Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
LXer has an interesting look at the big three operating systems with some surprising results. From the article: "If you think that a Linux advocate cannot make an objective analysis of desktop operating systems, then you need to read this report. You may find yourself surprised with some brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy."
This poor little http server is on the front page of Slashdot and Digg simultaneously.
Just thought I'd put in my $0.02 adsense.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
And now we wait for the holy war between OS fanatics to break out again...
Not everyone wants to read digg and sort through what majority of people thinks is cool (although often right, at one time majority thought the "earth is flat").
The article advertises itself as "brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy." With a headline like that, I was hoping to get a real analysis of what's going right and what's going wrong for all three. Instead, the author ends up dodging the key positives and negatives of each system in favor of more nebulous concepts like available software. His conclusion is that Linux is losing because it doesn't have eductional titles or tax software. Excuse me?
A more thorough analysis would have focused on why these packages are lacking. What is so special about Windows and Mac that they have these markets clinched? Does his analysis show that Linux needs this software, or is it actually competing in a different market? These are the types of questions that are actually important.
Finally, some of his analysis was just confusing. According to the author, Apple is nicer than Windows because they make nice hardware. Wait. Aren't we comparing software? If hardware is a key issue, why isn't that brought up in all three analyses? And why does he believe that the higher price of Apple's hardware makes it only appealing to Enterprise users when it's quite obviously home users who use it?
All in all, I give him an A+ for effort, but a D- for content. He's really trying, but he doesn't have any real goal in mind during his comparisons. As a result, his analysis comes out confused and unfocused.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
,etc. Then I started using the Mac as a production machine at a DoE lab.
Posted by tadelste on Mar 19, 2006 3:44 PM
Lxer.com; By Tom Adelstein
If you think that a Linux advocate cannot make an objective analysis of desktop operating systems, then you need to read this report. You may find yourself surprised with some brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy.
All three desktop operating systems have admirable qualities. Each has some weaknesses. Attending a recent User Group Fair, I had another chance to see them at work. Having used and programmed on each platform provides some unbiased insights.
Background
I have owned several Macintosh computers. I had new world and old world bios machines including several older 6500s, 7600s, etc. that would not take OS X. I also had a blue and white, a beige workgroup server, Power Mac G4s, a Cube, iBook, etc. I remember making the transition from OS 9 to OS X. I liked it.
I used Microsoft from the DOS days to early Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.11, Windows 95, 98, ME, NT3.51 - 4.0, 2000 and XP. I still have the licenses and media for everything since Windows 3.1. I managed large IBM networks with OS/2 on the desktop and LAN Server 3 as the server. I won't get into my NetWare experience.
I used Solaris, AIX and Linux starting with Slackware 3x. I even ran Red Hat on Sun IPCs, Sparc 5 and 10 workstations. I'm now using SUSE SLES and Pro, RHEL, Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu for daily use on servers and workstations.
Each system has different programing architectures with OS X a little closer to Linux than Windows. OS X uses a UNIX architecture to run its internals. However, the OS X desktop interface does not resemble Linux or other UNICES which depend on X. You can use X on the Mac natively.
Windows has a completely different programing structure from OS X and Linux. Windows relies heavily on its user interface which has evolved over time. Programing involves using Windows shell extensions. XP uses the NT kernel to manage file systems, internals and communication with the graphical shell.
OS X and Linux use completely different schemes with kernel extensions and independent programs running inside the user interface shell. The UNIX shell runs independently in what kernel developers call userland.
UNIX and Linux programmers consider their programing methods preferable to Windows. Windows developers consider the interface extensions easier to use and providing for more rapid application development. Each have merit when you look at them objectively. Of course, Macintosh developers will say that since they moved to the UNIX method that they experience more stability.
Macintosh
I started with the first Mac configured as a desktop publishing machine. I remember liking it because it cut costs we otherwise spent on type setting and graphics, paste up
For personal use, I used the Mac for graphics, audio productions and developing web sites. OS X made a huge difference since I didn't have to reboot in the middle of working. I also knew my way around UNIX and that allowed me to use Internet applications I hadn't used previously.
I found the developers tools useful. I enjoyed the interface. I found myself exploring more of the system when I purchased "OS X, the Missing Manual". The same book helped me discover ways of using Windows and Linux I hadn't known previously.
Windows XP
I recall using XP for three months without having to reboot it. I don't remember that happening before. I started collecting Microsoft Certs when Windows 95 arrived. I had used Excel 5 and Access to develop financial tools. Later, I became a sysadmin and ran a couple of large NT networks.
XP appeared safe behind our firewall. After three months, my system became sluggish and prone to malware. I did maintenance on the system regularly including defraging the disk, deleting unnecessary files and checking the registry.
I liked XP better than any previ
fatduck has an interesting look at the big three nerd newsfeeds with some unsurprising results.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
all software is lacking
this is news i guess.
it's hard to say, TFA is DOA
"Freedom and Justice for All" is a registered trademark of The United States Govt Inc. Not available in all areas.
http://lxer.com.nyud.net:8090/lxer/story/56437/ind ex.html
"Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP"
Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?
Cow == Beef
Pig == Pork
But CHICKEN is still just CHICKEN ("Poultry" doesn't count as it encompasses all domesticated food birds).
Using this known quirk, we can safely assume, that if all of these Operating Systems were a meat, Macintosh would be CHICKEN!
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
>This poor little http server is on the front page of Slashdot and Digg simultaneously.
What is this server running on?
Have there been any really good studies showing this? I'm aware of a few very small samplnigs that show something like this, but nothing that was statistically significant. I'd be grateful if anyone knows of a good study showing usages. Anecdotally, Red Hat dominates my group of friends -- if we knew about a survey, we'd probably skew it pretty good too.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Like people who care about such important things have a terribly contagious lethal disease.
That sucks big time and sounds like a-moral freaks who would sell their moms (not that I buy that point of view, but it sure as hell sounds like it).
- Each system has different programing architectures with OS X a little closer to Linux than Windows. OS X uses a UNIX architecture to run its internals. However, the OS X desktop interface does not resemble Linux or other UNICES which depend on X. You can use X on the Mac natively.
I get so tired of hearing that OS X uses a UNIX architecture, but I digress. Also I like how Linux sucks because software like Income Tax apps are lacking...hello? I processed my last 3 income tax paperwork via Turbo Tax online. What a bad article, no wonder I stopped checking 'digg.com'fak3r.com
That server got _Served_!
*rimshot*
You can multi-boot all of these on the Intel Macs. Problem solved.
What's that mean?
Someone rambles about 3 operating system == "interesting look" @ slashdot...
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
sorry, I could not find that story at Digg. Mind passing the link? so that I could post here. :)
What matters here more is the discussion, which is often very thoughtful (like this :-) ) and not the stories or who posted first (digg or /.). Sorry, I respect your low UID, but saw that this was your second comment today on the subject.
Offtopic interesting link: Digg vs. Slashdot
I wonder if the /. editors are on the take from pharmaceutical companies that sell anti-hypertension drugs?
It seems like once a day there is an article like this that provides no real content, but may inspire limited skirmishes between hotheaded zealots. No doubt some of them are on these medications.
Or maybe the editors just like to see the ants fight after they shake up the bottle.
Franklin Hoenikker, is that you?
Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?
No, the system works as designed. For mammals, the English name of the animal comes from Anglo-Saxon, while the English name of its flesh prepared as food comes from French. See also sheep => mutton; deer => venison. But for species in other classes that extend Chordata, the English name of the prepared flesh is derived directly from the common English name of the animal: duck => duck; pheasant => pheasant; frog => frog legs; tuna => tuna.
Sure it's got great graphics, but without tax software I just don't see it having any sort of audience...
Say it like you mean it?!
So should the admin check first with digg and not post the story if it is already there?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Didja realize when he spoke of Linux he was enthusiastic, but when he spoke of Windows it seems someone was forcing him to do it. It's also filled with excuses "The large volume...seduces", "The lower cost...".
I may despise Windows, but i'll never say it isn't a good OS. If you want to make money, it's better for development, and development tools are easier. Like AOL, UI is key to Microsoft, and many, if not most, developers want that. Plus, tools for the braindead like VB and it's ilk are in abundance with help files, technical support, and addins. It's debugging is usually superior to Linux because it goes line by line, making it an excellent tool for the beginner.
I like Linux, and Linux is robust. I am learning to use C with a friend right now, and we login to my Debian box via SSH to get it done. But one thing is for sure, it ain't as easy. (Which is half the reason i want it that way, but that's another story.)
Linux is more secure, if you know what you are doing. To the average idiot, buying Windows and Symantec's security suite is ten times better. It works out of the box, it has support, and is updated for viruses.
But the "reviewer" didn't even get into overall usuability.
Windows is better, hands down because everyone knows it, it's UI is beautiful and easy to use to most people, there is a great deal of software support for it, and games are written for it. If you are willing to spend money, there's nearly nothing you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows.
For the techy, however, Linux can be better in that it is control, speed, and reliability. Futhermore, debugging tools such as having the source, using strace, or having knowledgeable people in the newsgroups or mailing lists that speak Geek and are overall familiar with the techy nomenclature, can be a boon and a welcome diversion from the ignorance found amongst Windows support personell.
But, for the non-techy trying to save cash, or the techy trying to save time, the "other" OS may be better.
So much for my opinion. But (in my opinion!) it's alot less biased than his.
Have you read my journal today?
I heard that some people on Digg even know how to spell!
The digg story was submitted a day ago, which is also about the time taken for a story to be accepted here, and the same time ago that the story appeared on lxer.
News sites both having the same story isn't sad, but having to explain that to you is. Please think before you troll next time.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
I use Ubuntu Linux, Windows XP, and OS 10.4 for my work, usually depending on what a customer uses and what special software I might need to use. For Java development, I use IntelliJ, and all three operating systems are just about the same. For Ruby I like TextMate on the Mac, or jEdit/eclipse/emacs under Linux, but TextPad on Windows is OK also.
:-) think about which OS I want to use for personal reasons - all three are just tools.
I don't usually (but sometimes
I did my taxes this year with Quicktax under WINE. To my surprise and delight, everything just worked. Kudos to the sidenet-wine-config people -- this tool downloads and installs several key bits of software from Microsoft that many windows apps expect (such as IE).
No... I'll simply say...
http://distrowatch.com/
Top 5 are:
1 Ubuntu 2711
2 SUSE 1827
3 Mandriva 1542
4 Fedora 1199
5 MEPIS 632
Jonathan
~~~~~~~~
"I really wish I hadn't recommended http://www.justgofaster.com/ driver training to that Spanish twat" - Michael Schumacher
What ISN'T funny is 20 people complaining that this is on digg as well. I couldn't care less frankly seeing how I don't bother reading Digg, but is it really worth it to complain like this? Does it add somewhat to the story or something?
GoogleFight confirms it. Slashdot wins. :-P
Offtopic interesting link: Digg vs. Slashdot
Interesting site. Unfortunately, it's only a "FIRST POST!" tracker. It doesn't really compare the quality of the two sites. Digg has its ups in that just about everything that you might find cool flies through there. On the other hand, that also means that the noise ratio is pretty darn high. On top of that, Slashdot has a much better comment system. (Though Digg is really trying with their latest Slashdot-ripped-off-threaded-comment-system.)
Slashdot's focus and superior discussion forums really put it ahead of Digg for most professional users. As a result, the far more attractive (and generally better constructed) Digg ends up attracted far more students, highschoolers, and budding programmers than it may intend.
Final Analysis? Go whereever you feel more comfortable. The Internet is big enough for both.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Quote:
/. is my home page. It has a /etc/hosts entry so when DNS is screwed up, I still have a place to go. I like it here, but I'm sick of ./ being polluted with trash from other sites.
/. while they're at it? :)
" Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
tadelste submitted by tadelste 21 hours 22 minutes ago (via http://lxer.com/module/newswir...)
If you think that a Linux advocate cannot make an objective analysis of desktop operating systems, then you need to read this report. You may find yourself surprised with some brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy. Now we might see which fans are philosophically challenged."
