I buy my computers. And software. I like getting a good deal for my money. Linux is that good deal. Windows is not.
I buy and assemble my own computer components, too. I like some Microsoft software (Office, for the most part) because of its ease of use and consistent user interface. That's the way it is with most Microsoft products - if you know how to use one, you can pretty much use all of them. Do all of the Linux apps out there have a consistent user interface, or does every program have its own standards?
I gather from what you've stated (and from what I've picked up here and there) that there are 4 main areas in which Linux outperforms Windows: stability, multiuser support, plasticity (i.e., Linux can be configured to suit the whims of the developer), and networking. It's "free," too, but that depends on one's definition of "free." But still - I don't see how those reasons apply to me.
Stability I have often heard how "stable" an OS is Linux, but in my (albeit LIMITED) personal experience, Linux crashes, too - just not as often. I have experienced my share of computer crashes, lost data, hours lost reinstalling, reconfiguring, etc. It's frustrating as hell, I'll admit, but it doesn't happen to me that often. But that's just me. Maybe it happens to others a lot more often.
Multiuser support A Linux box can be configured for multiple users more readily than can a Win9X box. Again, this doesn't really apply to me because I'm the only person who uses my computer at home and at work. Besides, we're an NT shop at work with a domain and users, and it's been working just fine for us for several years.
Plasticity Linux can be configured or customized; Windows cannot, at least not to the extent that Linux can. This would be great if I was a software developer, but I'm just an end user. I dabble in web sites, spreadsheets, databases, and stuff, but I don't do any coding (other than HTML, but that's not really "code," is it?) So for me, the plasticity of Linux isn't all that important. I'd even venture to say that it is irrelevant to my needs.
That's great for you, but I'm not a software developer or programer. I don't need to know how the OS works in order to use it. I use my computer mostly for word processing, some web site development, email . . . stuff like that.
Actually, FlameBoy, the sentence you wrote is grammatically incorrect. It should be two separate sentences:
"Make him an offer. He can't refuse."
When combining two complete sentences, you need to use "or" or "and," thus:
"Make him an offer, and he can't refuse."
But that's not what the Don said, right? So, in order to print what he actually said (IF he said it the way you indicate), it would have to be written:
"Make him an offer. He can't refuse."
But I've seen the movie at least a dozen times. Brando doesn't pause between "offer" and "he." He says it flat out - "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."
And after all this typing, I've proven absolutely nothing.
Linux is best. Don't settle for any other half-baked OS. GET LINUX.
There always seems to be a group of people who are against this or that simply because it's fashionable. Granted: I don't know Linux. I am not a programmer, so I cannot appreciate the beauty and elegance of Linux code compared to Windows, or whatever.
But what's the big deal, really? Why do so many people who consider themselves "in the know" bash Microsoft (e.g., "windoze" and the like, ad infinitum) and the Microsoft family of operating systems, software, etc.? If Linux is so great, why doesn't it have the marketshare that Microsoft has?
It's a conspiracy, right? Big, bad Microsoft won't let the little guys compete, and it's NOT FAIR. Therefore, everyone should switch to Linux because yada-yada-yada.
I guess I should install Linux on a box at work and play around with it, just to see for myself. I'm a Windows user, which probably makes me seem a lot less intelligent to the audience here, but I look at it this way - I drive a car to get from one place to another. My car is a tool. Same goes for my computer. I use my computer at work and at home to perform certain tasks, and the Windows OS works just fine for me.
I hope this isn't interpreted as a flame or a diatribe. I'd really like to know what all the fuss is about. What's so great about Linux?
Well, the ugly reality of $10,000 per pound to orbit reared it's ugly head...
Who about boosting the space station to an altitude of 30,000 miles so we can put it in a stationary orbit, then building a 30,000 mile pneumatic elevator, sorta like what they use to "shoop!" your check to the teller at the bank drive-up? We could call it Project Acme and paint the likeness of Wile Coyote on the outside of the space station . . .
