for 30 seconds with my package manager and install it in no time. Even if I have to tweak some config files, it still takes me less time than tracking it down on the web.
I don't need 50 different packages that all try to do the same thing, I just need one good program that actually does it.
Have you been to tucows or other similar sites. There are more random windows programs than Linux ones. The only difference is that Free Software is generally much better than Freeware.
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense, not things like "grep", "GIMP", "X".
Is this a serious gripe or just whining?
I like the compatibility I share with 90% of the world. And then there are, of course, the games that I play. If I'm lucky, I might be able to get three or four of them to play well under Linux, not the entire library I have access to under Windows.
A valid argument for once. It doesn't apply for everyone though. Not everyone is into 3D games, or games in general. I'm fine with solitaire, and mahjong.
Linux computers may come with more pre-installed software on a CD, but if I have the money, I can get a Windows computer set up the same way. Most manufacturers would be happy to include a copy of Office if you're willing to pay. Besides, the time it'd take for me to learn how to use all the Linux equivilents of my Windows programs would probably offset any advantage gained by pre-installation.
Sure, if I was bloody rich. I would have to spend at least $5,000 dollars to get the equivalent programs on Windows. The "hassle" is not worth that much money. I'd rather take the ten minutes to learn how to use the program. I'm not that lazy.
As for stability, well, my Windows XP computer has been performing very well over the past few years. I can't say for sure that it's never crashed, but it's smooth enough that it's simply not a problem anymore, compared to past versions of Windows. In other words, it's stable enough.
You're lucky then. I've had no such luck with either 2000 or XP. XP crashed twice a day and SuSe did fine on the same hardware.
From my perspective as a basic desktop computer user, the only thing Linux has going for it is the cost (usually zero) and perhaps security. I don't need all the complexity and openness of Linux, as it all just adds up to a more difficult-to-use environment. Also, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to secure a Linux system properly, so I don't know whether my system would be any safer anyway.
Securing a Linux system is much less work than securing a windows system. You don't have to spend a half hour just configuring the damn web browser to be slighty more secure then the swiss cheese default settings.
So, am I jealous? No, not at all. I'm not saying Linux or open source is bad in any way (in fact, Firefox, CDex, OpenOffice, etc. are all very high quality), just that it's not the heavenly object the article makes it out to be. Maybe we're all spoiled.
Maybe, but if the hell of using windows is considered being "spoiled" then I certainly don't want to see what a bad computing experience is like.
Time makes more converts than reason
They would be perfectly within their rights to install Mozilla, Open Office, AbiWord, gcc and emacs, all of which run on Windows. I can't see how the antitrust authorities would have any problem with that.
They have quite a lot of choices actually. Freshmeat's list of Windows programs has a couple thousand entries.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Do you really prefer hunting through pages and pages of drop-down menus for the one checkbox that does what you want? Isn't it easier to just type 'man program' and be pointed to the right configuration file and right entry? And let's not even talk about the atrocity that is the registry.
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense, not things like "grep", "GIMP", "X".
Come on, could you be any more juvenile?
I like the compatibility I share with 90% of the world.
What sort of compatibility are you talking about? If I want to open a
And then there are, of course, the games that I play. If I'm lucky, I might be able to get three or four of them to play well under Linux, not the entire library I have access to under Windows.
This is a decent point. It's not linux's fault really that few people write games for linux. But in practice it is an impediment to its adoption. I mostly enjoy classic gaming though, so my gaming needs are mostly satisfied with dosbox, fceu, zsnes, and vice.
I don't need all the complexity and openness of Linux, as it all just adds up to a more difficult-to-use environment.
Windows may be user friendly, but it's also expert hostile. Climing the linux learning curve is an investment that pays off tremendously. Once you've done it, going back to an "easy" system is painful. Text based configuration for instance, allows you to use tools like grep and sed to automate things that would be impossible to automate via a GUI.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Welcome to the modern Linux distribution. They come with an application providing a complete catalog of available software. Selecting the software tittle automagically selects all the needed libraries and support applications. Once you're done making your selections, it downloads everything, installs it, and voila... the app appears in your application menu (or you can always use the command-line to start it if you so desire).
Third party application not available in your disto's listing? Most commercial Linux software runs much the same way Windows installers work. And they'll even make entries in your applications menu.
Is Linux perfect on this? No. The more bleeding-edge you go... the further you stray from your distro's offerings... the better chance you're going to run in to problems. The same can be said to Windows equivilants. However, over the years of using Linux, I've found that these instances are fairly uncommon.
If this isn't your experience, it may be your choice in Linux distribution.
Ahhh yes. The standard interface. Ignored liberally in every environment that one has been defined. Even by the organizations who created them.
Linux has these usability standards also. Quite a few applications are written under them. However, I find it hard to buy that the numerous apps that don't closely conform to these standards are causing that much of a roadblock to adoption... considering how Windows and MacOS users are able to deal with their own upstarts.
Pick a distro and stick with it. Most handle things at the base level in the same manner. But if you want a nice GUI, go with a distro known to supply one.
Sure - powerusers like to tweak their desktops. But a Linux neophyte will likely stick to whatever comes default. And that default tends to be very familiar to any other modern computing desktop.