A link would be useless as it's on the front page and the links are the same, ninth item down as of this moment. Hate to say it, but you obviously didn't look very closely.
Yes, I have a (relatively) low UID. I've been here for many years.
Have I ever gamed the karma system? Sure, it's fun! But when I submit a link, its original and not ripped from the front page of a competing site. That is just totally lame, in my opinion.
I've made my point. I won't post anymore "Don't post Digg stories!" complaints. Maybe the editors will scan Digg before posting submissions? Perhaps they can scan
True, I agree, and I skim the best of both. It is the people here that make me visit here. With their expertise and different viewpoints, I get to learn a lot.
Yeah, really, they shouldn't have posted this story just because digg had it. It's a completely useless article, basically just a guy trying to show off his knowledge of OS's. Post the good articles, not all the stupid articles that have been "dugg" by the asshat users at digg.com. Those dumb fuckers will digg just about anything.
#!/
Please stop trolling The Associated Press for news.
Note to you: please stop trolling Slashdot.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're just as locked out of Windows if it's bootloader fails. I've never once had a problem with grub in the MBR on a multitude of systems, and most people don't. I have had a problem with the NTLDR, though. Does that mean that Windows must then suck, and not be at all good for new users? /. about things not working exactly as they do in Windows?
Better yet, what did you do with the bootloader to make it fail? Did you try to configure something offbeat? Did you submit a bug report? Or did you just come and bitch on
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I don't do much in the area of Framemaker or Pagemaker, but most desktops will do fine with the functionality present in OpenOffice.org Draw
A better substitute, IMO, would be Scribus. But OO.o is pretty decent for what's included.
I don't see anything "brutal" in the article. It's just a "yeah i like it but it needs a bit more of this and that" kind of review. No advantages, disadvantages, complaints, specifics. It's just a one-page recommendation.
That said, once AGAIN we see that same stupid statement. It's taken as a tautology that Apple's stability is due to it's hardware. From the article:
"Macintosh OS X runs on a limited number of hardware devices which allows Apple Computers to offer a stable and high-performance product overall. Apple's entry level products such as the Mac mini provides a low-cost, high-value multimedia platform."
Bull. While that can't do anything but help, I don't buy it. I think Linux has proven that you can run an operating system on a very diverse set of hardware (that is, the same hardware Windows runs on) and be entirely stable enough to run for months without issue (Windows has gotten there, for the most part). OS X is stable not because there are only 3 pieces of hardware it runs on, but because it was well designed and well built, based on a stable and mature architecture (BSD). It's perfectly stable (from what I hear) when installed on generic Intel computers that it was never designed for.
Besides, what does OS X run on? It runs on Powerbooks, the Minis, PowerMacs, iMacs, iBooks, and the G4 Cube, and more. Each of those has numerous different revisions (often amazingly different, as the difference between a G4 PowerMac and a G5 PowerMac, or a 12" Aluminum Powerbook and a 15" MacBook Pro). In the year I have owned a PowerBook there have been 3 revisions, along with the MacBook Pro. That's one year, one computer line. Not including the different sizes (12", 15", 17").
When will people stop blaming OS X's stability on the hardware. When will they start to blame it on good design. Give Apple a fair shake.
Besides, if the hardware thing was true, OS 8 and OS 9 should have been MUCH MORE stable because they only ran on those few pieces of Apple hardware, while Windows XP should be much LESS stable because it runs on so many million different types of computers.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It would help if you described exactly what went wrong. What "precaution" did the instructions not say to do? Can you explain exactly what alternative to GRUB will allow dual-boot and is less dangerous? Can you list anything else? Can you at least give a HINT as to what alternative you would expect that would somehow be better?
Overwriting your MBR doesn't lock you out of your computer. Just reinstall from CD and it will be fixed.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
When you consider more tax software companies are making their software available as web packages, which OS you are using becomes moot. As soon as this happened I abandonned the Mac tax software, since it was a good $15-$20 than the PC version.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What's that mean?
That there's one less competitor in getting that girl to notice you.
damaged by dogma
I don't feel like going back and looking, but there was a nearly-identical post on one of the other recent Ubuntu stories.
Probably the same guy. Probably a troll. Definately a jackass.
sites down http://mirrordot.com/stories/f34848c5ef9f30457f636 9132c5921d9/index.html
shanegrant.com
Q: How do I get it to run on Linux?
A: I use a high-tech interface called a web browser, specifically Firefox. As a result, my tax software is OS-independent.
Really, this isn't hard, is it?
Finding God in a Dog
Make sure you read the thread that he posted on the Ubuntu forums before feeling too sorry for this jerk. He had a problem, and people tried very hard to help. He refused to try anything anyone suggested and became very abusive. People continued to give him suggestions and try to help. He just got nastier and nastier. His experiences are bad only because he chose for them to be.
- fader
i'm not completely new to linux, but i am by no means an expert. i haven't really used or installed linux in years. i thought i'd try ubuntu on my old computer (1ghz with a geforce 2 video card). the only problem i had was in getting better than 640x480 resolution. i finally figured it out myself after reading through the forums (where i did not see anyone berated for being a newbie). apparently ubuntu didn't automatically detect the refresh rates for my monitor and put those in my xorg.conf. so i did that manually and it worked fine. other than that, i have found ubuntu to be a great new-to-linux OS and it's pretty much well designed for it. it has all the software i would want on it with 2 exceptions... quicken and turbo tax. other than that, it's perfect for me. so i have it as a second box that i'll play with every now and then (or when my girlfriend is using my windows box). synaptic is a good front end to apt, although it can be confusing to navigate when just browsing around it (as opposed to searching for the program you want). better organization of the categories would be great there. the system preferences is easy to use. i like the lack of being root user, although it only requires that you enter your password to do administrative tasks. i think if it were to be a true multi-user box, it should ask for an administrative password for that, one that differs from the user's password.
besides those few things, i found it to be really easy to use and setup. i am not illiterate with computers, and i have used linux before, but i would still consider myself a linux newbie (although it was debian that i used previously, so i know my way around apt).
please me, have no regrets.
Every time I bring up my experience with "easy to use" Ubuntu, no matter how I say it, I get modded down, but I will gladly do it until I get modded off Slashdot if it finally gets the message across - DESIGN THE SOFTWARE WITH THE NEW-TO-LINUX USER IN MIND.
It's this kind of lazy stupid timewasting post that really makes people look like an idiot. If you as much time whining on slashdot until you "get modded off" and put it into improving ubuntu yourself then YOU WOULD HAVE SOLVED YOUR PROBLEM.
Ubuntu isn't Windows, it isn't Mac OS X. It's it's open source free software. If there are features you find missing and they're still missing after you've continually whined about them then you've missed the whole point and should be using Windows or a Mac.
Now stop complaining about it and get up off your ass and fix what you think needs fixing. Remember that if you're ever tempted to whine again, that you chose not to put effort into fixing things, but preferred to be a whiner and complain about the people who chose to be constructive instead.
RST
Guess what happens if you try to install Windows on a machine with a preexisting OS: It WIPES OUT YOUR MBR, LOCKING YOU OUT OF YOUR CURRENT OS!!!111!!1. Windows must not be ready for the desktop! Why don't you complain about that?
It's interesting to be since I have a fairly complicated return (including long and short term gains on taxable stock sales), I live in a sales tax state so I had that, I have accounts with interest income, my income is decent so I run it through the AMT (apparently I don't know what "decent" really is since AMT doesn't apply to me), I have a mortgage and school taxes. I'm reasonably smart but basically a "B" type not some superbrain.
My 2006 taxes took me about 100 minutes to complete from start to finish- by hand- without a program. The only thing I needed a calculator for was the sales tax thing (for the love of god could they have made it more complicated-- multiply the base amount by something like 1.337?).
Besides you only use tax software once a year as it is. Most people who would be interested in free software won't make enough that tax software would matter anyway.
Personally, I think the -government- should be required to produce a generic "C" program or web page that calculates your taxes according to the tax code and if it is wrong, you only pay interest- no penalties. Tax collection is a government function- it's insane that we have these huge industries built around calculating your taxes.
Sure-- 10% of the population would still need accountants and so on but 90% really don't need these things.
I'm moving pretty aggressively towards opensource software and mildly aggressively towards linix. It won't be because of the cost- I can buy a complete windows system at Fry's for $369 - slap in a hot video card and a cool quiet power supply and match 90% of the score of any single card $1800 system on the plant. How they do this when the operating system alone costs me $99 and the bloody hardware in the computer is worth over $369 purchased piecemeal is beyond me. Microsoft must be giving the OEM folks OS's for almost free.
No- the reason I will leave windows (and not go to mac) is because of DRM.
It's MY COMPUTER. Unless they are going to BUY it for me and give it to me free, I'm not going to give them money for a system that is going to snoop and report on what I'm doing, tell me what software I can and can't run, and tell me what content I can and cannot play.
Sure- I may have a $379 special version of whatever windows is out there the rest of my life- I also might have a PS2 or XBOX for the same reason- to play games (Tho there is a ton of MAME content out there these days for linux).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I will modded you up one if I could. :-)
I agree with you on designing the software for people that are new to linux in mind.
Or did you just come and bitch on /. about things not working exactly as they do in Windows?
Dude. Seriously. Not helping.
Installation problems always have and always will be key areas that users complain about. Users think of Macs and Windows machines as "easy" in that respect, because the OS ships with the machine. They've completely forgotten how they used to have that kid next door come over to install Windows for them in exchange for a few bucks or some homemade cookies.
A more complete analysis would show that Linux needs the crucial "early adopters" in the home market who are willing to put up with its faults to have the latest and greatest. Those early adopters would then drive sales of OEM Linux machines.
Unfortunately, Linux has already experienced quite a few cycles of early adopters. Every time it fails on the follow through. Whether it be support for the distro ending (e.g. JDS), a breakneck upgrade cycle (e.g. Mandrake/Mandriva), or just plain user unfriendliness (e.g. user can't upgrade to latest package X from the repository because they need to upgrade to the latest OS version), users end up becoming frustrated with Linux and leave. The vendors take notice of this and drop support for their commercial Linux software. Thus Linux loses popular support until the next cycle.
I've talked about this many times before. Linux distro providers need to decide if they're really trying to target the home desktop or not. If they are, they need to stop targetting the workstation market and make something that really blows the home market away. Linspire is pretty much the only distro that is taking this step. It's too bad that they've got their technology wired all wrong. Perhaps Ubuntu can do it, but it will need to nail both the OEM Linux market, as well as user's needs going forward. Given that much of their success and failure is still dependent on areas farther back in the pipeline (e.g. GNOME), only time will tell if Ubuntu becomes a serious contender in the home.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
http://lxer.com.nyud.net:8090/module/newswire/view /56437/index.html
I'm not finished with it yet, but so far it seems like a pretty decent article.
Many of us don't read Digg and most of us could probably care less if it was posted on Digg first. I'm not about to look through 300 trash stories on Digg to find one that might appeal to me. Personally, I think that anybody that still reads Digg is either retarded or very young.
To restore your master boot sector and regain access to your windows install:
/MBR
Boot off a DOS floppy that includes the FDISK program. If you don't have such a disk, get on your windows machine at work (or at your friend's house) and make one. Once booted, type this command:
FDISK
That's it! You can now restart your computer and boot right into windows.
Alternatively, you could make use of a generic floppy bootloader to gain access to both systems. Gujin is a good one, IMO, but it takes a bit of setting up. You can skip that step if you want by downloading the ISO of The Ultimate Boot CD and burning it (again, at work). You can boot right off that CD, select Gujin, and use it to boot any OS on your system.
That should get you back on track, assuming you haven't already reformatted and started over.
Now, on to more general issues:
Dual-booting is generally considered an advanced technique. That is to say, it is the sort of thing that a very computer savvy (not windows-savvy, but more generally computer savvy) user should do. It is not the sort of thing that someone who is new to Linux should do. Unfortunately, it is exactly what everyone who is new to linux wants to do, since they don't want to give up windows and also don't want to buy a completely separate computer for Linux. This is very problematic.
