I published a 500+ page book using LO, and had no problem managing and using multiple styles. I had to put a little effort into learning how to do it but in the end it all worked well.
Not to mention the fact that most of that "incredible accomplishment" can be attributed to sales, marketing, and especially legal strategies, rather than technical superiority.
This is true, and proves that product superiority doesn't mean much. OS/2 was arguably good, but the marketing was poor.
Microsoft's financial accomplishments are indeed incredible. You may not like their business practices but they've made money like crazy. (We could argue about whether making money without regard to ethics is a good thing, but that's a different discussion.)
I open up a terminal, and type in ps aux. A huge gigantic list comes up
......
I miss the good old days...
You can still run one of the minimalist distros, and I'm guessing you'll like it.
All I really care about at a fundamental working level is Emacs (I'm a writer and text mode suits me for many things). My seven year old Acer netbook works fine for these simple needs, and not running a graphical environment gives me longer battery life.
In a way, it's like the good old days. In those days you could get a lot done with a text interface. That hasn't changed. You still can do a lot.
This isn't quite on topic, but Google Chrome has already said they won't provide updates for 32 bit, which seems pretty ridiculous. And Gmail gives a warning.
I have a perfectly good 7 year old (32 bit only) Acer netbook, great for running Emacs and doing all sorts of work that doesn't involve too much in the way of graphics. I'm sure many others have similar devices.
The article itself is light on detail and doesn't say whether the "forgetting" was short or long term, which are two very different things.
Various things prevent transfer of a memory from short to long term. If you've had surgery and were given Versed as part of anesthesia, you'll likely experience anterograde amnesia. You'll lose the memories from just before the time you got the Versed.
Concussions are similar. You can lose hours or days of memory (this happened to me once) but you won't lose anything that's already made it to long-term memory.
I suspect this study involved short-term memory, but I can't tell much from the article. Erasing long-term memory would on the face of it seem more difficult.
Disclaimer: I'm not a neurologist and would cheerfully accept correction by more knowledgeable posters.
Interesting, how about cause and effect Car makers with 90% market share are better than those with 2% market share, same with newspapers, builders, tyres or even sunglasses. Better involves a cost value assessment and when an option is free...:
The critical difference is that Windows is not being chosen; it comes pre-installed on the overwhelming majority of PCs. When you buy a car you make a choice. A car isn't delivered to you as part of a larger, more expensive bundle. So your analogy doesn't work.
The AC above who said
"Until some flavor of Linux can be preloaded on OEM systems and sold at mass market retail "
was right but didn't take it far enough. Linux would have to be preloaded on an overwhelming majority of (non-Apple) systems sold. That's how Windows won the battle. Whether you think Windows is great or terrible, it didn't win through quality. It won through enforced marketing, by being delivered and ready-to-go on the computer you bought.
I think this is a misinterpretation. Yes, millions are using Windows. This is not an active vote for Windows over Linux. The fact is that millions of computers are shipped with Windows pre-installed, and most buyers go with the flow and use what's in front of them. They're not going to install a different OS and probably aren't any more capable of doing so than they would have been with installing Windows if it hadn't already been done for them.
Whether Linux is "ready" or "as good as" Windows is an entirely different question. Quite a few people think it is. But I won't get into that argument here. But Windows' high market share doesn't prove very much.
In my experience they actually don't. Corporations tend to equate free with unsupported, and then the management has this feeling of insecurity. They want the support promises tendered by whomever (Microsoft, Oracle, etc.).
This of course shows a lack of understanding of how things really operate at the working level. My Linux Mint installation is unsupported by any official group, but in practice online communities give me tremendous support. It's rare that I even have to post a question online; most of the issues that arise are already documented and solutions to the vast majority of problems can be found in a matter of minutes. Is (for instance) Oracle support that good? Again, in my experience, not even close.
But corporate management is big on holding someone responsible, regardless of the reality. And, interestingly, some (in my opinion less capable and less confident) IT staffers will eagerly agree; they in turn want to be able to say, "Gee, I'd love to get this working, but I'm waiting on a callback from Microsoft."
