Slashdot Mirror
The REAL Reason We Use Linux
Vlad Dolezal writes "We tell people we use Linux because it's secure. Or because it's free, because it's customizable, because it has excellent community support... But all of that is just marketing BS. We tell that to non-Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason." The answer to his question probably won't surprise you.
We use it because it will run on a fleet of lower end boxes to fool around with networking.
Ten years ago that was why I was running it on a bunch of old 386sx boxes anyway.
Now I run freenixes on hardware so old and obscure that Linux doesn't even run (well) on them.
We use it because it's ours.
David
...in many circles, anyway. I have no desire to tinker. I want it to "just work". I tried using Linux multiple times from when I downloaded my first copy of Red Hat in 1999 or so, through some attempts with Mandrake and SuSe. None of them "just worked" - driver support was missing, programs didn't work as expected (or work at all), etc, etc. So I stuck with Windows. Finally, Ubuntu came about and I saw that someone was taking seriously the notion that people wanted things to "just work" (I would say that Red Hat and SuSe didn't take that notion seriously until recently - they were making OS's for business use, after all, so a trained IT tech would be setting things up and maintaining them - they didn't have to "just work" for your average user, because someone else would be taking care of most of the tough stuff). Even so, the early versions of Ubuntu weren't the best (and there are still many problems with wireless support - ndiswrapper is a poor substitute for a native driver, sad to say). The 6.x series was almost there, and finally I feel like the 7.x series is something I can actually use full time (and indeed I am - I built a new system last November and for the first time didn't bother to install Windows on it). I didn't install Ubuntu because it was fun to tinker. I installed it because it was free, easy to use, and not crippled by DRM. That's it, plain and simple.
Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
but I use Linux because I don't want to pay MS for anything. ever. again.
Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.
Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I don't know about all this fun stuff. I use Linux because it does the job I need it to. More to the point though, when something goes wrong it is pretty simple to track it down and fix it. Heck, I have repaired systems that have become seriously mangled where with Windows you wouldn't have much choice but to start over.
;-)
I switched to Linux from UNIX (Irix at that time) and did so because that is the environment I need for my work. These days I use OS X for much the same reason. Whatever MS does to Windows, it is still a very closed system. If closed floats your boat, fine, but don't try and say that closed gets you a more reliable and cost effective system.
Actually, UNIX is fun I guess
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root".
I think a more accurate list (from my view at least) is:
1. Linux gives you complete control
2. Linux is free (as-in-speech)
3. Software install is easy
4. It has less potential problems with web dev for a Linux server
5. No DRM! You own the hardware, you own the software, you own the data.
Oh, and the penguin is more cuddly than some flag or some annoying animated critter
I use linux because the software I use: emacs, LaTeX, gcc, is unavailable on Windows, at least without hacking or using some emulator that never quite works right: also, wow, file management is a pain in the arse using a mouse and how do people manage without grep, sed and awk?
While it was nice to RTFA, which I do actually before posting. (yeah I am a weirdo, people keep telling me)
However, the truth to this story is ---- "But all of that is just marketing BS"
it's a one page, - THIS I BELIEVE page. Other then throw a sudden 30,000 hits on the author's site it will accomplish nothing. it's not anything I can tell a non-linux user that would draw any more of a response then when you tell your dog a joke..
They stripped out the article because its worthless.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
It really makes sense. Don't get me wrong, having the freedom to tinker with the kernel is nice. Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. But the majority of users don't actually use Linux (or any computer OS) for those purposes... they aren't a means to an end.
I personally use Linux third to Mac OS X (at home), which is second to Windows (at work). I like understanding the different systems, because that's how I can keep up with the extreme pace of the software development industry. But I almost never use Windows at home, and here's why: competition.
I want Microsoft to feel the pressure of competition. They have been feeling it for the past couple of years. And what do you know, it works! Firefox has caused the IE team to push towards open standards compliance. Love or hate OOXML, it's easier to work with than older formats (due to pressure from OOo and iWork). And there are many reasons to hate Vista, but it is more secure than older versions of Windows, it has much more advanced compositing, and a host of new things that are good for the future, even if they hurt now.