Advanced users, in general, already know how to do things like restore the master boot sector if it was damaged, make use of various bootloaders, backup all of their data in a recoverable form, overcome some of the more technical partitioning issues, etc. That is probably why you got flamed...you are attempting advanced-user stuff but seem to be making beginning-user mistakes.
Did you know, for example, that if you partition your hard drive and put your linux partition too many cylinders away from sector zero, you might not be able to boot linux at all? It depends on your hardware, of course, but partitioning problems like that always frustrate beginners. The only real way to address them is to do a lot of study upfront.
Like I said before, however, new Linux users don't generally want to do a lot of study upfront. They want it to just work. This is a fine desire, but unfortunately industry realities prevent some of the more advanced activities (such as dual-booting) from 'just working.'
Anyway, best of luck to you.
Agreed; the GUI configuration utilities never seemed to help me accomplish anything in Ubuntu. Maybe it was just the WL card I'm using (some piece of shit Marvell-based one -- thanks a bunch Linksys for not changing the model number), but every time I tried to use the control panels either in Gnome or KDE, it was a crap-shoot as to whether the changes would get applied, or whether the system would hang, or none of the above.
I don't find installing a new distro to be something enjoyable or entertaining, thus I'll probably stick with Ubuntu until I find a very compelling reason to change to something else, but I think if I was going to do it all over again I probably would have picked SuSE or RedHat. All in all, running Ubuntu has been an interesting experience -- I've discovered that the "spit and polish" aspect of an OS counts for a lot more to me than I thought it would.
So I suppose I'll keep coughing up $2.5k every few years for a new shiny thing from Apple, since so far they're the only company that I've found that does it right.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I don't agree with the fact that linux is better for software development, for instance i haven't found one really good IDE that ties things together as much as visual studio, KDE does not compare at all. Additionally, most softwares you develop CAN be interpolated to linux with the exception of windowing, which you might consider to be a big deal, but for a class library development point of view it is not.
Seriously, Free software means that _this_ is what the people want. They want it so bad, they're making it themselves.
Very few people actually use windows- you ask them what kind of computer they have, and you'll hear "Dell" or "Packard Bell" or "Gateway" - maybe even an "IBM". These people have no idea what they're using or if anything might do what they want better.
Leaving out the fact that this is Free software is trollish- if you don't qualify any comparison with "This is what the people who actually have to use it want to use", then you're just feeding this FUD machine that zero-charge software equals lower-quality- because OF COURSE there's something available for Windows that isn't available for my Free operating system.
Doesn't mean I miss it in the slightest.
And by the way, I have no problems using tax preparation software on Linux, or converting things to and from PDF. I also have no problems watching DVDs legally- as my DVD player and software predate the DCMA.
I have no interest in Visio, Framemaker or Photoshop, or rather any other software that doesn't want me to use it. I may be interested in performing some of the tasks that are possible with these programs- but I've already got adequate Free software, that works and does things the way _I_ want to.
You're just as locked out of Windows if it's bootloader fails
Not exactly, boot off the Windows installation CD into the recovery console (that's what it's for) and type "fixmbr", unlike Linux OS's you don't need to know much technical knowledge to do so: 'This thing called an MBR exists, it's broke, type this to try and fix it'.
Okay,..."Ubuntu"...never heard of it? Is it a small African nation?
If it read Linux, Macintosh, & Windows - I'd buy it.
Heck, if it said Ford, GM, & Chrystler - I could see the BIG THREE...but what the heck is Ubuntu?
Bulls are used for beef.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cow
Ubuntu - "The Dreamweaver of Linux Distros!"
I like my software and operating systems like I like my women and weed... bare/nekid, and home-grown. =)
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
"DESIGN THE SOFTWARE WITH THE NEW-TO-LINUX USER IN MIND."
Yessa masstah, we will get right on that for you. Anything for you dear sir, please forgive us for not having done it yet massah.
evil is as evil does
then he's screwed
or rather, isn't
XP provides an adequate operating system for hosting a number of applications.
The correct - and more important - distinguisher would be that XP provides the only hosting choice for a large number of applications.
We all, and Bill Gates and even Wallstreet know that if all software available for Windos were available for OSX and Linux as well, with no difference in price, support or ease of installation, Windos market share would drop faster than you can possibly sell your M$ shares. Not to zero, some people just use whatever is there or don't know any better, but users are already moving to OSX in droves despite the app count disadvantage.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So, all the content on Digg is original and unique, right? No? Why not?
There is a bit of a delay between when an article is submitted and when an editor reviews it and it's posted to front page on Slashdot. The delay to show up on the front page is much less on digg. If someone submits the story to both places at the same time, it will usually show up on digg first because it just has to get enough diggs on the digg area queue.
I can't get to TFA, but I think I can guess what the author might have been getting at when he refers to "educational software", and you're about a dozen years ahead of him. He's probably referring to home-computing educational software like "Jumpstart 2nd Grade" and the Leapfrog programs, intended for elementary school kids and younger.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
boot off the Windows installation CD into the recovery console (that's what it's for) and type "fixmbr"
If you are arguing about which boot disk requires the user to type the shortest obscure command at the console to fix the error made from a failed installation attempt, you have already lost the interest of the average person.
It should work correctly first time (or at least the user shouldn't need to worry about the error if it can be easily fixed automatically).
I'll probably be modded down for this...
like telling you to put GRUB on your master boot record for dual boot, never mind that you're locked out of both OS's if it has the slightest error in running).
I've always had a problem with people complaining about the possibility of lilo or grub messing up any existing bootable OS's if something goes wrong. Yes it is a minor pain to go in and fix the boot loader so you can once again boot into all of your OS's. But the thing most people miss is that if you try to install Windows as a dual boot with another operating system it doesn't even *try* to play nice. It just overwrites the mbr and goes along its merry way without giving you even a clue as to what it is doing. [I'm not sure what OS/X would do]. That is supposed to be better? Why aren't people complaining about that? Linux was well established in the world by the time WinXP came out. Microsoft has no excuse for not supporting a dual boot.
Any comparison/review between the big 3 OS's needs to be based on the same usage patterns [ie. All of them from a blank machine through install to a single OS, or all of them and their support for dual-booting etc.]
Nothing to see here
That just reflects people looking for info about a platform, has nothing to do with people running the distros, just what is popular to read about and think about and, to some extent, a popular choice for newcomers, not for those established with a distro already.
An analogy would be to look at how many people search for, say, a Ferrari versus how often people search for a Ford Focus. The Ferrari are more interesting and people search for them, but doesn't mean that the proportion of Ferrari drivers to Focus drivers is anywhere near what google search statistics would suggest with this methodology.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A collection of sentences, some of which express something tangible.
OS X and Linux use completely different schemes with kernel extensions and independent programs running inside the user interface shell. The UNIX shell runs independently in what kernel developers call userland.
Sorry. That's as far as I got. If you write up the concept of being able to run the system without root level privileges as the very elist pejorative prhase: "what kernel developers call userland", you are obviously twisting the facts to conform to an agenda.
If ISVs could come up with a solution to Linux's continuous upgrade cycles, they still have unknowns with regard to whether Linux would take off as a desktop alternative to Microsoft. Possibly, the availability of Adobe and Intuit products could supercharge Linux.
It's the same bullshit we have been getting from columnists for years. The fact that this guy is a self-proclaimed Linux advocate (but really seems to be a close Mac zealot) doesn't change that. For the n'th time: Linux doesn't need ISVs, it has all the software most people need built in.
As for Adobe and Intuit specifically: I have never seen an Adobe product I have wanted to use, and Intuit software has largely been replaced by on-line banking and tax offerings.
Yeah, because that Anonymous Coward guy is really grabbing for karma.
I absolutely agree to what you are saying!!! I gave ubuntu another try this weekend. The first try ended when I couldn't get wireless networking to work a year ago. One year later, I still can't get wireless networking to work. The drivers are available but have to be compile for my current kernel. Then, wpa support has to be compiled as well. Then, I have to edit in command line the conf file in /etc using vi. Let's not talk about the hoops I had to jump through to get ati driver working. Doom3 is still jumpy and I can't get it to drive my Apple Cinema Display. All this is cumbersome to do because the root account is disable by default so I can't use the gui and must type sudo before each command in the cli. Really, do we really believe that many people welcome the opportunity to go through that on their weekends? Now with Windows, all I needed to do was put the CD in my drive, install the drivers, and plug in the device. Granted, wpa was no walk in the park but it was doable in an 1 hour. Apple was easiest by far because it already comes with wireless and only asks for type of encryption and the pasword. Done in 1 min !!!
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Wow, that's so much easier than booting from the CD and selecting "Repair Boot Loader" from a menu. Of course, that was Mandrake, and everybody knows that's not meant to be user-friendly.
Of course, the message "NTLDR is missing" makes it so obvious to the new user that the MBR is broken. I suppse it really is that easy to follow the instructions. It says right there that you need to boot the Windows CD, select "Recovery Console", enter the administrator password, and type the obvious, "fixmbr" (not to be confused with "fixboot", but that's so obvious, I'm sure no new user could ever screw that up). Yes, I'm sure any new user could do it, right after he figured out what an administrator password is.
The average windows user doesn't know how to do that..you make it sounds like they do. In linux it is approximately the same amount of effort: pop in a live cd and repair grubs config or installation.
Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
no hidden comments and I only mod UP
It would do more harm to force everyone who does a default install to deal with BIOS boot device selection (not always a simple thing, especially on older hardware) and/or partition boot flag selection than to take the risk that an extremely small number of users might get a bad MBR install and have to do a fix--specifically, booting the Windows CD in recovery mode and doing an "fdisk /mbr" on your hard drive--that takes only marginally more technical competence than what you're asking them to make everyone deal with by default.
Also, one can (almost) always get a Windows box with a broken MBR to boot by doing this:
Turn on the computer long enough to stick the Windows XP cd in it.
Hit the reset button.
When it asks if you want to boot to the CD, say no (I don't remember the exact wording).
Windows XP will load as usual. You can take the CD out any time after you see the usual XP loading screen.
Works as a temporary measure 'till you can fix it properly. You're certainly not "locked out" by a bad MBR.
Immediately after install.
I found my Linux system provided me with all the tools and applications that I needed in order to securely perform the functions I needed to do in my day to day live immedately after the 20 minute install.
Windows was very lacking, it came with paint as the graphics program, wordpad as the text editor and the only math program I could find was calculator. By default my windows system was wide open and vulnerable to virus and worm attack until I installed 3rd party software, at the recommendation of the windows installer itself.
Mac was similarly lacking in any useful applications as well. Mac at least was more secure than windows.
All in all I would say that Linux is up and running and is fully functional and secure immediately after it is installed while it takes days and hundreds to thousands of dollars to bring a mac or windows system upto the same level of functionality and safety.
Enjoy!
I would think most Linux advocates that knew anything about the OS other then "it's 1337" would be pretty honest about it's shortcomings, and even with Macs, If you talk to someone that knows what they are doing (such as a CS major with a Mac), you'd probably get an honest fairly judgemental answer if Apple's propiganda hasn't gotten to them. Macs are good. Quicktime sucks (horribly). and Apple is an evil company with good products (probably debatable). Linux is good, but still has problems with some new hardware in my opinion (drivers for it are often not out there that quickly (or suck) for a lot of new products that need specialized drivers because companies don't care that much, although I do applaud the developers of open drivers for their effort).
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Linux isn't hard to install. The problem with Linux is getting drivers for your hardware installed and working.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft have done so far - provided that you get rid of the *TRULY AWFUL* default Windows XP UI & go back to the "Classic" UI, as well as doing some registry hacks to get rid of all the "patronising" features that treat you like a five year old. When you do that, and accept Windows big design flaw (the ever-expanding, ever-fragmenting registry), it's worth using. I still, personally, use Linux much more but that's because of what I do on my computers & the way I like to do it.