Re:Might As Well Go EVA, There Ain't No Test Tubes
on
ISS Airlock Installed
·
· Score: 2
This won't change until we get a crew escape vehicle (currently the Russian Soyuz, a 30-year-old design) that can carry more than three people back.
Why don't they just lower a long, long ladder down to earth, ala Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner?
Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux Sucks
I buy and assemble my own computer components, too. I like some Microsoft software (Office, for the most part) because of its ease of use and consistent user interface. That's the way it is with most Microsoft products - if you know how to use one, you can pretty much use all of them. Do all of the Linux apps out there have a consistent user interface, or does every program have its own standards?
I gather from what you've stated (and from what I've picked up here and there) that there are 4 main areas in which Linux outperforms Windows: stability, multiuser support, plasticity (i.e., Linux can be configured to suit the whims of the developer), and networking. It's "free," too, but that depends on one's definition of "free." But still - I don't see how those reasons apply to me.
Stability
I have often heard how "stable" an OS is Linux, but in my (albeit LIMITED) personal experience, Linux crashes, too - just not as often. I have experienced my share of computer crashes, lost data, hours lost reinstalling, reconfiguring, etc. It's frustrating as hell, I'll admit, but it doesn't happen to me that often. But that's just me. Maybe it happens to others a lot more often.
Multiuser support
A Linux box can be configured for multiple users more readily than can a Win9X box. Again, this doesn't really apply to me because I'm the only person who uses my computer at home and at work. Besides, we're an NT shop at work with a domain and users, and it's been working just fine for us for several years.
Plasticity
Linux can be configured or customized; Windows cannot, at least not to the extent that Linux can. This would be great if I was a software developer, but I'm just an end user. I dabble in web sites, spreadsheets, databases, and stuff, but I don't do any coding (other than HTML, but that's not really "code," is it?) So for me, the plasticity of Linux isn't all that important. I'd even venture to say that it is irrelevant to my needs.
Networking
Touche', dickless one.
That's great for you, but I'm not a software developer or programer. I don't need to know how the OS works in order to use it. I use my computer mostly for word processing, some web site development, email . . . stuff like that.
Actually, FlameBoy, the sentence you wrote is grammatically incorrect. It should be two separate sentences:
"Make him an offer. He can't refuse."
When combining two complete sentences, you need to use "or" or "and," thus:
"Make him an offer, and he can't refuse."
But that's not what the Don said, right? So, in order to print what he actually said (IF he said it the way you indicate), it would have to be written:
"Make him an offer. He can't refuse."
But I've seen the movie at least a dozen times. Brando doesn't pause between "offer" and "he." He says it flat out - "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."
And after all this typing, I've proven absolutely nothing.
There always seems to be a group of people who are against this or that simply because it's fashionable. Granted: I don't know Linux. I am not a programmer, so I cannot appreciate the beauty and elegance of Linux code compared to Windows, or whatever.
But what's the big deal, really? Why do so many people who consider themselves "in the know" bash Microsoft (e.g., "windoze" and the like, ad infinitum) and the Microsoft family of operating systems, software, etc.? If Linux is so great, why doesn't it have the marketshare that Microsoft has?
It's a conspiracy, right? Big, bad Microsoft won't let the little guys compete, and it's NOT FAIR. Therefore, everyone should switch to Linux because yada-yada-yada.
I guess I should install Linux on a box at work and play around with it, just to see for myself. I'm a Windows user, which probably makes me seem a lot less intelligent to the audience here, but I look at it this way - I drive a car to get from one place to another. My car is a tool. Same goes for my computer. I use my computer at work and at home to perform certain tasks, and the Windows OS works just fine for me.
I hope this isn't interpreted as a flame or a diatribe. I'd really like to know what all the fuss is about. What's so great about Linux?
Who about boosting the space station to an altitude of 30,000 miles so we can put it in a stationary orbit, then building a 30,000 mile pneumatic elevator, sorta like what they use to "shoop!" your check to the teller at the bank drive-up? We could call it Project Acme and paint the likeness of Wile Coyote on the outside of the space station . . .
Why don't they just lower a long, long ladder down to earth, ala Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner?