if you are a comp sci major (as am i)...how could you possibly like windows (besides the obvious). have you taken a look at the size of the MSDN libs lately?!?!? hello...in.NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!! never mind the bloat that goes into their APIs.
I never said I like windows programming. We're talking about Desktop Linux, which to me means "Linux for regular people." That means they don't know what MSDN libs are, they don't care what IOSTREAM is, and APIs have no relevance to their life. They need shit to work, look good, and feel intuitive and polished. I don't "like" Windows in the sense that I worship it. As mentioned elsewhere, I support Unix (and definately prefer Linux) as a server. Hate Windows-based servers.
But I play a dual role in life. I am a computer scientist/developer/technology enthusiast on one side. I am a user on the other. The first part of me prefers Linux. Like Linux. Respects Linux. The "user" has no objection to Linux, but finds that Windows gets the jobs done faster and better.
And since we're talking about "regular people" here, I'd imagine they'd share my "user" mentality, rather than the other mentality. As a CS person, I totally agree with you. As a user, I don't care about the things you mentioned.
2.) not evey single person is in your situation. i have never said "i can't do this in linux, i must re-boot to windows". if you are a comp-sci major that is only interested in game development or 3d rendering, i can understand, but even heavy duty rendering is done on *nix systems. very few of the 3d visualization systems i've worked on were windows based...
But I am also a user. And Windows gives me a better browser (don't talk about standards. Sites look better in IE, and thats what I care about as a user,) a slicker e-mail client, etc.
3.) we DO have features and smooth interfaces...we also have a lack of both. it depends on the disto, packages installed, etc.
Actually, we have definate IMPROVMENT in that area, but I can't say it's anywhere close to Windows.
4.) my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux. the only time you tend to run into the problem of hardware incompatability is when you are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage, or the company doesn't want to release the info to developers that they need to write open source implamentations of the drivers. if you stick with hardware that is even remotely common you shouldn't have a problem. if so...a great wizzard comp-sci major like you should have a problem looking at either the man page or linuxdocs.org right???
You're totally right. I have no expectations to get my Winmodem working in Linux. But get it through your head that we're not talking about geeks. All the geeks have linux already. We're talking about whether Desktop Linux will appeal to regular users.
And regular users tend to not want to worry about whether they "are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage" or that or "these companies don't want to release the info to developers", and they certainly don't want to look at man pages or linuxdocs to get their shit to work.
I am not disagreeing with you on your points. You're right, 100%. If I really wanted to use Linux, I'd have to invest a few hundred bucks and get Linux-supported hardware, and I'd have no problem with it. But you're being very naive if you think regular people will do this.
I didn't mean to say that "I don't know how to do something in Linux." Simply pointing out that there are limitations.
W/o getting into technics of it, I have some games, some applications, a modem, a TV card, and a sound card that aren't supported in Linux. The SC recently became supported, actually, but not very well. So when I want to watch TV or listen to music or play Delta Force or snood or something, I need to boot into Windows. I happen to not rely on any programs that are unix-only, but I rely on plenty of windows-only software.
Chances are, so do most regular users out there. Which means that Linux won't appeal to them.
nix systems have plenty of software out there, and when in doubt...write your own. most big companies write their own propriatary software to handle their needs anyway (on both winblowz and *nix systems).
No doubt. However, there are some VERY basic things that MOST people use, at which windows is just much better.
* better browsing experience. MSIE is sleeker and faster than Mozilla, etc. The web sites were designed with it in mind. Not a fair advantage, but it's a fact.
* better word processing. MS Word is better than that StarOffice thing. Smoother, nicer, faster, more fully features. Same for Excell vs that spreadhseet.
* Solitaire. Much better on Windows.
* E-mail. Outlook and Outlook Express. No better mail client.
What you say is totally true. But the thing is, there's a sertain common set of features and applications that just about everyone in any business or home use. And Windows does it better. For a lot of people, this precludes any futher consideration.
but the basic concept is the same, and thus it isn't as hard to re-train people as one might think...
Definately. But, what's the motivation? The best argument you can make for *nix is "hey, it can do X, Y and Z too." It certainly isn't that much more difficult to do basic things, but I can't say it's BETTER or MORE PLEASANT. So why will people bother to switch?
I totally agree with you. Who's going to care about your virtual protests when they are getting your real cash?
And also, if the idea of a McDonald's bothers you so much that you will waste your time petitioning against a virtual one, who will give a shit? At least have the conviction of picketing outside an actual franchise.
Paying money for the product and picketing outside an imaginary franchise is just about the stupidest thing imaginable. It's just about the opposite of a boycott because you're giving your money to one company, and aren't putting a dent in the profits of the other!
That's the problem, Mr. Coward. If I am building a server, damn straight I'll buy compatible hardware. If I am considering new software for my existing workstation, on the other hand, I am not going to bother investing even more money in hardware just so I can use an OS that doesn't have all of the things I need, unlike a certain other OS I can use that has all the features AND will work with whatever is in my computer.