It's an enterprise document sharing and collaboration tool, which pointy-haired bosses love, and no one (except them) uses.
I've observed and experienced the same thing. It seems to come about when Microsoft suits get together with corporate suits to do some suit talk, and then all of a sudden, hey, we have a new "solution" that will utterly transform your work life!
If you are in the IT department, your work life will indeed be transformed as now it is you who have been made responsible for ensuring all the results the Microsoft suits promised the corporate suits. If you are in another department, you'll go to some classes, log on once or twice, and continue doing things as you always have--- you know, in a manner that actually works.
Good point about Steam. Since I'm not much of a gamer, I keep forgetting that Steam has brought a lot to Linux.
I know the complaint is that these tend to be older titles (although I don't have personal experience with this, so someone can correct me here if necessary). Surely some of the latest and greatest games aren't available on Linux.
Honestly --- if you have the need or desire to play those games --- go ahead and run Windows. I won't try to convince you to drop a passionate interest in favor of Linux.
But in general, I'd guess people don't typically have such specialized needs. The same argument applies to must-run software that has no Linux equivalent. But how common is this? "I have to have Word" often means "I don't want to learn something new like LibreOffice." Okay, that's valid for you, but it does not mean Linux is not up to the task. Maybe Word has a killer feature that LO doesn't, or you have to exchange on-the-edge documents that LO can't handle. I argue that this is rare. When I was working in a Word-centric office, running OO and then LO, problems were quite rare (most of them actually involved stuff like running videos inside PowerPoint)--- and that was over 6 years ago; compatibility is even better today.
Usually it boils down to: I like Windows and I don't want to try something different. Well, no problem. It's a matter of choice, but it is not a matter of Linux being inadequate.
Let's face it. The real reason LInux is at 1% or so market share on desktops is that Windows came preinstalled on nearly 100% of them, and people are not going to bother changing. It's Microsoft's control of the market.
I know you're trolling but to get to the point, the maker of a $10 "gaming" mouse will make sure it works (more or less) on Windows and then push it out the door. At that price they're only interested in the largest market and they're going to spend just about nothing on standards compliance or compatibility (beyond making it work with Windows).
Fact is, most better hardware works with Linux these days. More of it works out of the box, without special drivers, than you might think. I've had many items (printers, bar code readers, etc.) that work at once with Linux but require driver installation with Windows. Sometimes I need extra software with Linux (scanners being the biggest problem, some video cards, maybe a few others) but that's no different than Windows in that case.
Rarely, something won't work at all with Linux. That was a real issue in an earlier day, but today--- not so much.
I even bought a Microsoft branded ergo keyboard and all but one special (non-important) key worked on Linux, with no new drivers. It was completely usable (and I got the special key working with a small configuration change). On Windows? I had to install a special driver! And that's a Microsoft product!
I've never had an employer ask me why it took 5 years to graduate as opposed to 4.
I don't disagree with this (or the rest of your post). But I'll offer a counterexample. I was able to finish in 3 years, and potential employers did take notice in a very positive way.
Note that I'm not recommending doing this. While I enhanced my employability and minimized my total student debt (I was a poor kid at an expensive school), it came at a price.
A gap year is a great idea, but in my case (1) I would have starved if I could have taken it, but (2) I couldn't have taken it because I would have immediately been drafted and sent to Viet Nam.
Was it evil NSA conspiracy? No, but it was a real backdoor added to an open source project!
Which was duly found and exposed, which is the point with open source. I certainly won't claim that no one will ever try something shady. What I do claim is that it will inevitably be brought to light. Can you say that about closed proprietary systems?
The kernel is still open source and "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (ESR). Anyone can take a look at the kernel sources given the skill and time.
It's been said as a counterargument that the source is massive and complex and beyond the capability of most people to sift through. And while that's true, the point is that it is open, and it only takes one person to find a backdoor or other such issue. Backdoors would eventually and inevitably be found and exposed. That is not at all the case with closed proprietary systems.
"the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold"
This literally means that if the temp averaged 90F it will then average 180F. That's a lot of climate change.
