Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Humor
Windows rapidly approaching desktop usability
By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
on
May 27, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Every year or so I like to see how Microsoft is doing in its attempt to make a desktop operating system as usable as Linux. Microsoft Windows XP, Home Edition, with Service Pack 2, is a tremendous improvement over previous Windows versions when it comes to stability and appearance, but it still has many glitches that keep it from being competitive with GNU/Linux for everyday users, including a tedious installation procedure, lack of productivity software included with the operating system, hardware compatibility problems, and a price so much higher than any of the Linux distributions I've tested lately that I don't feel this product is a good value for most home or small office users
My test machine was a two-year-old HP Compaq d220 microtower that originally shipped with Mandrake Linux version 9.2. I have tested and used this desktop with at least half a dozen different Linux distributions. All have loaded and run without any problems. In fact, for at least 12 out of the last 24 months, this little black box has been my primary desktop workhorse, and it has always functioned without a hiccup -- until I tried to install the "Windows XP Home Edition" operating system on it.
Since I have heard that discount copies of Windows XP available from online vendors may be "pirated" or tainted in some way, I purchased my copy over the counter from well-known retailer Office Depot to make sure I was getting the genuine article instead of a cheap knock-off. Despite this precaution, no matter how hard I looked in the package I found no manual, just a 14 page "Let's Get Started" guide and a single CD (plus some assorted marketing material) enclosed in a folder with a sticker containing some sort of strange code on it, plus these words:
Video blanking hassles
My primary desktop monitor is a 15" LiquidVideo LCD monitor purchased from mainstream electronics retailer Circuit City. It has always had the slightly annoying habit of going through a short "AutoAdjust" routine on every startup, but it happily accepted the generic framebuffer video input used by most versions of GNU/Linux during their bootup and installation processes. During my attempts at Windows XP installation, the combination of the LiquidVideo monitor and the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard video produced constant, totally annoying screen blinking that made it almost impossible to do things like type in the long, so-precious "Product Key." Note that this "Key" is not a simple, English-language password, but a 20-character string of apparently random letters and numbers. It took me several tries to type the "Product Key" correctly without being able to see it on screen because of the constant blinking. I doubt that most users would put up with this problem. I suspect that most would simply return their copy of Windows XP to the store where they bought it and go back to familiar, user-friendly Linux.
The video blanking problem also made it nearly impossible to read the screen where you're supposed to create an "Admin" password ("Admin" is Windows-ese for "root"), then create regular users.
In the end, I had so much trouble with the Windows XP installation and setup with this common discount monitor that I used an old 17" CRT monitor I had in my garage for the installation and setup, then plugged in the LCD monitor for everyday use.
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions. It's possible that the monitor manufacturers aren't willing to give Microsoft and other proprietary operating system companies the information they need to create appropriate drivers and that the manufacturers, not Microsoft, deserve the blame for this problem. But from a user's standpoint it doesn't matter who is at fault in this game. It simply means that hardware must be carefully chosen when contemplating a switch from Linux to Windows XP -- and that you can't expect "it just works" hardware compatibility from this operating system.
Windows XP networking: Not for amateurs
I could not get Windows XP to detect the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard Broadcom NIC. I used another computer to download XP drivers from HP's site, and burned them to CD for installation on the d220, but still no luck.
This same NIC was detected and automatically set up by MEPIS, Knoppix, and Mandriva Linux during their installations. I was surprised that Windows XP was not able to do the same.
In the end, I bought a $15 "generic" PCI NIC from a local retailer and installed it. This solved the Windows XP network interface problem. But I doubt that most home or small business users would want to add hardware to a working computer just to convert from Linux to Windows, especially after paying $199 for their new operating system.
Shocked by additional software costs
The SimplyMEPIS version of GNU/Linux I run on my "workhorse" laptop computer includes a full-featured office suite, ftp, chat, and graphics software, and dozens of other useful programs on its installation CD. Windows XP included none of these, and most of the equivalent packages available for Windows are costly. Some, like Microsoft's Office software (which is similar to OpenOffice.org but doesn't read as many file formats and won't directly save your work as PDFs), cost more than the operating system itself.
I found that the tools needed to give the Microsoft Explorer Web browser included with Windows XP some of the same modern features that are standard in the Firefox Web browser that comes with SimplyMEPIS are pay-for add-ons, which seemed somewhat silly. Even the "better" version -- Outlook -- of Microsoft's email software costs extra, as do most of the ftp clients available for Windows XP.
Yes, Firefox, the Thunderbird email suite, GAIM, GIMP, and many other well-regarded open source programs are now available for Windows XP, but each must be downloaded and installed individually. They are not included in the base Windows XP install. This makes no sense. If you pay more for Windows XP than for a typical Linux distribution, shouldn't it come with the same -- or better -- software on its installation CD?
Where Windows XP shines
There are thousands of third-party applications available for Windows XP that have no direct Linux equivalents. For people with specialized software needs -- and deep pockets -- this wealth of Windows third-party software makes it an excellent operating system choice.
For those with simpler software needs, the problems and costs associated with Windows XP argue against a switch from GNU/Linux unless Microsoft radically changes its pricing and licensing structure, and manages to make its premier operating system install easily on common, everyday hardware.
Hope for the future
The improvement in Windows XP Home Edition over previous "ordinary user" versions of Windows -- notably Windows ME and Windows 98 SE -- is nothing short of magnificent. Once you get past the installation problems, you see a desktop that's close enough to KDE (or Gnome) in general appearance and functionality that an experienced GNU/Linux user should only need a few hours worth of practice to make the switch.
I have not yet gotten any viruses or worms on my Windows XP computer, nor have I experienced nearly as many system crashes as I did with pre-XP Windows versions.
Given Microsoft's current development rate, it's entirely possible that within a few years Windows may be almost as good a choice for most users as Linux, although it's likely that during these same few years Linux will also advance rapidly, and that a growing number of third-party developers will write software for it to replace the programs that now "lock in" many Windows users.
For the moment, though, I advise sticking with Linux unless you have software requirements that can only be met by using the Windows XP operating system, and if you must use Windows XP you should try to get a computer that has it preinstalled rather installing it yourself -- unless you are a hard-core techie/nerd instead of an ordinary user.
But all this could change when the "Longhorn" version of Windows is released in 2006 (or possibly 2007, 2008 or 2009). At that point, I'll re-evaluate the Windows operating system and see if it's finally ready for the mass market instead of requiring specialized skills -- and carefully-selected hardware -- to install and set up on the average home or small business desktop.
OSTG Editor-in-chief Robin 'Roblimo' Miller is the author of Point & Click Linux! and loves to read analysts' and Windows users' reasons Linux isn't ready for the desktop so much that once in a while he likes to turn the tables and write about Windows from a Linux user's perspective.
Since I have heard that discount copies of Windows XP available from online vendors may be "pirated" or tainted in some way, I purchased my copy over the counter from well-known retailer Office Depot to make sure I was getting the genuine article instead of a cheap knock-off. Despite this precaution, no matter how hard I looked in the package I found no manual, just a 14 page "Let's Get Started" guide and a single CD (plus some assorted marketing material) enclosed in a folder with a sticker containing some sort of strange code on it, plus these words:
My collection of Mandriva, Debian, SUSE, Knoppix, and MEPIS installation CDs don't require "product keys" I'm not allowed to lose. But this is only a small irritation. On to the installation itself.Don't Lose This Product Key!