So, I care more about the future of the computing world... the future of my career, a future of openness by major corporations that enables someone little like me to start and run a business. And I'm doing my part to make sure that happens.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I use linux because, in certain instances, it's the right tool for the job. I'm busy. I don't have time to play around tinkering anymore ( and yes, I do have grey hair, thank you very much ). So when I want something that'll "just work", I analyse all the tools at my disposal, and choose one based on merits.
Quite often that's linux. Sometimes that's windows. But regardless of the choice, the end result is hopefully the same: A system that just works without me needing to constantly hold it's hand.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Boss: Why should we switch to Linux?
Me: Because it's fun!
Boss: Thanks for your input. You can go now.
Boss (to the secretary): Please get me HR on the line. I think we're over-paying some staff.
This is possibly the lamest story I've ever seen on slashdot. The article then lists THREE other reasons - plural with an 's' - (not one) why the author uses Linux. By 'we' I think he's referring to himself, his blow up sex doll and his imaginary friends.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
One of my favorite things about Free software in general is that the programmers and the people who write the documentation don't feel like they have to keep this "professional" face on their work.
For example, you'll never find George W. Bush's face for the "unsharp filter" icon (Cinelerra) in a closed source program. That would indicate that the programmers were having fun, and that obviously makes the program of lower quality.
Personally, I think that if the developers are having fun, and are in a positive frame of mind, they'll make better software.
Because a lot of people were waiting in the 90's for one of the Unix vendors (mostly Sun but also SGI and SCO) to stop ignoring the home user / hobbyist market, so when the first usable Linux distros started to come out it was like, "Thanks, it's about f*cking time."
:)
Also, the overall "feel" of Linux reflects the fact that there is no vendor telling you what you can or can't do with it. It lets you be in control. There's nothing in the user experience that reflects corporate arrogance. It lets *me* be arrogant.
Simply put, I can see what is going on on my system.
Windows is a fecking black hole where all manner of shite can happen without me knowing. Until Microsoft gives the average user a complete view and complete control over processes, they're crap.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No. We use Linux, because it's better.
By leaps and bounds. The terminal user interface paradigm beats the GUI any day. VIM beats Visual Studio. mutt beats outlook. zsh beats the shit out of "explorer.exe".
Editing a config file beats configuring your "web server" via buttons and animated gadgets. Deal with it.
we discovered a new way to think.
Now keep in mind I'm playing devils advocate, and that thier price is ridiculous ... but ...
They were probably including maintanence contracts on hardware and software, multiple support personal, backup systems, space, helpdesk time, and lots of other things you weren't considering.
Is thier price correct? I doubt it. Having done IT in a previous life, part of their job when quoting something like that is to be all inclusive in costs. They may have their own requirements for offsite data and service duplication (which may or may not apply to your setup), security auditing (internal and external threats), regular patching ( and testing which is really the majority of the work in patching) and crap like that.
Did you consider all of those things? Management didn't I'm sure, thats why IT is supposed to do their part.
As I said, at a glance, I can't imagine 50k per host for anything, but if they've got other rules/standards applied to what they do, you'd be suprised at how quick the REAL price of something goes up.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Oh, the fact that you have somehow completely missed the point of the Four Freedoms of Free Software and keep going on about the financial cost might also mark you as an idiot. The fact that you use Windows is pretty much irrelevant, although you might want to examine the arguments you use to defend your Windows use ('it's a locked platform, but I also paid for my nissan' is not really a coherent argument).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
And what version of Windows includes TeX/LaTeX, gcc (or some similar compiler), Apache (or a similar web server), GNU emacs (or a similar text editor), an ftp server, a telnet/ssh server, python, perl, a database server, and support for multiple desktops?
Yes, I could download these, but why bother?
"The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop"
Apparently you don't agree.
In a lot of people's experience (including mine), it's reality. Linux does have it's professional uses, but using it as a workstation is not viable for most people. Most people who pass on the opportunity to use Microsoft's software usually have an irrational hate for Microsoft itself and put that above what would be the best tool for the job.
Maybe Microsoft does use stooges to spread their marketing online, but I doubt they'd bother to do it on Slashdot (it's a lost cause), and even if they did, so what? You have no evidence, so stop throwing around accusations because someone has a difference of opinion.
powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible
...) Yea most Linux distributions come with a bunch of software but that is like using a windows PC after downloading CigWin.
They can use the same thing to talk about windows.
