Slashdot Mirror
Linux Desktops Catching On In Education
digihome writes to point us to an appreciation of the state of Indiana's project of moving students from Windows desktops to Linux. In about a year, 22,000 students have made the switch, using a variety of Linux distributions. The crn.com writer tried switching his own two children to Linux laptops. From the article: "'So Dad,' [the 10-year-old son] asked. 'What is the difference between Linux and Windows?' I tried to explain but it was a waste of breath. 'What difference do you see?' I asked back. 'Nothing, really.'"
Not quite. It's similar (gee?), but there are differences. The biggest difference is the way Firefox under Linux handles the middle mouse button (although you can change that through about:config), but there are other minor changes like the Tools -> Options being renamed Edit -> Preferences. And not so minor changes like the order of OK/Cancel being reversed under Linux (or at least under GNOME?), and of course the file chooser is different.
So while Firefox under Linux is very similar to Firefox under Windows, they're not quite the same. Which actually makes adjusting to using it under Linux far more annoying than it otherwise would have to be. (Especially since it follows GNOME's messed up notion that people read buttons right to left in left to right lanugages.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
The part of the world that Linux sucks at compatibility with is the part of the world that is actively non-compatible.
Windows is the world standard desktop application API, period.
In that world, non-compatible is seen as a weapon. A way to lock-in and profits.
This argument has always been really bizarre to me. Microsoft built its empire on compatability!! That's why you can run software BINARIES designed for 3.1 on XP (try that with Linux, which absolutely SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS at binary compatability, which I've been bitten with more than once). Where does this idea come from that Microsoft can just change their APIs whenever they want to? They have to maintain compatability with their software base.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I guess if you want to consider that a standard, that's your business. It is no standard as far as I am concerned.
It's not a question of our opinion, it's reality. Look at the software section of your local computer store. Nearly all of them are written to the Windows API standard. That there's only one operating system that implements that entire standard doesn't mean it's not a standard.
How long have you been at this? I have been fairly deep in it since sometime around 79 to 80 iirc. Latest 81.
Depends on how you measure these things, of course, but I built my first 256-byte-RAM, CDP1802 homebrew computer in 1976 (age 13).
I will leave it to others to point out some of the famous sayings in relation to MS and compatibility.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft spends an enormous amount of money making compatibility work. Why do you think Windows was able to gain traction in the first place? It's because of the DOS compatibility, which was better than anyone else's (including OS/2, lest you name that one). They gave people an upgrade path.
Contrast that with, say, Linux. I have a program that I use to access an SSL accelerator device. It worked fine on an older version of Red Hat, then I upgraded my operating system a year ago or so, then I had to update my SSL certificate. Surprise! Library version errors up the ying-yang. That's just one example, but I don't think it's a big secret that running old binaries on Linux isn't exactly a problem-free process.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.