Bull. There's a good learning curve involved. Back when I did desktop support, I would constantly get questions (if not outright trouble tickets) from users asking various Word or Excel questions.
Heck - just a few sentances ago, you were noting your sister is challenged with the concept of a right-click. Guess what. Simple interface... still a learning curve. So much for that infinately more easy environment Windows presents.
What I find interesting is the number of issues Windows-centric critics toss at Linux while ignoring simular issues in their own platform of choice. If a user can't handle doing a task in Windows, it doesn't really matter if they can't do it in Linux either. In either case, this class of user is either going to follow instructions or (more likely) plead or pay for someone to do it for them.
And having something so easy that it's easily compromised doesn't make much of a selling point either. Having said that - care to point out what about Linux is "security through obscurity"?
Sure, but IBM and HP and Dell don't have to be so careful. They can ship whatever applications they damn well feel like.
The reality is that Linux doesn't ship with all the application software. Go to www.kernel.org and you can see Linux ships with no application software. The distributions bundle Linux with the application software. There are dozens of distributions who all offer different application bundles. That's how it should be.
Similarly the OEMs pick and choose what they bundle with Windows. The previous IBM notebook I bought had third party fax software, photo editing software, etc. Dell had a different bundle. HP had a different bundle again. The local whitebox store bundles 1,000 shareware games. This is also how it should be.
Microsoft got in trouble a few years ago because they informed all the OEMs that they must ship Microsoft's web browser in order to receive bulk discounts on Microsoft's operating system. Some OEMs wanted to ship Netscape's web browser but Microsoft put a stop to that through economic force. That's illegal because it is anti-competitive.
The article gets it wrong. It claims that Linux gets away with it because there are multiple IRC clients in every Linux distribution. That's not the reason. The OEMs could bundle an IRC client with Windows if they wanted to but there are high support costs associated with bundling an application. Every application in an OEM bundle must have a "wizard" for their help desk and that costs money. If the OEM doesn't think that the increased revenue from bundling an IRC client would outweigh the associated costs then the OEM simply won't bundle it. The Linux distributions don't offer the same level of support, so there's no reason for them not to bundle an IRC client. Indeed, there's no reason for them not to bundle ALL the IRC clients. The proof of this argument is in the newer distributions like Linspire. They offer greater levels of support but they don't bundle as many applications. I predict that as distributions become more focussed they will lose the variety, or at least relegate the variety to "supplemental" discs.
Microsoft could solve this problem (if indeed it is a problem) the same way Linux does: allow third parties to produce customised builds of Windows. Unfortunately his means your version of Windows might be different to your friend's version of Windows. This splintering effect is what Microsoft wants to avoid, because at the moment the only saving grace of Windows is that it's homogenous. Linux allows customisation in droves and that's partially why Linux is harder to configure and maintain. That's the tradeoff.
Yes, Linux comes with a lot of software that Windows doesn't . However, you can easily download most of it (in fact, Cygwin makes this almost trivial).
No, the reason I feel spoiled as a Linux user is that, in the past 9 years, I have not had a single virus, trojan or worm, and I've never needed software to deal with or prevent these.
Further, in that time, I have never seen a pop-up window I didn't specifically request, and I haven't given a second thought to spyware or adware. These things just aren't part of my life, thanks to Linux (yeah, I know, non-IE using Mac users can make the same claim).
I usually take this for granted, but every once in a while, I sit at somebody else's Windows machine and realize just how fortunate and yes, spoiled, I am.
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
But everyone seems to be more concerned with how easy it is to use a program (or OS, etc) than how well it works. It can crash 4 times every day, but as long as you don't have to think to be able to use it, that's OK. I'm seriously starting to think that maybe 'Joe Sixpack' doesn't really need to have access to a computer, at least not the type of access to the type of computers we have today.
Just stop and think about it: computers are *insanely* powerful machines that were originally developed for mathematics, and that still do nothing *but* mathematics at their core. We've simply adapted them to do (basically) what we want them to do (IM, email, etc.). Then we keep giving people who have no clue what they're doing more and more powerful computers, and the limits of what they can do with these computers continue to expand. With all the malware, spyware, worms, etc. that are out today, it's like giving control of an aircraft carrier to someone who doesn't even have a driver's license (not a great analogy, but it's all I could think of). Stuff *is* going to go wrong, and it *will* affect more than just that one user. Now, I don't claim to have a solution. And the internet is obviously something that everyone should have access to, if no other reason than the sheer amount of information available on it should be accessible to anyone. And don't get me wrong, I run a Gentoo machine and can't even imagine trying to run a distro without Portage (maybe Debian with apt-get, but I digress). There are some things that computers simply handle better than humans for the most part, and package management is definitely one of them in my opinion. But should we really be focusing on dumbing the interface down so much that a 2-year-old with a learning disability can 'use' the computer? It just seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot, and that later we'll be paying for it even more than we are now.
Capitalism is essentially survival of the fittest for buisnesses. Sooner or later the best one will come out on top in any market and then they'll have a monopoly if they so desire it. And I don't mean best in terms of their product(s) or service(s), I mean the best (most ruthless?) at running a buisness. Beating your competition either by being better or just eliminating them is what survival of the fitest is all about. If you don't want monopolies, don't use capitalism.
Question everything