Powerful: How is Linux more powerful then Windows... I have seen benchmarks go both ways for some cases windows kills Linux in performance and other case Linux wins. Most of the GNU Tools for Linux have been ported to run on Windows and there are things that only runs on windows (... A LOT OF THINGS
Stable: Stability is not much of an issue anymore. When Windows Crashes it is normally when Linux crashes, when there is a hardware failure, or a bad driver. To be honest I have seen Linux Crashed more then I have seen XP or Vista Crash... And I have used XP and Vista more the Linux...
Simple: Linux is not simple it is a complex OS. It is not easy to use. It is not simple. I am not saying XP is simple but at least it has ease of use on its side.
inexpensive: Unless you have a system that is unsupported with Linux so you need to find and buy supported hardware. If you are using it in a corporation the extra time training people to use linux will cost more the getting each one Windows Licenses.
open: I would agree but... Not when you have a problem. Windows users are more open to the fact that it sucks... Linux user on these groups will hide with all the might areas were Linux sucks, It is not a bug because you have this crazy workaround. In terms of getting good help Linux isn't as open as it appears.
accessible: In terms when you need a quick OS to install yes. In terms for disabilities No, or in hardware support windows still wins.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Imagine Linux with all the tools which say "you should never have to use the command line." Such a distro would be pretty bad for most of us who currently use Linux because a command-line is fundamentally superior to a GUI for a lot of tasks we use it for. I always have at least three terminal windows open in addition to any GUI apps.
Similarly, I find that OS X (which is almost but not entirely unlike BSD) has a number of shortcomigns that make Linux and BSD better choices for me. My sister uses OSX however because it matches what she needs.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you there. I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side, but it is a myth that Windows is somehow inherently easier to use!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
When I was a kid, dodging the Tyrannosaurs, software was a big deal, and a company was reasonable to spend ten grand or so evaluating each alternative in a possible purchase. That isn't the case any more, and it's real hard to find decent reviews. Some software isn't available for free evaluation, so it's a matter of buy something and hope, or do without. Once somebody's purchased software, cognitive dissonance theory suggests that they will consider it good, recommend it, and avoid information that suggests they goofed.
From the company's point of view, what will sell software is time to market and feature checklists, and they usually don't bother rapid development practices that will reduce bugs (although the best way to reduce debug time is often to put fewer bugs into the code in the first place). This gives little incentive to produce actual quality software. Sell something to enough people and they'll say good things about it, and they'll figure that the problems are either their fault or something that's just natural. Like defragmenting disks. Last time somebody asked why it was necessary I said it was because Microsoft didn't know how to make a real industrial-strength operating system. Not everybody in the room seemed to agree with me.
And, from the proprietary software front, what you want to avoid is something that people are going to experiment with, have fun with, because that raises the support costs. If you can sell shelfware, that's great. Each sale is straight profit, no continuing costs. If you can't, if you can set things up so people learn to do specific things, and don't try to do anything new with it, so they don't call anyway, that's almost as good.
Then, of course, there's the problem of repeat customers. The big problem is that most software is good enough for most purposes, and has been for years. Companies need to come up with ways to make their customers continue to pay, and pay, and pay. Tying the software to a particular computer helps, since the user can't replace the computer and keep the software. And if you annoy customers by screwing up the activation so they have to buy a replacement copy, what's wrong with that? You want to be careful about issuing bug fixes, enough to look good but not enough to keep the current version competitive. When issuing a new version, you want to make it as incompatible as possible with previous versions, so people have to junk perfectly good software because it doesn't talk to the latest stuff.
Since proprietary software makers usually don't release source code, it is impossible to conduct an independent audit, and they can indulge in mindless hacks because nobody can call them out on it. Good-looking code is usually good code, and that incentive does not exist if nobody publishes the source. This also means the customer can't use the code on platforms the vendor decided not to support at the moment. For example, one project I was on recently used Oracle's OCCI (Oracle C++ Call Interface). Slick system, but we were way limited in choice of compilers and libraries because Oracle provided binaries only, and binaries only for a few compilers (such as way outdated versions of gcc). This is also a way to prevent customers from keeping the old software, and making them buy new.
All of these are perfectly logical reactions to the way
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I not only have a real job but own a company, and I use Linux on the desktop because it saves me time and money. I don't have to have a seperate protocol for sharing files and remote desktop. I can drag a remote file onto an editor and save from the editor, and it'll save the remote copy. I have N desktops to spread my work over, and I'm a very visual person: I need that space.
