Slashdot Mirror
Windows User Experiments With Linux for 10 Days
An anonymous reader writes "Clarence Ladson over at Flexbeta decided to kick Windows to the curb for 10 days in an experiment to find out just how hard it would be to 'quit cold turkey' and move entirely to Linux. It's amazing how many day-to-day operations require the inadvertent use of Windows in our daily lives."
If nothing else, then at least to play a lot of our games.
Now, if only that were likely. :)
You are not the customer.
not one comment >+2 and already /.ed :(
IAAL
There is a problem with the database that is preventing the site from working.
Looks like that a database is one of those windows-only thi
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers.
ngs!
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
I had no idea Myth TV was so darn good. Does anybody know if theire is a 'plug'n'play' (umm, too many ' there and yeah, I hate that term too) Myth TV distros out there, something that just does Myth TV and nothing else? That would be pretty cool. Back to the real article, I have been using Linux for my main boxes for years now (Since umm, 1995ish) and converted from Windows, erm, 3.1 Hell, it's (Linux) moved on since then. I'd be interested in a similar article about somebody who switched from Windows to OSX (on anything).
And replaced it with a BSD-based operating system, ie. a Unix-like system. It's called "Darwin."
It comes with a kick-ass graphical interface, too. You might have heard of it: OS X.
I can't imagine encountering any need for anything microsoft again. Their office suite is more than replaced by NeoOffice/OpenOffice. Their browser has always been a joke, so I use Opera. And... well, I can't think of anything Microsoft might have that I would wish to use. I simply don't trust them at all for anything involving email or other internet use, I don't play games, and I wouldn't run their server if you paid me. What else is there?
Microsoft: Offering Nothing For A Lot.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I didn't get past the first page yet (slashdotted), but it would appear that this is...stupid. One, from his references of going to school, this is still a student. Two, his mentions of "using windows whether we know it or not" basically come down to one, the ATM which may or may not have embedded Windows. All of his other examples aren't things that most normal people have, let alone people who chose linux over windows (a Windows CE palm? a Windows Media Center connected TV?). I call possible bull.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
This technically isn't working at the moment, because the site is well and truly hosed... but PLEASE only try this link instead of hitting the main one, and eventually it will recover:
.nyud.net:8090 to the domain name.
coralized link
Future submitters: PLEASE PLEASE use coralized links! It's easy -- just add
I'll list a few big ones.
Games, of course.
Certain programs.
Family.
"It's amazing how many day-to-day operations require the inadvertent use of Windows in our daily lives."
Maybe this is true at first, however after several months of using Linux I began to see the FOSS alternatives to using windows and now I haven't had windows installed for about 9 months.
It seems like switching to Linux should be more gradual. Linux has a steep learning curve. If you try to jump in all at once your more likely to get a bad impression when you can't figure out how to play a dvd, or even 'mount' the cdrom drive.
Linux strikes me as more the OS of choise for tech types (engineers, IT pros, etc), as its much more robust at those type of applications than Windows.
I think it all depends on the environment.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
I put my aged PII 400MHz home computer over to Linux a few years ago (well 2002 actually) and since then my Wife has suffered not a single case of having to reboot using the plug-socket, not a single crash and not a single failed application.
Until she got her iPod... so now we are buying a new PC, just so she doesn't have to use my work machine for iTunes.
My mother had an horrific attack of the virii which has meant I had to do a complete re-install of windows, and I've lobbed SUSE onto the other partition to help the recovery next time. My mother has elected to use SUSE to access the internet, and just go into Windows when she has to use the software from work.
My wife does email, internet, work processing and accounts, pretty much the same as my mother. BOTH have faired perfectly well with Linux (SUSE), with less hassle to me than on Windows.
And here is the kicker... installing Windows on a SATA drive was a pain in the arse, my mothers machine having no floppy drive and Windows not being able to detect the SATA (even in an SP2 install) SUSE 9.3.... had no issues and went straight on.
I couldn't WORK on Linux yet... but for the majority of INTERNET users who just want EMAIL, a browser and OpenOffice.... it really doesn't matter.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I tried windows for 10 days and boy, did I discover how much day-to-day operations on windows made me love *nix even more...
But a little more serious, 10 days? I mean like, what do you expect? Give it 10 months and you don't want anything else, but 10 days? What are these windows-users, shallow?
(They spent years and years trying to control this fuzzy-logic called windows and give something else 10 days... tsssss...)
I cannot truly reply to the article considering it was /.'ed before any reply was posted, but I have been part of a trial of Linux workstations at work. Our sysadmins are Windows folks, but with a good original image, I can't see a Linux transition being that hard.
.lwp or .123 format, but it has not been a big issue.
I haven't had many problems at all. Our main issue was that we still use a native OS/2 application, and because we have ditched OS/2 we need a remote desktop connection to a Windows box to then launch Virtual PC and our OS/2 app. Not the easiest and lightest of setups, but it works.
We need Wine for a few apps too, but they run fine under it. Sometimes I'll get Lotus Word Pro or 1-2-3 documents that I cannot return in their original format as Open Office won't let me save in
(If after all those hints you cannot guess what company I work in, you really need to think harder...)
Anyhow, maybe I wasn't sure after home use how easily Linux could be considered in an office environment, but our main problem really is some intranet pages being designed for IE only.
I eventually got the first page of that article to load, which leads me to think the author may be criticising how difficult it can be to get everything working - but if you have built a solid image, there is no reason why Linux should be any more difficult to use than Windows.