What I *REALLY* have a problem with is the *WINDOWS MENTALITY*...
I've been using Linux and free software now for many years & it's great when I can run my favourite free apps on Windows or Linux - Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, Vim, OpenOffice, etc. Sure, many of free apps don't compare feature-for-feature with some of their commercial equivalents but if I've ever been in the situation where I've felt a free application needs an additional feature, then I've dropped an email to the developers of that app to say what feature their app needs and why I think it needs it. I've not always got a response but at least I hope someone is maybe considering my suggestion. But in my mind, this type of feedback is core to the advancement of free software because it gives the developers a viewpoint of their software from the usability perspective.
Unfortunately, the "Windows Mentality" deems that you don't feedback to software creators - instead, you just hand over money & have a shrink-wrapped box put in your hands. And when you try out the software, it either does what you want it to do or doesn't; if it's the latter, you just use it, put up with it & wait for the next version...
I really don't care how many people use Windows and whether or not they'll migrate to Linux. But I do wish many Windows users would make more of an effort looking for free software apps & just try them out. Rather than just handing out money, or passing round CDs of cracked commercial apps, I wish they'd put some energy into giving free software a try & contacting the developers - whether to just say "Thanks" or to suggest enhancements to their software.
I don't believe all software should be free - whether you write programs or paint ceilings, you deserve renumeration for any hard work you do if that's what you want. But the free software movement is one where everyone who has access to a computer can take part in - and with many mature free apps, they're now at a stage where it's the users who dictate "what happens next" by telling the devlopers what's needed.
Unfortunately, far too many people just sit there expecting software to just "fall into their laps" after they hand over money & it's that mentality that needs to change here.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Thanks for the link to that- I was taking this guy seriously before I read that. But I guess you can't help the people that don't want help. The jackass wouldn't even TRY to make a live cd!
/. ID to his ubuntuforums ID?
How'd you link his
A bunch of words that say nothing.
Just because Digg has it, doesn't mean Slashdot needs to post it.
(1) This guy thinks he is an every-man. Since most people are exactly like him, whatever he desires is what most people desire. (Please sir, I'd like free educational and income-tax software.)
(2) This guy thinks that his sundry experience with a smattering of systems and operating systems constitutes some kind of basis from which to form opinions of some value, or to give advice. At least he could have polled three of his best friends and make a data-set taken from four people who think they are Everyman. As it is, this guy thinks everything that matters to him is what really matters in the big bad world out there.
(3) This guy is a terrible writer. He doesn't know how to present a cogent argument, formulate a clear thesis, and support it with evidence.
I've read a lot of really mundane and pointless articles. This one tops them all.
Warren
perhaps, but I find that software to be less than a reason to say it's holding Linux back. Computer's are rarely purchased for a toddler to play some educational game. They are however purchased for things like doing homework. And 90% of homework can be done on a Linux box, because most of it is writing papers. Seems like that's all I've done since elementary school. Infact Linux seems better to me for homework
"the only problem i had was in getting better than 640x480 resolution." ;-)
You will get these kind of problems using something like Ubuntu
Try PCLinuxOS instead. It's what I use. The control panels really do control everything like being able to set your monitor parameters if it isn't auto-detected (cough*stuck on 640x480*cough).
Ubuntu seems to be the "default" desktop distro to the point people just install it because they've heard that it is the pinical of desktop Linux technology. If it fails to live up to expectations, then so, it seems does desktop Linux. I'm not sure if this meme that Ubuntu is "it" isn't actually doing a diservice to Linux by giving it a bad name.
I've installed Linux on desktop machines over about a 10 year cycle. I started with Red Hat and Caldera, went exclusively with RH, then kind of fell behind. Now I've tried SuSE, FC4 and Ubuntu. All of them kind of suck in one way or another, as far as the home user is concerned.
I'm frustrated by the "Open Source-iness" concept. If I get windows or a mac, I know my video card will work. I know I can play a friggin MP3. I know that QuickTime will function. As a home user, I don't care if nVidia isn't open, I just want my damn card to work. I don't care that some dude patented MP3, I just want my songs to play.
Granted most home users aren't running Linux for ease of use. But, if stuff just worked out of the box, Linux would be adopted faster.
Thanks for mentioning this. I really enjoy Ubuntu, but I really do wonder why I can't just upgrade a certain package to the latest without having to upgrade everything else. Makes no sense to me. I'd like to be able to make "exceptions" and upgrade a certain package, with the knowledge that it may not be as stable or may contain bugs. That's okay, because if I can always get the latest, then there's a good chance those bugs will go away soon enough.
Can apt/Synaptic handle this? In other words, can it be told that even though there is a newer version available, that it is really in the next release, and that the user doesn't want to upgrade to it unless they specifically request it? I wouldn't want the latest of everything automatically, just the apps I decided to set as an exception. I trust their judgement on most apps, and I don't want to invest the time to decide what upgrades are too cutting edge. So, again, this would only apply to special expections I told it to make.
One problem that I can see with my idea: If I'm running some ancient version of a package, it may be decided that it's too much trouble to keep it up to date with security fixes. That's fine, as long as I know. For example, Synaptic can warn me when I enter that certain packages have reached their end-of-life. They can be treated something elike broken packages. Of course, I should be given the option to keep using an out of date package if I choose to.
I hope that something like this happens eventually, because the Gnome folks like to experiment and change a lot (no problem), but then I am forced to upgrade to a new UI if I want the latest apps (and fix everything again). At one point I mentioned to my wife that Linux was nice because you could keep things the same if you wanted. But, these 6 month cycles don't work that way... I can't get the latest stuff without compiling it myself (which isn't all bad, but really!) I hope that Ubuntu finally realizes this is a problem and provides a solution. If not, someone should fork it implement this. Would solve all of my Gnome problems instantly, as I revert to the Warty version!
If you have a dozen monkeys typing on a dozen typewriters for a dozen days, you would have an analysis of Linux vs. XP vs OS X with a dozen times as much depth as this one. About all I got out of it was the there's no tax software on Linux. The author seemed to think writing important-sounding sentences would cover up the fact that he didn't have anything to say. The few times an actual idea was introduced, it wasn't expounded on, and strengthening examples were left out. If this were a technical writing class, this paper would get a "C-", and then only because it was mostly grammatically correct.
I personally think it is a lot easier to develop in *nix, providing you are not writing a GUI and even then it is easier to use linux or any other unix type OS.
My example, a couple of years ago I had to write an application that needed to run on solaris, linux and windows I used C++ to write the application and developed it entirely using kdevelop on gentoo linux, once i was finished I went to solaris and complied there was a couple of minor errors which where easily fixed using techniques that work with most C++ compilers, I then went to windows opened visual C++ and using basic drag and drop developed a GUI wrapper for the application. It worked perfectly on all three platforms.
Can you imagine trying to do this same thing using visual C++? With all the crap MS puts into it by default it is almost impossible to easily port to alternate platforms.
This application gets heavy use by the company I wrote it for, it took me perhaps an extra 2 days worth of work to get it working on the required platforms (I also checked it in AIX 5.0, FreeBSD and MacOS 10, it worked on them all). All that is required to get cross platform code is ANSI standards, there is a few special exceptions when you deal with things like sockets but there is alternatives there also. I used kdevelop you can s/kdevelop/whateverIDE/ on a unix like platform, there is no chance this would have worked using visual C++.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Plenty of people told him that when he posted to the Ubuntu forums, but he didn't listen to them either. He just whined that he didn't have his warez copy of Windows on a CD and refused to try booting off of the Ubuntu CD again.
Seriously, you're an idi0t.
--
U.S. tax payers wanting a tax preparation aid in software are hereby recommended to use a web-based application, such as TurboTax.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
TFA states that Ubuntu doesn't come with a PDF converter. An Ubuntu install is accompanied by OpenOffice, and the Writer module of that suite can convert almost any document to PDF format. This is how I avoid the formatting issues that arise when attempting to convert .sxw documents to MS word documents (for emailing homework assignments).
I've read many articles about the pros/cons of all 3 major operating systems and why are they all written by someone who ISN'T the actual USUAL end user?
"I've used every operating system on the planet, programmed for God HIMSELF, and built multi-billion dollar income vomitting websites" -cut the crap.
"Brutal Honesty" (which this article isn't) should be dished out by guys like myself who aren't so stupid we can't do anything but point-and-click.
Honesty my ass. The honest truth is all 3 blow chunks. OS X is pretty but dumbed down, XP is great but full of holes, and Linux is just too damned hard to use.
Want Linux to be more than a geek toy? Want OS X to be a big hitter? Want Windows to bite the dust?
LISTEN TO THE USUAL, NORMAL JOE USER!
This post can come off bitter and mean, but I am just so damned tired of being strapped to an operating system that only halfass performs. I'm tired of being afraid of checking my bank account online for fear of who else is doing it.
This is the perfect audience to voice my concerns.I've gotten to the point where I just don't want to screw with my computers. Probably since I do systems support professionally, I have little patience for doing it on my own stuff. I just want my hardware, apps, etc to work with no intervention on my part.
What I find with free software is I'm asked to make major, major compramises, and that the people pushing it seem to think I should be happy, and even thankful, to do so just because it's free. I particularly get in to this with audio apps. I have a number of pro audio apps I use that weren't cheap. Regardless, to me they are worth the money. When I check out the free alternatives, they are woefully lacking. However they get suggested to me as though they are drop in replacements, and anything lacking well "you don't really need that."
In the end, I just don't care. Sure, the open source ideal is nice, but if it can't do what I want I am not going to be a crusader about it. I'll pays my moneys and use commercial software. The ability to go to my desktop at work or at home and just sit down and use it, no problem, with all the apps I need, is priceless to me.
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if you're trying to upgrade one package and it prompts you to upgrade a bunch of others, there are some dependencies involved.
If you upgrade package a package that depends on some library "libfoo" that also has a newer version out, there's a chance that all of the other packages that use "libfoo" will need updated as well. This is because OSS tends to do a huge amount of software reuse. Windows and MacOS [X] software doesn't do that to the same extent.
The reason you can't just upgrade thet first package and not libfoo and all the others is that it will completely break things. Instability is what you'll get if you're extremely lucky, but it's far more likely that all those programs will crash as soon as you try to run them, because you're using an incompatible older library.
The good news, though, is that Ubuntu only makes minor security or stability upgrades within a release. You won't see a package go from version 1.5 to 2.0 within a given Ubuntu release, specifically because it's newer and less tested. If there's an upgrade available, you can rest assured that it's extremely unlikely to break anything -- these are minor, well-tested updates. If an upgrade is available, take it! You may be at risk if you don't. The updates you see are guaranteed not to be bleeding-edge.
(NB: This isn't true of all distributions, but it is true of Ubuntu.)
- fader
His opinion of the software problem, in passing he goes like paraphrased (I already closed the tab, no cut n paste) "linux doods won't pay for software". ISVs as a corporate structure are reluctant to develop speciality software, because they would be almst forced to give it away. I don't know if that is entirely accurate, but that was the gist of it. And they dislike having to recode their stuff every few months because there is no "linux" target to shoot at like there is osx or xp.
Those are somewhat valid points. And if you are trying to persuade some well established company to just stop with the closed source and go freebie open source...well...not happening real soon. Some will, most won't.
Sheep (Ram/Ewe/Lamb) = mutton/lamb ~ Ovine? Where the hell does that come from? Sheep don't even lay eggs.
From Latin ovis (ewe).
Unrelated to ovipara from Latin oviparus, from Lat. ovum and parere
If you had followed all instructions, you would still have your Windows installation CD. I'm quite sure they tell you to keep it.
If you borrowed one to do your installation, just borrow it again.
Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming. -Brian Kernigan
Sheesh, I've been running PS and FrameMaker in Linux for ~3 years now. Ever hear of Crossover Office? Yeah, it costs a little bit, but only the price of a couple of pizzas, easy to afford if you can afford $600+ for Photoshop, and if you're really desperate you can just use Wine, upon which Crossover is based, and which is absolutely free (just a little harder to use and configure).