.NET work done within two questions I have it boiled down to "someone told me it had to be done in .NET and I believed them."
My experience with windows is that it constantly needs attention, and I don't want to waste my time on that. The only reason Windows would be lower maintenance is Windows-only 3rd party applications, and for a software firm I don't need those. Any time someone thinks they need
Speaking as a relative newb, I found that Linux (Fedora) was a bear to set up,
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to install XP (or -- gahhh -- Vista) on a bare machine, just to compare it against Fedora?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Let's say you're running a webserver (apache) which connects to a postgre database. Do you check all the code in apache+mods? filesystems? DNS? NIS? FibreChannel drivers?
How is trusting Redhat/Debian/Suse to make sure their distribution is safe any different from trusting AIX or HPUX? I don't want to have to be the one at my company that audit's 1m lines of linux code to 'make sure it's safe' we just trust our distribution.
Powerful - I'm not big on benchmarks in general, but power does not necessarily mean speed. I would consider the fact that I can open up a 4GB text file on Linux with out-of-the-box tools as more powerful - but then again, that only matters to those of us who have the need to open a 4GB text file. I would consider that their is more free (quality) software available for Linux as more powerful, but somebody might point out all the shareware-junk that is out their for windows. Regardless, there are countless things I can do in linux faster than I can do in windows, and their are countless things I can do in Linux that I can't do in windows. Windows does have the edge in some market segments, but those areas are much less important to me for what I do most of the time.
Stable: Are you kidding me? You have to be kidding. Either you really don't know how to work with Linux and you have made some fundamental mistakes that cause crashes frequently (though I can't for the life of me think of any that would be that bad), or you really don't throw much at your windows installations (or maybe you are just plain lucky with your peripheral purchases and the software that you use). BSODs are less frequent than they used to be. They are WAY more frequent in my experience than crashes in any *nix environment.
Simple: Personally, I'd never call any OS simple. Linux is less complex to install than any other OS, but that's about it.
Inexpensive: you don't get less expensive than free. If you consider the total cost of ownership, Linux wins any reasonable analysis. Linux means training. Windows means paying not just for the OS repeatedly and going through forced upgrades with great frequency (upgrades = rollouts = licensing + project planning and execution cost), but also paying for a great many things that are free in a linux environment. When 80% of your end user base uses Word as a typewriter, E-mail, and Calendaring as their only computer tasks, it makes you wonder why you spend upwards of $700 on software alone per end user when you could have it all for free. Besides, show me an environment where end users don't need training on how to use their PC's and I'll show you an environment where end users are not properly trained.
Linux kernel is stable. However, from the user's poing of view, X crashing is the same as if the whole machine had gone. It takes all their applications with it because the default is to quit when connection to X is lost, and can happen quite often especially in a heavily stressed machine.
X and the graphical system in general is clearly the weakest point of modern-day Linux. It is an userland program, yet it has the same stability requirement than a kernel, and fails to live up to them. This is on top of various annoyances, like being apparently unable to switch the bit depth of the screen at runtime (affects at least Wine) and having to play around with modelines in config files to set up display modes.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to get fixed, because it only affects the desktop users and not the Important Server Guys.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Ummm, I don't know where to start with this post... I'll just sum it up in a thought; you need to run Slackware once or twice to understand why *nix is *nix. I'm not just saying that because I'm a Slackware fanboy, but rather, because you seem to miss the elegance and simplicity of text files for configs.
/etc/ that can be edited over SSH, and has a man 5 page, is superior to any other kind of scheme. There are a million reasons why a GUI interface for maintenance is a nightmare (and how would you like to set it up without a command line?) as compared to SSH. If you want to know why I say this, you'll first have to understand why *nix is *nix.
There are a million reasons why a single text file in
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Paranoia implies that the reasons for mistrust are without basis. I have basis for mistrust.