Funny that you'd mention that, as COM and DLLs are just a weird hack for implementing shared libraries and IPC (inter-process communications.) *nix has had that functionality since the mid-eighties.
About five years later, Windows 3.0 was released. :)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Actually I can't think of a single use of Windows inadvertently or otherwise that makes the slightest difference in my day-to-day life. The vast majority of those on the planet have never used Windows (or any computer for that matter). A working lavatory would be a leg up in most cases. Somehow I doubt a PC is top of their to-do list.
One thing that could make a great differnce to a person's daily life, though, is posting an article about their attempts to use Linux. Forget about how much you really know, or don't know. A thumbs up to Linux has propaganda sites crawling all over you. A thumbs down and ten thousand geeks will be queuing up to excoriate you. Perhaps Hollywood and a pay rise beckons.
I mean, is this guy for real? If you want to use Linux, then use it properly and fully. Amazing, really, that one guy anxiously dipping a toe in the water and then hastily running back to the apron strings should merit a slashdot write-up. On second thoughts perhaps he's going for an award for outstanding bravery.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
If you just decide not to use windows again, like i did back in 2000, and just not look behind, you can do it. I don't require windows for anything, I try not to use proprietary software, and when extremly needed, there is wine ...
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Last summer I got serious about using linux. Before that, I tried various versions of redhat and mandrake and it was alright. But I always felt once I started to go beyond the beaten path, it was a pain in the ass. By that I pretty much mean dealing with their RPMs when installing a package outside their package manager.
So I bit the bullet and spent several days installing and setting up Gentoo. Every step of the way was a learning experience. My reason for switching to linux is because I was bored with windows and I wanted to force myself to learn something new. So now it's approaching the end of another summer. I'm sitting in front of two computers running Gentoo.
However, both have windows XP on them. I have crossover office on each computer and the apps that are supported run fine. I'm a student and usually I can get by with openoffice, but sometimes I need office. I just got an ipod photo and I've been trying to get it to work seamlessly between windows and gentoo. It's been a struggle with iTunes, gtkpod and ipodslave for KDE, but I'm working on it.
I tried the OSX86 last weekend and I was impressed. I tried windows vista beta and I was very unimpressed. There is never going to be a magic bullet OS. Each will have it's uses. I've learned that it is mostly dependent on the applications for it. If the vendors made perfect linux versions of every program I needed, it would be a lot better. It takes time to figure out which OSS programs are just as good as the windows counterparts and which ones are shit. 10 days with any operating system isn't going to mean much.
And I have not had a chance yet to read the article bc it's down at the moment.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...despite all the freedom and independence that linux affords all you linux users out there, you don't need to be so snobby to the rest of us. It isn't that we're dumb or unimaginative...its just that we have other things to be smart and imaginative about and we don't want to be distracted by having to deal with Linux. If you like it, fine. That's your prerogative. But you don't have any place being indignant and snobby toward the rest of us. What we sacrifice in control and nuts and bolts access to our OS's, we gain in not having to think about our computers as anything more than a task-tailored tool for the other shit in our lives that's more important to us.
Google cache of the "printable" version.
clicky.
Try this google cache link .. full article ..
w ww.flexbeta.net/main/printarticle.php%3Fid%3D106+& hl=en&lr=lang_en
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:1CvlEjwElaUJ:
I haven't needed windows for many years now, however my girlfriend does. I run KDE with a seperate user called "windows" which runs qemu with WinXP full screen on login. She chooses to use her standard KDE login most of the time, but some of her uni cds are windows only.
.NET (which I never bothered to do before because of the effort of buying another machine or partitioning etc etc).
:)
QEMU is so good, it not only does her needs, but I've started playing around with
The speed is excellent, it works with the CD, SAMBA to the host machine (home drives) and sound...it's got everything we want...plus, running full screen on a seperate login it's just like if you partitioned the drive except that you can switch in real time using KDE 'switch user' feature and share data between the two by making your home drive a samba network drive in windows.
Linux and Windows finally operating seemlessly together, thank you QEMU
Weird hack? Can you explain to me... 1) How COM and DLLs are a hack? 2) How the Unix way is so decisively superior to COM and DLLs?
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Over the last few years I've read some comments on slashdot about schools teaching linux, and I've just now had an idea that I think might be practical.
I remember in elementary school, once a week or so my class would be herded into the computer lab to learn how to use a word processor and spreadsheet app on the school's Apple IIe computers. I spent a lot more time playing Oregon Trail and playing around with BASIC on those computers, but I definitely learned the underlying concepts about using a word processor or spreadsheet, and was able to really easily transition to Wordstar 5 for DOS and later other apps.
It wasn't so much about typing a letter to the editor or whatever we were doing back then, as it was about being comfortable accomplishing a certain set of steps with a computer.
I wonder, then, if you had 30 third grade students in a computer lab, 10 using Windows, 10 using Mac OS, and 10 using Linux (perhaps Red Hat? whatever is dominating is probably wisest), could you ask them all to accomplish essentially the same task? Of course, I mean that they should rotate to each machine, although not necessarily during a single class session, and be exposed to all the machines.
Any teachers out there? Does this idea make any sense?
I functioned as a business professional for several years using a Mac, without any serious problems. I found that Office was the determining factor. Because there was a Mac version of Office, the OS was of secondary importance.