I get really tired about people bemoaning the lack of MS Office and Photoshop when Office XP and Photoshop 6 and 7 have run better (i.e. *faster* and more stably) in Linux than in Windows for several years now.
Yes, if you absolutely must have PSCS, then you're going to suffer a little on the stability front for the moment, and if you're running a print shop (i.e. must have fully color-managed workflow all the way through in-house press) then you'll still need Windows. But I'm a working media professional and honestly MOST of the other pros I know a) are still using older versions of PS (hell, some of them are still using PS4/PS5 on a pre-X Mac) and/or aren't color managed for their part of the process.
I do just fine with GIMP (90% of my graphics/photo work), PS7 (other 10%), and Office XP (100% of my office work) and I do it all in Fedora Core with no usability issues whatsoever.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Bull. While that can't do anything but help, I don't buy it. I think Linux has proven that you can run an operating system on a very diverse set of hardware (that is, the same hardware Windows runs on) and be entirely stable enough to run for months without issue (Windows has gotten there, for the most part). OS X is stable not because there are only 3 pieces of hardware it runs on, but because it was well designed and well built, based on a stable and mature architecture (BSD). It's perfectly stable (from what I hear) when installed on generic Intel computers that it was never designed for.
You are quite right that limited hardware helps but you underestimate just how much it helps. If you think for a single second that a bleeding edge Linux installation running on some built-at-home-with-noname-parts pizzabox can compare to something like AIX, Sun Solaris, or an good Enterprise Linux Distro like Red Hat or Suse running on certified hardware you have got another thing coming. Any idiot can build a Linux server, stick it in a corner doing nothing worth mentinoing other than download movies and music off the internet, serve a blog page half a dozen people read and brag about uptimes. Does that mean his server can measure up to Enterprise level systems that are expected to run for months on end at very high loads without incident? The answer is a big fat NO. The most stable Linux installations (and when I say stabe I mean stable at huge loads, running highly complex and demanding enterprise level appliactions) are exactly what I just described, Linux distros engineered by professionals, not for bleeding edge features but for stability and they are usually certified to run stably on a very limited collection of hardware for which they are exahaustively tested. And this, surprise surprise, is also a major reason for the stability of OS.X on Apple hardware. Much as I like OS.X, it is a well designed solid operating system and better designed in many ways than Windows, I am also aware of the fact that if you start installing OS.X on random crapware it's reputation for stability would take a major hit. This, incidentally, is also why Apple will never release OS.X for installation on random Intel PCs as long as they care about their reputation for quality.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I did read TFA, and I presume you're correct. [old guy rant] Now, when I was a kid, BASIC, PASCAL, and COBOL were considered educational. Heh, heh.
Reader Rabbit says, "Syntax Error! Undeclared integer varible!" [/ogr]
Getting hardware working _is_ part of installing the operating system, for 99% of users.
in ubuntu's defense, the people on their forums are awesome. i haven't tried that other distro, and honestly, i have no reason to or intention to. i like ubuntu and i would recommend it to newbies to linux.
please me, have no regrets.
Guy posts on tech support forum asking for help, while insulting Ubuntu at every turn, muttering under his breath with little jabs about it not being functional and not being what it claims to be, and insulting the people who try to help him and offer him suggestions, all while whining the whole time that nobody is willing to help him, even though people offered numerous helpful suggestions that he ignored, and walked him through the troubleshooting process for four pages of forum discussion.
Then fast forward to the end, and it turns out his harddrive was defective, so he disappears and stops posting, never saying "thanks" or "oops" or "sorry I blamed Ubuntu" or "sorry for being a jerk."
I'm a linux power user, though irrelevant here. I switched to Kubuntu from Gentoo. I put the CD in, it installed curses style and booted into a perfect 1280x1024 KDE on my 19" Monitor. I installed XP, it booted at 800x600.
Interesting.
Heh. Slashdot effect at work on the front page. For those of you who diddn't get to read the article, here is the mirror of the website, courtesy of MirrorDot. http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/f34848c5ef9f30457 f6369132c5921d9/index.html
As for the entire article, its a horrid example of what people get when they browse the AP for news. It offers no insight or objectible reasons as to why you would choose one over the other. Simply someone showing what they know about OSes.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
What you want is called "pinning." A quick Google search came up with "Apt-Pinning for Beginners"; it refers to Debian, but substitute, say, "dapper" for "unstable" and you should be good to go. Or you can check Debian's official documentation.
Of course, that assumes that the package you want is in a repository. If it's not, then you'll have to build the package yourself.
I have come to expect Linux software to work in certain ways. Why should dipshits like this get to change the tradition of FOSS development by the developers for the developers?
This is the way of Linux, the way it's always been. I say devs have more responsibility to the majority of happy existing users than to clueless new ones.
Some people just want to get their work done. Sometimes the ethical hairsplitting and free vs. not-free debate gets in the way of that. Some people want software, not a cause.
Yeah, I used to think that way. When I started writing software to do some astrophysical computing (lots of numerical integrals), I just used the numerical analysis package I had always used in grad school. My thoughts were precisely, "Hey, it works, why should I change? It just takes time and effort."
Now the software's done. And it's quite good. So good that I want to distribute it, so other scientists can use it too. But ooops! The numerical analysis package I used doesn't allow me to redistribute its source code. On their website, they even encourage my colleagues to tattle-tale on each other if they ever find someone redistributing their source code. So now I find myself having to go back and change the software so that it runs on GSL instead.
So, in this case, not using free software wound up costing me some time. Last week I changed the first module over to GSL. And it was like a breath of fresh air. The GSL integrator is much better than the proprietary one, too.
I had always followed the GNU movement, but it never hit me practically until this point. The whole time I was writing the software, the restrictive license of the original numerical analysis package was hanging over the project like a cloud. Now I really can understand what free-as-in-freedom means.
So, if "work" for you ever means programming for a non-profit/scientific community, be very wary of following the lazy, non-free route. It may even save you some time, as it would have in my case.
Thanks a lot! That's exactly what I was looking for. Hopefully Synaptic can make this possible to do in the GUI in the future; it seems that I can pin packages to stay at an old version (yay, that's what I need for Gnome), but not to upgrade past the latest release.
Step 1) There is no step 1, your hardware works already.
Really, I only own one bit of hardware where the default kernel drivers weren't fine (a more recent nvidia card); compared to my experiences of windows insisting on new drivers every time any tiny bit of hardware changes, I find the linux way *much* easier...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Ubuntu is junky for Bluetooth as well.
May I ask in what way? I recently bought a DiNovo media keyboard + laser mouse with bluetooth, and it was just plug and play. Insert USB stick, instantly use keyboard, mediapad and mouse. Friend of mine is syncing phone with calendar and used Skype via bluetooth headset.
I'm sure there are plenty of other things it should do and doesn't, as I know very little about bluetooth, but it worked fine for what I tried.
Getting all mouse buttons to work properly has finally also become realtively easy thanks to the evdev driver, but there is still lots and lots of work to be done with telling X to stop meddling in the affairs of the kernel.
Spine World
When there is a comparision with the mayor distro's of Linux and other OS'es then we could see an good and (hopefully) honest article.
I have seen many operating systems in my lifetime. All of them have pro's and cons against them. My personal favorite is still RiscOS.
Just remember, all giants will fall, just wait and see.
Hey how do you solve those stuff by the way? Any webpages you could point me to, to try to uncipher those things?
With your attitude 95% of people will never use Linux.
Ubuntu is meant to be easy to use, not something that you have to "fix" to use.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
The biggest issue I see as a daily user of both Windows and Linux is that Linux is such a bitch to install, not just initially but ever after. With all the dependencies and whatnot, it's a disaster. Package management tools go only part-way. I still can't download a zip file from some web site, click "Setup" and quickly load it onto my hard disk.
I've recently gone through a Gentoo install, and it took me 4 days before I finally got my X working with ATI binary drivers. I don't expect the average monkey to go through the hell I suffered just to load a device driver. I don't expect the average techie to put up with that level of mediocrity either. Thank god it was Gentoo, as I was able to pinpoint the problem and code a quick workaround.
Then I tried to load Mandrake, and of course the installer crashed trying to load (you guessed it) ATI drivers. Same with Red Hat.. the only other distro I could load was Debian, and well, we all have our opinions about Debian now don't we.
For Linux to be accepted as a desktop OS, we need to trim off the fat, prune or at least hide the dangerous/baroque parts, and make it click-friendly. There will always be a market for hacker distributions like Slack or Gentoo, but for the rest of the world, Lindows is a step in the right direction. It's not just a matter of distribution and tweaks, it's also a kernel issue. How about a standardized binary driver interface for those who need it ? Simplify the things common people are most likely to work with and we will eventually have a usable OS for common people.
I look forward to the day when people are using Linux and have a reliable framework for us tech support guys to work with.
-Which distro are you using ?
-Which terminal emulator are you using ?
-Are you on Ext2, Ext3, Reiser ?
-What's the device node of your root partition ?
I don't expect the casual user to know any of that crap. They know they're running Windows (even if it's Xorg), they call any black text box DOS, and they know they have a C: drive and their CD player is D:. Why can't we make Linux that obvious ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
i think he wrote a fine comparison.. people are simply getting pissed because they're either a MS Fanboy, or a Mac Fanboy.. who fuckin cares?? they both suck complete balls in my opinion.. but i'm not telling you who to run your life, and neither is this dude..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
'It should work first time' is irrelevent, original poster was talking about _when things go wrong_.
There are probably more DOS boxes still operating on the planet than all the Eunuchs and Macs put together.
A well presented point. :/
I'd have to concur on your observations- with one caveat...
Any time I see "brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy." I typically expect to find no honesty present- if it's that brutally honest, it doesn't need to point this out.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And your attitude is why Linux remains an also ran on home desktop systems. People don't want to fix it. They want it to work. Look at it this way the VAST majority of people who use computers don't know the slightest thing about programming and certainly less about where to begin to fix a problem like that. With windows and OS X they call Microsoft/Apple and they complain. The tech support guy provides them a solution and then passes it up to people who can do something about it that something needs to be done. Often it then gets fixed in the next release.
With linux on the other hand, there's no one to call. When they finaly do find people (like people on slashdot) who know something about this, the answer they get is "Fix it yourself and stop whining you lazy ass". Which is basicaly telling these people do learn a new skill, then become knowledgeable to know where to begin, and then actualy go through the process of fixing the problem.
In short, it's easier for them to go back to windows or OS X because that's what they were using the first time and it worked just fine for them. And linux remains an also ran. Untill the OSS comunity realizes that without OpenSource Tech Support(TM) with a team of dedicated people who are going to make things better for the average joe and not just contribute to their favorite project, Linux will remain off the home user's desktop and in 3rd place.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Guess what happens if you try to install Windows on a machine with a preexisting OS: It WIPES OUT YOUR MBR, LOCKING YOU OUT OF YOUR CURRENT OS!!!111!!1. Windows must not be ready for the desktop! Why don't you complain about that?
Actually, windows warns you first, telling you you need to install to a seperate disk or partition and then if you don't that it will overwrite your current system. If you do install to a seperate disk or partition it then sets up the MBR so that you can choose which install you want to boot from. I know this as I have a PC with 2 windows installations on it. Coincidentaly the only time I've had a problem with the MBR was when I tried installing Linux for a brief time.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Oh, quite. Though Windows isn't really any worse than Linux in my experience. As long as you always use a version of the same vintage as your hardware, at any rate.
Perhaps ironically, the only platform I remember having showstopper hardware compatibility issues with in the last six or seven years has been OS X. There was a period around 2000-2001 when people were advertising printers as Mac-compatible but only providing OS 9 drivers. It wasn't pretty for those who foolishly assumed that Apple would have provided an easy way of using an OS 9 driver from OS X.