They include and exclude usability for the purpose of supporting the business models and interests they want to support, not those of the user or consumer. DRM is not there to serve the interests of the consumer. A wide variety of inclusions and exclusions of technologies are set that way for reasons other than for the use or benefit of the user. Not only do I dislike what they have done, but I distrust their motives. Other industries have done this; some successful, others not. The automotive industry had attempted to lock in maintenance of automobiles by restricting diagnostic codes, for example. This didn't work out so well in court. Big Content has had some failures and successes in influencing various Big Media providers to do their bidding. The creation of DRM was a big win for them where Microsoft and Apple complied. You may recall discussions about the FCC and the "Broadcast Flag." The intent was to prevent the recording of digital broadcasts through required implementation of the protocols surrounding the implementation of the broadcast flag. I forget where the discussion left off or if the issue is currently on hold, forgotten or if it's simply dead. (I doubt it's dead though... I expect it to return just as the end of 2009 approaches.)
All of this stuff is very anti-consumer and I prefer to remain free and unencumbered. I cannot trust Microsoft or Apple with my freedoms. Can you?
This isn't paranoia, or unfounded fear or mistrust. It is very well founded through numerous examples of user and consumer betrayal.
After working with Windows servers and Linux servers, with the same level of experience, personally I find Linux easier to configure, more documentation and easier to make your own hacks to get done what you want.
:)
No crappy applications where you can't find the right button to turn off a frature, but simple text files with settings. Nice. I like it.
AND Linux it's fun to play with
Privacy is terrorism.
The problem with your stance is your emotionally charged world view concerning something that is intrinsically neutral; thus you to polarize everything that you reasonably can with a good or evil bias where none is necessary leading to your irrational position as stated above.
You are making a ridiculous assumption here.
The very idea that someone should make money on the mere playback of recorded material is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Should artists be paid for their work? Yes. ONCE. Should artists be paid for performance? Yes. ONCE. Just like you get paid for the work you do. You get paid ONCE. You don't generally get paid for life after showing up for work one day. Yet that's what this business model is all about! These ass-clowns want you to believe that the act of playing back recordings is worthy of payment each and every time that you or anyone else plays it.
Clearly, you believe it. I don't, however.
Payment for the sale of media? Yes. ONCE. Payment for each and every playback? NO.
The idea is not that you check every single line of code ran by your company. The idea is that SOMEONE does. There's plenty of people reviewing the Linux kernel. There's plenty of people reviewing X. There's plenty reviewing GNOME (or KDE). There's plenty of people reviewing Apache, Postgres, etc. So you hire someone to write some webapp, that's the only code you *have* to review- because all the other stuff is reviewed by someone. But if it's entirely closed, you would have to trust the company. This is the case with Microsoft. They can do whatever they want because nobody can review it.
Care about privacy? Read this!
I fear you fail to understand the whole point.
MS have put a whole layer of software that does NOTHING for the user at all. Absolutely nothing.
It is prone to error, and causes more resource usage.
There have been times that my legally bought DVDs have failed to play on my windows box, simply because the DRM in the video driver threw a fit. Had to reinstall windows to make it go away.
Now, I can afford to pay for content, and I do pay for content. Quite a bit of content actually.
But when you get treated like a child, or a potential criminal, and handed something that may cease to work at any point (some of my iTunes tracks have ceased to work over various upgrades) for no other reason than it may save the vendor a little money (though they can't prove it. I CAN prove cost to me, and when you multiply that up, you may find that the consumers are spending millions on corruption on DRM). So, put simply, unless there is no other way to obtain something, I will not accept something DRM encoded. It is the introduction of a fail point for no other reason than an arbitrary decision by vendors.
You know what? For millennia, people have treated each other fairly. There has been a lot of give and take, some 'acceptable losses' for doing business (like the money a company doesn't see when a book is sold on second hand, or loaned to a friend). And sometimes give by the employees, or even customers who help to keep a company afloat through rough times.
Only in the last 10 years or so have these millennia of traditions been thrown completely out the window by companies that want to control every last transaction, with no concept of fair play or spirit of the agreement.
The only thing that is recognised now is money. A number. Nothing else.
So, when the companies set the 'game', they still expect the customer to play by the old rules, where the client can help to prop up an ailing business model. In fact (c.f. RIAA), they believe they can FORCE the customer (or even someone who has nothing to do with their product, apart from the fact they say they do, and serve them with a legal case).
And honestly, they expect people to play fair back?
Now, you get some companies (hello Stardock) who release games with NO DRM. And guess what? They get great sales too.. And as much (or little) piracy as anyone else. They've not been driven out of business by the piracy that games companies keep saying would put them out of business if they didn't have DRM built into the system.
