Slashdot Mirror
Five Reasons Not to Use Linux
UltimaGuy writes "Linux-watch has a humorous article about the top 5 reasons for not using Linux. It does provoke some thought aside from bringing a smile to our lips :)"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sure, Windows is easier to use than Linux. But eventually you just get so frustrated that you have to take an angle-grinder to your computer, and it really takes a long time to get all the little bits of metal out of the carpet.
Reason number one: Linux is too complicated
.conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux.
:) Maybe they have the sense of humor! :)
Linux *is* too complicated for a good many people but it doesn't have anything to do w/the system design or how it works. It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home.
Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years.
Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.
You know, I consider myself knowledgeable with computers. I run multiple OSs at home and have run many more over the course of my life. You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever.
You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a
I love Linux. I use it on my servers, I use it on my desktops, and I use it on my entertainment center, where it powers my HDTV TiVo and my D-Link DSM-320 media player, which turns my network into a media library with terabytes of storage. Heck, I even run Linux on my Linksys WRT54G Wi-Fi access points, which hook the whole shebang together.
When was the last time you had to edit a configuration file with a text editor on your Tivo? I never have. When was the last time you had to fire up your WRT54G and wonder what all the fsck messages were? Never. Just because Linux is being used to power the device does not mean it wasn't designed to be user friendly. Most people don't surf the web and write research papers with a remote control or by hitting a recessed hard-reset button.
I realize that this was a tongue-in-cheek article and I realize that it was mildly humorous but I just really felt that it was just as bad as Microsoft claiming that Linux costs more. This bullshit where Linux users fault non-Linux users for not switching because of the lack of difficulty is just bullshit.
Linux isn't easy and it does have a learning curve. Most people just don't care to take the time to learn it.
I wonder if Microsoft just releases their "research" to give us stuff to make fun of
It's a pity we can't moderate stories as flamebait
It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home.
Then how come OSX is so freakin' easy for everyone to use? It only takes a few minutes.
Most slashdotters remind me of this guy.
More
The article was mildly amusing, but on the whole it seemed like a bit of a sarcastic rant. Not that I don't like those, but I expect more out of a Slashdot headline story.
Ignore Alien Orders
A reason not to use Linux: Choice.
Many distro's of Linux to choose from, so many applications to choose from...
Man, choosing is almost like thinking, it's hard!
Gee, this article didn't even mention it (not that I can get to it, going off the reply on the blog linked below). Man pages. And info, come to that matter. How often does Google become the default man page. I suppose most would brand this a virtue.
Games.
1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less
2. SCO Has a Superior Kernel
3. OpenServer Has Better Security
4. SCO Has a Customer-Driven Roadmap
5. OpenServer 6 is Backward Compatible
6. SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency
7. SCO Owns and Warrantees its Products
8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base
9. SCO UNIX: Legendary Reliability
10. SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team
Read TFL for buzzwordy drivel and meaningless tripe from Darryl himself. Didn't know he'd registered a website in his name to spout his n0nsense.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Also, when trying to discuss the benefits of alternative operating systems, it does not help the argument if you (by this, I mean the writer of the article) come off as being sarcastic and condescending.
My $.02 anyway.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Ive tried several different linux distros on computers including my homebuilt Asus A7N8x-e deluxe AMD system and pentium 4 dell's at my lab. Ati 9600 level graphics on them.
None of them boot DSL properly. Mandrake Move no. Gentoo liveCD works, can install gentoo, but massive pains in getting the bootloader to work with drive due to the existance of SATA.
Your mileage will vary, until Linux gets better simpler support for hardware, especially with regards to X, ive yet to get X to run without having to abuse myself relearning conf files, don't even compare them to windows.
Seeing as the linked article is grinding to a crawl, here's the mirrordote 7ca3f011299d755/index.html
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/384802a7fdfeda4a
Most Windows users have never even heard of it even though it's on their Start Menu, never mind the registry which requires you to type a COMMAND into the command line.
This guy is saying what? That he can ignore the blindingly obvious truths of why "Linux sucks" for a basic user by pulling the "it's free and this distro can boot without you touching it and that distro comes with programs installed"?
Don't think he's stroking the userbase hard enough.
You already have MacOS X :D
And there it is... I know it was an attempt at sarcasm, but until you can give me BF2, SWG, WoW, and HL2 without sacrificing a crap ton of performance (cedega I'm talking about you), I'll stick with Windows. Linux can power my webserver like no other, but I have no use for a linux desktop.
One thing the article steps around is the fact that many people like to use their computer for games. In that respect, the availability of Windows titles DOES dwarf Linux availability. So this, a sarcastic and biased rant about Linux being better than Windows, is headline news, whereas a story involving Opera turning 10 years old today and giving away its desktop browser licenses (happening NOW) is rejected by the /. mods.
Something Witty Goes Here
I don't see reasons 1 & 2 as being particularly far-fetched from the point of view of your average consumer - the usability experience still needs a lot of work before it's completely ready as a Windows replacement, and although the site is taking this point to extremes, there's still a germ of truth in there.
Coralized link so you might actually be able to read TFA.
.nyud.net:8090 to the first part of your URLs when submitting.
1 24627492.html
It's not that hard folks, just append
e.g: http://www.linux-watch.com.nyud.net:8090/news/NS8
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Well, it may be relatively easy to install a given distribution from scratch on a fresh system. But heaven help you if you need to add a driver for a new printer that wasn't supported by the version of cups/gimp-print/foomatic that shipped with your distro. A quick trip to the source code outlet and a weekend's googling, debugging and cataloguing all the RPMs/DEBs that are now invalid and we're back in action? Pah.
Not to mention good old wireless networking. Thanks to the joys of wireless USB on linux, I'll have to rebuild linux-wlan-ng every time there's a security update to download for my otherwise stock kernel. Ditto nVidea drivers (excellent support, excellent performance. Shame that the kernel module interface is so primitive that I have to rebuild the nVidia module when the inevitable kernel update shows up).
Then there's GNOME: I'd love to try out the latest stable release, but I really don't see why I have to a) install a newer version of my chosen distribution to try it, or b) work my way through a horrid packaging effort to build it. And yes, I tried Garnome as well. Still not nearly as good as KDE for packaging source.
A Few Linux Administrators
...we use these words in a lifetime spent defeating software rivals. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a user who surfs and emails on the Internet that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you format your C:\ drive and load Windows 3.11. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
with apologies to Jack Nicholson (as Bill Gates, on trial for releasing his Code Red "update" and destroying the Open Source Software movement)
You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world that has data. And that data has to be guarded by men with servers. Who's gonna do it? You? Linus?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Open Source and you curse Microsoft. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Linux's death, while tragic, probably saves data. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves the Internet. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at board meetings, you want me in that Server Farm. You need me in that NOC. We use words like Start, Update, Explorer
Did you release the code red?
I released the update your servers were begging for.
Did you release the code red!?