You certainly have a point. If I am someone who wants and needs Linux, then I have no choice but to throw away my Winmodem and get a "real one." On the other hand, if I am the "general public," I won't bother. And that's what this story is about.
Everyone who's interested in Linux already has it. That's not who desktop distros are aimed at. Desktop distros are aimed at people who don't give a shit about the tehcnology. They just need it to work. They'd sooner throw away the notion of trying Linux than figure out what the hell a Winmodem is. And I can't blame them.
face it.. the general population is not ready for linux desktops. hell, the genereal population isn't even ready for windows XP or OSX.
True that. But the thing is, XP and OSX are ready for the general population. Linux is not.
Give me an AIM client that doesn't look nasty, a browser that doesn't crawl and swap on a machine that runs MSIE effortlessly, and an Office suite that doesn't look clumsy.
I am a comp sci major with pretty good Linux/Unix experience behind my belt, and still I would be neither happy nor productive if I didn't have windows on my system.
The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.
The general public doesn't care about open source, community effort, MS monopoly, none of that shit. They want features and smooth interfaces. And Linux isn't ready to give them that. Will it ever? May be. Probably. Remarkable strides have been made by RH, for example, to make Linux more usable by "regular people" during the last 3-4 years that I've been paying attention to it. They seem pretty adamant about continuing in the same path.
Oh yeah, another thing Linux needs is the ability to work on all the hardware windows can work on. Whatever's in my computer, windows handles it. If the best linux can do for me is a fuzzing sound card, a modem that drivers don't exist for, and a TV tuner I can't use, then I am not switching. I don't care if this is due to companies keeping their data proprietary. To the end user, it's the same shit: it doesn't work.
And Linux's fabled reliability isn't worth shit if it doesn't support your hardware and you can't do what you need to do.
I'll take the plunge and post for the first time in my life.
No one will pay for desktop linux. Why? Because people who pay for OSs are generally businesses, and businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps. If you're going to pay, you may as well pay for what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. And that's Windows.
I am not anti-Linux, at all. I cringe at Windows-based servers, and I fully realize Unix-based server power and flexibility, and encourage my clients to consider it. One of my clients moved to Red Hat and they pay RH some nominal fee for every RH server they ship out. Not even for that RH Network thing. They just pay some ammount to ensure that RH continues its development.
And yet, these guys use Windows on the desktops in the office. They are all Unix professionals. But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat.
Slashdot Mirror
if you are a comp sci major (as am i)...how could you possibly like windows (besides the obvious). have you taken a look at the size of the MSDN libs lately?!?!? hello...in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!! never mind the bloat that goes into their APIs.
I never said I like windows programming. We're talking about Desktop Linux, which to me means "Linux for regular people." That means they don't know what MSDN libs are, they don't care what IOSTREAM is, and APIs have no relevance to their life. They need shit to work, look good, and feel intuitive and polished. I don't "like" Windows in the sense that I worship it. As mentioned elsewhere, I support Unix (and definately prefer Linux) as a server. Hate Windows-based servers.
But I play a dual role in life. I am a computer scientist/developer/technology enthusiast on one side. I am a user on the other. The first part of me prefers Linux. Like Linux. Respects Linux. The "user" has no objection to Linux, but finds that Windows gets the jobs done faster and better.
And since we're talking about "regular people" here, I'd imagine they'd share my "user" mentality, rather than the other mentality. As a CS person, I totally agree with you. As a user, I don't care about the things you mentioned.
2.) not evey single person is in your situation. i have never said "i can't do this in linux, i must re-boot to windows". if you are a comp-sci major that is only interested in game development or 3d rendering, i can understand, but even heavy duty rendering is done on *nix systems. very few of the 3d visualization systems i've worked on were windows based...
But I am also a user. And Windows gives me a better browser (don't talk about standards. Sites look better in IE, and thats what I care about as a user,) a slicker e-mail client, etc.
3.) we DO have features and smooth interfaces...we also have a lack of both. it depends on the disto, packages installed, etc.
Actually, we have definate IMPROVMENT in that area, but I can't say it's anywhere close to Windows.
4.) my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux. the only time you tend to run into the problem of hardware incompatability is when you are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage, or the company doesn't want to release the info to developers that they need to write open source implamentations of the drivers. if you stick with hardware that is even remotely common you shouldn't have a problem. if so...a great wizzard comp-sci major like you should have a problem looking at either the man page or linuxdocs.org right???
You're totally right. I have no expectations to get my Winmodem working in Linux. But get it through your head that we're not talking about geeks. All the geeks have linux already. We're talking about whether Desktop Linux will appeal to regular users.
And regular users tend to not want to worry about whether they "are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage" or that or "these companies don't want to release the info to developers", and they certainly don't want to look at man pages or linuxdocs to get their shit to work.
