Too bad you come off like a linux zealotist fanboy, I might have actually discussed things with you.
People like you are one of the problems with Linux, no objective though, just hostile defensive reactions.
Perhaps we're not on the same page here. When I "cut and paste" in linux, i highlight a block of text which is then inserted into the clipboard, automaticly. Then, I use the middle mouse button to paste. I've never seen it done another way. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.
My scrollwheel has never worked properly in linux without manual modification of the configuration files. Even after doing it, some programs will not use it. If it works for you, great. It certainly doesn't for me.
I'd like to thank you for your well thought out reply to the things I've said. It's nice to see Linux getting good representation as opposed to the typical zealotist Linux fanboy junk.
I'm not anti-Linux, or trolling, as some here might be lead to believe. I just think one should use the right tool for the right job. From the reactions I get, sometimes I wonder if Linux FUD is as bad (or worse) as Microsoft FUD.
In essence, one should not run Linux simply because it's Linux. One should run Linux because it meets a need, and meets that need in the best way possible. Personally, I don't think Linux meets my needs, and I have a hard time seeing it meeting the needs of countless others who already use something (Windows) that works, and works well with the least amount of hassle possible. Realize that while you and I may be content to read a manpage or a howto to get something done, others will either a) not understand it, or b) will not have the time to try to understand it.
Some of my terminology may not have been entirely correct. When I speak of 'inconsistancies in X' I mean things that don't always operate as they should while using an X-based environment. This may be too general, and I apologize if there was some confusion there.
I have not run a linux desktop for several months now, so there may also be some things which were true then, but possibly not true now. I have never been able to auto-configure any scrollwheel mouse, logitech or otherwise. Gettnig my intellimouse explorer to operate required that I hack in support at the time.
Every so often I get the urge to install Linux (or a BSD flavour for that matter), and every time I do I find there are more annoyances than rewards. The only time I've found linux (or *BSD) to be truly rewarding is when I'm using them in server environments.
Linux is still not ready for the desktop. Before people pull out their torches, flamethrowers and other impliments of death seeking my head, lets have a look at why.
1) X - This was a neat idea, and has had a lot of time and innovation put in to it. However, it's still ununified, clumsy, confusing and bulky. When X works, it works great. When X doesn't work, it's a nightmare.
2) Lack of standardization. Simple things which should work and operate the same over many applications sometimes do not. Such is the case with cut & paste, which beyond not being 100% universal, is a really lousy implimentation. If you're like me, and you highlight the text you want to replace with what is in the clipboard, you'll know what I'm talking about.
3) Very basic things which should be autodetected and configured by XWindows are simply not. How long have scrollwheel mice been around? How about mice with more than three buttons?
4) Lack of proper native support for popular applications. Ok, so perhaps this is not linux's fault, or Xs for that matter. However, wine and crossover office are poor substitutes to running windows applications under windows. While it is good that linux software has sprung up to try to fill the void, much of this software is nowhere near as good as their windows counterparts. See: MS Office vs Openoffice or Gimp vs Photoshop. Before Linux is viable, big names need to port applications over to run nativly. Otherwise, you may as well just run windows.
5) Regardless of the advances made with the Linux desktop, it is still not user friendly. More to the point, it's confusing. Having a lot of choices can be a good thing, and a bad thing. For us gearheads, it's great. But for the average user, it's a tedious hassle that takes too long. I can set a windows box up from start to finish in about an hour. Linux almost always takes the entire day.
6) Package management in linux sucks. Installing something in windows is almost always hassle free, and fast. Installing something in Linux is sometimes hassle free. Library conflicts, bad software and things that just don't compile for whatever reason really hurt linux as it increases the complexity of the whole process.
In short, Linux is not really a good desktop operating system. It lacks standardization and most popular modern applications are not available for it.
Lastly, how is a conference on Desktop Linux solutions groundbreaking? I'm sure many have been held before.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad you come off like a linux zealotist fanboy, I might have actually discussed things with you. People like you are one of the problems with Linux, no objective though, just hostile defensive reactions.
Perhaps we're not on the same page here. When I "cut and paste" in linux, i highlight a block of text which is then inserted into the clipboard, automaticly. Then, I use the middle mouse button to paste. I've never seen it done another way. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. My scrollwheel has never worked properly in linux without manual modification of the configuration files. Even after doing it, some programs will not use it. If it works for you, great. It certainly doesn't for me.
I'd like to thank you for your well thought out reply to the things I've said. It's nice to see Linux getting good representation as opposed to the typical zealotist Linux fanboy junk.
I'm not anti-Linux, or trolling, as some here might be lead to believe. I just think one should use the right tool for the right job. From the reactions I get, sometimes I wonder if Linux FUD is as bad (or worse) as Microsoft FUD.
In essence, one should not run Linux simply because it's Linux. One should run Linux because it meets a need, and meets that need in the best way possible. Personally, I don't think Linux meets my needs, and I have a hard time seeing it meeting the needs of countless others who already use something (Windows) that works, and works well with the least amount of hassle possible. Realize that while you and I may be content to read a manpage or a howto to get something done, others will either a) not understand it, or b) will not have the time to try to understand it.
Some of my terminology may not have been entirely correct. When I speak of 'inconsistancies in X' I mean things that don't always operate as they should while using an X-based environment. This may be too general, and I apologize if there was some confusion there.
I have not run a linux desktop for several months now, so there may also be some things which were true then, but possibly not true now. I have never been able to auto-configure any scrollwheel mouse, logitech or otherwise. Gettnig my intellimouse explorer to operate required that I hack in support at the time.
Every so often I get the urge to install Linux (or a BSD flavour for that matter), and every time I do I find there are more annoyances than rewards. The only time I've found linux (or *BSD) to be truly rewarding is when I'm using them in server environments.
Linux is still not ready for the desktop. Before people pull out their torches, flamethrowers and other impliments of death seeking my head, lets have a look at why.
1) X - This was a neat idea, and has had a lot of time and innovation put in to it. However, it's still ununified, clumsy, confusing and bulky. When X works, it works great. When X doesn't work, it's a nightmare.
2) Lack of standardization. Simple things which should work and operate the same over many applications sometimes do not. Such is the case with cut & paste, which beyond not being 100% universal, is a really lousy implimentation. If you're like me, and you highlight the text you want to replace with what is in the clipboard, you'll know what I'm talking about.
3) Very basic things which should be autodetected and configured by XWindows are simply not. How long have scrollwheel mice been around? How about mice with more than three buttons?
4) Lack of proper native support for popular applications. Ok, so perhaps this is not linux's fault, or Xs for that matter. However, wine and crossover office are poor substitutes to running windows applications under windows. While it is good that linux software has sprung up to try to fill the void, much of this software is nowhere near as good as their windows counterparts. See: MS Office vs Openoffice or Gimp vs Photoshop. Before Linux is viable, big names need to port applications over to run nativly. Otherwise, you may as well just run windows.
5) Regardless of the advances made with the Linux desktop, it is still not user friendly. More to the point, it's confusing. Having a lot of choices can be a good thing, and a bad thing. For us gearheads, it's great. But for the average user, it's a tedious hassle that takes too long. I can set a windows box up from start to finish in about an hour. Linux almost always takes the entire day.
6) Package management in linux sucks. Installing something in windows is almost always hassle free, and fast. Installing something in Linux is sometimes hassle free. Library conflicts, bad software and things that just don't compile for whatever reason really hurt linux as it increases the complexity of the whole process.
In short, Linux is not really a good desktop operating system. It lacks standardization and most popular modern applications are not available for it.
Lastly, how is a conference on Desktop Linux solutions groundbreaking? I'm sure many have been held before.
Then you have not installed quicktime recently, it is now bundled with itunes