You're goddamn right I did!
Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit
By being pre-installed on the majority of PCs, Windows does indeed appear to be free to the buyer, in that it's seen as part of the whole package and doesn't cost any time to install (time is money after all).
Linux would gain a significant boost on the desktop if more OEMs pre-installed it alongside same spec'd machines with Windows installed.
Then the price difference would become noticeable, and the cost in time needed to install it would also disappear.
Your response is just so much nitpicking, half of which is besides the point of the original article.
For example, you say Linux needs patches too, so as far as security goes Linux and Windows are even. Really? How urgent are those patches? If I have a fresh Linux install vs. a fresh Windows install, which do I have more time to patch before it gets owned? Then you go off on a tangent about how Linux makes it difficult to share files with other users on the same box because it lacks ACLs, while completely glossing over the fact that you almost have to constantly run as an Administrator under windows just to allow your apps to work.
You complain that Linux is too complicated, and your example contrasts Apache vs. IIS, while the article is talking about desktop machines..
I could go on, but there's not much point. Anyone trying to claim Windows is as secure as Linux since both require patches is either completely deluded or has an axe to grind.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
It's bad for the economy!! Imagine buying a computer system and having it still usable for modern applications nearly a decade later. The various Linux distros allow for this. That cuts into profits for desktop and server sales. That's why Windows is the better choice. It pushes the hardware requirements up so quickly that you need to get new hardware every two to three years. This is good for the economy. Therefore Linux is UnAmerican.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream. I think that Microsoft's blackmailing of computer vendors has something to do with it, but there's no single factor.
Where I work, for example, we are forced to use XP on the desktop despite the fact that the main tools that most of the core team use are available for Linux (Java, Eclipse). Ok, some of the tools that the core team uses are unavailable on Linux, like Photoshop, Lightwave, 3DStudio Max, etc. But a lot of people could be switched over tomorrow. Why, then, are the free *nixes relegated to the server-side? There are also issues with lockout on the server side, though, with some properietry packages such as our VPN software only running on Windows, yet Linux has still managed to gain a significant portion of the server market despite these factors. So why not the desktop?I think a lot of it has to do with the mindset of the managers at companies - for the most part they are not willing to give new technologies the go-ahead, even if it makes sense financially. The only way to solve this is to either get more technically competent management into companies (yeah, right), or to find a way to break Microsoft's strangehold of OEM and desktop markets.
Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
Hellllooo.... notepad.exe
I have never been a Mac person. I just don't get it. Then OS X came out, and all I heard was how awesome it was. More unixy? Sounds good. I went into an Apple store in a mall where they had all the cool, shiny goodness. I played with it for a while. Hated it. Frustrating. It didn't make any sense to me. A couple of years later, and I acquired a Mac at work as a test machine. My machine was down for a day for some new hardware, so I used the Mac. Horrible, unproductive day. To me, that intuitive interface is like trying to pound nails with a carrot. A bright, shiny, pretty carrot, but just a carrot.
I am not bashing it, I am just saying it isn't for me. And I hope that I am not the only one out there.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
We were promised a humorous article.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The article is trying to be facetious, but his first three points are actually dead-on.
1. Linux is too complicated.
He claims that you "occasionally" need to edit a configuration file in Linux, and implies that this is no more frequent than doing so in Windows.
Bullshit. Since I've installed XP, I've never had to edit a configuration file OR registry data. Ever. I can install pretty much any PC-compatible hardware on the market and have it running quickly. Why? Because parts vendors make damn sure their stuff works in Windows.
2. Linux is a pain to set up.
The author claims that modern Linux distros are easier to install than Windows. This may be true, but he neglects the fact that BOTH OS's are a pain to install for multiboot.
I decided to try out Linux, so I downloaded Ubuntu and ran the boot disk. Unfortunately, both my hard drives are NTFS, and Ubuntu doesn't know how to partition them. After half an hour looking around the net for a way to partition an NTFS drive without endangering the data on that drive, I gave up. No Linux for me, because I'm not willing to endanger all my system files or buy a new hard drive just to play around with another OS. "Insert disk and press Enter" my ass.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications.
The author points out that there are a bunch of freeware programs for Linux. Of course, almost all the ones he lists have equal or better counterparts freely available for Windows. Is the argument that those Windows programs aren't packaged with the OS? Guess what, quite a few of them are, when you buy from a big vendor like Dell. And since you're gonna have to download or purchase your Linux distro anyway, it's not like you're saving install time by running Linux.
In any case, he's missing the real "killer app" for a lot of us nerds: games. Yeah, it's been said before, but that doesn't make it less true. I regularly run maybe three apps on my computer that AREN'T games, and those work about equally well for Linux or Windows.
Oh, and on top off all of that, the premise of the article is stupid. I don't need reasons NOT to run Linux. Linux doesn't come pre-installed on my computer; Windows does. I need reasons TO run Linux, and they better be damn good reasons to overrule my apathy. If I'm going to go through all the work of switching to a new OS and learning its foibles and features, there better be some real motivation for doing so.
Frankly, I ain't motivated yet.
psst. I dont want you to look like an idiot.
but
Maya requires one of the following operating systems:
Windows® XP Professional or Windows ® 2000 Professional (service pack 2 or higher)
Red Hat Linux 9.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 WS
SUSE Linux 9.1
Apple® Mac® OS X 10. 3 or higher
ATTENTION Users of the IRIX Operating System
Maya requires one of the following browsers:
Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher
Netscape® 6 or higher
Safari(TM)
The rest can be found as easy as that one ways. A quick google. In fact most CAD software does have a unix/linux version.
you need to get out of the 90's.
Until Lunix gets to Mac-like levels of user friendlyness, one can only assume that the Lunixists actually enjoy the spurious complexity of their toy OS.
Actually, I *do* enjoy the complexity of my Linux operating system. Not for the sake of complexity, but because of the sheer flexibility it gives me.
Oh, sure, I like the MacOS X interface; but it has a few problems as well. It's not the Utopia most Mac fiends claim. (For instance, my wife's laptop keeps complaining it is no longer connected to the internet (through a wireless connection), even when all other wireless devices are working just fine. It's definitely not the network's fault.)
But your post is just plain wrong. Very rarely do I have to "fire up . . . vi" to get an internet connection to work. In almost *every* case, it Just Works.
The only times I have to fire up vi is when I am installing an odd network card and have to muck around with installing proprietary network drivers. And even *that's* getting less frequent these days.
And lastly-- that 35-year-old editor is *still* more powerful than most other editors out there, save Emacs. It's not like vi has been sitting still for 35 years.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
With friends like these...
Oh noes.
getfacl doesn't start with ls or isn't a flag for ls. What is someone to do?
Your whole point about ACLs in windows and not in Linux boils down to having to use getfacl instead of ls in order to view the acls.