Could we, you know, maybe have something that makes sense? Like "the temperature in summer in these regions will increase twice as much as previously expected"?
Slashdot may have new owners but the editing hasn't quite gotten there yet.
I found that once a piece of hardware is supported in Linux, it usually stays supported for a long time.
I cited one exception above, and I've experienced a couple of others with audio hardware, but this is largely true. Regressions do occur, but not often, and they generally get fixed later on.
My experience isn't flamebait. It's my experience. Windows 7 was good, but Windows 10 sucks. I just don't see Linux as a viable alternative.
I don't see your viewpoint or your posting as flamebait. That said, it seems you've had more issues than I have had, and from what I can tell, more issues than the typical Linux user. That doesn't invalidate your experience or negate your difficulties, but I don't know how much they can be generalized to other Linux desktop users.
The LibreOffice bug, for instance, seems to be related to some Word fillable forms. Of course it's a problem, but is it one that a substantial number of people have to deal with?
However, if Linux doesn't work for you, it doesn't, and you'll have to stay with Windows or go to Mac.
And, until software producers start building top-tier CONSUMER software for Linux, it will remail that way.
I think you're wrong. I don't think Linux will EVER be king of the hill.
But that isn't the point. It doesn't have to be king of the hill. For those of us who use it because it's free and open, because it doesn't spy on us, and because it helps us get things done, being "king of the hill" is irrelevant.
This is a big problem with Linux. Whenever someone points out real problems with Linux, there are Linux shills calling it flamebait and attacking them. It's telling that you can't answer the question and instead dismiss it as flamebait.
This is what you said in your first post:
"Linux is hard to configure."
I don't agree. I don't have any particular problems. At least I don't have to deal with the registry. Most distros provide a control center similar to the one on Windows.
"It has terrible user interfaces."
Arguably some options aren't great (like Unity, though some people like it). But there are many choices and my Mint Mate desktop, as one example, is very easy to use and work with.
"Software like Libreoffice is far inferior to Microsoft Office and has bugs that haven't been fixed in years, like randomly making content read only."
What makes LibreOffice inferior in your view? Especially in the latest release, it seems really good. I am not familiar with the read-only bug you mention.
"Video drivers are awful and have far inferior performance."
There's even a decent driver for Nvidia stuff these days. So I'd hardly say the drivers are awful.
"Games are sorely lacking."
Have to agree here, although I'm not a gamer and the few things that interest me (chess, checkers, Skat) work on Linux with Wine.
"Why would anyone use Linux on the desktop?"
Because (for me and many others) it helps me get things done.
I do find oddball problems in Linux, but I've been able to solve nearly all of them. One was with a so-called "WinPrinter" that relied on stuff within Windows to initialize it --- but I did find a Linux substitute and got it to work.
I had one problem with a USB wifi adapter. It was really odd in that it had worked for the longest time but then a kernel update killed it. I could have regressed my kernel to get it to work again (or done some patching) but I hardly ever used it and just let it go.
Yes, I admit using these devices would have been easier on Windows. But I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 99+% of everything I've tried works with Linux without extra hassle.
Above, someone commented that Linux was never intended to be mainstream. I interpreted that as a criticism, but actually it isn't. Linux has a certain audience. I don't see anything wrong with that. But my wife uses Linux and if she can, anyone can... with the caveat that someone else (me, in her case) sets it up and supports it.
You don't get easy choices in situations like this.
This is both astute and important. There's this tendency to simplify situations such that we can give a simple answer--- often, so we can give the answer we would like to give. This tendency isn't limited to one or the other side of a question; both (or all) sides seem to do it.
But the world is not like that. We can't simply wish away the complexity. We can't assume the answer we want and then strip away all the inconvenient details.
Slashdot Mirror
I published a 500+ page book using LO, and had no problem managing and using multiple styles. I had to put a little effort into learning how to do it but in the end it all worked well.
Unfortunately it seems like there are lies and deception and agendas on both sides of the AGW issue.
If we would only take an objective look at objective science, we'd actually have an answer that all reasonable people should agree on.
I say "should" because of course they won't. It seems like even reasonable people lose reason when it comes it AGW.