They play fair. And guess what? In the main part, people play fair with them. Those very few that don't are chalked up to "Acceptable loss", and probably wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. Or maybe they're a bunch of low earners who actually pooled cash to buy a game between them.. Technically (and actually) infringement, but it's a sale where otherwise there would have been none. A positive on the financial balance sheet, a minus on the technical legality. Speaking as a businessman (yes, I do run a business), the sane thing to do is watch the balance sheet and turn a blind eye to the 'casual' copy. But come down extremely hard on someone who tries to make a business out of pirating your stuff..
I think one of the things the GP poster was referring to was to let people have the freedom to choose to be honourable. If you don't, what's honour and fairness? By giving the freedom to be honourable, you nurture that.
By denying it the ability to express itself, you force lesser outcomes. What a surprise.
A service provider who consistently provides poor service, overcharges, commits fraud, and lies about competitors is not intrinsically neutral.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Shoddy products, repeated lies and a history of illegal and outright crooked dealings are NOT "intrinsically neutral" in this, or any other parallel universe.
Trying to claim that Microsoft products are "intriniscally neutral" is both disingenuous and, on this site, foolish astroturfing. I made a value comparison based on the metrics that are important to me:
For all 4 of these metrics, Microsoft products lose. This is not "emotionally charged" - this is hard-nosed numbers. Money in my pocket. Time saved. Freedom. Again, not something that is "intrinisically neutral."
Why shouldn't I despise a company that in the past lied to me, ripped me off, and made me waste more time than I want to think about?
Funny. I use it, as a workstation, because it's secure, because I don't have to worry about license issues, because of the quality of development software, because it's quick, because installing most hardware is more automatic and because I want choice.
Those who continue to use Microsoft do it because they just don't know what's out there. And, they have to justify somehow the thousands they spent on software that Linux users already have in their distro.
You're free to use MS software but don't jump to irrational conclusions as to why those of us who really know both Linux and Windows continue to use Linux.
You just don't get it. I DO NOT WANT TO SCREW AROUND WITH A COMMAND LINE. Of course it's insanely powerful, etc.. I still don't want to use it. I have no need for solving problems, no need to manipulate large bodies of data, no need to automate same. I just want a gui that allows me to easily install the OS and configure the hardware, then do some routine stuff - run office apps, web stuff, etc., nothing exotic. Also please understand that I am not a programming type but I understand the benefits of FOSS.
The continuing problems with wifi and printers perfectly illustrate my point. If your wiwi adapter is unsupported you can try ndiswrapper. With, for instance, ubuntu you also need to go through a fairly complex bit of command line gibberish only to discover that indeed your adapter will not work. The only distro I found that had a gui for this was puppy, but even that had it's difficulties. It does work but it isn't perfect. Of course the root of the wifi and printer problem is lack of vendor support for native linux drivers, but the windows xp hardware driver interface is GOOD. You can view, install, uninstall, update and roll back your drivers as needed ALL WITH A GUI.
Let me put it another way; why would I, an end user, WANT to bother learning the CLI? Ok, I could get some uber user to do the install it but then I'm at the mercy of the uber user if something goes wrong.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Well, I only came in to clear up your misconception about DOS being anything like a unix shell.
Not to draw you over to linux or anything.
The whole hardware-support story is an old hat. It basically boils down to: If you want to use linux
then buy hardware that's supported by linux. Which, for the majority of peripherals, is not hard anymore.
Google for "$name_of_my_gadget linux" in advance and in 90% of cases you'll learn that it runs without
problems.
Furthermore it's also an old hat that the driver-situation in windows is not flawless either.
Yes, you get a pretty GUI, but if the pretty installer fails then you're SOL.
Even if you wanted to tinker - there is no ndiswrapper to try, no kernel options to tweak
and usually no alternative source for drivers either. If your old $whatever is not supported
in vista - tough luck. Not even an uber-user can help you there.
So, finally, to each it's own. You prefer the GUI, so stick with what you like.
But don't label yourself as the prototype of an "end-user". I know quite a few "end-users",
especially of the technically clueless type, who have quite happily switched to linux
recently. If really all you want to do is browse the web and do a bit of office work (without
touching a command line) then an ubuntu box can serve you well and in fact *save* you quite
a bit of trouble with regard to "tweaking the personal firewall", re-installing after trojan infections,
re-installing after a windows update screwed up your drivers or re-installing after your office
began to behave wierd for no obvious reason.
I really, naively thought the answer would be "freedom". Sorry dude, but some of us do think about the political backdrop of our actions, and I definitely choose free software for the freedom. Free software, in general, is also better and more fun than the proprietary alternatives, but the reason those things are true is intimately linked with the freedom it provides and protects.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
You don't *have* to learn a command line if you don't want to: however, sometimes it gets you blowjobs. If that's not a reason, what is?
[FUCK BETA]
why would I, an end user, WANT to bother learning the CLI?
1. I have a folder with all types of files in it, say 1000 or so, which is common for me. I only want to move the *.gif and/or *.jpg files to another place. In the CLI, it takes 2 seconds. With a GUI, it is a nightmare.
2. I want to compare two file versions. Diff vs. what?
3. My internet connection appears to not work. I hop in a shell and ping www.yahoo.com. If that doesn't work, I ping a known good IP address. That works? Then DNS is the problem. Now, do that in a GUI.
4. I want to download a file fast to ANOTHER computer (usually to the server so everyone can access it). I find the file in Explorer using the GUI, then I SSH into the server, use WGET to download the file automatically to the right shared place on my Linux server. You can do that with a GUI, but it takes longer.
5. I see a domain name and want to know who owns it. I can either use Explorer, click to a few pages, to find out in 1-2 minutes, or switch to my SSH shell and do a simple "whois somedomain.com" and know in about 3 seconds.
6. Traceroute, dig, nslookup, and even nmap functions are very difficult or too time consuming to do in a GUI when compared to a CLI.
7. I need to take a comma delimited database, change the order of the fields, delete a few fields, and assign a unique ID number to each record. I can't even tell you how to do it in a GUI, but I can write about 20 lines of Perl in two minutes, and convert a 100 mb database over in one more minute.
I could go on an on. Although I use a GUI 80%-90% of my computing time, the other 10%+ in a command line are either impossible to do in a GUI, or insanely time consuming. There really ARE reasons to use a CLI for those of us that do more than run ONE program all day in a GUI. If you spend all day doing a singular task, then maybe no. The rest of us that fill a dozen shoes every day (particularly IT work) find it much, much easier to use the CLI.
It isn't like learning a few easy commands is going to hurt you.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Well, you're painting it very black & white while in reality it is many shades of gray.
Yes, XP drivers are "pretty good" but so are linux drivers these days.
Also you don't need the CLI for everyday tasks in a modern distro anymore.
The GUI frontends are improving and if you're literally spending your time in
firefox, openoffice etc. then there's just no need to drop to CLI - just as there
is no need in XP.
Further, if you really consider tracking down registry entries any better
or easier than working with a CLI then I guess many people would beg to disagree
Linux is a solid competent and in many ways superior Operating System. 99% of what 90% of the people do can easily be handled by Linux and they wouldn't know the difference if they had never seen an OS before. Definitely there are issues with it, but there are issues with all OSes. One has to ask themselves: if my mother or father had never used an OS before and I set up linux for them (to do their mail, chat with friends, browse the web, order products on line, etc.) would they know any different or would they not be able to do these tasks? A rational human being would say that 99% of what they want to do in that respect they can do.
So, why would anyone say that Linux is not able or unstable? It is because they have a beef with it. They don't like having to learn something new. They are set in their way (can't teach old dogs new tricks). They are a zealot for what they are used to (keep in mind I'm not disrespecting zealots--there are those that love a certain kind of car, or a brand of TV, or a favorite dish, etc.) It is those that actively seek to harm the others that make for a bad zealot. No, I'm not talking about those that are zealots that trying to bring an honest choice out and to balance the choices by giving others a choice. I'm talking about the irrational attack on an OS just because it is different.
Linux is ready for the desktop. The Linux market share is much greater than you can imagine. When the world is using 90% Windows and the rest is divided up by the other OSes, even small percentages in growth lead to millions of users. So, I really wish people would stop reacting like Linux has no users. It is estimated that world wide, across all distributions there are approximately 50 million Linux users. This is no small number. So, stop trying to belittle it. There was a time when DOS didn't have 50 million users and there was a time when Windows didn't even come close to the number of users that Linux has.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.