Well guess what? last time i looked dir in windows didn't show you the acls either...
would it be nice it was a compiled flag in ls like the Z option for selinux? yeah.(oh yeah no selinux for windows btw)But I fail to see how the command line options are different between windows and linux.
Oooohhh - did you notice how strongly biased the article is against Windows? It's even outright lying:
"And, Microsoft also has Microsoft Office, which -- oh wait, you don't get that with the operating system, do you? You also don't get a Web page editor either, do you?"
Windows comes with full office and web editing capabilities for free: wordpad
Do you know how your car runs ? Do you care? When you switch cars, do you switch to a manual transmission just for shits and giggles even though you don't know jackshit about shifting gears (supposing you use an automatic)? I would think you would look for a car that's as simple as the previous one, but faster, cheaper - better! People view their computers as their do their cars - goods beyond their comprehension that they can USE.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
where's the Maya/3DS/LW/Softimage alternative? It doesn't exist (dont be a bone head and suggest Blender here, its like comaring a 79' VW to a Ferrai).
Are you nuts? Maya, Softimage and Lightwave are all available for Linux and the major studios are using mostly Linux clients and render farms.
``Why aren't more people using Linux?
That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream.''
It's not too difficult to see, really. Even if Linux really were a better operating system for everyone now using Windows, people would still not switch. Why? Well, the keyword is "switch". Switching costs effort, installing the new system, familiarizing yourself with it, figuring out what applications to use, etc. etc. etc. Why bother if you can get your work done on Windows?
The situation would be entirely different if people grew up with Linux. They would be familiar with how it works, what applications to use for what tasks, and so on. Linux would just be another operating system, instead of one you had to switch to.
That, and the lack of availability of certain software (various businesses need some specialized software that isn't available for Linux, and many games won't work on it) is why people aren't using Linux, even in settings where it would be superior.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
5) still have to meddle with .conf files. not good enough for normal users
4) slow. it used to be that one argument for linux and against windows is that linux is faster, but not anymore, it seems. on my old pc, winxp is clearly faster than linux (with kde/gnome) of any distro. response in graphical linux is not snappy enough.
3) fonts. either it's fat and anti-aliased or skinny and aliased. in other words, it's plain ugly compared to windows.
2) desktops (kde & gnome) and menus are still crude. as much as i hate windows, i find the xp interface is nicer than kde and gnome. their windows, toolbars and buttons are proportionately sized by default. you don't get dialog boxes shooting beyond the bottom of screen. and normal users tend not to know where to find what in the menus.
1) no equivalent _and_ compatible applications. especially outlook. i can overlook this outlook thingy, but many many people cannot.
``Take a look at Apache. A server widely acclaimed for its up-time, and yet you can't even change a single setting without restarting the server!'' /etc/init.d/apache reload
Reloads the configuration without taking the server down. Many Unix daemons do this when you send them a SIGHUP.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The fact that support for ACLs isn't as universally implemented in Linux as it is in Windows is flat out embarrasing.
Not if you compare them to the defaults they misconfigured in windows. Writeable \Windows\system ? Come-on! Those default ACLs are a complete utter fuck-up.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Just to pick one out-and-out lie from the general confusion of your posting:
Well, lets see, Apache was based on NCSA httpd, which was a rewrite of the original www consortium httpd, which was written originally by Tim Berners-Lee. (all of which were open source). Now lets look at the original HTTP protocol standard -- what do you know, the authors are Tim Berners-Lee, and R. Fielding, from UC Uvine. And look at the Apache core team -- Roy Fielding!So, in fact, the open source folks who wrote Apache and its predecesors are the folks who wrote the standards.
So as I posted on your site, the above statment is downright slanderous, and you should retract it.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
These "articles" aren't helping linux - they aren't funny, they aren't informative, and they aren't going to sway any windows users to linux. It looks pathetic, and desperate. I am a linux user, but have a lot of family members and friends who use windows. You can be quite sure that they have never had to enter in to the registry to make system changes.
The fact is that anyone with a bit of knowledge can probably bring down their windows system, or their linux system. Its quite easy to delete or change important system files by thinking you know more than you do. An old systems guru, when I was just starting out in the world of IT but it to me this this: "It is ok to have no knowledge, and ti is ok to have a lot of knowledge. You can walk on either side of that road and be safe. If you walk down the middle of the road though, you will probably be hit by a truck." Is very true. Newbies generally won't destroy systems.. linux/windows/whatever... they just can't figure out how.
I'm not sure why CmdrTaco says that the article provokes some thought, as the article is shouting the same thing some of the lesser informed linux zealots have been for years.
First FreeBSD != Linux.
Not sure about wget, but fetch and ftp should honor the enviroment variables FTP_PASSIVE_MODE, FTP_PROXY, and FTP_PASSWORD
Hope that helps
To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
1. Linux is too complicated
/. about a million times, but as you don't seem to be aware of it:
/.
"Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work."
Ehm, install it and choose KDE as the default session the next time you see a login screen. Not really hard.
2. Linux is too complicated
"How many patches must you apply to SuSE right after install for all the security fixes? Dozens. Windows? Dozens. Hmmm... Seems about even there. To be safe, you ought to be behind a firewall in either case. I've never found a recent Linux distro that didn't have patches ready to install as soon as I finished installing to OS."
Jesus...
For starters having to download security updates doesn't really have that much to do with what the guy you are answering wrote and with ease of setting an OS up.
Second, this has been discussed right here on
Comparing Suse, which comes with thousands of programs with Windows, which comes with barely anything and then pointing out that you also have to download updates for Suse is pretty dumb, as you compare Apples and Oranges here.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications
"Let's compare apples to apples here. Windows is an OS, not a set of applications."
Why now and not before?
"You Linux fanatics get on Microsoft for bundling apps with their OS"
Small correction, most of the time it's not us Linux fantics, whoever this may be, but law enforcement agencies that get on MS for abusing their monopoly.
"Windows as an OS isn't inferior just because your open source app doesn't run on it. If you are so big on choices and freedom, why don't you write your app to run on both? "
Well, everyone is free to choose to take the source code and port it to windows and as you pointed out yourself, many people port or devlop open source software for Windows. So what exactly is your point here?
"Finally, the price you pay for Microsoft Office is worth the money, if your time is worth anything."
Ouch, sounds like the latest MS marketing blurb and no, though my time is worth a lot, MS Office certainly isn't worth the money for me, sorry kiddo.
4. Linux isn't secure
"And frankly, applying patches in Windows is easier than in Linux. Linux is pretty easy, but Windows is still ahead, I'd say. Argue all you want. But a properly configured Windows box will successfully apply patches to itself better than a Linux one will. At least for me. And if you disagree, just know that most users don't know how to configure Linux like you do, and so your opinion doesn't matter to 98% of the computer users out there."
Jesus...
Press on the little update notification on your panel and have _all_ your apps updated. Now that's incredibly hard, you are right.
About your other drivel. You are aware of sudo and acls, aren't you?
And you are aware that you can share folders on modern linux distros by simply clicking, just like you described for windows?
5. Linux is more expensive
"For the common user who just wants to be productive, and just wants their computer to work the way they want, Windows is faster, and faster means cheaper!"
Please show me the study that a) supports your conclusion b) finally shows me who this common user is
To sum it up, your blog entry is probably one of the dumbest things I read recently. Not one good point, only senseless drivel.
But the worst thing is that a tongue in cheek article, that sets out to debunk some myths about linux let you into a francy that drove you to write your stupid blog post and the proudly anounce it on
Relax kid, nobody's going to take your Windows away from you, even if some prefer an other OS.
1) Inconsistant copy/paste behavior between apps.
Self explanitory really.
2) Horrible audio support
(Every card I've used on windows has done multi-open fine, but none do it on linux. at best I can get two DSP interfaces on one card which means hard configuring apps. Don't get me started on surround sound.)
3) Major lack of applications/stuck with bad ports or buggy emulation
(Port of AIM completely lacks features, and no third party client supports direct ims with the same content types as the official client. eg, no animated gifs, bitmaps, or just inserting a file-- No official yahoo client, stuck with third party clients that dont do webcams. No IDE comparible to visual studio, or debuggers/disassemblers that can compare to whats common on windows (IDA, w32dsm, olly, softice), etc.
4) More of an extension on #3, but lack of games.
I don't care how many different toolkits you can put on tetris, its never going to compare to a game like HL or WOW
5) No reason TO switch
Really, this is the reason why I started dual booting and ended up never bothering to boot out of windows. Theres nothing I can do in linux that can't be done in windows. Task wise, all I do is chat, game, browse the web, program, listen to music/watch movies, aquire them, and general remote administrative stuff.
On linux: firefox, mplayer, openssh, gaim
On windows: firefox, mplayer, putty, winaim.
That point goes even further-- Anything worth running is worth someone porting to windows, off the top of my head: The entire cygwin project (which includes about as much stuff as your standard distro), firefox, mplayer, gaim, nmap, netcat, ettercap, etherreal, vim, and im probably missing a few.
--Sorry for the bad formatting, HTML inside a tiny slashdot comment box is a pain to write.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
One point you make that is dead wrong in my experience is when you say, "And frankly, applying patches in Windows is easier than in Linux." Now this may be true if you're actually manually applying kernel patches and recompiling the kernel or something, but actually if you're just talking about normal (binary) system updates, one of the big reliefs for me about switching to Linux was that updates are so much less painful.
If you have a system that uses the apt package manager, then updating your system is as simple as typing 'apt-get update; apt-get upgrade;' at the command line. Or if you don't like that, you can use several of the graphical tools (like synaptic) where it's just a matter of two or three clicks. On the distro I use, Ubuntu, there's actually an applet that periodically checks for updates and allows you to install them with a few clicks. In short, it's quite similar to Windows. Certainly, it's no more difficult.
Where the advantage comes in is that every damn update in Windows comes with its own EULA. Sure, you could randomly accept legal obligations without trying to figure out what you're agreeing to (though you still have to sit around and click "I agree"), but if you're actually trying to be responsible, it's a real pain. In Linux, updates to the OS, and most of the applications, are covered by the same license, the GPL, and you aren't confronted with a new EULA to accept every time you want to do an update. What a relief! In addition, the updates in Windows would often request a reboot, which never happens in Linux. Even if I update the kernel, I know I can keep using the system (with the old kernel) until I feel like rebooting.
If you're using a modern package management system, then updating in Linux is no more difficult than in Windows. In addition, there are a lot of things about the updates in Windows that may actually make the Linux process a lot easier.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
linux has no gaming capability.. HAHA!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I teach a class at work (Data Structures and Algorthyms or how to code). The other day, I put one of my students on my Linux box. He put in a USB drive and then spent 2 minutes getting upset. The drive was on the desktop marked in clear letters "SanDisk USB Drive" with only 4 icons on the entire desktop. Yet, it never dawned on him to click on it.
It amazed me that some things are very difficult for people due to it being ingrained.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Was SuSe, I had only been using Windows for less than a year and had "heard of this linux alternative", I wanted to see what the hubbub was about. Coming from stricktly Windows, when I installed Linux I was surprised at how much easier it was to get on there than a normal 98SE install. Mine did most things for me, from configuring the drive to formatting and partitioning without having to guess. My first few 98Se installs were nightmares. Still give me cold sweats to this day.
I decided to go with KDE, though I had no idea what it was other than "some gui". Had I known then what I know now KDE would have gotten das boot. What a resource whore.
Well sometime passed and I have reinstalled the distro on the machine once since the initial install. And that was from user error. I had purchased a new larger harddrive and was very inexperienced and couldn't figure out how to install a new piece of hardware without a total reinstall. Sure taught me to RTFM. So for me, gaming aside, Windows 98SE installs in the early days --- 3 per month, my first linux distro installs to this day --- 2.
My personal experience with both os's and derivatives leave me with one conclusion, both OS's have their uses, Windows mainly for those who would rather be controlled by their computer, and those who would rather control their computer.
I still use Windows for stuff, gaming, video editing, audio mixing, but for tough stuff, security, networking I use linux.
Thank you to anyone who reads this that has worked on any OSS project, and especially the Kernel itself. It's nice to have more than 2 OS choices.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Because servers running Linux evidently get Slashdotted pretty easily ...
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I fail to see what OSX has to do with a discussion on Linux.
OS X is a good role model for good user interface designs. Every now and then you'll notice that many linux desktops will use aspects of OS X. I think Linux should strive for OS X ease of use and stability and security.
Linux has the security down pretty much. A little too good though... I had downloaded the Unreal Tournament 2k4 to my desktop and not only did Ubuntu warn me about running it, but would not let me run it until I actually set the properties of the file to execute. Rarw!
On OS X, it would warn me and maybe ask me for my password to install as admin, but on Ubuntu I'm lucky if I open an executable script and it doesn't open a text editor (I fixed that, but it wasn't like that out of box).
Secondly, I found that to get UT2k4 to run I had to run root console and then install.
And to install Flash on an out of the box Ubuntu install on Firefox? It wasn't a problem for me since it only took 10 minutes of looking on Ubuntu's forums (which I will say are pretty extensive in getting information on how to do this), but I couldn't just open Firefox and install missing plugin like on OS X or Winxp. I had to actually edit my repository list and then run "sudo apt-get install flashplayer-mozilla" from command line...
I can do that without any problem, but I don't really want to have to research 10-20 minutes on how to get something to run every time I need to install an app.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Linux configuration files: they are all in different formats, and follow different rules. (case sensitive? headings? comments? whitespace significance?)
A huge exaggeration. There are a few different formats, yes, but this allows config files to be better suited to the program.
Very often configuration file changes do not take affect until you restart whatever program you are configuration.(sic)
This is also true in Windows.Take a look at Apache. A server widely acclaimed for its up-time, and yet you can't even change a single setting without restarting the server!
That's simply untrue. Send it the right signal and it will reread the config file and act on it with no trouble.
Compare this now with Microsoft IIS. A nice GUI that lets you change almost any setting or add an entire web site with a few clicks and you're already live. No restart, no downtime.
Apache is a server program designed for servers, which are often headless, so it simply makes more sense to have it configured with a text file. And when you are experienced - as a server admin is expected to be - it's simply quicker to use a text file. It's not a representative "desktop linux" application.
And you don't need a fat "Apache Unleashed" manual for IIS to figure out how to do this or that.
Funny, I've seen just as many of those books for IIS, and I never needed one for my Apache setup.
Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work.
That's a total lie. Even slackware, the most old-fashioned distribution, gives you a straightforward gui, two menu choices and you can choose which WM to use. Of course, if you prefer to you can use the command line. And even if what you said were true it would still be far easier to change in linux than in windows.
True, if you buy SuSE Linux on DVD at the store, you can drop it in and have it all set up for you. Windows XP brags about the same convenience and ease. How many patches must you apply to SuSE right after install for all the security fixes? Dozens. Windows? Dozens. Hmmm... Seems about even there. To be safe, you ought to be behind a firewall in either case. I've never found a recent Linux distro that didn't have patches ready to install as soon as I finished installing to OS.
While flaws obviously do need patching, I've left "stock" linux boxes for month with a direct net connection with no ill effects. There simply aren't the mass-reproducing worms you get on windows, the only way you will get cracked is if some cracker picks you out as a specific target. You can make whatever excuses you like in terms of marketshare, but it's still the case.
Let's compare apples to apples here. Windows is an OS, not a set of applications. You Linux fanatics get on Microsoft for bundling apps with their OS, and then here you get on their case for their lack of apps. So I won't even address the software bundled with each OS, since that is not comparing the OS but the packaging, which can easily be changed for either OS. Let's use our time wisely by looking at apps available to be installed later.
I haven't criticised MS for bundling apps with their OS. The fact is that MS couldn't change to including them, either because they charge a lot of money for them or for political reasons. So you get far more apps with your typical linux install. If MS did offer a version with its apps bundled you might have a point, but they don't.
Virtually every app available for Linux has a Windows counterpart. The reverse is also true. But the fact of the matter is, you open-source Linux fanatics choose to ignore this. OpenOffice is as much available for Windows as it is for Linux. S
I am trolling
"Windows;Linux;Mac...Whatever, we're all equally edible"
.conf files for simple. Sure beats some strange "intuitive" gui with bugs in the UI that stores your settings somewhere like "the hive", which isn't all that editable should it get corrupted.
It depends ultimately on what you are looking for. I'm not a big "ease of use" user because I've found that Microsoft has introduced "training wheels" along with "ease of use". It has gotten harder and harder to remove the former. But then again, I am a hardcore computer geek.
I look for:
(1) Free as in freedom
(2) Hackable (as in code is available -- Legally)
(3) Controllable. That means simple. Can't beat
(4) A system that doesn't treat me like I'm a stupid user (see Clippy).
(5) I resent not having a choice. Nothing like getting a version of windows with a new computer when I don't want it and I can't get my money back for it.
(6) I don't like giving money to a convicted monopolist -- regardless of how well connected (or slippery) he may be. In fact, a slippery convicted monopolist WON'T get any more of my money until he starts behaving. It's called voting with my wallet.
Linux users have a vested interest, I think, in popularizing the use of linux on desktops. Obtaining greater compatibility with the rest of the world would be reason enough for that. We wouldn't want those occasional web pages that only work in MSIE to become the rule of the net rather than the exception. I have some questions that, I hope, would prompt thinking users to help popularize Linux.
Average Joe Computeruser walks into a store and sees a desktop system with XP for $X and a hardware identical machine next to it, running Linux, for $(X-L). What value of L would induce him to purchase that one instead of the XP machine? How would the choice of user interface affect the value of L? How does the value of X affect the value of L? Who would provide the user support?
Is there a way the Linux community could persuade the vendor or OEM to market the machines this way?
I'm not providing many answers but I hope the questions prompt some thought.
Where's the CAD/CAM software?
Well, aside from the 43 CAD packages (some free, some open source, some commercial) trivially accessible through freshmeat.net, there is also BRL-CAD, the recently open-sourced CAD software used by the Army Research Laboratory to model and upgrade the Abrams battletank, and other systems.
There is also CAM software available, CNCsr being one example, used for control of CNC (Computer Numeric Control) devices (lathes, mills, routers, plasma cutters, etc).
There are other, highly valid criticisms of this author's thesis, but the lack of engineering tools isn't one of them. The main source of Linux's strength, IMO, is that it is used by professionals (mainly engineers) to get real work done, and this use drives the direction of its development, and the development of the software running on the platform. In many cases, it is the same engineers using the software that develop the software. This naturally results in software which is highly suited to practical everyday (albeit specialized) use.
-- TTK
Whoa there tiger... no need to over do it!
All I ever needed was the edit command from the command prompt. Quite possibly the first multi-tabbed text editor around. (I say "quite possibly" because I really have no idea)
That was the best text editor I've ever used before I started working with TextPad.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
I could not find a download site on the 'Net for it, so I went to a local shop to get a copy, which actually cost you money. When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened. Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.
After an hour I managed to install it, but first of all, it was all so different from RedHat, and secondly there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.
I may be stupid, but I just stick with what I know. I know that there may be smarter choices, but my computer came with the system and that is all I need.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
Typical UI designer speak, they obviously failed to QA half the population.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I've edited the registry, and haven't found it too hard. The controls are somewhat friendly, i can navigate in it and find out what's there.
.conf. It's menu.lst or something. Easy to set up? Gimme a break.
/S. I've been using MS-DOS for more than 15 years, moving to Linux is restarting everything from scratch. Is that really NECESSARY?
.conf beasts in the wild, but we're Windows people, we need a little help in here, and I don't just mean a nifty graphical interface.
On the contrary, if I *HAVE* to edit a conf file in Linux, it's mostly because i'm stuck in the commandline. So, what do I use to edit? emacs? vi? nano?
All these 3 programs have one thing in common: They're NOT windows-users friendly! In windows using the "primitive" notepad, All I have to do is press shift and move the cursor around. I go to the menu, Edit... cut (or just press ctrl-x), and then I paste (ctrl-v) around the area i want to edit.
In Linux, I have to RELEARN all the shortcuts to edit a text file.
Second: Linux *IS* a pain to set up.
The article says:
"After all, with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account."
Yes, but I didn't have those two distros, I used Ubuntu and had a lot of problems trying to set up the PPPoE protocol so I could simply *update* my software (and don't even get me into CoLinux, I still haven't been able to use the Gnome desktop wth it. There are so many settings I have to meddle with, and I have to edit the conf files using this "nano" program.
Alright, let's forget about coLinux for a while. The freaking GRUB didn't tell me how to specify that I wanted to boot Windows by default, not Linux. There isn't a button that says "boot this by default from now on". No, I have to boot into Linux, edit a conf file, no wait, it's not even a
Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications
I've TRIED to set up XMMS. It always crashes. Now how the heck am I gonna play my MP3's? The default player app (NOT xmms) doesn't even handle mp3's! I not only want enough applications, I could do with ONE applications that WORKS.
Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure
I'd remove that from the list, but I'd apprecieate it if you guys told me how to configure a firewall in Linux. Yes, I'm a n00b. As the grand majority of mere mortals are. Oh,yeah. "RTFM" is taboo, and I'm sick tired of having to scroll thru pages of pages of manpages.
Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive
Who cares? With reasons 1-3 I've tried to avoid Linux, I want things that "just work". Give me a distro that emulates the windows control panel, notepad and has a decent media player app that doesn't crash or hang when I try to play an mp3.
And to the detriment of Linux zealots, the "easy to install" distros are the works of people who DID admit Linux is hard to install. It's the zealots or RTFM uber-geek sysadmins who just tried to ignore the problem. They didn't move A FINGER to try to solve the problem. After all, what problem?
Well, after years of saying the Gimp was NOT user friendly, FINALLY we get a usability group working on it.
Until linux fans start admitting that Linux isn't perfect, or not as user-friendly as it SHOULD be, we will HAVE to be stuck with Windows.
The author of the article seemed to think that all the people who don't want to use (or don't still feel comfortable using) Linux, are Microsoft-fooled sheeps. Well I'm not. I _DO_ want Linux, after all I have tried to install various distros on my machine, just to find them too hard to stay - this is why I keep coming back to windows.
For starters, why isn't there a shell that emulates the windows CMD? As useful greps / finds / pipe chains are, they can't match the simplicity of a DIR
Unix Tarzans may be accustomed to swinging in command line ropes and fighting against
It does provoke some thought aside from bringing a smile to our lips :)"
And THAT, my boys, is PRECISELY the problem. You smile at these issues as if they weren't really issues (cause you're so smart). You attribute Linux's lack of popularity with the masses to some MS conspiracy when the conspiracy, if there is any at all, is right at home with you. You imagine problems with Windows that don't exist; and you ignore problems with Linux that stare you in the face every day. You are so happy with yourselves for being so so clever to make Linux work and decry others who seem to have issues.
The first issue is: I don't want to "make" Linux work. I just want it to work. Understand the difference? I don't live for Linux; I live for the end product. I, and millions of people, do not give a rat's ass about Linux as an OS. It's a command-line interface that's a lot harder to use than MS-DOS. So what if you can stick an autoexec.bat in there to run up some copy-cat Windows-like, but not quite interface. And you want me to replace Windows with THAT?!? You have GOT to be kidding! I don't have time to learn Linux and all the cute little "verstaile" things you can do with it. I just want to use a word processor, a photo editor, and a spreadsheet. I just want to get on the Net and surf around, get my email and send it out. I want to share some files, buy some stuff online, and basically create product. That's all. End of story.
Second issue: Security. Oh, woe is me! Windows is so full of holes! Bad, bad, bad! Oh, really? Norton has zapped every virus which attempted to show up here. Spyware is down to a near zero--all with two easily-installed (I mean, like, Click->Done) programs. And Linux? Well, first there was this cool bomb that gave the idiot root, then the password file was cracked, then the box was used in a DDoS attack, and on, and on, and on, and on--even with guys (not me!) who had so much experience with Linux that their first distro was on a 5-1/4" floppy. To claim Windows is full of holes may very well be true, but to claim Linux is the alternative? You must be kidding!
Oh, and MS has inferior products--just so sucky as to be unbelievable. Right! You compare Office with what? Open Office? (SNORT!) You ever do tables in Open Office? You ever do an index? You ever do a full-length book? No wonder. I wouldn't trust it with something valuable either. Hey, I still like Lotus better than Excel (Well, I've got it memorized is the only reason), but the fact is that I can trust MS products to do more or less what they say they will do. No config files. Boot and shoot. I'm done. It works. If it won't do some 3D rendering weirdo application, fine. I don't care. My millions of co-workers don't care either. Pixar can do what they want. I watch their movies, not make them.
And Linux is "faster," right? Then why do I boot up and wait ten minutes for a $ when it has to load innumerable drivers (that I had to specify), read innumerable batch files from host.conf to whatever (that I had to edit), and then wind up with what?? A "$"? You must be kidding! (Oh, yeah. I forgot: Autoexec.bat: "Run a Windows-like copy-cat interface." How innovative!
Linux is "less expensive," right? It's a good thing you guys aren't in charge of real-world budgets. Let's just say: It ain't the cost of the distro, folks. It's keeping it running. That's expensive, and you guys all seem to think you deserve top dollar. You seem to think "If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." You know what? You're right. You keep the more esoteric parts of Linux close to your chest, just obscure enough so no one else QUITE knows what's going on, then you're "needed." That's exactly right, and that's why you are going away. And my goal is to get rid of the last couple of Linux boxes I've got left so I don't have to deal with you any more. Then you can go collect unemployment for awhile and tell everyone else how smart you are. Two more to go, and one of them gets replaced next week
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
No fair, you stole my joke! But I was going to say Notepad, which everone knows would be much funnier.
Seriously though, they did leave out two very important points in Windows favor.
1. Games. Yes, PC gamers much prefer the selection of Windows games over the selection of Linux games. It's not that Linux doesn't have a few gems, just that I had to use the word 'few' in this sentence.
2. With Windows, you get to have the exact same warts as all of your friends and family. a) misery loves company and b) there's a much better chance your brother in law is going to be able to help you with a Windows issue than a Linux issue. Market share alone will fix this problem just as market share alone caused it, but until then the social networking of Windows users helping other Windows users with should not be underestimated.
TW
P.S. I know there's this whole internet thing with lots of friendly people just waiting to help you with your Linux issues. Grandma will not use it. She will ask her husband, then her son, then every other family member until someone can help. If none of those people use Linux, she'll be out of luck. If some of those people use Mac or Windows, they'll try to convert her to a "better" OS.
In summary, your whole article was hilarious, based on Linux distros that are apparently five years old, and more frequently attacked the Linux culture than the software. All in all, you had one good point, but even that one point is moot for the normal desktop user. Basically, you, sir, are an ass.
Another one bites the dust
With Fink and Darwin Ports, I can get most of "Linux" software on a Mac. I can't wait for WINE for OSX86. 3 major OSes on one desktop... yum!
And if the mother has trouble with the coaxing, there are consultants who will help. Yes, breastfeeding consultants. My co-worker's wife's health plan explicitly provides coverage for that.
I wonder how someone gets into that line of work...
Dude, ever hear of sarcasm?? The article is making fun of people who give bullshit reasons for not switching.
You know, there's a lot of truth in that. The Mac, and the entire Apple experience, is intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities can sit in front of a PowerBook and just "get it," but accountants and everyday pencil-pushers don't have a prayer. Squares should stick to Linux and Windows. Macs are for different thinkers.
y .jpgj pgp gq .jpgj pgq .jpgm .jpgy .jpg. jpgd .jpgk .jpgg .jpga .jpgv .jpgd .jpgk .jpg
g boothsized0hs.jpg
Evidence?
http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/7792/img08079i
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3600/img10156rv.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2539/soho0uj.j
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5614/img66606p
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/6756/img64271jj.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5082/bleeder0w
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1672/img85083c
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7234/img82642a
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/787/img60047ow
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4819/img58719t
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9681/img46882w
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8519/img45081g
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3102/img39464t
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7783/img07414p
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5816/img07328r
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5096/img07309m
Versus:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3118/ms1by.jpg
http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7789/linuxnylu
Fact is that this article was obviously meant to be somewhat comical, some things within Linux definitely limit its adoption by mainstream computer users. BTW - I'm a Windows Admin @ work, and a Debian fan/user @ home, So please don't bash me for having an opinion of why the average everyday wal-mart/kmart/sears shopper doesn't rush right out and buy Suse/RedHat/Xandros/Madriva, when Windows works "out of the box", not to mention they've already paid for windows, why pay for another OS.
./install.pl then answer questions about my kernel-headers, and where my C compiler is installed, then make sure I have ... yea. Try installing VMWare from the tgz. My wife can figure that out. With me sitting there "maybe". * Thank you whomever came up with apt. I love you guys.
/etc is not the same as /var which definitely does not hold the same stuff as /usr. Oh and don't forget that not all applications will be in /usr/bin, but some are in /root and others are in /usr/sbin. Let's not forget that you need to put the plugins in the programs /usr/bin/xxxx/plugins directory... or wait is that in /home/bill/xxxx/plugins? Do you want /fries/french or /fries/curly or maybe you want /home/fries/plugins/var/french. ./go/get/a/consortium/and/standardize/then/you/wil l/have/more/users.sh -install -directory /usr/bin/thanks/for/listening.
First off, let's talk about those wonderful programs that Linux has (thankfully).
Windows uses Media Player. No plugins (generally required) for DVD's or most-not-all media. Linux uses Xmms, Kaffeine, or a myriad of others, all of which require plugins for some thing as simple as playing a DVD. Yea. I want to go through plugin hell just to play Blackhawk Down. No thanks. Insert Disc, press play works just fine for me.
More to the point of this though is that many of the programs that are available for Linux either are named in such a way that you would never guess what it does (D&D characters is not a naming convention for computer apps), or they are so poorly marketed that you can't tell what they are for. People respond to nice shiny websites ( http://ww2.nero.com/ that show precisely what the product does, complete with screenshots, and descriptions. SourceForge is a godsend, but let's be honest, that website wasn't designed to showcase your product. If I can't google it, and get a quality webpage showing your software and what it does, I generally won't bother trying to figure it out. I don't have the time to fiddle with crap. I need to see it, determine if it meets my needs and either download it or move on. If the download points me to sourceforge, thats cool, but your mainpage shouldn't be sourceforge.
Linux does not suffer from a lack of applications. If anything it suffers from too many applications that all do the same thing only someone wanted a purple button instead of a grey one and wrote a whole new interface/application to get it.
Application installation. Sure. Let me tar -xjvf that, then switch directories, and
Moving on. Setup. Yes Xandros is a breeze to install. It also costs money of you want to do anything with Active Directory. Many distro's are free but at what cost? Let's see, I have to recompile the kernel (yea, my wife will do that), if I want to suspend my laptop. I have to download kernel-headers (yea my wife knows what those are) to install mad-wifi to get my wireless to work. Let's not mention all the hoops you have to go through to get the configuration working properly. Oh and don't forget you need to modprobe some items before and after you suspend or else the machine simply won't resume properly. Along with all this though... try installing VMWare on Xandros (OC 3.02). It's almost funny. (BTW - Xandros People. Nice job guys. Seriously, keep up the good work.)
All in All, everyone should be capable of using Linux. Its all very simple. Assuming you know that
You miss: 11. Pray
It's hard to explain why the "new way" is harder to use but still better because it is harder to use and that makes is worse. If you tell me the new way is better for obscure technical reasons, but by the way, you have to do backflips or it won't work, then the new way can go fuck itself.
Is it so hard to have both a cached disk and one you can eject whenever you want? The computer could maybe let you know when you pulled the plug that not everything had finished and could finish if you plug it back in for a sec right now, or maybe you'd just prefer to wait for some other time to plug it back in. Isn't this what journaled fs's are for? Atomic transactions? It's certainly within the realm of possibility, and you should wish it existed for your GF's sake and for all other people who don't have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! ... er, I mean, have neither the time nor the inclination to babysit the
computer.
If you really need a disk that cannot be ejected until the computer is ready, then design one that way. Mounted cdroms don't eject when you press the button (they should unmount themeselves and eject, but that's beside the point); they only eject when the computer releases them.
Another example: Is it so hard to have a computer that doesn't require a "shut down"? Put a battery in there if you need a little time for housekeeping before the power gets cut.
If you ever have to say "it's better, but oh it's worse, but it's really still better", then you're doing something wrong. It really is worse.
Now, sure, there are times you can't have your cake and eat it too. But the examples above are not such times. Also, the road to perfection may be long and arduous, but one shouldn't accept defeat, and one certainly must not turn a blind eye to imperfections merely because it's the "new way".
The problem is this is slashdot, and you can't mention windows and linux in the same article without starting a thread like this. We all know it is pointless, and agree completely with what you said. But as long as people write articles about comparing the two, slashdotters will continue to discuss/flame/disagree about which is better. I say flame the writers who keep bringing up the issue. Ah screw it. Let's all switch to MAC's. Unix core, Windows useability (arguement over)... Microsoft can continue to sell us the mice.
Linux itself is a reaction to draconian software pricing.
Anyway, Western society tells people they must experience rather than think. We've become an entertainment culture rather than a productive one.
MS has been coddling windows users for 20 years, and doing it in such a way that the user simply can't be insulted by it: they're too busy being intimidated. Apple users generally aren't clueless, and they're not treated that way. The people who use Linux are those who have sought it out (frustration), been exposed to it for practical means, or think of and use a computer as a tool. The key words there are think, use, and tool: the basis of human civilization.
We wouldn't be where we are now if our ancestors had just sat around laughing at the other jungle animals and staring up at the stars. We'd still be doing that now.
Oh shit, we are. Except that our big, unused brains that give us the skill of language allow us to refer to these activities as "reality TV" and "Dukes of Hazzard on the silver screen".