[ ........ authority ........ ][asrt. soup][boring.p.]
good use of E-Prime!
Never mind, the astro turfers will always downmod anything like my post. The "gimme, gimme, gimme" crowd doesn't want to hear about it. They all want free software that works, looks, and acts exactly like photoshop but of course they don't want to lift a finger to help.
Fucking whiners all of them. They are just leeches on society, always standing there with their hand out begging for shit and then complaining that you haven't given them enough when you toss some coins their way.
Worse then beggars, literal leeches on society.
evil is as evil does
"Or maybe the editors just like to see the ants fight after they shake up the bottle."
Bingo.
That's why they love tacking on some ID/Creationism tagline for basically any biology article, even if its not mentioned in TFA. Granted its not needed, or relevent. But I must admit to a guilty pleasure of seeing walls of flame arise.
I don't get it.
The fact that some code is sitting in /lib is no guarantee that it is effectively reused, I suspect that factors like documentation, stability and age are very important factors.
Ahem...I am a high school computer teacher who has been using linux exclusively in all of my classes for the past 5 years!!? I teach Gimp, Blender, Scribus, Ktouch, Open Office, Celestia, Klogic, KiCad, C/C++, python, php, Quanta Plus, etc., etc., etc.!
Why in the world would I waste my time with Windows junk? (which I did for 10 years previous to using linux). I watch other teachers constantly struggling with server problems, password problems, errors of various sorts, access problems, CD problems, virus problems, CDKey problems...well, I think you get the idea.
Meanwhile, I TEACH concepts, designing with apps, logical thinking and problem solving...
You can take my linux when you pry it from my cold, lifeless hands...:-)
Ugh. Poorly researched, overhyped, unimaginative, and basically just a rehashing of things that have been said a million times.
Move along, there's nothing to see here.
Actually his take on non FOSS available "packaged" is what makes the article great and yes brutally honest.
Linux users use linux because its free and powerfull. Most dont care about the gnu vs bsd licenses. If your not a developer opensource wont help you unless someone else makes what you need. Of course I prefer the BSD license but my point is I want to learn and get work done. Not try to be political.
Second, packaged commercial software is important in the real world. How many folks do you know who refuse to buy macs because they believe MS Office is unavailable?
Yes its there but most dont want to be in a situation where the mac turns into a doorstop if software vendors leave. My father wont buy a mac because he is afraid his digital camera might not work even though its supported. I know this is all fud but its quite powerfull in the eyes of the consumers who like WindowsXP.
In the corporate office somethings are only commercial and buying closed software is the norm. In this regard unix still has more commercial software than linux and Windows has almost all ISV programs ported to windows on the server.
I can't find a good argument to use linux other than browsing the web with firefox and writing a document or 2 with openoffice. Unless of course you are a developer then its a powerfull platform.
But the author put the fact that Microsoft's development tools were non portable as a negative. Most corporate users dont care as they only use Microsoft products and want something that ties into windows and outlook, etc. You can do RAD in windows very easily with the nice tools that linux is catching up in.
http://saveie6.com/
And you just gave a great example of why Windows and MACOSX are still prefered for the average joes.
There is no need to be rude back not to mention Linux is a HARD os if you encounter bugs if your not experienced with unix.
You mentioned that its not windows or osx, well your right and it will stay that way until newbies are treated a little better and taken more seriously.
http://saveie6.com/
Oh really? So a bare install of XP will play Quicktime video?
I think not.
Most things that serious users do with their machines require installation of extra software. For Windows and Mac, this requires hunting it down, downloading and installing it (even if the install process is trivial).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This was by far the worst 'wrap-up' article of the 3 OSes I've ever read. 1/3 is masterbatory self praise for his years of ignoring the obvious. 1/3 is "rah rah Linux!", and 1/3 is a stream of marketing excuses, as opposed to techncial ones, for Windows to be the market leader. If you're going to talk market, talk about it across the board. Same goes with programming, application availability, ease of use, etc.
mac os x runs windows xp and linux at the same time, on a mac, why settle for anything else? you linux people continue to amaze me. I cant believe all the linux peeps think that linux will work for everyday joe. ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. get real. OS X is the best, it blows WIndows XP out of the water, Linux sucks just as bad as windows. There's never gonna be any major companies or drivers built for linux. Get real.
It really depends. I use both SUSE 10 and Ubuntu on two different lapops with very diferent hardware. SUSE 10 runs great on one but not the other.
As far as apps go, SUSE gets you up and running with everything you need, including mp3, flash, java out of the box - but no reliable DVD/avi playback. But all it takes is two extra clicks after initial Ubuntu install to get the same functionality with EasyUbuntu. And that will also give you reliable DVD/avi playback.
"Best" really is a subjective term.
Actually it was about as bland as you could get; certainly written to avoid line-by-line nitpicking.
It's like discussing "Love Thy Neighbor" over a few beers with a Unitarian, agnostic, and New Ager.
the crap (less good) from the good (less crappy)...
Every Joe has his blog and wants to share his personal user experience with the other Joes. Some are good, some are bad, most of them are just average and could be avoided.
I wish that one day Google will launch a search engine that sort out articles based on quality and interest rather just keywords.
Sure, they handle 2 Windows partitions. Now try installing Windows on a system that has a non-Microsoft OS and see what happens.
"Installation problems always have and always will be key areas that users complain about. Users think of Macs and Windows machines as "easy" in that respect, because the OS ships with the machine."
I hate Linux probably more than anyone on slashdot, but even I have to admit that the problem is definitely not the installation.
The last installation I did was one of the 7 (point 3 I think) Red Hats. And the installation per se was not too bad the first time, and really quite easy the second time.
The first time I was like... okay... I'm gonna bite the bullet and wrap my head around this Linux thing...
True story:
Step 0: Find some hardware that isn't doing anything else. Get a Linux CD from somewhere. Resolve not to pay for it because you know it's 'free'.
Step 1: Lilo or Grub. WTF???? I'd been reading articles about Linux for *years* and never heard of these things.
Step 2: Go find some heavy duty tech support to explain what that is all about. Okay... so they're bootloaders (whatever that is)... leading to the next most natural question: which one is better?
Step 3: Pick one at random.
Step 4: Pick your packages. Try to figure out if the Java development you want to potter around with requires those strange emacs modules.
Step 5: Figure that you can always blow it all away and return to step 1. So you just start picking packages at random.
Step 6: Learn that Java is considered 'bad evil and wrong' and not included in Linux distros because it is 'the wrong sort of 'free''. Seriously, how can free be wrong?
Step 7: Wonder what drugs the GPL zealots are on. Decide that since the base install is *no damn good* as a development box you can at least use it as a digital jukebox and then play around with the programming side at some later point. (NB: in Linux's defense the distros do cater to just about every other obscure and bizarre language you can think of, so long as you hate editing in anything other than plain text (insert emacs/vi/pico flamewar here))
Step 8: Grow increasingly frustrated as you try to get the CD/ROM *and* the sound card working at the same time (they both work, just... not at the same time).
Step 9: Do some online research and discover that this is regarded as one of the more difficult problems. Up there with... oh... I don't know... printing (go go paperless office!)
Step 10: Goto step 8
Step 11: In a fit of rage rm -rf the bitch.
Step 12: Feel *really good*. Decide you want another hit of that.
Step 13: Reinstall Linux. It's really easy.
Step 14: Give it a good rm -rf kicking a second time.
Step 15: Ah... afterglow. Pass me a kleenex.
Oh wait, I forgot that there was a bit where I had to pick between KDE and Gnome. I think I may have uninstalled and reinstalled a couple of times at about step 4.
Speaking as someone who hates installation and configuration - Installation of Linux is actually not that hard. If we look at the list above the barriers to entry are picking the bootloaders, desktop environment and packages. And in the end, none of them mattered particularly much as I pretty much got a working system by picking them at random. Consider a setup like the one Lindows had where all that is taken care of in advance. The reason they can get away with it is because (heresy warning) none of that really matters. Linux has this philosophy of giving you a lot of choices, but that actually represents a barrier to entry for a first time user, because as a first time user you haven't learned the consequences of those choices. The sweet irony of course is that none of those choices matter.
So what was the problem that made me despise Linux with a passion? It certainly wasn't the installation, or I'd never have reinstalled it just so I could have the pleasure of blowing it away the final time.
Part of the problem was that as a developer I wanted a working editor for my preferred programming language. At Uni (many many moons ago) I used Emacs and didn't enjoy it. Then someone showed me
Most people are using automatic (windows) gearbox because it's no brainer and easy but it's funnier to drive a car with a manual (Linux) gearbox.
Also you can think about Windows as a soap TV for couch potatoes where Linux is more a Nouvelle Vague movie that will require you to use your brain.
Ubuntu is based on Debian. Why not Debian is not great? Everybody else is offering Firefox, OpenOffice, etc? How does Ubuntu different from others? Is that just the packages more recent?
What defenses Ubuntu deployed to stop virus, worm, Phishing/Pharming, remote hacking/hijacking attacks, etc. If you are looking forward to something new than package versions, its worth have a look at the Tomahawk Desktop, the multimedia Linux OS.
I would not call it brutal honesty but it is very interesting:i nux.shtml
http://www.softpanorama.org/Articles/solaris_vs_l
hmmmm, doubt it.
Now let's look at what the most common event is? That someone will be installing windows on a machine with linux or that someone will be installing linux on a machine with windows? If linux devs want acceptance on the home desktop than Linux needs to be coded to play nice as the second place OS which means it needs to be other OS aware and respect the space of other OSes.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
> Knob.
Cunt.
whut? I mean, I think I understand what he's saying there, reading between the lines, he's talking about the operating system architecture, not "programming" which might refer to the software development environment. Or something. Dunno. But I think that sentence captures the rather vague, uselessness of the article, i.e. the signal to noise ratio was poor.
How did this get posted to Slashdot? Not to be condescending, but this stuff is aimed at the neophyte, not regular Slashdotters. But then again, if it was as confusing as this, I'd feel sorry for the neophyte trying to gain some useful peice of wisdom from the article. Because of the upgrade cycle, Linux is at a disadvantage? Well gee, I guess he's never had to install any Service Packs.
Your sig is missing a http:/// .. and hmm, what does it do exactly, whatever it is it doesn't seem to be working for me.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
He starts off decently, although he presents his "vast amazing incredible" experience to a fault. Having experience, also, doesn't directly translate to objectivity, as we see with this note on Ubuntu: "It fits mid-level desktop users and works for about 80 to 90% of enterprise users." I wonder what he thinks a "mid-level desktop user" is, or how many enterprise users he spoke with to determine that 80-90% of them (a massive percentage!) would agree that it "works" for them. An explanation of assumptions and evidence for claims would be part of any decent analysis. There isn't a single mention of his methodology, the factors considered by his analysis, nor any regularity of presentation. Either he honestly doesn't know what an objective analysis is or he's just trying to get published (on Slashdot, no less)...
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither do I - get Mac OS
Let's not kid ourselves, this is not some kind of attempt at neutrality (despite how the article's description might lead you to believe that). It's about a different set of values without any of the interesting debate that even tries to justify those values.
"[L]eav[ing] out the free software philosophy" just means sanctioning proprietary software. Arguing the popular doesn't mean arguing from neutrality, it means taking the well-worn path of discussing something that is beyond debate for most people because they're ignorant of an alternative and the rationale behind that alternative.
Most people have not been taught to value software freedom, hence they don't understand it. In "leaving out the free software philosophy" one skips past all of the interesting arguments (if free software is interesting, and why or why not) to something that has been done before: compare title counts and discover that Microsoft Windows has the most programs available for it that people are aware of, which itself is a biased count favoring what is widely advertised.
Digital Citizen
One of Sun's goals for Java was to have a write once, run anywhere environment. MS wanted to embrace and extend Java so that it would be very easy to write a Java program that ran only on Windows. The project files that VC spits out are "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord".
Talk about double standards.
You download it from the ATO in Australia.
The E-Tax handles the most common things for you. Easy.