As more and more office functions are filled by web apps, the determining factor will become the development tools used in the creation of said web apps. IT departments that go with Windows-centric web apps will box out users of MacOS, Linux, BSD, et. al., and IT departments that refuse to tie themselves to Microsoft will make it easier for users of alternative OSes.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
My how times change... Today I rather dislike booting under Windows because Linux "just works"!
I do keep a single Windows install now... It's for my ATI AIW 7500. They never got the video capture working under Linux. At least not to my knowledge. Otherwise, it's not enough to really keep me away from using Linux as my primary OS. It's a duel boot, and always defaults to Linux.
Meanwhile my laptop, server, and other desktop are all Linux boxes, and I can't see any need for Windows... But then I'm not a gamer either.
I have traditionally been a windows user. Up until I got sick of all the b.s. that came along with it. I installed Slackware (my favorite server distro) on my desktop and have been running with it for 18months. I have even got my girlfriend into using the desktop (KDE). Yes there are some problems with Office documents and features etc But for the majority of people power point presentations etc are not something that needs doing on a regular basis and there are some excellent html/java slide show creators that can do very similar jobs. Taking all that on board YES there is a long way for KDE/Gnome and the others to improve on the desktop but at the same time it has come along way and for the majority of internet users it would have more than enough features and software for average joes and jills at home browsing and chatting...
It depends on the version. WMV files can use different MS codecs, just like how AVI is a "container" format. Earlier WMV files play fine, but WMV9 just crashes MPlayer.
DLLs are essentially shared libraries. Just because they are different does not make them a "weird hack". Guess what: Windows is DIFFERENT than Unix, and the Unix way is not the only way. What makes shared objects on Unix somehow better?
Furthermore, how does some Unixes having shared libraries and IPC for twenty years relate to Windows? Windows has been around for 20 years, and the NT line is less than 15 years old.
Sometimes FEWER features makes for a better program. Until you get something from some PHB who just had to use some obscure feature that you can't import.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
And it's sad b/c it's filled with nothing but non sequitur, meaningless garble. There's no real reasons here, just a bunch of whiney excuses. You're obviously a student and a young one at that, evidenced by your "Chewbacca Defense". There's nothing here to respond to in detail b/c it's all crap. There's no detail to speak of!
Of course, the funniest/most pathetic statement of all is your line about Mac and Linux being dead upon the roll out of Vista. Good one, LMAO! Just keep holding your breath. That line alone makes you deserving of a "troll bait" mod.
It is my understanding that Microsoft will ONLY give schools "free" software if they agree not to use software from other vendors, including Linux and other free and/or open source software.
I don't think that should be even legal.
Use any platform to teach the concepts of computing - like what drag and drop is for, what the clipboard is used for, the concept of a file system structure, u know...stuff like that. Once they have the concepts down, give them an operating system as an excercise to show them the different computing environments available. Then ask them their opinions. I think that could be a very constructive session - both for the kids and the school.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
I can't read the article at the moment seeing as their database doesn't appear to be able to cope with the Slashdotting but simply put, switching over is a nightmare.
Before all the BSD/Linux/OSX users jump me, let me tell you I'm desperate to get off Microsoft software, however, I can't very well dump 10 years of computing experience and instantaneously learn 10 years of FreeBSD.
My 1 year plan of attack:
1) Start to use Open Source software on Windows
2) Move exclusively to Open Source software on Windows
3) Move over to FreeBSD
Right now, I'm almost at stage 2. I'm waiting for a decent calendaring solution and I'm good to go*.
Everything else I use is now Open Source. It's been a painful 8 months but I'm working hard to give this a chance.
Now, the interesting part comes when you start to move over to a new OS. It's a complete nightmare!!!
I've heard a lot of people say it's as easy as putting in the RHL disk and clicking a few buttons and I agree. It is, so long as you're only wanting to do office grade work!
Don't get me wrong, I can install RHL, Debian, FreeBSD and run it fine so long as I only want to use the web, send email, create some artwork, etc but if I want to install PHP, Apache, PostgreSQL, Postfix, BIND and connect to a network (Samba) then I'm going to be here for a good few months just to get it working (properly and securely - not hope-and-pray).
Once I've got it working, should something go wrong, I'm down for another day/week if I don't understand how things work.
I am an Open Source advocate but I don't for one second believe a switch-over is going to be easy and neither should anyone else here.
What we need to do is manage people's expectations of moving over. If you think it'll take less than 6 months to do the switch, then you're probably not a developer and I imagine most of the Windows users here do some form of development.
Anyway, enough of the ranting. I look forward to the day I can finally switch over.
Here's a big thank-you to all the Open Source developers who work so hard to give us our freedom!
* I still have to use IE for work to make websites 'work'.
A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
Parent is uninformed (read: A wannabe)
;)
Uhhhh - DLL's are shared libraries...
COM is implemented using DLL's and is nothing more (at its core) then a binary contract for 3 functions in a vtable: QueryInterface, AddRef and Release. Its an implementation, not a technology!
Now, if you want to talk about ActiveX (IDispatch's and such), which are STILL implementation, then wine* all you want, but get the f@#$k off of here with your silly blather.
*(Pun intended
"So in your signature, you state 200GB is not enough. Are we to believe that all 200GB is work related?" According to *my* tax return it is.
How do you do it gradually? I've actually been running Linux on my desktop at work some, because I need to learn more about it. We are going to start offically supporting it and unlike Windows and Solairs, we don't really have any gurus, so we all need to learn more about it. The problem is, that I find I have to force myself to boot in to Linux. Why? Well it, at best, does things as well as Windows does and in many cases does them much worse, or just not at all.
So of course I do the natural thing, I take the path of least resistance and just leave my machine in Windows, espically whenever I get busy.
Now I'm willing to do this, I'm a tech worker, it's my job to understand how to support our systems. However how is this supposed to apply to an average user? They are going to be very unimpressed if you tell them "Ya well you can do some of what you want easily in Linux, the rest you'll just have to figure out or do without." They are likely to just go back to Windows perminantly.
I think it's fairly difficult for most people to switch if there isn't an ideological reason behind it. You just don't find any advantages as an end user. For some it might seem like it initally, those that are spyware'd all to hell will probably find Linux a relief initally since it'll be faster and work stable, but soon, very soon, other annoyances and problems will creep in and they'll be frustrated all over again.
This is really the area that Linux needs to improve in, if the objective is to penetrate the mass market and really compete with Windows. It needs to be easy for completely non-technical people to switch over. This is getting more true as MS is slowly erroding advantages Linux once had.
Time was, Windows just wouldn't stay up. It wasn't a question of if it went down, just when. Not the case anymore, a good XP system will basically never crash, and it'll handle patching while you sleep so from a user perspective, it's never down. Likewise spyware and exploits were/are major problems, but they are clamping down on that too. The included firewall stops nearly all automatic worms, and their spyware tool is really quite slick and I imagine will make a major dent when it is in a release state.
So really what Linux needs to concentrate on is an easier end-user experience. Now leaps and bounds have been made in that area. I remember the first time I tried Linux in 1996 and had to get a friend who was an expert to help me even get it installed, now for most research systems in the department I drop an FC3 CD in, install, patch, setup LDAP, run our automount script and call it good. However there's still a long way to go.
One thing, for example, is the install process. For almost all Windows software, including most OSS, the install process invloves clicking on an executable which launched a nice graphical installer. This walks you through any options, and then does all the install needed. Any libraries that need updating are updated, all settings are taken care of, etc. In Linux, things are usually at best a make script. Now when it works, it's pretty easy. Config, make, make install, what's so hard about that?
Well it's intimidating. Normal users, and even us tech peopel that can't program, get intimidated by the compiler. It's something that's way outside the experience of normal users. And then what if something goes wrong? I've had make scripts fail and generally I'm sunk, I don't understand the errors because I don't know C or compilers. Imagine how an artist feels.
So things like that really need to be improved, if Linux in teh mainstream is a goal. Most users won't give a new OS months, many won't even give it a week. It'd better do what they want for word go, or they'll dump it.
Pure crap.
That is absoultly not true. I've done it. ANYONE can do it. My brother did it too. Linux may not be there, but OS X is. It's just as stable and secure as Linux. But it has commercial applications. It many not have Money, but you can run GNUCash, or Quicken as I do. You can run Open Office, or just use MS Office as I do (I actually think the OS X version is better than the Windows version). You want a nice IM client? You could use any open source one, or there is iChat. It already has all those nice little do-dads. Graphics apps and format compatibility? Have you ever heard of Photoshop? I've got that on my Mac and it opens just about ANYTHING. I've got a DVD player (called... DVD Player). I can run Vi, EMACS, Nano, TextEdit, BBEdit, and many others. Want to run Visio? Omnigraffle is MUCH nicer.
I'm a techie also. I like messing around in Linux. But OS X provides the Unix environment that I love so much, with the commercial applications of Windows, stability, and much more. I am always finding little things on Windows boxes that just annoy me. Little things I DON'T have to do under OS X. Little things I never thought about untill I tried something better.
There are only two applications that I haven't found replacments for (not that I looked very hard). MS Project, and SQL Plus. Both run just fine in Virtual PC.
Not using Windows IS an option. It's an EASY option. Most large computer stores have an entire section devoted to it. It's called a MACINTOSH. This isn't a two horse race. There is a third and most people don't see it because it's far out in front.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The sheer mind-numbing madness of Windows addiction was made apparent to me the other day when I was asked to troubleshoot a typical XP box on which an admin-level account was used to connect to a broadband account without the benefit of a router/NAT. This wasn't your average home PC but the sole computer within a business based on a membership database sitting on the same machine. One PC for the whole business with all its sensitive data wide open to the internet.
The owner complained that the box was grinding to a halt and could I do something to remove the inevitable infestation. I suggeted various remedies, one of which was to disconnect the machine from the internet and do all browsing and e-mail on a 2nd reconditioned PC running Linux with a SAMBA share to get files across to the XP machine. Surf in safety I guranteed him.
It was not to be. Not only could I not convince him that he had already suffered enough but I also showed him how to set his LCD monitor to the correct resolution, eliminating the fuzzy fonts and bringing clarity to his display for the first time. I even showed him how to retain the enlarged font size he'd been used to by using font size options instead of changing the resolution. Alas, it was all in vain. "Err, I'd like you put it back to how it was, if you don't mind". So I turned his display resolution back to the wrong, fuzzy setting and he was happy. Happy with his ailing, dysfunctional PC putting his whole business at risk. Such is the force of habit.
Indeed.
And if the submitter of the story had taken the trouble to read it, he might have noticed that nearly every link supplied points at Microsoft. Even the link supposedly referring to OpenOffice.org points at a Microsoft propaganda article.
Are you going to give up cars and exclusively use public transport? Are you going to stop usng electricity and move back to heat and light from whale oil? Why add extra complication and hassle to your life than you need (and re-learning how to do common tasks in Linux is a hassle when you're used to the way Windows works).
Going open source is not going to cure cancer, bring about world peace and prevent N Sync from releasing a best-of album. It just means you've saved yourself a few bucks and reduced Microsoft's profits by 0.0000001%.
Windows Tweaks
Read (first page of) story here.
I went blind looking at the MirrorDot background to get that link, there better be like... 5,000 karma in this for me.
I8-D
Microsoft Security Bulletin
MS08-021
Windows User Experiment Could Promote Linux Code Execution And Loss of Revenue (8399801)
Summary
Who should read this bulletin:
Users running Microsoft ® Windows ®
Impact of vulnerability:
Run code of users choice
Maximum Severity Rating:
Critical
Recommendation:
Windows Systems administrators should apply nicotine patch immediately.
I think the parent post makes an excellent point.
I've been using computers since 1981 (ZX-Spectrum), and I've seen stuff come and go. I have used PCs since DOS, Macs since 1985, Amigas, Atari-STs, CP/M machines and many, many others.
I can run pretty much any computer and OS on the market and do what's required to keep everything up-to-date and working smoothly. It's not hard, but I just can't be bothered.
I want a computer that has the apps I need, works well and doesn't require me to spend my days keeping it running.
For me, a Mac is exactly that. I don't want to have total control over my computer. I'm happy to let the OS do things for me, and I'm happy to have Apple arrange things to suit how I work.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it better than spending my time managing the computer? Absolutely.
Nuts. What freaks me out is the penetration M$ has into his house. He names what, 4 licenses he's paid for before he gets to the bank, which has unfortunately wasted more of his money on his behalf. He forgot to mention his M$ "powered" phone, his BMW and a half dozen other overpriced and underperforming junk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Disclaimer: I'm a Mac OS X convert as of two months ago. Before that I was a FreeBSD / Linux person that used Windows for various things (Office, games, etc) but without much enjoyment.
Windows: Tries to get in your way, force you to do things its way, doesn't provide a decent option to de-dumb globally. Office is a nightmare of over-featured bloat that most users will never use. When something goes wrong, it takes ages to fix because whilst you know what is wrong, Windows tries to stop you fixing it.
Linux / FreeBSD: Works well. If you know your stuff, it is easy to fix stuff and set up. I've had issues with upgrades however, after some time it will eventually mess up. Desktop applications are a mishmash of good and bad, or poorly thought out in a single crucial aspect whilst being very powerful.
Mac OS X: Doesn't get in your way. Allows you to actually get work done. Many applications are much more specific in their task (alternatively known as not having as many features, but the features that it does have actually work as you expect them to). Dashboard sucks. I don't think it can be beaten as an end-user operating system, however I can see that it lacks certain things that corporations would like in a desktop computer.
Computers come down to personal preference and what you are used to. If you only know how to do something in Windows and you aren't of a mind to sit down and learn how it is done in Linux or Mac OS X, then you are simply going to state that you need Windows for that task. Despite the frustration that you might have with it in Windows (e.g., tables in Word).
One thing that I like about Mac OS X is that it generally eschews the dozens of small icons in a toolbar that you can't really make out that well and thus never really use. Applications like Pages, Keynote, Mail and so on have a few buttons that bring up or hide inspectors or sidebars. A good design guide means that you'll always know how to do the common tasks (save, open, print) and you don't need a small icon that is hard to hit (Fitt's Law) present.
However it will take you a while to get used to this alternative way of working. Once you are there though, you will know you are more productive and find computing much less of a drag. What is unfortunate is that this goes for migrating from Linux or FreeBSD as well as migrating from Windows.
Also there are issues such as Logitech's APPALLING lack of support for Mac OS X for their webcam range. Canon's DIRE support for their scanners (hurrah for ScanVue). Samsung's AWFUL support for their printers (can't use my 1 year old ML-2250 under Mac OS X, but you can under Windows and Linux, sheesh). Now that the Mac seems to be having a small revival, maybe some companies will spend a little time on supporting it. When you run into something like this, it can be very demoralising, and appear as a negative against the OS.
But is there anything I *must* use Windows for? I can't think of anything in my line of work that couldn't be done in Mac OS X. However I think that there are big gaps in the software range for Linux, such as good finance/accounting/tax applications. Specialist software is another area where Windows can have a stranglehold, and if you use some of that, then you'll have issues.
I get by without using Windows at all. So does my entire household. Thousands of other people all over the world get by just fine without using Windows at all. Before there was a Windows, (1985, just twenty short years ago, people, not that long to remember if you try!), EVERYBODY who used a computer AT ALL got along fine without any Windows. Tell me, folks, if Windows is so necessary to the function of a computer, how do you think computers were ever invented before Bill Gates was born? (They were too! Google Charles Babbage!)
Speaking as one who has used Macintosh, Windows, and Linux, we have three machines in this household running Linux 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Collectively together, we program, design graphics, chat in Yahoo, surf the web, play Flash animations, watch Real Player movies, play games, manage office documents and business records, and use modern devices such as laser printers, USB keychain drives, and CD/DVD burners. All on Linux. All the time. And I must say, even I (geekiest of the lot) find little reason to resort to a command line anymore.
I'm just dying to know what arcane task needs *just Windows* to be executed anymore. Unless it's specifically coded to stop dead and balk if it doesn't find Windows running and it won't co-operate with WINE and a feasible alternative program doesn't exist... ever seen the ad for the company that will *custom-make* a special Linux version of any Windows program you come to them with? I've seen it running in the Google ads on this very site!