When people re-learn how to think for themselves, Linux usage will rise. That's just one change for the better.
I have neither the time nor the extreme technical knowledge of the details involved with writing drivers for all the hardware I buy for my computers.
I want something that works the way it says it will on the box, not something that I have to scour the web for in vain hopes someone else already wrote the drivers for it, or dig into the details trying to piecemeal my own together to get it to do what it says on the box.
Simply checking HP's website for my all-in-one wireless networked printer/scanner/copy/fax yields Windows and Mac drivers. None for Linux.
Granted, most of the functionality (copy/scan/fax) can be done with the built-in web interface for my printer, but I like to actually print from the computer once in a while, and that requires drivers on my computers.
Not to mention fully manufacturer-supported drivers for video cards, TV-tuners, etc. (yes, I know there's some things in Linux that will do this, but it's not as easy as in Windows -- plug in the hardware, start windows, when it finds the hardware, put the CD in and hit 'install')
Which brings me to another point. I love the flexibility that Linux and such allow, but sometimes I want to listen to a music CD (not mp3, not ogg). In Windows, I can put the disc in the drive, and it brings up Windows Media Player and starts playing. Done. Half the time I've installed Linux, I don't even have sound. The rest of the time, I keep forgetting how to mount/unmout CD's so I can get to the content on them. Let alone figure out which one of the pre-installed media players actually works.
Yes, I am a nerd, but I am one who is very distracted by real life as well. I don't always have time to rebuild drivers and kernels and reconfigure everything every time I buy a new piece of hardware to plug into my computers. I like things that work they way they say they will on the box the first time I try.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
Who the flying frosted fuck modded you Insightful five times? Sorry, you fail.
...there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.
./configure (if it runs into depency problems simply recurse through these steps again), make, make install. But then again if you didn't install GCC or some other compiler when you first installed Linux... well, you're fucked. Reinstall the whole system and don't forget GCC this time.
When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened.
What, you mean the initial blue install screen? Yeah, the mouse doesn't work there. Instead you have to use that silly "keyboard" thing. Of course, ignore the fact that Linux also requires you to hit enter a few times before you can use the mouse -- well, so long as you don't have a serial mouse. Those don't work with modern Linux distros -- except for that distro over there.
Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.
What the fuck is this supposed to be? I can't even tell what this is supposed to be ripping on. RPMs don't take any room on your hard drive? News to me. Are you trying to make a shot at partitioning? What the hell is this?
As opposed to Linux which has everything installed from the start. That is, if you can figure out how to run it. Oooh, right, open a terminal, type "/usr/bin/xinetd restart" if you're on RedHat. Or type "/usr/sbin/xinetd restart" on Suse. Or "/etc/bin/xinetd restart" on Gentoo. Err-- but that's only if you have it installed. Do you have it installed? You can find out by typing "dpkg -xinetd" on RedHat. Or "apt ?xinetd" on Gentoo. Or "ejfao xinetd" on Suse. And if it gives you ErrorX you're missing some depencencies. And those depencies can be obtained from XXXXXX.org. Or dpkg. Or apt-get. And if you can't find an RPM for your distro, you have to compile it from source. If you can get the source, that is. And once you've (maybe) obtained the source, simply run
IT'S SO FUCKING EASY, EVEN A THIRD GRADER COULD DO IT!
But I'll get modded troll for this.
For the same reason people feel the need to force their preferences in religion... they need to have that comfort level in believing they are not the only ones and that thier beliefs are in tune with the beliefs of others.
Although I enjoyed and agreed with the article, they glossed over Plug-n-Play. That IMO, more than anything, is what keeps Windows ahead of Linux in usage. Plug in a USB device and it works. Plug in a device, and pop in the CD when prompted. I have had more problems with USB devices on Linux -- even USB storage -- that it is a major detractor to widespread acceptance. I do like the selection of Linux apps (for the types that I use) though.
Have Keyboard, Will Travel
Well if nobody in her family uses linux, then who the hell installed it in her computer? The Gnomes?
Well... maaaaybe the Gnomes, but who else?
I have since tried Windows some more, and I think it is fine if you get a bit used to it. My friend at school uses it a lot. He says it can do all different kind of things, but you have to buy some more stuff or get it from an FTP server in zero days.
I am not so skilled at the things you mentioned, but I will try it out and see what it can do for me. My system is a RedHat, which I bought with the software on. What I find hard about Windows is that you have to install it yourself.
My cousine helps me with the computer. Sometimes he needs to become "rude" on the computer to make it work. Is it why you are rude too?
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
Transgaming is good if you are a Linux user who wants to play Windows games that you would otherwise be completely unable to play. I've used it myself to do that, and am probably going to soon in order to play WoW. Since I'm never going to use Windows again, some level of Windows gaming support is better than zero. Yet suggesting that it would allow someone who is primarily interested in playing games for Windows to ditch Windows is unjustified.
Even the officially supported games have many problems that Windows users don't have to suffer. Bugs, crashing, performance divits, non-working features even in "officially supported" games like WoW and Counterstrike. Even if it does work more or less flawlessly on one release, that is no guarantee that it will work on the next (in fact WoW is apparently just such a case).
And that's still ignoring that there are probably thousands of games that aren't even in the transgaming database, or are there but have no playability rating and don't work at all if you try. You are at best limited to a small sampling of the total number of games available for Windows .
Cedega is a fine way for a Linux user to expand the number of games they can play. It does not in any way allow a Windows gamer to ditch Windows.
The enemies of Democracy are
If you just wanted something up and working quickly then you shouldn't have used slackware. Its package management system deliberately doesn't have dependencies, so its up to the user to determine for themselves what other packages a package requires. The time taken to determine dependencies for something like X and GNOME would be massive and not trivial for mysql either. Not to mention that you downloaded RPMs off the MySQL website which probably weren't even meant for that distro - especially since it doesn't even use RPM packages!
At this point I have wasted most of my free weekend futzing around. I decide to install onto Windows Server 2003 just to "git 'r done" before Monday. The mysql graphical install goes without a hitch, enter my port and root password info in to the nice dialogs, and the service starts right up. Same with the apache install. Same with the Perl install.
If you really had used lots if different Linux distros consistently for years you'd have known that installing mysql, apache and perl on a modern Linux distro (such as Ubuntu/Debian, Mandriva, Fedora/RHEL and others) is as simple as:
$PKGMANAGEMENTPROGRAM mysql apache perl
where $PKGMANAGEMENTPROGRAM is one of apt-get, urpmi, yum etc.
This would automatically resolve and install dependencies and install those programs in a working state. You would even have saved a few minutes extra versus Win 2003 on the time it would take you to navigate to each of those program's web site, download and install through the install wizards on that system. You could then have spent your 2 hours on bugzilla config and been done - free to enjoy your weekend.
If you chose the wrong distro for your task then its not a fault with Linux but a problem between your chair and your keyboard.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.