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals
They don't have to for 3 reasons:
1) They are the dominate player. They come preinstalled on all home systems except Apple systems. No one is installing XP on to a linux machine.
2) Anyone that would install XP on top of a linux machine likely knows what they're doing better than 90% of the population and therefore can handle taking care of that themselves. Furthermore the chances of these people actualy installing XP on one of their linux machines is low enough to be practicaly rounding error.
3) Linux developers are trying to reach home users, people who already have windows installed and already have windows. These people aren't going to give up their current set up just to try something new, they want something that doesn't disrupt their current setup. That means it's Linux's problem, not Microsofts.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
FYI: The first user on the machine (the one who installed it) has administrative access. If you add a user later you can check/uncheck that privelage while you're creating the user (or after obviously).
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
MSDOS and Windows have been in the home for twenty-five years. To be an influential early adopter you have to be there, well, early.
If that's important to you move to the netherlands. Our government gives us a linux binary to fill in our taxes.
How many times do I have to say that with true cross-platform development, the used system doesn't matter anymore these days. Sure enough if you stick in a Windows-Only environment or else, you have to care for all the little differences between the systems. But if you develop as I've outlined in wyoGuide (http://wyoguide.sf.net/) you can code on any platform as if it were the only existing platform while you code will most likely run unchanged on any platform. To say it once more:
"It doesn't matter which system you use for development".
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Don't try to dodge the issue with your qualifications and excuses. It's a double standard, nothing more, nothing less.
My highly non-technical sister in law runs Ubuntu. She ran redhat for about a year using it just for email and web browsing.
I upgraded her system to Ubuntu because she wanted to get an iPod and that was where the trouble started. The file system on the iPod became corrupted; eventually I used iTunes on a windows machine which silently repaired the file system (I wonder how often that happens). Its working pretty well, but gtkpod refuses to install some mp3 files on the ipod, possible because they are particularly large files.
I have serious issues with gtkpod. Its error messages are pretty hopeless.
Now she wants to get a laptop running windows and I am all for it. It it too hard maintaining her system.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It's not a double standard because Microsoft and Linux devs are not trying to accomplish the same thing. Microsoft's concern is maintaining market dominance. They aren't trying to break into the home desktop market, they ARE the home desktop market.
Linux devs on the other hand ARE trying to break into the desktop market. Their concern is increasing acceptance, therefore Linux must be unobtrusive, meld smoothly with current setups and position itself to be better without being a major shift until the time comes to make a new purchase.
Two different goals, two different strategies, two different rules. It's not a double standard, it's reality. No one wants to install Windows on a Linux machine, but people do want to install Linux on a Windows machine.
IOW in order to supplant windows, linux needs to be equal to AND better than windows. That means that Linux must have things that Windows does not. One of those things is going to have to be awareness of other OSes.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Solaris, HP/UX and AIX are still way ahead in terms of deployment, just because it's got a rabid bunch of followers doesn't make it "big".
I honestly don't see this. I started using Linux around 1998-1999. And I have seen all the complaints people had about Linux. When I started using linux, the primary complain was that it's too difficult to install. That has been fixed long ago. So now installation is so easy that people are actually starting to use Linux, and we get new set of complaints. Next on the line was "It's too difficult to install apps!". Well, that has been solved. I can install apps with few mouse-clicks. It's easier than installing software in Windows! And it CAN be as easy as installing software on a Mac!
We still face complaints about various things. Many of them are that Linux is "different" from Windows. Well, that is to be expected. Linux is Linux, not Windows. Many of them is that "my favourite piece of software doesn't run on Linux". Well, unless the user is not willing to try out emulation, that can't really be helped either. Only thing to do is to complain to the makers of the software. One complaint is that "there are no apps for this particular niche". Maybe, but that niche that has no Linux-software available is getting smaller all the time. Just about the only area where Linux is seriously lacking when compared to Windows is games.
So yes, people complain about various things in Linux. And they complain about various things in Windows and Mac as well. Does that mean that Windows and Mac have "failed"?
What is my point? I dunno. Maybe it's that due to the constant complaining and whining that "Linux just keeps on failing" we fail to see how far along we have come in the last few years. Since the change has been constant, we don't really see it. But if you were asked to install and use 9 years old distro, and compare it to a current distro, you would see that just about every area of the OS has improved by a HUGE margin.
Nine years ago I wouldn't have recommended Linux to anyone but a hard-core geek. Today I can recommend it to just about anyone, and I have.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Interestingly enough, I run all three off the same machine...
I am scientifically inaccurate.
I also recall this recent thread where he keeps making comments like this: "I'm also an engineer. A real engineer, not a "software engineer".".
In that thread he generally behaves abusively and continually attacks 'software "engineers"' (always in quotes) for not building in some kind of fallback when the bootloader fails. In spite of his abrasive insults, several people anyway patiently post calm, detailed responses explaining why his suggestion is literally impossible due to the actual design of PC hardware ('there is nothing to fall back to'), yet he continually ignores these responses and repeats his claim that it's all just bad design on the part of the programmers that wrote the bootloader code, all the while taking sideshots at software "engineers".
Talking desktop for a minute:
Apart from a few very very good high volume apps like Firefox, I'd be hard put to name an OSS product that I use daily, weekly or even monthly. And I am extremely enthousiastic about it all. But when it comes to ease of installation and ease of use there is not very much that is appealing out there. I keep versions of the Gimp, office apps, editors and the like around just for the hell of it, but apart from checking the apps out, I don't use them. Not to do any amount of real work.
Which doesn't mean it's bad, it just means that the people working on it aren't in it to make it work for the maximum amount of people. Which isn't a bad thing!!!!! But which does come in the way of "we'll conquer the world with our OSS".
While I think this review isn't worth the pixels it was written on, you can't deny most people can't be bothered with Linux for good reasons. And those who can will for the most part have very good reasons for doing so, but aren't mainstream.
Now, the same thing doesn't apply for most server side applications. I'm blown away by what is out there for free, under various licenses. It's incredible. These apps aren't exactly written for the average user, but most are written with the average webmaster or sys admin in mind. And it is mind blowing. Things we'd try and envision ten years ago for xxx$ paying clients are just up for grabs and work as advertised, are maintained and have a huge community of developers if you want to customize.
I've done a redesign (and some recoding) of SMF and am even allowed under its license to sell the result (as installation service). The people at Lewis software and most of the community are really encouraging. I've done all the work with proprietary software though, couldn't really have done it otherwise. Not in any economical way. The software may be free, my time isn't. I am reasonably sure there are not more than ten people around who could have done what I did on the graphics in the same amount of time with the Gimp, for instance. And these ten would probably run circles around me in just about every app, including pencil and paper.
It's hard to read bad things about your favorite OS, and this guy imo proves you can't be objective about that, he isn't by a long shot. But I just can't see the average desktop user switch to Ubunto or any other distro as things are now today.
I can see more OSS projects become hugely mainstream though. And hopefully that will give raise to an OSS desktop that is aimed from start to finish to a wide audience of average users.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
No one is installing XP on to a linux machine.
Yes they are. If I need to build a dual boot machine, I sure as hell install Linux first because I know that I'll need to create a partitioning scheme that the horrifically simple Windows partitioning tools won't be able to handle. Then once I've installed Windows (wiping out the perfectly functional boot loder in the process) I then have to go back and re-install GRUB.
So Microsoft lose on two points: crappy tools during installation and a crappy boot loder installation.
Story is a lame bullcrap and sounds the same as efforts of random idiots to install Windoze on Macs. I understand that Windows is on its place, but compare OSX with Linux?.. OSX can run everything what Linux runs, but it never happens vice versa.
So where Solaris is in that silly review? Maybe Solaris even more sucks, because nor Windoze, neither Linux is running Tokyo City Bank (actually, we did some efforts to run RedHat, but it simply crashes so often, asking fsck the FS randomly)?
*sigh*
Tired to reading such a moronic bullshit: "My $Foo is better your $Bar". All toys on their place! :-(
As a long time Windows power user and a user of various Linux distros for the last four years (Suse and Red Hat to start off with then Ubuntu for the last two) I have one thing to say about the Linux/Windows debate.
The main thing that Ubuntu lacks is a decent file manager. Nautilus is simply hopeless. It's 2006 and you *STILL* cannot recursively set permissions. It *STILL* copies files off a CD/DVD and doesn't set the users write flag.
Honestly after using Konqueror or Windows Explorer using Nautilus is simply a royal pain in the arse. It feels like I've gone back ten uears in time to something off the Amiga. You're forced to use a mouse and Spatial mode is simply a poor joke. It's an idea whose time came and went in the 80s with the Atarti and the Amiga. It sucked then and it simply stinks now.
No this isn't *supposed* to be a troll. The lack of a good file manager is the number one reason I still use Windows as my primary day to day OS. I've even shared my Ubuntu home directory via Samba so I can use Windows Explorer to manage my files because I simply find file management in Nautilus to be too painful to contemplate.
Seeing that GNOMEs goal seems to be to simplify the desktop to the point of unusability I don't ever see things getting any better. click. click. click. drool. drool. drool.
Why not just use Konqueror on the Ubuntu desktop? Because it doesn't display properly under GNOME and it looks *ugly*. Maybe this is down to the fact that I kan't konfigure it korrektly. More "newb lamer can't even RTFM" points for me right?
Why not use KDE desktop then? Man that thing is a kluttered mess. Why install one mail client when you can install 3,000? Why give something a meaningfiul name when you can give it a kool KDE one? The underlying KDE technology is fantastic (KIO slaves are a splendid, splendid thing) but the desktop experience is just poor.
So here I am. I would love to use Linux as my primary desktop OS but sadly it's just not up to the job. At home I run a splendid Linux server, two windows desktops (98 & 2000) and a Linux desktop. All I can say is that with Linux the underlying technology is wonderful and far in advance of Windows, configuring the Linux machines is also much easier thanks to the lovely, well documented, understandable plain text config files in a logically laid out directory structure. But quite frankly the desktop experience sucks.
Standing by for -1 troll modification in 3, 2, 1.
No software can ever be perfect, which is why the Ubuntu forums exist. However, the Ubuntu forums don't work if you're abusive of the community from the start. Let's take a look at a number of things that you've said, even while people were honestly trying to help you.
"But it's my fault, really. I should never have believed all that crap about "providing access to all"."
Note that this was just your second post, which occurs before anyone has had a chance to say anything substantial. Just how exactly did you expect people to react to this statement? If you insult a community, why should anyone try and help you? Have you no common sense at all?
"I don't know where my install disc is. Again, I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work. Guess that's not the case."
This is just more of the same. Clearly you lack any real tact. This is just bad taste all around.
"So in other words, you didn't read my first post, in which I said that the disc is fine and I've tried reinstalling multiple times. This just makes my day."
You know the stereotype of new users being extremely whiny and demanding when they ask for help? There's a reason why 'n00b' is a derogatory term.
"What version of Windows you were using."
"Don't see what difference that makes, given as I can't even get into Windows, and the problem is obviously due to GRUB. Seems like a fishing expedition there."
For someone completely new to Linux (and seemingly alternative OSes in general), why do you assume that you know more than the people trying to help you? And for reference, the version of Windows can in fact matter. I bet you didn't know that, did you?
"Maybe when you have cooled down a bit, we could start on the right foot."
"Starting on the right foot" would include "not getting locked out of my computer because I installed a OS billed as 'Linux for Human Beings' "
If you can't see what's wrong with this statement, then it's hopeless. You are blaming software for being imperfect. Whoopdee-doodle-doo, welcome to reality. I've read elsewhere on Slashdot that you're an engineer and that you criticize software engineers for not being able to get things right. Just what school did you graduate from because they clearly missed out on some important lessons. In every single engineering discipline you ought to know that nothing is ever perfect. Ever.
""Starting on the right foot" would include finding instructions that answer the frequently asked question of "how do I set up a new partition and install to that partition?"