Games...yes, we had a box of Windows-only games I bought back when I was dumb enough to settle for that. True, they will not run in Linux. Instead, thousands of games are now being made for Linux, which you can DOWNLOAD FOR FREE instead of shelling out $40-60 dollars for them. At that rate, we can play a new game every week, now, instead of playing one game all month until we're sick of it because we feel like fools if we don't get our money's worth out of it. The box of Windows games ended up going 50-cents apiece at a yard sale. The people getting them shrugged and made noises about how they were keeping Windows 95/98 running at home because they weren't about to shell out for the upgrade. So I offer them a home-burned Knoppix CD and just say "Try this when you get sick of the games."
But hey, I'm standing by for the usual howls and screams and flames of indignation I usually get when I say this kind of thing in this kind of thread. How dare I speak the truth! Especially where a paid-M$-shill has an account.
Read Entire Story here
This link has entire story cache'd, and looks more like original site. Enjoy.
I8-D
Oh, yeah? Tell me, Windows loyalists, did you ever get Outlook Express to understand the concept of multiple email accounts and different stationary/spam filters for each? Figure out how to stop Windows from dumping icons all over the screen? Get rid of the MS Network and Network Neighborhood because you never use it? Get Windows to recognise your new graphics card without a struggle? Stop Real Player from firing up at startup and immediately demanding your whole machine's resources? Completely remove software you uninstall, without having to go in and manually delete folders? Confess to you where it hides ALL the cookies and let you clean them ALL out? Not show the taskbar?
Yes, I'm sure everybody's done some of what's on this list... but you weren't born knowing how? Right? You had to...guess what?...READ some DOCUMENTATION to learn how to make it do what you want! After all, if Windows is just SO-O-O-O silly easy, why were manuals written about it "for Dummies" flying off the bookstore shelves from 1985 to 1995 or so? Why would people need things simplified to the "Dummies" level if it were as simple as could be, already?
Linux comes with it's own "for Dummies" docs, free. Man pages, info pages, html docbooks, et cettera ad infinitum. Just have a gander through /usr/share/doc and you learn everything in Linux just like the "for Dummies" books in Windows!
+5 Insightful, really!
The average consumer does have a choice. At the very least, they can go with Apple.
In addition, Red Hat and SuSE are both sold at Best Buy, and Linux has gotten enough free press that its no longer a complete unknown. If the consumer wants to, he/she can install an alternative OS on their existing hardware.
Just because you view MS as the bane of the software universe doesn't guarantaee that everyone cares, or that anyone will switch operating systems based upon your opinion. The question isn't "Should everyone use Linux?", but instead is, "Should I use Linux?" And the answer to that question is a variable depending on many other factors, not all of which are controllable by the consumer.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
I know of nothing that Outlook can do that you can't do with Evolution and I'm sure there are plug-ins and extensions for the Mozilla suite that'll do the same. (Which is good, because I personally find Thunderbird to be a nicer e-mail client.)
MS Project is one I don't know about, on the Open Source front, but I think the odds are high of a clone being out there. It's just too widely used for nobody to have tackled this one, yet.
Now, if you're using application servers that need specialized clients, or something that absolutely has to use an undocumented Microsoft protocol, then yes you're going to have to use Windows. Well, unless the program works under Wine, then you can use Linux, and Wine is certainly progressing. Slowly, but it is progressing.
On the other hand, there's really very little that hasn't been documented (or reverse-engineered), so most programs people would use under Windows also exist in some form under Linux. It can just be harder to find them, sometimes.
Network administration is one area where Windows may be necessary, for example. (Huh?) It is possible to read from an Active Directory system under Linux - there are DDNS servers that'll work with LDAP - but writing still seems to pose problems. I'd be wary of mixing Windows Active Directory systems with Linux, unless you know what you're doing and are willing to put in the extra effort in getting the two to work together.
Web servers that use ASP and server-side VB are also going to be problems - there are filters that'll convert ASP to platform-independent server script, but I've not seen much progress in this area for a while.
And anything written using code specific to SQL Server or Access will also have problems. But that can be worked around and you shouldn't be using version-specific hacks anyway as Microsoft isn't tied to making things backwards-compatiable. You've no guarantee any of your software'll still work after any patch or update when you break standards, simply because a given release will let you.
(Remember the havoc wrecked when MS tightened up security with some of their XP fixes? Broke a LOT of bad code, because people were careless with their assumptions on how MS would do things in future.)
WebDAV? Done in Linux. Shared peripherals? Done with Samba, so it's in Linux. OLE? There are Linux implementations, but that's probably an area you'd want to stick to Windows, if that's the way you HAVE to do it. OLE isn't a good protocol to be using.
NTLM? Done in Linux. NTFS? Mostly done in Linux, but I'm not sure if the write functions are regarded as completely "safe" for Joe User yet. Again, if you're using NTFS, you're probably going to want to use Windows.
OpenGL is supported, a lot of hardware acceleration is supported, Wine can do DirectX but I won't vouch it'll do everything and I won't guarantee there will always be libraries for X or the Kernel Framebuffer that'll cover all of the functions Windows will.
Also on the graphics front, TrueType and Adobe fonts work but not all hinting on OpenType is complete yet, so if you're doing some heavy-duty DTP that absolutely needs OpenType, Windows may have an advantage.