You must use it every time you install this software.
So be sure to store this folder in a safe place.
Video blanking hassles
My primary desktop monitor is a 15" LiquidVideo LCD monitor purchased from mainstream electronics retailer Circuit City. It has always had the slightly annoying habit of going through a short "AutoAdjust" routine on every startup, but it happily accepted the generic framebuffer video input used by most versions of GNU/Linux during their bootup and installation processes. During my attempts at Windows XP installation, the combination of the LiquidVideo monitor and the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard video produced constant, totally annoying screen blinking that made it almost impossible to do things like type in the long, so-precious "Product Key." Note that this "Key" is not a simple, English-language password, but a 20-character string of apparently random letters and numbers. It took me several tries to type the "Product Key" correctly without being able to see it on screen because of the constant blinking. I doubt that most users would put up with this problem. I suspect that most would simply return their copy of Windows XP to the store where they bought it and go back to familiar, user-friendly Linux.
The video blanking problem also made it nearly impossible to read the screen where you're supposed to create an "Admin" password ("Admin" is Windows-ese for "root"), then create regular users.
In the end, I had so much trouble with the Windows XP installation and setup with this common discount monitor that I used an old 17" CRT monitor I had in my garage for the installation and setup, then plugged in the LCD monitor for everyday use.
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions. It's possible that the monitor manufacturers aren't willing to give Microsoft and other proprietary operating system companies the information they need to create appropriate drivers and that the manufacturers, not Microsoft, deserve the blame for this problem. But from a user's standpoint it doesn't matter who is at fault in this game. It simply means that hardware must be carefully chosen when contemplating a switch from Linux to Windows XP -- and that you can't expect "it just works" hardware compatibility from this operating system.
Windows XP networking: Not for amateurs
I could not get Windows XP to detect the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard Broadcom NIC. I used another computer to download XP drivers from HP's site, and burned them to CD for installation on the d220, but still no luck.
This same NIC was detected and automatically set up by MEPIS, Knoppix, and Mandriva Linux during their installations. I was surprised that Windows XP was not able to do the same.
In the end, I bought a $15 "generic" PCI NIC from a local retailer and installed it. This solved the Windows XP network interface problem. But I doubt that most home or small business users would want to add hardware to a working computer just to convert from Linux to Windows, especially after paying $199 for their new operating system.
Shocked by additional software costs
The SimplyMEPIS version of GNU/Linux I run on my "workhorse" laptop computer includes a full-featured office suite, ftp, chat, and graphics software, and dozens of other useful programs on its installation CD. Windows XP included none of these, and most of the equivalent packages available for Windows are costly. Some, like Microsoft's Office software (which is similar to OpenOffice.org but doesn't read as many file formats and won't directly save your work as PDFs), cost more than the operating system itself.
I found that the tools needed to give the Microsoft Explorer Web browser included with Windows XP some of the same modern features that are standard in the Firefox Web browser that comes with SimplyMEPIS are pay-for add-ons, which seemed somewhat silly. Even the "better" version -- Outlook -- of Microsoft's email software costs extra, as do most of the ftp clients available for Windows XP.
Yes, Firefox, the Thunderbird email suite, GAIM, GIMP, and many other well-regarded open source programs are now available for Windows XP, but each must be downloaded and installed individually. They are not included in the base Windows XP install. This makes no sense. If you pay more for Windows XP than for a typical Linux distribution, shouldn't it come with the same -- or better -- software on its installation CD?
Where Windows XP shines
There are thousands of third-party applications available for Windows XP that have no direct Linux equivalents. For people with specialized software needs -- and deep pockets -- this wealth of Windows third-party software makes it an excellent operating system choice.
For those with simpler software needs, the problems and costs associated with Windows XP argue against a switch from GNU/Linux unless Microsoft radically changes its pricing and licensing structure, and manages to make its premier operating system install easily on common, everyday hardware.
Hope for the future
The improvement in Windows XP Home Edition over previous "ordinary user" versions of Windows -- notably Windows ME and Windows 98 SE -- is nothing short of magnificent. Once you get past the installation problems, you see a desktop that's close enough to KDE (or Gnome) in general appearance and functionality that an experienced GNU/Linux user should only need a few hours worth of practice to make the switch.
I have not yet gotten any viruses or worms on my Windows XP computer, nor have I experienced nearly as many system crashes as I did with pre-XP Windows versions.
Given Microsoft's current development rate, it's entirely possible that within a few years Windows may be almost as good a choice for most users as Linux, although it's likely that during these same few years Linux will also advance rapidly, and that a growing number of third-party developers will write software for it to replace the programs that now "lock in" many Windows users.
For the moment, though, I advise sticking with Linux unless you have software requirements that can only be met by using the Windows XP operating system, and if you must use Windows XP you should try to get a computer that has it preinstalled rather installing it yourself -- unless you are a hard-core techie/nerd instead of an ordinary user.
But all this could change when the "Longhorn" version of Windows is released in 2006 (or possibly 2007, 2008 or 2009). At that point, I'll re-evaluate the Windows operating system and see if it's finally ready for the mass market instead of requiring specialized skills -- and carefully-selected hardware -- to install and set up on the average home or small business desktop.
OSTG Editor-in-chief Robin 'Roblimo' Miller is the author of Point & Click Linux! and loves to read analysts' and Windows users' reasons Linux isn't ready for the desktop so much that once in a while he likes to turn the tables and write about Windows from a Linux user's perspective.
Comments
on Windows rapidly approaching desktop usabilityNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
<a href="http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2662" title="osnews.com">http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2662</a osnews.com>
Yeah, this is been done before, by ME, over 2 years ago.
Yeah, this is been done before, by ME, over 2 years ago.
True, it was first; false, it was not better.
Better? I think not.
Every issue raised here is a legitimate complaint for a Linux user trying to use Windows. I've expressed almost all of them myself.
This article may have been intended as satire, but, as a wise man once said, "It's funny because it's true."
Your article goes off the deep end, creating problems where none exist, and suggesting completely unworkable "solutions", like getting more disk space with a low level format, while your entire HDD is stored on a ramdrive. You had a few valid arguements, but on the whole just made yourself look like an ass by reaching to ridiculous extremes.
Also, this one was actually well written, and free of the glaring spelling and grammar mistakes which make yours so painful to read.
Every issue raised here is a legitimate complaint for a Linux user trying to use Windows. I've expressed almost all of them myself.
This article may have been intended as satire, but, as a wise man once said, "It's funny because it's true."
Your article goes off the deep end, creating problems where none exist, and suggesting completely unworkable "solutions", like getting more disk space with a low level format, while your entire HDD is stored on a ramdrive. You had a few valid arguements, but on the whole just made yourself look like an ass by reaching to ridiculous extremes.