First off, instructions for setting up new paritions are available online. However, you clearly didn't look for them until after things have already screwed up. What is the point of having an FAQ if you don't bother reading them in the first place?
"Stop making excuses."
You must mean the whole "cool down so we can try and help you" excuse.
Even after all of this, people were *still* willing to help you. Huh, for a community that you state isn't friendly to new users, they sure were very patient with you.
There's a reason that you get modded down everytime on Slashdot. And it's not everyone else.
I agree that Linux has a large number of rough spots that need to be worked out. However, while it is true that Linux still needs a lot of work, there's absolutely no reason why you need to act like an asshat when people are trying to help you. How can you justify your own words, insulting everyone in the community before they even try to help you?
o ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14960154
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180787&thresh
You're also very quick to assume that you know everything there is to know. You're suggestion about bootloaders ("You toss control back to whatever would otherwise load when it fails.") shows absolute ignorance of how operating systems work. Its just wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
Oho!!! So you think my spelling is bad you motherfucking freakshit. Why don't you just go saw your head off with a table saw so we don't have to waste any more Oxygene on you. Stupid shithead bitchstain. Who cares if I make a typo now and then at least I get my point across better than you you stinking shithole. Now why don't you crawl back into that crevass in your mom's anal where you came form bitchhead. Stop trying to be cooler than me because it ain't working Mr. pile of shit. Fucktard. Pull that cock out of your head while your at it because it's obviously gone way too far up your brains an made you so stupid that you can't even think straight to piss straight. Idiot. Why is Slashdot populated by idiot knob jockeys like the parent poster these days? Is it because of all the new Microsofties that came in a coupla yours ago? That makes sense because those guys don't know anything about anything. They're just pure idiots without a clue in the fucking world who like to wrap their mouths around puckered anuses and feast on their favorite snake: shit. They like to eat shit and rub it all over their bodies. BEcause theyr'e stupid. And ugly. And big poopheads. Fuckers. Just drop off the face of the earth. Now. And leave the real citizens of Slashdot alone so we can talk about the stuff that matters: Unix. I am Unix programmer. And I don't like being deluged with stupid people like you. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you!
I'm an old hand *nix pro who has installed various distos over the years. I decided to give Ubuntu a whirl at home.
I installed it on a middle spec laptop and it ran ok. Still took me an hour to get wifi working and I still haven't got it to play a DVD.
I also installed it dual bootable with XP on my top-of-the-range desktop with the intention of doing some development. The install is slick with a fixed wire connection.
But in use, first subjective impressions - slow. Applications take longer to start and are less responsive than on XP. And the fonts are ugly. There's a desktop preference to use anti-aliasing but most apps seem to ignore this.
To be honest, if this is the best distro around then Linux is still not ready for the for the desktop end user.
I need to build a dual boot machine,
You are not the home desktop market, ergo microsoft does not need to cater to your needs. You are not part of point 1. You are part of point 2. The people the linux devs are trying to reach are not building machines from scratch and certainly not going to wipe their home machine and reinstall just to try linux.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
On the contrary, not recognizing that you are a special case and that the vast majority of people who use "tax software" on their computers are not CPAs is short sighted.
FYI, everyone here in Brasil who earns more than ~US$ 20,000.00 a year is obligated to turn his/her taxes in via a tax software and every company is also obligated to turn its taxes via a tax software. Luckily for me, there are two versions of said software: a Windows version developed in Delphi and using Paradox tables -- which works perfectly, flawlessly under wine -- and a multiplatform one, that runs under any j2re1.4+. I use the latter b/c its interface is better than the former.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I've been totally stumped about this for years. I can only imagine that there would be an order of magnitude increase in efficiency and compliance if they did this.
Call me conspiratorial, but I think the only reason they don't do this is that there's an entire industry built up around filing taxes that would more or less be eliminated by this. Which is fine by me -- I don't think the government should prop up businesses by making the business of government overcomplicated.
Portage (gentoo mainly, if not exclusively) does this also, by default even.
In all honesty though, it happens on windows too, as an installer for an app bundles all of it's dependancies with itself and installs/reinstalls any that aren't up to par with the "approved" dependancy list, or in the case of less-intelligent installers, just reinstalls all dependancies, sometimes over the top of newer versions. The only difference between the Linux and Windows worlds really being that Linux generally TELLS you it's blowing away old packages, whereas Windows assumes you aren't interested in such information.
The Windows native fusion project with Whidbey is very much targeted at getting more apt-get like in it's upgrade policies because the default behavior is often not what is needed.
She'd have a blast with an iBook, and for a pretty good price.
his is because OSS tends to do a huge amount of software reuse. Windows and MacOS [X] software doesn't do that to the same extent.
You are actually attributing this to the wrong thing. The open source world has much finer grained installs. I just installed a minor package on OSX and it was 70 megs. I probably wanted about 2megs worth of stuff and under Linux I could have controlled it. On the other hand this means that package installs can effectively call up dozens of other packages.
i like the lack of being root user, although it only requires that you enter your password to do administrative tasks. i think if it were to be a true multi-user box, it should ask for an administrative password for that, one that differs from the user's password.
That is easy to do. Just do "sudo passwd" and you can set your root password. Ubuntu does not set the root password by default and prefers that you use "sudo" instead of "su" (or log in as root) to get root access. This is the security policy that Ubuntu and OS X use, and they have a webpage describing why they use it, but if you prefer the traditional root account you are free to use that.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
OpenSource Tech Support(TM) with a team of dedicated people who are going to make things better for the average joe and not just contribute to their favorite project, Linux will remain off the home user's desktop and in 3rd place.
/. people aren't getting paid to put up with noob nonsense. People want that kind of support they can pay for it.
The open source people would be thrilled to do that. Find a million average joes willing to pay for a $50 annual support contract and ask any distribution if they are willing to work with them. Xandros is a distribution that offers that level of support. The
LOCKED OUT, you say? Let's use our legally purchased Windows CD's to restore to the original state? What's that? You're a filthy pirate? Geddoutahere.
People do pay for it. That's why they buy windows.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It's diffucult to find hard facts, but it looks like Codewarrior is not going to be developed any further for the intel Macs (i.e. for the Mac tout cour). The last version is 10.
So you are stuck with the free Apple development tools. Should you wish to spend money as a developer, you can always join the Apple Developer Connection as a Select or Premier member.
Microsoft doesn't offer any tech support at all with their OEM versions (*). So clearly good quality tech support is not what is required.
__________________
* = Microsoft does offer a high cost per incident support but home users essentially never use it.
Regardless of whether the support is provided by microsoft or Dell, as far as the end user is concerned is irellevant, the point is such support exists and is easy to acceess. With linux however, such support does not exist or is extremly difficult to access.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Well if that is your point, you are just plain incorrect. OEMed versions of Linux come with the same levels of support (if not better) than OEMed versions of Windows. For example Emporor Linux Laptops comes complete with:
1) A fully guaranteed distribution
2) 1 year tech support. They assume full responsibility for: custom kernels, perl scripts used to configure the system
3) Knowledge of major scientific applications and their uses
To pick another example Dell offers full configurations based on load for RedHat Enterprise + Oracle (again application knowledge)
Commercial Linuxes come with installation support. On Xandros you call their 800 number. On Mandriva you can email them.
I don't see how this is any worse than what you get with Windows. That's not even including the fact that Windows problems are so much harder to solve.
You are missing the point entirely in that home desktop users aren't buying Emporor Linux Laptops (until today I had never even heard of them). They aren't bying dell Enterprise + Oracle machines and they aren't buying Commercial Linuxes. They're getting their linux from a friend or a relative who's convinced them to try it. They're downloading it on someone's recomendation. These people are not paying out to give Linux a try. They may do so if and when they have discovered that they prefer Linux but they aren't going to before hand because they've already paid for a system that works.
Besides, when someone says Linux, people with a passing knowledge do not think of Xandros or Mandriva first, and if people in the know and with passing knowledge don't, how then does one expect the home consumer to?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I don't expect the home consumer with no interest in Unix to. But you made a couple of arguments regarding what sorts of support are available that are false. That Linux is harder, that the support isn't there, that
I mean seriously, are you proposing that one somebody grabs a freebee Linux off their friend, runs it on a machine custom designed for another OS (generally Windows) and then "shockingly" has problems should expect to receive help desk style support without paying a per incident fee? And further why would a home user who has
1) has general purpose needs
2) doesn't run any Unix apps
3) already owns windows
4) already owns the applications they need
5) has no desire to tinker with their system
Prefer Linux? What are they going to prefer? Now I can think of lots of reasons someone might prefer Linux is you remove at least one of conditions 1-5. That's a ridiculously high bar. Linux in the server room (where it has unquestionably been successful) couldn't have overcome that.
I mean imagine you had proposed in say 1996 a question like:
Why would Solaris users who
already own all the Sun hardware they need
have tons of apps not ported to Linux
have all sorts of scripts which require Sun management tools
compile under Sun's C and don't under GCC
and run apps not available under Linux
want to switch to Linux. The answer is they wouldn't want to switch. Linux won among Sun users who:
1) Didn't have enough hardware and didn't want to pay 300-1000% markups to get it
2) Were running mainly gnu apps on Solaris
3) Had scripts written in portable languages (like Perl and Bash) and didn't own or use Sun's management tools
4) Used GCC
From there it won among wider and wider groups as Linux become more feature rich relative to Solaris yet the price difference remains. Sun now is (arguably) cheaper but Linux is so much more feature rich...
Now you're moving beyond the original scope of the conversation. Originaly this was all started by a home user who went to try linux, installed it, it fucked up his MBR, he had a bitch of a time getting any real help, complained and was told essentialy "STFU code it yourself"
In this case I was discussing why Linux is and will remain an also ran on home desktop systems, therefore our target consumer is a home desktop user. Since these people don't exist in a vaccum we must then take into acount their current situations. From there we can see that should linux devs or the linux community as a whole want linux to break into and succesfully capture a share of the home desktop market, then attitudes must change and the original posts complaints must be adressed in a way which does not require coding the solution for oneself.
In short I agree that as it stands, there is no reason for a home consumer to desire linux, but the linux comunity as a whole continues to push for it. Sadly home user experience is lacking and I illustrated part of the reason why. That is what my original post was about.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Well OK lets get back to him. Right and my point was that
1) This guy was obnoxious.
2) He was using a free Linux and thus everyone helping him was doing so as an act of kindness
3) He was given excellent advice regarding what to do to fix an broken MBR (the bootable linux and installing a boot-loader by hand). That quality of advice exceeded what he would have gotten from a help desk
4) This is America and people are expected to be skilled in shopping. By choosing a free volunteer only product when commercial products (with paid installations support are available) he raised the bar on himself.
I don't see this as anything but Linux fulfilling its promise. Our disagreement was that this level of service was below what OEMs and Microsoft offer. The last post was trying to dismiss your straw man of a person who has no reason to switch, being the right standard for what the acceptable level of hassle is.
The last post was trying to dismiss your straw man of a person who has no reason to switch, being the right standard for what the acceptable level of hassle is.
I think you fail to understand the argument I'm making. If Linux is to take any sizeable portion of the home desktop market, than their standard that they have to live up to are the standards of people with no reason to switch. They need to be given a reason to switch and at the same time maintain their expected level and type of service and support.
Furthermore I disagree that he was given excellent support. He had one helpful post on the first page and then it took until the 4th page before any real help was provided. It took that long just for someone to look up the error code instead of talking out their ass.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
IMHO Linux takes the home desktop market when their are huge reasons to switch. People aren't going to switch OSes without a very good reason. In the case of servers in the 1990s it was cost. Today its best all around package at a low cost. In the embedded market it is features + price.
The desktop OS is at the point that if you have a good reason to switch, the desktop is good enough so that there is no reason not too; and if you are already using a Unix based desktop there is no good reason to go to windows. That is still far from enough to simply steal the Microsoft base away.
And again its you comment about service and support. Had he used a pay Linux he would have gotten help-desk style support. Why would you expect helpdesk style support from Ubuntu?