All in all, there ARE things, then, where I'd recommend using Windows - usually because Windows has some specific function Linux doesn't, or where it supports it in a friendlier way. I cannot think of a single general-purpose application which falls into that category, though, they're generally pretty specific to power users or managerial users.
There is absolutely NOTHING Windows can do that Linux can never do - Linux is near-enough complete as far as Turing's computability goes. (Near-enough as in Turing
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ah, the ME example yet again. I have to say, since I run both Fedora and W2k3 clusters at my lab, that both OSes are solid. Never had a w2k3 crash, while Linux nodes pop off like popcorn; bad config I guess.
Let's face it, neiter software licensing concept is perfect, but one provides Gates with a LOT of cash, and the AIDS community with $700 million and India with $300 million in development aid. When was the last time the Linux community got together and made a charitable donation? I can't bash Gates, he's vowed to spend his ENTIRE fortune on charity before he and his wife die; can't get more good natured than that.
If Windows and protectionist practises is what it takes to raise $40 billion for good and useful causes then I say: "SO BE IT. Let's all buy Windows."
Either you are trolling, or you have tried soemthing like Red Hat 6 and nothing since. Every single problem and "hurdle" you come up with are things that have been dealt dealt with long ago.
Full mirror on (prinatble page cached at Google)
w w.flexbeta.net/main/printarticle.php%3Fid%3D106++s ite:www.flexbeta.net+10+Days+as+a+Linux+User:+A+GN U+Perspective+on+things+printable&hl=en&client=fir efox-a
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:1CvlEjwElaUJ:w
Ouch
Like I said, two clusters, both solid. I can't complain about MS software; and since business ethics are an issue in the discussion then I thought it worthwhile to mention the overall ethics of the founder and, arguably, head.
On a balance between finding a cure/vaccine for AIDS and damaging competitiveness in the browser/OS market, I have to say I'm leaning toward the former. Same goes for societal development/child labour reduction in India, and mispractises in the Media Player market.
Good code, great cause, impecable business strategy, unfriendliness to competitors: three out of four 'aint bad.
And I don't care to change the functionality of windows. Works just great under every application I've stressed it with.
Just because the average consumer doesn't want to go through the trouble of informing him/herself about which operating system is better doesn't mean s/he doesn't have a choice. The choice at least of August 2005 is large. You can pic Windows, Mac, Linux or Unix and many others, that I as a lazy consumer am not aware of - whose fault is that? Microsoft's? In a non-internet world, you'd be partly correct, because Microsoft's marketing dollars would yell the loudest. But we have the Net see, the "Great Equalizer". You want a good operating system. Look it up. If people are too lazy to research, they deserve the monopoly they end up with. The same applies to political candidates.
My Favourite Meme
At one point Pepsi was the parent corp of KFC Taco Bell and Pizza Hut. In the mid to late 90's (97 IIRC) those three were spun off as Tricon Global with Pepsi holding a significant chunk of Tricon stock and of course a nice (for Pepsi) contract to suply them with softdrinks. About two years ago Tricon aquired Long John silvers and A&W Rootbeer stands and changed names to Yum! Foods (YUM was and remained thier stock ticker id).
Most if not all (likely all) those names are of course trademarks.
One of the reasons many other Fast Food chains sell Coke is because they didn't want to be buying thier drinks from the competition.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Congratulations! You're officially 13370000 now!
I was sleeping, but otherwise i'd have tried to snatch it up.
Congratulations once again pal/gal!
Humble request - mod parent funny. It will be a while until the next 1337 number comes around.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Because of course, the 70 or 80% of users who don't even have the faintest idea of what an operating system is are going to compare the respective merits of Unix and Windows ("hmmm, I wonder which has the best scheduler...")
That's not the way it works, sorry. People will maybe shop around when they buy a car (and not just get what their brother in law tells them to or whatever) but when it gets to computers, unless they have someone knowledgeable around, they'll go with whatever the store tells them.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Add a "&strip=1" to the google cache URL and you will not have to wait for the images to load (which won't happen the next hours):
: www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.php%3Faction%3Dshow %26id%3D106+&hl=en&lr=&strip=1
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:rqaS83p3KOIJ
When I started with Linux, Windows did not even exist as an operating system (there was a GUI running on top of DOS that was called Windows as well).
Before Linux, I used Unix. I was very pleased that I finally could run a decent OS on my home system. Before that, the alternative was MS-DOS.
When Windows appeared as an OS (first Windows 95, later NT) I found myself in the same situation as you are now. With Linux, I could do anything, to use Windows beyond "install it and click on some things" I needed to read a lot. And there was not even sourcecode to read, only "user manuals" that often spent more than 60% of content on basic principles like how to insert a floppy disk.
So indeed, it is not really a difference between Linux and Windows, just a difference between what you know and what is new.
But really, I haven't found a reason to use Linux, niether have alot of my buddys, because most of the problems with Windows can be "Fixed"
I switched to Linux on the desktop a couple of years ago. Since then, I've occasionally been called upon to use Windows (for example in my current job) and one thing that I've noticed is that I've come to expect problems to be fixable.
For example, MS Excel is consistently generating an "Error 13" popup message every time I load it, which otherwise appears to have no effect whatsoever on performance. If this, or something similar, was happening on my Linux box, I would be digging into the system trying to figure out what was going wrong, even down to source code level if necessary. In Windows, that's a habit that's impossible to get into, cos all the programs are designed as little gated enclosures that you can't see into.