Also, this one was actually well written, and free of the glaring spelling and grammar mistakes which make yours so painful to read.
It actually doesn't require you to keep your mouse on the scrollbar. There's an extra boundary of around 100 pixels on a 1024x768 resolution.
I liked this article, but this is stupid. Try explaining to someone why left-clicking ABOVE the scroll thumb in an xterm pages the display down, and watch their head explode.
Format -> Character
Format -> Paragraph
Format -> Section
File -> Format Page?
Courtesy of Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has Page in the Format menu, where a novice would expect it to be. Page format doesn't necessarily impact the whole file.
One mouse action that I really, really miss when using MS-Windows is left-swipe middle-click cut-and-paste without touching the keyboard. I see that MSIE7 will begin to bring us one small part of middle-click functionality as a special case for that application only.
And... it's not clicking above/below that scrolls traditional applications, but which button you click with. While I've become unused to this, I do remember it being much, much faster for scrolling because you didn't have to find the elevator first and aim accordingly.
Format -> Paragraph
Format -> Section
File -> Format Page?
Courtesy of Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has Page in the Format menu, where a novice would expect it to be. Page format doesn't necessarily impact the whole file.
One mouse action that I really, really miss when using MS-Windows is left-swipe middle-click cut-and-paste without touching the keyboard. I see that MSIE7 will begin to bring us one small part of middle-click functionality as a special case for that application only.
And... it's not clicking above/below that scrolls traditional applications, but which button you click with. While I've become unused to this, I do remember it being much, much faster for scrolling because you didn't have to find the elevator first and aim accordingly.
Well, actually it's not - the number of lines from the top where you click next to is the number of lines the text will scroll, - down with the left mouse button and up with the right mouse button. Whereas with windows clicking above or below the scroll thumb scrolls the whole page.
Once you get that, it's more powerful - how often do you want to scroll only a few lines? And keep some part of what you see in the screen?
With MSWin, you really really need that scrollwheel, and the silly hard to click up and down arrows. With X you don't.
On a side note, I enjoyed this article, thanks Roblimo.
aRTee
www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr
Once you get that, it's more powerful - how often do you want to scroll only a few lines? And keep some part of what you see in the screen?
With MSWin, you really really need that scrollwheel, and the silly hard to click up and down arrows. With X you don't.
On a side note, I enjoyed this article, thanks Roblimo.
aRTee
www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr
No, Thank YOU.
I "always" knew about that left/right/middle button scroll action. I never knew before that you could effect the number of lines by positioning the pointer. It just never 'clicked'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thanks for the tip.
I "always" knew about that left/right/middle button scroll action. I never knew before that you could effect the number of lines by positioning the pointer. It just never 'clicked'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thanks for the tip.
".. watch their head explode. "
Hmm, how about something easy like..
It doesn't matter where you point, just click left to page up, and right to page down.
If you want to grab hold of the scrollthumbthingy, use the middle button.
If someone can't get that, they don't need their head anyway.
Hmm, how about something easy like..
It doesn't matter where you point, just click left to page up, and right to page down.
If you want to grab hold of the scrollthumbthingy, use the middle button.
If someone can't get that, they don't need their head anyway.
The difficulty of installing additional applicatio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 02:57 AM
I think more could be said of the difficulty of aquiring and installing additional applications, whether one talks about things like gaim, firefox, or third party windows proprietary software. Consider, with any modern GNU/Linux distro, like say Mepis, you can pull up a nice friendly synaptic menu, find what you want, request it, and it is installed, automatically, and nearly immediately, over the internet. This is how software installation should work in the 21st century.
To install even common software like firefox and gaim, one has to download and seperately install it. However, even worse, are those applications you have to pay for. You cant simply request them to download and install on demand when you want them. While you may spend considerably more, you receive far less convenience for the price. After all you have to wait or aquire some clunky cd-rom media from some store or for it's delivery through the mail, like reliving an early 1980's version of sneaker-net, or like having hand-cranks on cars all over again.
Until Windows XP can get past the model-T era software distribution model for licensing and installing additional applications, I do not consider it suitable for non-technical users either.
To install even common software like firefox and gaim, one has to download and seperately install it. However, even worse, are those applications you have to pay for. You cant simply request them to download and install on demand when you want them. While you may spend considerably more, you receive far less convenience for the price. After all you have to wait or aquire some clunky cd-rom media from some store or for it's delivery through the mail, like reliving an early 1980's version of sneaker-net, or like having hand-cranks on cars all over again.
Until Windows XP can get past the model-T era software distribution model for licensing and installing additional applications, I do not consider it suitable for non-technical users either.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:50 AM
Yes it must be difficult for a newbie to go down to a store and talk to a real live person who is able to tell them what software they need.. I must admit for some people it is hard to put a CD into the drive and then follow the on screen instructions.. oh wait,, did you forget that people buy software from stores?? Stores that have people that (sometimes) know what they are talking about and can point people in the right direction.. Or do you expect people who have never used a computer to know what a spreadsheet is, or burning software, or better yet a browser??
now I do wish that XP had a central store for freeware that would allow for the same ease when downloading software.. but if you did this for pay software you would have a monopoly.. you know what that means.. that means that they could charge you what ever they liked and you would have to either pay for it or do without.. Oh also most small developers would probably get cut as well because they wouldn't be able to pay to play..
Perhaps you should think things through before you make such a one sided statement..
now I do wish that XP had a central store for freeware that would allow for the same ease when downloading software.. but if you did this for pay software you would have a monopoly.. you know what that means.. that means that they could charge you what ever they liked and you would have to either pay for it or do without.. Oh also most small developers would probably get cut as well because they wouldn't be able to pay to play..
Perhaps you should think things through before you make such a one sided statement..
My experience is that non-techie Windows users ask their techie friends and family for help buying and installing their software. I almost never see these usual Joes installing office suites or much of anything else without help or a lot of suffering. How many times have I gone to a friends house to fix their computer to find a stack of programs they've purchased but never gotten to install? Then you get the program that is installed but has evidently been installed 10 times in an effort to get the program working. It's certainly not an easy process for most users.
Then we won't even get into uninstallation in Windows. Even experienced techies sometimes fear to try that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Then we won't even get into uninstallation in Windows. Even experienced techies sometimes fear to try that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thats a good point.. but there are a lot of people who don't have techie friends.. I whole heartedly agree with you about uninstallation.. IMHO every os should act like OSX, you just drag the folder to the trash.. quick and easy.. I would love to see that in Linux..
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 08:10 AM
That would be pretty easy, but fire up Synaptic, find the program you want to uninstall, rt click and select "Mark for complete removal", hit apply.
I do think that installing in folders is a good idea and I often do that with my Linux systems. I don't like how Linux (as does Unix) installs programs split up among many directories. Instead I leave them in one place and just create links where needed in the filesystem.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 09:57 PM
There have been a few attempts to do something similar to this in Linux. The ROX desktop can use such packages. I'm not sure if the binaries are generally statically linked or not (as I thing they must tend to be with Mac OSX). As to entire distributions, there is GoboLinux and early development on a RoxOS distribution that is based on the ROX Desktop. Look here for links and more information: <a href="http://rox.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">http://rox.sourceforge.net/</a sourceforge.net>
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 18, 2005 09:00 AM
although I switchded over to linux last year, I have to admit that installing software in windows is much easier. What about dependencies in linux?? If you don't have the xyz library you can't install a specific application. This means tha you have to install the required libraries etc and then install the app.
just my 2cents
just my 2cents
...ALWAYS make three left turns to make a right.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 12:28 AM
Of my personal experience with all sorts of Windows and Linux variants, I find it much easer to install software on windows. With Windows, you double-click on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe installer. With Linux, you have to worry about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tar's and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gz's and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rpm's and make file’s and port collections and compiling source, and may other's, and it's just too complex for any average user. However, your post seemed to be more directed toward finding software, which I will admit, is not always easy on Windows.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 07:50 AM
I really can't think of any way of installing software that's easier than Synaptic. Fire up Synaptic, search for the type of program that suits your need, mark it and apply. The way you call out every single (well, almost.. no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.debs there) type of archive you'd think you have to deal with them all in all distros, which is far from the truth. Sounds like you have neglected to experience Debian in your journeys.
...finding and/or paying for enough bits and pieces to compile it and all of its dependencies can be a tedious and/or bankrupting experience.
Even when you do have enough tools to hand, you'll find that MS-Windows is a subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) different to everything else, which can make converting software to work with it a serious PITA compared with converting something from, say, <a href="http://hpux.connect.org.uk/" title="connect.org.uk">HP-UX</a connect.org.uk> to <a href="http://fink.sf.net/" title="sf.net">OS X</a sf.net>.
Even when you do have enough tools to hand, you'll find that MS-Windows is a subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) different to everything else, which can make converting software to work with it a serious PITA compared with converting something from, say, <a href="http://hpux.connect.org.uk/" title="connect.org.uk">HP-UX</a connect.org.uk> to <a href="http://fink.sf.net/" title="sf.net">OS X</a sf.net>.
Very nice article and well written. A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Very nice article and well written. A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Spot on.
I'm an average user of Windows for personal and business use moving in the other direction (a more apt description would be atteepting a breakout) I would would have completed the task by now if I didn't have a compelling need to fiddle with Linux and the installed app's, but hey, I'm an ignorant Windows user, I'm used to having to fiddle with things that inexplcitly decide not to work after the monthly umm "security" patch or weekly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll conflict.
For a relative noob, and if I can keep from looking in places I shouldn't, Linux will work out of the box, for eg, Mepis has everything I need to be productive, and will stay that way reliably without any more input from me.
Now all I need to do is take a big deep breath, edit grub then run QtParted over my Windows partitions. Free.
Spot on.
I'm an average user of Windows for personal and business use moving in the other direction (a more apt description would be atteepting a breakout) I would would have completed the task by now if I didn't have a compelling need to fiddle with Linux and the installed app's, but hey, I'm an ignorant Windows user, I'm used to having to fiddle with things that inexplcitly decide not to work after the monthly umm "security" patch or weekly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll conflict.
For a relative noob, and if I can keep from looking in places I shouldn't, Linux will work out of the box, for eg, Mepis has everything I need to be productive, and will stay that way reliably without any more input from me.
Now all I need to do is take a big deep breath, edit grub then run QtParted over my Windows partitions. Free.
A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Likewise! And it's not such a different perspective, really, given that a number of us seem to share it. It just depends on your breadth of knowledge.
For example, I have experience with a couple of dozen different operating systems, and so in terms of familiar system design principles, I find Linux right at the center of my comfort zone. Ever since there were desktop systems I've always had Unix on the desktop, except for a couple of interesting years with a Lisp Machine.
Then Linux comes along and gives me an even better desktop environment for free. That's pretty hard to beat. Once in awhile I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return, especially the lack of freedom compared to Linux. The Windows user interface is not what I want, and offers very little real configurability so that I could get to be it the way I want. And whatever I do seems likely to be wiped out by the next mandatory Windows install.
Software is plentiful for Windows, but there are so many compatibility issues, security risks, license restrictions, and other traps, that on balance I feel a lot happier staying with Linux on that basis as well.
And I figure that if a software developer isn't able to port its application to multiple platforms, it can't have much of a future in the long run, and I'm already in this business for the long run. Portability gives me options, so I see an intrinsic advantage to software written for Linux. It's hard to settle for less.
Likewise! And it's not such a different perspective, really, given that a number of us seem to share it. It just depends on your breadth of knowledge.
For example, I have experience with a couple of dozen different operating systems, and so in terms of familiar system design principles, I find Linux right at the center of my comfort zone. Ever since there were desktop systems I've always had Unix on the desktop, except for a couple of interesting years with a Lisp Machine.
Then Linux comes along and gives me an even better desktop environment for free. That's pretty hard to beat. Once in awhile I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return, especially the lack of freedom compared to Linux. The Windows user interface is not what I want, and offers very little real configurability so that I could get to be it the way I want. And whatever I do seems likely to be wiped out by the next mandatory Windows install.
Software is plentiful for Windows, but there are so many compatibility issues, security risks, license restrictions, and other traps, that on balance I feel a lot happier staying with Linux on that basis as well.
And I figure that if a software developer isn't able to port its application to multiple platforms, it can't have much of a future in the long run, and I'm already in this business for the long run. Portability gives me options, so I see an intrinsic advantage to software written for Linux. It's hard to settle for less.
"Once in a while I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return...."
It's funny that a lot of Windows users would be completely puzzled by that statement, but I know just what you mean. In Linux you get used to being able to do whatever you want, and in Windows you just can't.
I'm not talking about "software freedom" here as in relation to the GPL and other open source licenses (although that mentality is probably related to what I am talking about). I'm talking about plain flexibility. You can make your Linux desktop work pretty much any way you want it to. It's hard to give that up once you get used to it.
On the other hand, I suppose that many Windows users would find this flexibility frightening. They would rather there was one prescribed way for everthing to work because they don't want to have to understand what they're doing. Personally, I hate doing things by rote with no understanding, but it appears to be what many want. I suppose that's what makes me a "geek."
Until XP can created virtual desktops, I don't think it is worth looking at. With the many applications we concurrently use all the time, this capability is a must. XP does not have it and I am not waiting for Longhorn to see if it might have it.
Litestep has Virtual Desktops working on Windows XP, and makes XP look, feel and act enough like Linux that is close to bearable.
There is also the powertoy for virtual desktops that microsoft provides on their windows xp website.
PowerTOY? What kind of name is this? If MS is seriuos about it, they should include it with XP.
No thanks, try again.
No thanks, try again.
Oh god, I installed that once when I was doing compliation, building, lots of file copies, AND hand-editing dozens of sprites in The Gimp. (I write cellphone games; sadly, I must use Windows at work to do this, at the moment.)
The virtual desktop Powertoy is horrible. It doesn't integrate well with the task list in the taskbar, wastes a ton of horiz. space on my taskbar to write the word "MSVDM" for apparent reason.
Any time I switch desktops, MS Visual Studio resizes itself. My desktop backgrounds disappear. Compared to ANYthing I've used on X-Window (FVWM, Sawfish, KDE/KWin), MS's solution is utterly unusable. It definitely deserves the name "toy," because it certainly didn't IMPROVE my productivity.
--
Bill Kendrick
The virtual desktop Powertoy is horrible. It doesn't integrate well with the task list in the taskbar, wastes a ton of horiz. space on my taskbar to write the word "MSVDM" for apparent reason.
Any time I switch desktops, MS Visual Studio resizes itself. My desktop backgrounds disappear. Compared to ANYthing I've used on X-Window (FVWM, Sawfish, KDE/KWin), MS's solution is utterly unusable. It definitely deserves the name "toy," because it certainly didn't IMPROVE my productivity.
--
Bill Kendrick
litestep says "Coming Soon, It's coming soon, really! Progress is being made!".
So much for that.
I am sure they will be charging for it. Tell me why should I pay for something that comes natively with Linux? are we at the point where MS is trying to catch up? It sure looks like it. I was right, XP is not ready. Hah
So much for that.
I am sure they will be charging for it. Tell me why should I pay for something that comes natively with Linux? are we at the point where MS is trying to catch up? It sure looks like it. I was right, XP is not ready. Hah
Not sure if this is a joke.
Anyway, LiteStep is GPL, and has been for the many years it has been around. It just has fairly consistent hosting problems.
So, no, you will never have to pay.
Anyway, LiteStep is GPL, and has been for the many years it has been around. It just has fairly consistent hosting problems.
So, no, you will never have to pay.
It was no joke. I really did try to look at it, and that was all what I got on their site.
Not that I care about XP or Virtual Desktop on it. I have been using Linux (Suse) at home for few years and never touched Windows, but I still have to use Windows XP at work though.
Not that I care about XP or Virtual Desktop on it. I have been using Linux (Suse) at home for few years and never touched Windows, but I still have to use Windows XP at work though.
Try:
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
The litestep.net site has been down for awhile. That may have been what "Coming Soon, Honest" was referring to.
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
The litestep.net site has been down for awhile. That may have been what "Coming Soon, Honest" was referring to.
Try:
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
litestep.net has been down for awhile now. Something to do with the server it was run on. THat may have been what the "Coming Soon" was for.
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
litestep.net has been down for awhile now. Something to do with the server it was run on. THat may have been what the "Coming Soon" was for.
bb4win gives you an even more useable interface when you're forced to use windows. I keep it on my thumb drive at all times, so I can actually find things in windows.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to press ctrl-alt-f1 on a Windows system and have nothing happen. Until Windows allows virtual consoles, it will not be ready for sysadmin use...
I am using a virtual desktops with XP all the time. There are several 3rd party solutions (most if not all commercial), but there is also one made by MS PowerToys guys and gals. Not as good as what you'd find on Linux, and background images broke at some Windows update and haven't worked since, but usable.
Re:Virtual Desktops? Look at Power Toys from MS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 03:02 PM
It's not true virtual desktops. For instance, if you open a program that has a lot of child windows, you can't send the child windows to other desktops. I use the GIMP, and I leave the canvas on one desktop full screened, and send the child windows to another desktop in Linux and use the taskbar pager to switch back and forth. I can't do this in WindowsXP and it's frustrating having to deal with all the child windows and the canvas area on one desktop.
Windows virtual desktops are ok for some things, but it's not suitable for powerusers.
Windows virtual desktops are ok for some things, but it's not suitable for powerusers.
Re:Virtual Desktops? Look at Power Toys from MS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2005 04:03 PM
I use The Gimp in Windows XP, and have Virtual Desktops. You can set the picture on one desktop and the other windows in another desktop. No problem.
exactly. and the lack of windowing control like "always on top" constantly buggers me when i need to see 2 or more window at the same time.
I use Linux daily (I don't touch Windows but if absolutely necesary) and I find Windows extremely useless for an average user, except the dumbs. I could not be so productive with it because you don't have so much power and applications ready to use available without downloading+installing+configuring+etc.
I often fall to understand people that still use it and fight with it to work the way it does. Probably Windows will never catch on Linux. But, who cares...
I often fall to understand people that still use it and fight with it to work the way it does. Probably Windows will never catch on Linux. But, who cares...
Uh - what have you been smoking? YES! He is kidding! Except that he's not lying about anything either... that's the best sort of parody. Articles like this one should feature in publications like Linux Format.
I disagree with that.
I use Windows commonly and I never had problems with it, I'm an infographist and I'm not sure it would be as easy under Linux to create films, make easy ads, photomanipulation and others things.
Ok Linux will fit you perfectly if you want to develop long 1 billion lines programs or anything about development.
So stop arguing on Windows like that and see first what you're looking to do with a computer instead of notoriety and a cd key of 20 letters and numbers (I thought you entered more than trillions of this for a program no ? Why are you affraid of 20 ?)
I use Windows commonly and I never had problems with it, I'm an infographist and I'm not sure it would be as easy under Linux to create films, make easy ads, photomanipulation and others things.
Ok Linux will fit you perfectly if you want to develop long 1 billion lines programs or anything about development.
So stop arguing on Windows like that and see first what you're looking to do with a computer instead of notoriety and a cd key of 20 letters and numbers (I thought you entered more than trillions of this for a program no ? Why are you affraid of 20 ?)
Linux easier to use than Windows XP? What are you smoking?
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware. It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux. To date, Ubuntu is the only Linux setup that I was able to get working with my WPC54GS Cardbus card, and only when I start it with the card plugged in and the software meticulously configured. On Windows, I just plug it in whenever.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows, is easily remedied by using ZoneAlarm, and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
Sure, the interface sucks, but thats what skins and themes are for. And they're all free. Like in Linux...
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I'm not going to go into games, since Windows has got Linux beat in pretty much everything except price.
It all comes down to this:
While Linux is more stable and secure, it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user, especially not compared to Windows.
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware. It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux. To date, Ubuntu is the only Linux setup that I was able to get working with my WPC54GS Cardbus card, and only when I start it with the card plugged in and the software meticulously configured. On Windows, I just plug it in whenever.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows, is easily remedied by using ZoneAlarm, and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
Sure, the interface sucks, but thats what skins and themes are for. And they're all free. Like in Linux...
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I'm not going to go into games, since Windows has got Linux beat in pretty much everything except price.
It all comes down to this:
While Linux is more stable and secure, it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user, especially not compared to Windows.
I've tried to install Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my SPARC box and G5.
Hell XP won't even boot.
I'm going to try an amiga next.
or maybe the Cell procesor?
Ya know, ya might just have to get compatible hardware. Linux is compatible with about 12 different processors. XP isn't.
So let's all whine about what XP won't run on!!
Hell XP won't even boot.
I'm going to try an amiga next.
or maybe the Cell procesor?
Ya know, ya might just have to get compatible hardware. Linux is compatible with about 12 different processors. XP isn't.
So let's all whine about what XP won't run on!!
Get a clue.
Maybe, but for me this article is reality.
I've never installed one driver for linux, and almost everything I use is base distro. Ati driver in xorg is good enough and yes, I installed mplayer, flash, java, liferea and inkscape. All with one yum command.
Windows? Without install driver, reboot, install driver, reboot... And so on... I would at least expect that at least something works out of base installation. Nope.
Applications? Nope.
Updates? After installing localised language pack they stoped working. My computer stops on "installing updates 1 of XXXX" and it stays there forever.
Most of the video and audio formats are unknown by default.
Decent browser? Nope.
Decent Mailer? Nope.
Calendar? Nope
Office by default? Nope.
You could also say that I can install same free applications: Firefox, Thunderbird, OO.o, Gimp, Inkscape, Codecs.... on windows to. But why bothering with downloading and installing when linux does that out of the base?
Personaly, I don't find windows usable, or better, not worth the pain of installing (I only need one windows machine for my bank and that's all). But then again my needs are directed by me and me only. So you could say I'm biased towards my self
I've never installed one driver for linux, and almost everything I use is base distro. Ati driver in xorg is good enough and yes, I installed mplayer, flash, java, liferea and inkscape. All with one yum command.
Windows? Without install driver, reboot, install driver, reboot... And so on... I would at least expect that at least something works out of base installation. Nope.
Applications? Nope.
Updates? After installing localised language pack they stoped working. My computer stops on "installing updates 1 of XXXX" and it stays there forever.
Most of the video and audio formats are unknown by default.
Decent browser? Nope.
Decent Mailer? Nope.
Calendar? Nope
Office by default? Nope.
You could also say that I can install same free applications: Firefox, Thunderbird, OO.o, Gimp, Inkscape, Codecs.... on windows to. But why bothering with downloading and installing when linux does that out of the base?
Personaly, I don't find windows usable, or better, not worth the pain of installing (I only need one windows machine for my bank and that's all). But then again my needs are directed by me and me only. So you could say I'm biased towards my self
Typical Linux fanatic propaganda. I don't have your problems. But then I know more about installing XP or any version of Windows than you've bothered to learn.
ANY version of Windows is way simpler to install and work with than Linux. Windows is a complete system, and Linux is like Windows 3.11 and DOS.
If Linux has gotten any easier to use its only been in the last year or so. Every time I've screwed with it I have WAY more problems than I ever have with Windows any version.
As far as Apps, Linux DOES NOT come with any applications. The distro maker bundles a crapload of software with the distribution. Want to figure out which applications you REALLY need, or do you want to install every blessed thing in the Distro and try and figure it out later?
You want to find software for Windows, you go pretty much anywhere on the NET and you can find something that will meet your needs that costs little to nothing. They're call Shareware and Freeware. All you have to do is look.
Want to customize a Windows install? You can, with all the drivers you need for your system.
If you spent more time learning the system, instead of finding fault your oppinion might make more sense.
ANY version of Windows is way simpler to install and work with than Linux. Windows is a complete system, and Linux is like Windows 3.11 and DOS.
If Linux has gotten any easier to use its only been in the last year or so. Every time I've screwed with it I have WAY more problems than I ever have with Windows any version.
As far as Apps, Linux DOES NOT come with any applications. The distro maker bundles a crapload of software with the distribution. Want to figure out which applications you REALLY need, or do you want to install every blessed thing in the Distro and try and figure it out later?
You want to find software for Windows, you go pretty much anywhere on the NET and you can find something that will meet your needs that costs little to nothing. They're call Shareware and Freeware. All you have to do is look.
Want to customize a Windows install? You can, with all the drivers you need for your system.
If you spent more time learning the system, instead of finding fault your oppinion might make more sense.
Geeze, such excitement. I have used almost every system known to man in one form or another. In general, they have something that they suck at. Linux has been hard to install in the past but with the newer versions availiable they are nearly self installing (Knoppix)(Thin Linux). Windows XP is generally easy to install if you have hardware that is compatible, I get bugs on even very basic stuff on occassion. The main trick is stability and networking. I have had major windows lockups with the computer idle, I have had registry decay to the point of uselessnes without any new apps being installed or viralinfection. I have applications that seize, lock up, spit up, etc with out any errors in the logs beyond the crash. I have networking systems that are online, no errors one day, and totally useless the next with all systems checking as just fine per XP. And these are XP to XP networks. I do not have these rpoblems with any of the flavors on Unix or Linux systems that I maintain. They were longer/harder to install and took a bit more reading but I never have had to do it again...once configured, it was done. I rarely have to check the web for hints to correct Linux bugs, but I do a lot of searching for XP hints. Now the apps and games...people write better stuff for XP, though in truth the best are writing fot the base kernel in the OS that we call directX that allows the app to remove XP from the equation and speak to the hardware directly. And of course with that being the case we move to the last buaboo...security. If you like your data secure, your work does not involve games, and you don't like having to buy Zone Alarm Pro to secure your seive...go with a Unix/Linux based system. There is a serious reason why peripherals for networking are running Linux internally...it is secure, it is rock solid stable, it is small, and it is easy to interface with via netready scripting.
"It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult"
You don't need a product key for MySQL and it is "commercial"
You don't need a product key for MySQL and it is "commercial"
Actually MySQL is as FREE(free beer and Free speech) as linux, it even comes licensed under the GPL
Dude, he said use not installation
Windows is a royal pain in the ass to use -- unless you're very used to it. Menus are illogically laid out and the help is usually wrong and the right answer is found only on some expensive database.
Installation is another area where Windows loses. Sure some hardware has only Windows drivers, but on the many hardwares that support linux (or is supported by linux) the installation is much, much more streamlined and problem free.
"Dude, he said use not installation"
I beg to differ.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP (Windows in general) due to problems that can only be solved by re-installing, I would say Use includes installation.
With liveCDs from mepis, 15 minutes and you are done upgrading/installing.
Any one can do that with XP? I think not.
I beg to differ.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP (Windows in general) due to problems that can only be solved by re-installing, I would say Use includes installation.
With liveCDs from mepis, 15 minutes and you are done upgrading/installing.
Any one can do that with XP? I think not.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP
I hope they don't improve that situation any time soon, quite a bit of my business is wiping and re-installing XP for my client's. If I lock down the WS they whine that I charge to come out and install stuff for them. They just accept that re-installing XP every six months or so is normal.
Look up unattended on sourceforge and set yourself up an unattended install server. Reinstalls are a breeze and will include all updates and any extra packages you want. It takes linux to make windows installs almost as easy as linux.
Didn't know Linux makes ghost. Symantec ghost is a breeze to reinstall desktops.
You don't need a Linux server, just a floppy disk.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 06:55 AM
Tools for setting up automatic installations are included with windows.
<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459" title="microsoft.com">http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459</a microsoft.com>
<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459" title="microsoft.com">http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459</a microsoft.com>
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware.
I wouldn't know about my hardware since I only run Linux on it. However... there are certain areas (wireless lan cards and winmodems which are known problem areas). In most of these cases, if it is not a laptop, most end users won't bother to install the hardware themselves anyway so this is not really an issue.
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
One of my customers recently migrated to Linux because of the product key issue. Basically their Windows XP installationb became corrupted and they lost their product key and certificate of authenticity. When faced with the choice of buying *another* copy or migrating to Linux, they chose Linux. They are happy with it despite the fact that they are typical end users. They are running Fedora Core 3.
I have watched many people who are computer novices work with Linux and Windows. Complete novices find Linux at least as easy to use. It is the intermediate users such as yourself who run into difficulty because they are used to windows.
Moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use.
I wouldn't know about my hardware since I only run Linux on it. However... there are certain areas (wireless lan cards and winmodems which are known problem areas). In most of these cases, if it is not a laptop, most end users won't bother to install the hardware themselves anyway so this is not really an issue.
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
One of my customers recently migrated to Linux because of the product key issue. Basically their Windows XP installationb became corrupted and they lost their product key and certificate of authenticity. When faced with the choice of buying *another* copy or migrating to Linux, they chose Linux. They are happy with it despite the fact that they are typical end users. They are running Fedora Core 3.
I have watched many people who are computer novices work with Linux and Windows. Complete novices find Linux at least as easy to use. It is the intermediate users such as yourself who run into difficulty because they are used to windows.
Moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use.
"moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use."
I think you just said the smartest thing yet. And you're absolutely right.
I'm not a novice. i'm not an ubertechie either. i'm the happy middle ground i'd like to call "computer inclined"
I use windows. always have. right now i'm on xp professional SP2. i have had NO problems with it. sure, sometimes i have to grap drivers for some of the random hardware i pick up, but that's fine with me.
I've also started playing with linux (mandrake 10.1). i can barely do anything with it. i can do enough to go online and use gaim and check my email. but not much past that. but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it.
if i had the time and motivation to learn it, i could be just as proficient and productive with linux as xp. and someday, i'll get there.
i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
I think you just said the smartest thing yet. And you're absolutely right.
I'm not a novice. i'm not an ubertechie either. i'm the happy middle ground i'd like to call "computer inclined"
I use windows. always have. right now i'm on xp professional SP2. i have had NO problems with it. sure, sometimes i have to grap drivers for some of the random hardware i pick up, but that's fine with me.
I've also started playing with linux (mandrake 10.1). i can barely do anything with it. i can do enough to go online and use gaim and check my email. but not much past that. but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it.
if i had the time and motivation to learn it, i could be just as proficient and productive with linux as xp. and someday, i'll get there.
i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
>but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it
You will like Windows because you are unfamiliar with Linux.
>>i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
Unfortunatly what you can do with Linux is for greater than that you can do with Windows XP.
Sorry dude, Linux wins the heart and minds of so many people and government.
One day you will ask if this product from Microsoft is compatible with Linux (OSS) thingi. Better be prepared now than loose out.
You will like Windows because you are unfamiliar with Linux.
>>i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
Unfortunatly what you can do with Linux is for greater than that you can do with Windows XP.
Sorry dude, Linux wins the heart and minds of so many people and government.
One day you will ask if this product from Microsoft is compatible with Linux (OSS) thingi. Better be prepared now than loose out.
It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
I have a laptop with a Mobility 9000 (M9) and a 64-bit desktop with a 9800XT (and yes, it's running in 64-bit mode) and both work more than well enough for me. There are occasional problems, but they are few and far between given that my usage patterns aren't non-typical - hey, I can play Doom 3 under Linux on my desktop, a 32-bit app, at the same speed as under Windows 2000 Pro on the same machine, and without jumping through hoops to do it (I use gentoo; just "emerge" it and insert the CDs as requested).
ATI's proprietary drivers aren't perfect, but they've come a long way; their imperfection isn't a "Linux issue" as they're closed source, and there's nothing stopping you from installing them on any distro you like! You sound as if you've been sticking to using open-source drivers, which do indeed have poor/non-working 3D acceleration on some cards (again ATI are at least partly to blame for not providing specs to the community).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux.
I have a laptop with a Netgear WG511 PCMCIA card. I had to wait a little while for the necessary drivers to mature, admittedly, but these days, they're included in the kernel, and I have no problem whatsoever just plugging the thing in and out as I please.
Networking capabilities in Linux in general are a great boon to me - I'm a computer science student and make frequent use of Ethereal to debug network-enabled coursework. In fact, with the wealth and easy obtainability of programming languages and tools available FREE OF CHARGE (this is important to students!) for Linux (including interpreted ones such as Python, which one can just pop open at the command line, harkening back to the days of BASIC on my Acorn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ), Linux as a whole has proved invaluable.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows,
This is - or maybe I should say "was", in the pre-SP2 days, but the reality is not everyone's running XP SP2, and it's still only a maybe - probably a bigger issue than you realise. But of course it depends on where the machine is, and how it's being used.
and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I just popped over to <a href="http://packages.gentoo.org/" title="gentoo.org">http://packages.gentoo.org/</a gentoo.org> (the package database site for my distro of choice), typed in "firewall", and a few seconds later i'm at the site of firestarter (<a href="http://www.fs-security.com/" title="fs-security.com">http://www.fs-security.com/</a fs-security.com>), a graphical firewall configurator with what appears to be a GTK2 interface - so it'll integrate quite nicely with my Gnome desktop, thanks. Oh, and Gnome already comes with a configurator for network cards and services, just not the firewall itself AFAIK.
Also, Linux can be installed on many more processor types than Windows, INCLUDING Macs, and almost anything for which there exists a UNIX variant. The latter part of your comment really does make no sense to me.
I have a laptop with a Mobility 9000 (M9) and a 64-bit desktop with a 9800XT (and yes, it's running in 64-bit mode) and both work more than well enough for me. There are occasional problems, but they are few and far between given that my usage patterns aren't non-typical - hey, I can play Doom 3 under Linux on my desktop, a 32-bit app, at the same speed as under Windows 2000 Pro on the same machine, and without jumping through hoops to do it (I use gentoo; just "emerge" it and insert the CDs as requested).
ATI's proprietary drivers aren't perfect, but they've come a long way; their imperfection isn't a "Linux issue" as they're closed source, and there's nothing stopping you from installing them on any distro you like! You sound as if you've been sticking to using open-source drivers, which do indeed have poor/non-working 3D acceleration on some cards (again ATI are at least partly to blame for not providing specs to the community).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux.
I have a laptop with a Netgear WG511 PCMCIA card. I had to wait a little while for the necessary drivers to mature, admittedly, but these days, they're included in the kernel, and I have no problem whatsoever just plugging the thing in and out as I please.
Networking capabilities in Linux in general are a great boon to me - I'm a computer science student and make frequent use of Ethereal to debug network-enabled coursework. In fact, with the wealth and easy obtainability of programming languages and tools available FREE OF CHARGE (this is important to students!) for Linux (including interpreted ones such as Python, which one can just pop open at the command line, harkening back to the days of BASIC on my Acorn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ), Linux as a whole has proved invaluable.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows,
This is - or maybe I should say "was", in the pre-SP2 days, but the reality is not everyone's running XP SP2, and it's still only a maybe - probably a bigger issue than you realise. But of course it depends on where the machine is, and how it's being used.
and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I just popped over to <a href="http://packages.gentoo.org/" title="gentoo.org">http://packages.gentoo.org/</a gentoo.org> (the package database site for my distro of choice), typed in "firewall", and a few seconds later i'm at the site of firestarter (<a href="http://www.fs-security.com/" title="fs-security.com">http://www.fs-security.com/</a fs-security.com>), a graphical firewall configurator with what appears to be a GTK2 interface - so it'll integrate quite nicely with my Gnome desktop, thanks. Oh, and Gnome already comes with a configurator for network cards and services, just not the firewall itself AFAIK.