Not to mention the fact that most of that "incredible accomplishment" can be attributed to sales, marketing, and especially legal strategies, rather than technical superiority.
This is true, and proves that product superiority doesn't mean much. OS/2 was arguably good, but the marketing was poor.
Microsoft's financial accomplishments are indeed incredible. You may not like their business practices but they've made money like crazy. (We could argue about whether making money without regard to ethics is a good thing, but that's a different discussion.)
I open up a terminal, and type in ps aux. A huge gigantic list comes up
......
I miss the good old days...
You can still run one of the minimalist distros, and I'm guessing you'll like it.
All I really care about at a fundamental working level is Emacs (I'm a writer and text mode suits me for many things). My seven year old Acer netbook works fine for these simple needs, and not running a graphical environment gives me longer battery life.
In a way, it's like the good old days. In those days you could get a lot done with a text interface. That hasn't changed. You still can do a lot.
They aren't dropping 32-bit x86
This isn't quite on topic, but Google Chrome has already said they won't provide updates for 32 bit, which seems pretty ridiculous. And Gmail gives a warning.
I have a perfectly good 7 year old (32 bit only) Acer netbook, great for running Emacs and doing all sorts of work that doesn't involve too much in the way of graphics. I'm sure many others have similar devices.
Why is Slashdot participating in the tracking?
Glancing at Ghostery, it's blocking 7 trackers. AdBlock Plus is blocking 3 elements. Right here on Slashdot.
Install linux.
And say goodbye to every piece of Windows only software that you own.
Contrary to popular belief the world does not run on Web Browsers.
That's considered a feature by some :)
The article itself is light on detail and doesn't say whether the "forgetting" was short or long term, which are two very different things.
Various things prevent transfer of a memory from short to long term. If you've had surgery and were given Versed as part of anesthesia, you'll likely experience anterograde amnesia. You'll lose the memories from just before the time you got the Versed.
Concussions are similar. You can lose hours or days of memory (this happened to me once) but you won't lose anything that's already made it to long-term memory.
I suspect this study involved short-term memory, but I can't tell much from the article. Erasing long-term memory would on the face of it seem more difficult.
Disclaimer: I'm not a neurologist and would cheerfully accept correction by more knowledgeable posters.
Interesting, how about cause and effect ...:
Car makers with 90% market share are better than those with 2% market share, same with newspapers, builders, tyres or even sunglasses. Better involves a cost value assessment and when an option is free
The critical difference is that Windows is not being chosen; it comes pre-installed on the overwhelming majority of PCs. When you buy a car you make a choice. A car isn't delivered to you as part of a larger, more expensive bundle. So your analogy doesn't work.
The AC above who said
"Until some flavor of Linux can be preloaded on OEM systems and sold at mass market retail "
was right but didn't take it far enough. Linux would have to be preloaded on an overwhelming majority of (non-Apple) systems sold. That's how Windows won the battle. Whether you think Windows is great or terrible, it didn't win through quality. It won through enforced marketing, by being delivered and ready-to-go on the computer you bought.
Millions (billions?) of users disagree.
I think this is a misinterpretation. Yes, millions are using Windows. This is not an active vote for Windows over Linux. The fact is that millions of computers are shipped with Windows pre-installed, and most buyers go with the flow and use what's in front of them. They're not going to install a different OS and probably aren't any more capable of doing so than they would have been with installing Windows if it hadn't already been done for them.
Whether Linux is "ready" or "as good as" Windows is an entirely different question. Quite a few people think it is. But I won't get into that argument here. But Windows' high market share doesn't prove very much.
Corporations love free
In my experience they actually don't. Corporations tend to equate free with unsupported, and then the management has this feeling of insecurity. They want the support promises tendered by whomever (Microsoft, Oracle, etc.).
This of course shows a lack of understanding of how things really operate at the working level. My Linux Mint installation is unsupported by any official group, but in practice online communities give me tremendous support. It's rare that I even have to post a question online; most of the issues that arise are already documented and solutions to the vast majority of problems can be found in a matter of minutes. Is (for instance) Oracle support that good? Again, in my experience, not even close.
But corporate management is big on holding someone responsible, regardless of the reality. And, interestingly, some (in my opinion less capable and less confident) IT staffers will eagerly agree; they in turn want to be able to say, "Gee, I'd love to get this working, but I'm waiting on a callback from Microsoft."
It's an enterprise document sharing and collaboration tool, which pointy-haired bosses love, and no one (except them) uses.
I've observed and experienced the same thing. It seems to come about when Microsoft suits get together with corporate suits to do some suit talk, and then all of a sudden, hey, we have a new "solution" that will utterly transform your work life!
If you are in the IT department, your work life will indeed be transformed as now it is you who have been made responsible for ensuring all the results the Microsoft suits promised the corporate suits. If you are in another department, you'll go to some classes, log on once or twice, and continue doing things as you always have--- you know, in a manner that actually works.
Good point about Steam. Since I'm not much of a gamer, I keep forgetting that Steam has brought a lot to Linux.
I know the complaint is that these tend to be older titles (although I don't have personal experience with this, so someone can correct me here if necessary). Surely some of the latest and greatest games aren't available on Linux.
Honestly --- if you have the need or desire to play those games --- go ahead and run Windows. I won't try to convince you to drop a passionate interest in favor of Linux.
But in general, I'd guess people don't typically have such specialized needs. The same argument applies to must-run software that has no Linux equivalent. But how common is this? "I have to have Word" often means "I don't want to learn something new like LibreOffice." Okay, that's valid for you, but it does not mean Linux is not up to the task. Maybe Word has a killer feature that LO doesn't, or you have to exchange on-the-edge documents that LO can't handle. I argue that this is rare. When I was working in a Word-centric office, running OO and then LO, problems were quite rare (most of them actually involved stuff like running videos inside PowerPoint)--- and that was over 6 years ago; compatibility is even better today.
Usually it boils down to: I like Windows and I don't want to try something different. Well, no problem. It's a matter of choice, but it is not a matter of Linux being inadequate.
Let's face it. The real reason LInux is at 1% or so market share on desktops is that Windows came preinstalled on nearly 100% of them, and people are not going to bother changing. It's Microsoft's control of the market.
I know you're trolling but to get to the point, the maker of a $10 "gaming" mouse will make sure it works (more or less) on Windows and then push it out the door. At that price they're only interested in the largest market and they're going to spend just about nothing on standards compliance or compatibility (beyond making it work with Windows).
Fact is, most better hardware works with Linux these days. More of it works out of the box, without special drivers, than you might think. I've had many items (printers, bar code readers, etc.) that work at once with Linux but require driver installation with Windows. Sometimes I need extra software with Linux (scanners being the biggest problem, some video cards, maybe a few others) but that's no different than Windows in that case.
Rarely, something won't work at all with Linux. That was a real issue in an earlier day, but today--- not so much.
I even bought a Microsoft branded ergo keyboard and all but one special (non-important) key worked on Linux, with no new drivers. It was completely usable (and I got the special key working with a small configuration change). On Windows? I had to install a special driver! And that's a Microsoft product!
I've never had an employer ask me why it took 5 years to graduate as opposed to 4.
I don't disagree with this (or the rest of your post). But I'll offer a counterexample. I was able to finish in 3 years, and potential employers did take notice in a very positive way.
Note that I'm not recommending doing this. While I enhanced my employability and minimized my total student debt (I was a poor kid at an expensive school), it came at a price.
A gap year is a great idea, but in my case (1) I would have starved if I could have taken it, but (2) I couldn't have taken it because I would have immediately been drafted and sent to Viet Nam.
Was it evil NSA conspiracy? No, but it was a real backdoor added to an open source project!
Which was duly found and exposed, which is the point with open source. I certainly won't claim that no one will ever try something shady. What I do claim is that it will inevitably be brought to light. Can you say that about closed proprietary systems?
The kernel is still open source and "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (ESR). Anyone can take a look at the kernel sources given the skill and time.
It's been said as a counterargument that the source is massive and complex and beyond the capability of most people to sift through. And while that's true, the point is that it is open, and it only takes one person to find a backdoor or other such issue. Backdoors would eventually and inevitably be found and exposed. That is not at all the case with closed proprietary systems.
This is in the summary:
"the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold"
This literally means that if the temp averaged 90F it will then average 180F. That's a lot of climate change.
Could we, you know, maybe have something that makes sense? Like "the temperature in summer in these regions will increase twice as much as previously expected"?
Slashdot may have new owners but the editing hasn't quite gotten there yet.
I found that once a piece of hardware is supported in Linux, it usually stays supported for a long time.
I cited one exception above, and I've experienced a couple of others with audio hardware, but this is largely true. Regressions do occur, but not often, and they generally get fixed later on.
My experience isn't flamebait. It's my experience. Windows 7 was good, but Windows 10 sucks. I just don't see Linux as a viable alternative.
I don't see your viewpoint or your posting as flamebait. That said, it seems you've had more issues than I have had, and from what I can tell, more issues than the typical Linux user. That doesn't invalidate your experience or negate your difficulties, but I don't know how much they can be generalized to other Linux desktop users.
The LibreOffice bug, for instance, seems to be related to some Word fillable forms. Of course it's a problem, but is it one that a substantial number of people have to deal with?
However, if Linux doesn't work for you, it doesn't, and you'll have to stay with Windows or go to Mac.
And, until software producers start building top-tier CONSUMER software for Linux, it will remail that way.
I think you're wrong. I don't think Linux will EVER be king of the hill.
But that isn't the point. It doesn't have to be king of the hill. For those of us who use it because it's free and open, because it doesn't spy on us, and because it helps us get things done, being "king of the hill" is irrelevant.
This is a big problem with Linux. Whenever someone points out real problems with Linux, there are Linux shills calling it flamebait and attacking them. It's telling that you can't answer the question and instead dismiss it as flamebait.
This is what you said in your first post:
"Linux is hard to configure."
I don't agree. I don't have any particular problems. At least I don't have to deal with the registry. Most distros provide a control center similar to the one on Windows.
"It has terrible user interfaces."
Arguably some options aren't great (like Unity, though some people like it). But there are many choices and my Mint Mate desktop, as one example, is very easy to use and work with.
"Software like Libreoffice is far inferior to Microsoft Office and has bugs that haven't been fixed in years, like randomly making content read only."
What makes LibreOffice inferior in your view? Especially in the latest release, it seems really good. I am not familiar with the read-only bug you mention.
"Video drivers are awful and have far inferior performance."
There's even a decent driver for Nvidia stuff these days. So I'd hardly say the drivers are awful.
"Games are sorely lacking."
Have to agree here, although I'm not a gamer and the few things that interest me (chess, checkers, Skat) work on Linux with Wine.
"Why would anyone use Linux on the desktop?"
Because (for me and many others) it helps me get things done.
I do find oddball problems in Linux, but I've been able to solve nearly all of them. One was with a so-called "WinPrinter" that relied on stuff within Windows to initialize it --- but I did find a Linux substitute and got it to work.
I had one problem with a USB wifi adapter. It was really odd in that it had worked for the longest time but then a kernel update killed it. I could have regressed my kernel to get it to work again (or done some patching) but I hardly ever used it and just let it go.
Yes, I admit using these devices would have been easier on Windows. But I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 99+% of everything I've tried works with Linux without extra hassle.
Above, someone commented that Linux was never intended to be mainstream. I interpreted that as a criticism, but actually it isn't. Linux has a certain audience. I don't see anything wrong with that. But my wife uses Linux and if she can, anyone can ... with the caveat that someone else (me, in her case) sets it up and supports it.
From the table, Linux is at 1.56%. So there is still room for growth :)
You don't get easy choices in situations like this.
This is both astute and important. There's this tendency to simplify situations such that we can give a simple answer--- often, so we can give the answer we would like to give. This tendency isn't limited to one or the other side of a question; both (or all) sides seem to do it.
But the world is not like that. We can't simply wish away the complexity. We can't assume the answer we want and then strip away all the inconvenient details.