My experience is that most of the problems on Windows can't be fixed unless you're a master of reverse-engineering. You either get used to them or reinstall Windows. Neither is necessary on Linux as figuring out what the actual problem is, as opposed to turning a blind eye, is so much easier.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
They are offering the school a choice - not forcing it upon them. Just because MS offer something perceived as more valuable than what the Open Source can isn't a reason to cry foul.
If you care so much about it, then do something.
The school's job is to prepare children for work (oh and all that social guff as well). The harsh reality is that for the vast number of pupils who will never work in IT, experience with MS products will provide them a better skillset - you try explaining on your CV how you can't use windows, have no idea what office looks like - but can compile your own kernel.
Linux is out there, it's free and if anybody has an interest in it, they can pick it up and play with it themselves.
Actually, configuration aside, learning Linux tends to be easier... the Control Panel can be dangerous.
Yes, it is a double-edged sword. But as you said, configuration on Linux may be more difficult precisely because it doesn't have a centralized configuration mechanism. But if you do have to venture into those .xyz and .conf files on Linux, that is MORE dangerous than Control Panel because you don't have a UI to protect you from deleting files, entries, entering invalid data, etc. In Linux, a configuration file is just a file, but in Windows configuration is abstracted into... configuration. Granted, modern Linux distros have UIs on top of their configuration, but there is no ONE Linux "control panel", but there is for windows.
burning CDs (easier with Gnome than Windows)
The operating system makes it easier? First of all, I'd have to say Windows makes it pretty darned easy: you drag'n'drop your files to the CD, then say "Write these files to the CD". Perhaps the default way of doing it with Gnome is easier, I don't know, but I've never really thought it could be easier without implementing mind reading.
emailing digital pictures (again, easier with Gnome than Windows' shoddy digital camera support).
I'll just leave the details of this subject to the other replies and say that you hast have found a rare exception to the norm with your digitasl camera.
Not long 'til 13371337 :)
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
So I took my machine home over the weekend and installed FC4 on it. I run Mandrake at home, but our whole dev team uses FC4. In order to have a common user-base, I thought I'd try it out. I have a 2nd disk in the machine, and installed it to it. I found an excellent step-by-step guide on how to do this. Of course, the FC4 installer screwed that up. It never asked me to create a boot floppy. So after installing, there was no way to get into Linux. After f'ing with it for about 1/2 hour, I thought maybe I missed that option during the install. Installed it again, same thing. Knoppix to the rescue. Booted in, created a boot file, copied it to the Windows drive, and all was good.
Then I bring it back into work this morning, and go to configure it with dual displays (I have dual 21" LCDs) I have configured dual displays before at home, and it wasn't too bad. Of course, with FC4 it just doesn't work. X config looks good, it just don't want to bring up the 2nd display. I prefer KDE, so I have that as my desktop. Then I notice that the Configure option is missing from my Kmenu. (the red wrench icon) It is just GONE. One minute it was there, the next it was just not.
I quit using Redhat after 7.3, because they started monkeying with everything. I hate bluecurve, but understand the need for it (in concept). But let me run straight KDE! All the other developers here use dual-displays, but they have Nvidia cards and use their dual-display software. Since I don't have an Nvidia card, and since I had used Xinerama before, I thought it would be a snap.
So now in order to get work done, I have to boot into Windows (and get around that ANNOYING login issue). Yay! I have 1 machine with 2 crippled OSes installed on it. I prefer to use Linux so I will eventually get it working and have it be my main OS (running XP via VMWare). But I can't imagine being unfamiliar with Linux and trying to get it working and usable. At least I have a chance of getting Linux working the way I want, I have given up on Windows.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The steps for enabling Remote desktop are listed here. While you won't be able to connect when another user is on the machine, there is at least one third-party patch that allows otherwise. You still need to grab a copy of the client if you do not have it already.
After following these steps, it's no more difficult than getting regular Windows networking to work. (Which it doesn't - WinME doesn't fully understand WinXP's Network security system, by asking for a password for $IPC without giving the option to try a different username. This, however, is another story.)
Never do that. Those OEM CDs are known to wipe the entire system to factory configuration.
As one alternative, find a friend who's willing to copy the Windows XP CD (without the CD-key) - this saves a lot more trouble and time, as well as gives the ability to reinstall without wiping.
If you consider this a breach of the license (Microsoft does, but basic morality and/or default copyright law may be different), you can also simply compress the initial installation to a CD immediatly after acquiring the system - either using burning software or a backup program. (Latter is preferred with this route.) In this case, it's your choice whether to wax the operating system on a reinstallation.
That's the problem with Linux - figuring out how to do stuff generally takes time.
While the GUI section has been gradually improving, there's still some major documentation issues (e.g. documentation for some packages fail to describe what should be essential information.) There's also the case of certain "core" applications being incapable of interpreting non-native CR-LFs, which has been known to cause compilation to fail in some applications if they were initially pulled from CVS through WinCVS.
While I do know where to find the documentation (man pages, apropos, the info command, and the HOWTOs), this is barely cutting it as these are four independant help sections that I have to check for general information about the system. Microsoft has the advantage here, as there is only one place you need to check to learn operating system basics (or API, etc.) and can maintain it because they have a dedicated team focused on writing documentation.
If it weren't for that, I would have switched completely over (aside from platform specific things, such as becoming a Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert). There's more than enough coders going around - what's really needed is writers that get documentation out to minimize time wasted figuring out stuff by glaring at potentially messy source code.