Also, Linux can be installed on many more processor types than Windows, INCLUDING Macs, and almost anything for which there exists a UNIX variant. The latter part of your comment really does make no sense to me.
To the contrary, it's only a problem if you intend to use it legally. That is, if you store all the manuals and CD cases with numbers on/in them in a place where you'll still find them in three years, and whenever a number is requested you dig it out and meticulously copy it to the form. If any arbitrary valid key will do, you just apply a crack or paste in the number from a keygen or serials database.And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I've used both Mandrake and Ubuntu. Both distros picked up my GeForce 4 (not cutting edge, but I like openGL screensavers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ) and picked up both my network cards. They were ready to use as soon as I specified their IP/netmask/gateway. Linux also picks up my onboard C-Media sound.
Windows XP uses nasty generic drivers for my graphics card, so that even dragging windows about makes a nasty mess. It won't use either of my NIC's unless I manually specify a MAC address for them.
And as for sound? Not a sausage. Absolutely nothing unless I downloaded a 21Mb driver for it.
Windows is also very slow and unstable. Browsing the local network or even opening my My Documents folder causes Explorer to hang for minutes, leaving it entirely unusable. I have NEVER had such problems with linux.
In short, I'd be pretty pissed off if I'd paid £250 or however much they want for windows these days.
Windows XP uses nasty generic drivers for my graphics card, so that even dragging windows about makes a nasty mess. It won't use either of my NIC's unless I manually specify a MAC address for them.
And as for sound? Not a sausage. Absolutely nothing unless I downloaded a 21Mb driver for it.
Windows is also very slow and unstable. Browsing the local network or even opening my My Documents folder causes Explorer to hang for minutes, leaving it entirely unusable. I have NEVER had such problems with linux.
In short, I'd be pretty pissed off if I'd paid £250 or however much they want for windows these days.
Windows is about £80 at my local store and a driver for a sound card is NOT 21MB! The driver will come with bundled software for use with your soundcard. You should be given the choice if you want to install that software though. The driver itself will be very small and should be downloadable on its own.
BTW I HATE LINUX! Linux is not as easy to use for the novice or even average user as windows, not by a long shot and twice on sundays!
And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!! Get the message will ya and just stop flogging your dead horse!
BTW I HATE LINUX! Linux is not as easy to use for the novice or even average user as windows, not by a long shot and twice on sundays!
And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!! Get the message will ya and just stop flogging your dead horse!
You know why there's no Linux software in the stores?
Because you can download it for FREE off of the internet!
If I want an IM client, i just fire up Synaptic, and search on the protocols name, selects, and synaptics downloads, configures and installs the software.
Of course, this is in most cases not nescesary, 'cause it's bundled with the OS, when it's installed!
If I want an office suite, thats installed too. For FREE!
What more do you want to use? Office, browser, email client, IM clients, news readers, ftp client, media player?
EVERYTHING is with the OS!
Because you can download it for FREE off of the internet!
If I want an IM client, i just fire up Synaptic, and search on the protocols name, selects, and synaptics downloads, configures and installs the software.
Of course, this is in most cases not nescesary, 'cause it's bundled with the OS, when it's installed!
If I want an office suite, thats installed too. For FREE!
What more do you want to use? Office, browser, email client, IM clients, news readers, ftp client, media player?
EVERYTHING is with the OS!
Matlab, Maple, Mathematica, MCS adams, MS remote desktop, FEMLAB, FLUENT, LabView, CPLEX, ANSYS, Mentor Graphics suite, Synopsis suite, and Maya. I use one or more of these in a given day all on RH linux. Hmmm, as an engineer I don't see myself starved for software. The software available to me on Linux is pretty much the same software available on MS. I wonder why that is. I wonder why businesses are moving to linux. I wonder why there is enough corporate support for linux to justify porting some of the most advanced engineering software to linux. Hmmmm I wonder.
Keep reading PC world if you like. Heck, keep the wool over your eyes about Linux software based on adds you see in a consumer level monthly rag. I will read my linux magazines and continue being productive at work. Many of the abve programs run faster under Linux BTW.
Keep your little shill of a magazine and your video games while I and the other big boys design your cars and boats and planes on Linux/Unix systems.
Keep reading PC world if you like. Heck, keep the wool over your eyes about Linux software based on adds you see in a consumer level monthly rag. I will read my linux magazines and continue being productive at work. Many of the abve programs run faster under Linux BTW.
Keep your little shill of a magazine and your video games while I and the other big boys design your cars and boats and planes on Linux/Unix systems.
"Windows is about £80 at my local store and a driver for a sound card is NOT 21MB!"
XP Pro is certainly more than 80, oh wait, are you using XP Home? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! What a piece of garbage. As far as the sound drivers, how about this...
<a href="http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-Driver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html" title="download.com">http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-D<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> iver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html</a download.com>
THAT is what I have to download if I need my soundcard to work in Windows.
BTW I HATE WINDOWS (AND MICROSOFT).. see, anyone can do that, you're not special. Windows is not easy to use for the novice or even average user, as can be seen by the number of *owned* windows pc's out there. Linux is just as easy to use as windows, unless you're of the brainwashed masses that can't get their 2 brain cells wrapped around the idea that there are different.. not neccessarily harder, but different ways things can be done.
"And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!!"
I don't have to go *anywhere* to get all the software I want or need for Linux. Linux software doesn't HAVE to be advertised or promoted, as a simple search for name or keywords pertaining to the application within a simple to use app such as synaptic will give you many choices which can be automatically installed with one click of the "Apply" button.
Get the message will ya, Windows sucks. Even with their almost unlimited funds, and huge warchest they can't touch what the community brings to you for free.
XP Pro is certainly more than 80, oh wait, are you using XP Home? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! What a piece of garbage. As far as the sound drivers, how about this...
<a href="http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-Driver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html" title="download.com">http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-D<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> iver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html</a download.com>
THAT is what I have to download if I need my soundcard to work in Windows.
BTW I HATE WINDOWS (AND MICROSOFT).. see, anyone can do that, you're not special. Windows is not easy to use for the novice or even average user, as can be seen by the number of *owned* windows pc's out there. Linux is just as easy to use as windows, unless you're of the brainwashed masses that can't get their 2 brain cells wrapped around the idea that there are different.. not neccessarily harder, but different ways things can be done.
"And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!!"
I don't have to go *anywhere* to get all the software I want or need for Linux. Linux software doesn't HAVE to be advertised or promoted, as a simple search for name or keywords pertaining to the application within a simple to use app such as synaptic will give you many choices which can be automatically installed with one click of the "Apply" button.
Get the message will ya, Windows sucks. