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.
Damn those spoiled Linux users. They should be made to suffer ad-ware, popups, and virii just like Windows users!!! :P
To discuss the actual article, I find it amusing that Microsoft reps can't handle the fact that Linux comes BUNDLED - LEGALLY - with TONS of applications and utilities.
.001 crap. But some of them are damn good (well, all right, at least as good as software gets these days - which is still mostly pathetic). This is true in the Windows world, too, if you spend some time on alt.comp.freeware.
And TONS more are available on Linux Format magazine CD's (and even 4GB DVD's)(I have over two dozen of these - GIGABYTES of software I haven't even looked at yet!) or from Web sites and places like Freshmeat and Sourceforge.
Sure, some of them are pre-release alpha
Microsoft's plan is obviously to buy up everybody who produces any software anybody wants to buy. This plan obviously has a few flaws such as the inability of Microsoft - despite $50 billion in the bank - to buy up the entire industry. Also not to mention that a lot of people would rather be CEOs of their own companies than slaves to Bill.
No way Microsoft can ever compete with free software in this regard.
Tough luck, Bill! Have a nice day!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Yeah when I used Linux I was sure spoiled all right. Spoiled by all those half-days and days spent struggling to install software. Spoiled by all that quality time trying to get my wireless adapter going. Spoiled by arcane command line syntax. Spoiled by the absence of decent documentation. Spoiled rotten, I say. ROTTEN!
Now I slog through my days running Mac OS X. The drudgery of one-click installs. And gone are those sweet, sweet hours of dealing with hardware compatibility issues! Add to that the cruel twist of LOTS of documentation where little is needed! I SUFFER! FEEL MY PAIN!
(I'd still rather run Linux than Windows though!)
I can't believe this actually in considered an article, it's basically somebody giving themselves an ASCII blowjob. I can't get my sister to figure out how to right click reliably, but somehow a linux distribution would be easier for her to use because it somes with more options..in theory? Having 50 free programs don't mean jack if: 1. you can't install/run them easily 2. define a standard of usability among them all 3. coordinate thier appearance and setup You don't like Word...fine, but guess what, there's no learning curve practically. If you can't figure out how to download a program and install it (a task infinatly more easy in windows) I don't care how long your desktop has been up. Security thru obscurity is a lousy thing to brag about.
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.
For business, I run FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows XP. I've yet to find anything that I use that doesn't run on all three platforms just fine.
Via the Cygwin installer you can install most of what you get with a Linux distro. Other stuff that I use, like dvdauthor, ifo and vob editing tools, OpenVPN, etc, readily compile and run on Windows XP in addition to Linux and FreeBSD>
There's no reason for *anyone* not to feel "spoiled" by the large amounts of free, high-quality, software available!
Best Buy can have you arrested
1 - Gimp doesn't crash randomly when editing very large images
.DOC and be certain it'll show up in Word as good as I made it.
2 - I can save some text in OpenOffice as
(Oh yes, and also if KDE and Moz could stop burning megabytes of memory for nothing, that'd be nice too, but I can live with it)
As long as there isn't a very reliable PS replacement, and a very reliable Office replacement, under Linux, I'll always feel like a one-legged athlete : really powerful and really good in handisport events, but never really able to compete in regular sport championships.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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)
Microsoft writes the (closed source) os, when it writes the applications you always feel they've got an unfair advantage because they (and only they) know the os inside out and design the os API. With Linux no-one has the unfair advantage, every-one in theory is free to know how the os works and to build the best ever application. You are only limited by your talent and free time. You trust Linux because you know what's there.
Its true. From a wiped clean computer to productivity, Linux IS faster. I have yet been able to install Windows, install drivers, do Windows update, install applications, configure, etc faster than simply popping in the latest Linux distro and being done with it.
Of course, this assumes two things:
#1 -- Your hardware is supported
#2 -- The software you want/need is made for Linux
I'm finding that both of these requirements are being met more and more every day. The latest hardware seems to be supported, the applications are becoming more feature rich and very useful to a wide range of users (some of the apps are the best no matter how you slice it (mozilla, firefox, etc..))
As far as being "spoiled" well umm.. I dunno. I think its more of a "meets expectations" type of a thing -- stable, reliable, secure. Though I must admit, I do feel a lil' spoiled a bit when my Windows buddies get zapped with the latest spyware or IE issue -- but honestly, should I?
- 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
Bundling a package is different the bundling it all together as inseparable from the OS. If I didn't like Konqueror, I just wouldn't use KDE, all thats required is make a different choice when I log in as to what environment to use, maybe even remove KDE completely if I wish. If on the other hand I don't like IE, I'm stuck with it, because while I can use something else at some sites, IE is the OS, and for OS related actions, for example Windows Update, I have no choice but to use it. On top of that, there is no way to remove it, and many other OS bundled apps, (MSN Messenger), ignore the setting of default browser, and always launch IE.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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!!!!
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.
The lock-in is where you can not remove IE, or Outlook Express (easily, or at all) in favor of another product.
Simply put, you are forced to waste your HD space even if you do not want to use IE. If you do not use Mozilla, you can uninstall it. You do not have that option with IE.
Lets not get started of the undocumented system calls, etc that their Office apps can take advantage of to give them the edge that everyone else can't get.
Or how once you begin using Microsoft apps (Office, etc), you can not easily switch to another product, because the data formats are incompatible (because microsoft refuses to release specs on how their programs do it).
Anything which tries to prevent you from using another product in favor of the included product is called lock-in.
Brielle
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.
The difference is not only in the amount of software bundled and the choices offered within each category of software, but that Microsoft software is also designed to stifle choice in subtle, seemingly trivial ways and lead the user back to using their software. A few weeks ago I ran into an example of this when trying to switch my parents to Firefox--with their consent--because of all the popups that appeared and the spyware toolbars that kept getting installed when using Internet Explorer.
I set up Firefox, made it the default browser, changed IE's settings so that it wouldn't check that it was the default browser and wrestle back control if accidentally opened, and went as far as disabling access to IE in "Set Program Access and Defaults". The following weekend, I was back on on my parents PC to discuss what they thought of Firefox, but they complained that they were still getting popups. And when I opened IE, I noticed there was yet another toolbar installed.
I checked the browser history and realised they hadn't used Firefox at all--they'd been using IE the whole time. How could that be? I had them show me how they were opening their browser. They opened MSN Messenger, and clicked on the "you have e-mail" link to check their Hotmail messages. Guess what opened? IE. It turns out that this method is how they've been opening their web browser since day one.
And here's the problem--it is hardcoded to open Internet Explorer. It refuses to recognise your default browser setting, and you can't select an alternative in either Windows Messenger or MSN Messenger. This means that, when I'm not watching, they're always going to gravitate back to IE because of that silly little e-mail link.
So the task of switching them to Firefox becomes one of also switching them to some alternative instant messenging program, and perhaps a different e-mail service as well. The latter two are much more difficult. They consented to my changing the browser because of all the popups and spyware, but didn't want me to change the instant messenging program they enjoyed using and become attached to.
It may seem trivial to us enthusiasts, but it's surprisingly difficult to change ingrained behaviours in people who use but don't understand and aren't really interested in technology. Those who say "just tell them to stop clicking the e-mail link" have no idea. But those who have, say, preached the virtues of letterboxed widescreen movies, only to find that the oldies inevitably press the zoom button on the DVD remote to make the image fill the screen, will understand.
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!
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.
What I find lacking in Windows is not so much the third-party applications (like work-processers and such), but what really is lacking is a powerful toolset and shell. When I set down at a linux or bsd box (even a barebones minimal install), I will find by default things like grep, awk, sed, zcat, tar, mail, and probably perl (to mention just a few). Add in the power of pipes to glue it all togather and a good scriptable shell (like bash or ksh) and a unix user is superman compared to a windows user. I don't know how many times I've found myself sitting at a Win2k box and wanted to parse and rearange some stupid ascii text report only to have to fire up notepad and start editing line-by-line. A unix box would have let me pipe it through awk or sed and be done with it in seconds.
And if your install doesn't have what you want then grab it from a mirror (apt-get for linux or pkg_add for bsd) and seconds later you are working away productively. Windows doesn't even come close to that kind of power.
I really felt this was quite a badly written article. I have used Linux since around 98 ever since I got sick of my Win95... but now I am using winXP most of the time. I feel that Linux is not yet ready to be full on desktop platform. Yes, Linux dostros do come with a full choice of programs to use, but often they are not exactly the programs you need, so there we go for a search and install routine, especially in slack. Anyways, there are still a number of things the linux desktop cannot do... and that's the main reason I do not use it any longer simply, because there are no decent Audio production apps and no decent vector drawing progs. Most of the installations are still arcane for a simple user... and the amount of time it takes to figure out how to properly .configure and install a program in Linux probably takes as long as finding and installing a app in Windows trythfully, plus most users will know exactly what they need anyhow.
Not to mention the hardware compatibility problems , some of the hardware on my 2 year old notebook is still not easily set up under Linux. X needs severe messing about to get the screen resolution to the way it has to be using an NVIDIA driver as well, most people wouldn't even figure it out. The D-Link wireless card, which at the time was the only type I could find, is still a mess... Firewire does not work and so on.
I really do think the hardware compatibility especially with notebooks the ultimate portable desktops simply are not easy to set up under Linux and the lack of a whole sector of applications is highly annoying.
I still use OpenSource software, but there is only a handful of apps which can be termed as fully functional and well developed... I can only think of Mozilla, Firebird, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and GIMP as truly ready for fulltime use, the other ones still seem quite flimsy. But the main grievance is definitely the initial set up especially all the drivers for all the hardware... Most people who ever tried to set up Linux on a brand new Laptop could testify.
So maybe in a couple of years when there is a decent DAW and Illustrator replacement, and there is no problem using the whole of my computer capabilities I will use Linux fulltime, but as of right now I feel more restricted rather than spoiled.
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
I have to say that I sit somewhere between the two of you. There are things that I love and hate in both linux and windows, though really I shouldn't say I hate anything in Linux but that's for later.
I love playing games on a rare basis, because I don't want to worry about getting the latest edition of wine and making the game work, I keep windows. It is solely for that purpose but it has other advantages. As an econ major, I deal for ages with excel files and usually I'm required to turn them in in a format that the teacher can easily read, any trouble he has could mean a lower grade and even though open office is great, it has lots of trouble on the randomest of things. I don't run into version problems with windows(between my computer and my teacher's, the computer lab is a completely different matter) but at least because of what my school does, we have version compatibility. This means I prefer to just do the spreadsheet work on windows rather than having to double check that everything on 20 or 30 excel sheets is exactly as I want it. Sometimes this isn't very easy as I might fill up 10000 cells on one sheet.
But then windows crashes constantly, can't move large files without explorer throwing up on me, has endless problems with compatibility of previous releases of their own software(Excel sheets can't port properly from the latest version to only 2 generations ago, and I don't use any new features, I versed enough to know that), I have to constantly be on the alert for the next major security exploit and lock down specific parts of my computer usage if as windows loves to do, wait for ages to come out with a patch.
So for many things, I just got fed up with windows and had a linux zealot as my good friend and neighbor at school get me started. When I say get me started, he gave me the install cd's. I'm not so ignorant as to have trouble with a right click functionality. Now get this, wtih my wierded out hardware, core 1 didn't want to install easily but I took about 2 minutes on the web and found the solution. It happens to be that any time I have a problem with windows I usually spend hours hunting down a solution, and that usually happens to be a functional program on sourceforge(example: VLC replaced windows media player when in order to get WMP to run I would have to spend hours hunting down the right codecs and how to use them while for some reason, they just flawlessly play on VLC).
So I'm caught in the transition between windows and Linux, I don't think I will ever fully migrate but slowly I use linux more and more. Anyone who has problems with the redhat desktop should probably crawl back under a rock. I can do everything on it and a helluva lot more than with windows, especially with that nice multiple desktop feature X does. My only real complaint with linux is what I had with windows years ago, I don't know it well. But oddly enough, I can almost do everything I do on windows. I know if I spend the time, I can make linux 100x more functional. I think the real problem is this, while linux users claim to be lazy people always looking for ways to save time and evergy, they aren't lazy when it comes to computers, they like the idea of learning something new. Anyone who defends windows way of doing this really just doens't want to learn something new. Because Windows is much older in most people's mind, its ways are cemented in. We actually associate their nonsensical names with certain program functions(no, excel and powerpoint in no way describe what the programs do, but after years of having the association drilled into our heads, it does). So of course, the argument that I like my program names to make sense really doesn't have any merit.
I think it any well versed windows user sat down and used X(not the mac) they would almost seemlessly integrate, all they would need to do is get used to programs being in different places. I love one thing about linux, you don't ever have to touch the command line if you don't want to(and frankly, because of
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
This was done solely to make it easier (and cheaper) for OEMs to count how many licenses they have to pay for.
No, because MS did so-called "per-CPU" licensing" where the OEM payed per computer shipped, whether it had the MS product on it or not. Nice try, though, next time just have at least *one* fact right.
Oh and the idea that dell couldn't count which PCs shipped with which OS unless they were different models is just too silly for words. YOu don't even lie well.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
no OS is better or worse than any other one. it depends on what you want out of it. i run slackware linux and the only issue i have is that i can't play games on it. that's fine with me, whatever. i just whip out my PS2 if i want to play games. as a programmer, i personally enjoy trying to solve problems under linux. i don't mind that it make take me 3 or 4 hours to get a driver to work properly or that i may have to do some hefty configuration to make an app work. but, that's me. if i just wanted a desktop system to play games and surf then net, i would use windows... but, im a programmer and windows programming is homogay.