I am not disagreeing with you on your points. You're right, 100%. If I really wanted to use Linux, I'd have to invest a few hundred bucks and get Linux-supported hardware, and I'd have no problem with it. But you're being very naive if you think regular people will do this.
I didn't mean to say that "I don't know how to do something in Linux." Simply pointing out that there are limitations.
W/o getting into technics of it, I have some games, some applications, a modem, a TV card, and a sound card that aren't supported in Linux. The SC recently became supported, actually, but not very well. So when I want to watch TV or listen to music or play Delta Force or snood or something, I need to boot into Windows. I happen to not rely on any programs that are unix-only, but I rely on plenty of windows-only software.
Chances are, so do most regular users out there. Which means that Linux won't appeal to them.
nix systems have plenty of software out there, and when in doubt...write your own. most big companies write their own propriatary software to handle their needs anyway (on both winblowz and *nix systems).
No doubt. However, there are some VERY basic things that MOST people use, at which windows is just much better.
* better browsing experience. MSIE is sleeker and faster than Mozilla, etc. The web sites were designed with it in mind. Not a fair advantage, but it's a fact.
* better word processing. MS Word is better than that StarOffice thing. Smoother, nicer, faster, more fully features. Same for Excell vs that spreadhseet.
* Solitaire. Much better on Windows.
* E-mail. Outlook and Outlook Express. No better mail client.
What you say is totally true. But the thing is, there's a sertain common set of features and applications that just about everyone in any business or home use. And Windows does it better. For a lot of people, this precludes any futher consideration.
but the basic concept is the same, and thus it isn't as hard to re-train people as one might think...
Definately. But, what's the motivation? The best argument you can make for *nix is "hey, it can do X, Y and Z too." It certainly isn't that much more difficult to do basic things, but I can't say it's BETTER or MORE PLEASANT. So why will people bother to switch?
I totally agree with you. Who's going to care about your virtual protests when they are getting your real cash?
And also, if the idea of a McDonald's bothers you so much that you will waste your time petitioning against a virtual one, who will give a shit? At least have the conviction of picketing outside an actual franchise.
Paying money for the product and picketing outside an imaginary franchise is just about the stupidest thing imaginable. It's just about the opposite of a boycott because you're giving your money to one company, and aren't putting a dent in the profits of the other!
That's the problem, Mr. Coward. If I am building a server, damn straight I'll buy compatible hardware. If I am considering new software for my existing workstation, on the other hand, I am not going to bother investing even more money in hardware just so I can use an OS that doesn't have all of the things I need, unlike a certain other OS I can use that has all the features AND will work with whatever is in my computer.
You certainly have a point. If I am someone who wants and needs Linux, then I have no choice but to throw away my Winmodem and get a "real one." On the other hand, if I am the "general public," I won't bother. And that's what this story is about.
Everyone who's interested in Linux already has it. That's not who desktop distros are aimed at. Desktop distros are aimed at people who don't give a shit about the tehcnology. They just need it to work. They'd sooner throw away the notion of trying Linux than figure out what the hell a Winmodem is. And I can't blame them.
face it.. the general population is not ready for linux desktops. hell, the genereal population isn't even ready for windows XP or OSX.
True that. But the thing is, XP and OSX are ready for the general population. Linux is not.
Give me an AIM client that doesn't look nasty, a browser that doesn't crawl and swap on a machine that runs MSIE effortlessly, and an Office suite that doesn't look clumsy.
I am a comp sci major with pretty good Linux/Unix experience behind my belt, and still I would be neither happy nor productive if I didn't have windows on my system.
The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.
The general public doesn't care about open source, community effort, MS monopoly, none of that shit. They want features and smooth interfaces. And Linux isn't ready to give them that. Will it ever? May be. Probably. Remarkable strides have been made by RH, for example, to make Linux more usable by "regular people" during the last 3-4 years that I've been paying attention to it. They seem pretty adamant about continuing in the same path.
Oh yeah, another thing Linux needs is the ability to work on all the hardware windows can work on. Whatever's in my computer, windows handles it. If the best linux can do for me is a fuzzing sound card, a modem that drivers don't exist for, and a TV tuner I can't use, then I am not switching. I don't care if this is due to companies keeping their data proprietary. To the end user, it's the same shit: it doesn't work.
And Linux's fabled reliability isn't worth shit if it doesn't support your hardware and you can't do what you need to do.
I'll take the plunge and post for the first time in my life.
No one will pay for desktop linux. Why? Because people who pay for OSs are generally businesses, and businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps. If you're going to pay, you may as well pay for what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. And that's Windows.
I am not anti-Linux, at all. I cringe at Windows-based servers, and I fully realize Unix-based server power and flexibility, and encourage my clients to consider it. One of my clients moved to Red Hat and they pay RH some nominal fee for every RH server they ship out. Not even for that RH Network thing. They just pay some ammount to ensure that RH continues its development.
And yet, these guys use Windows on the desktops in the office. They are all Unix professionals. But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat.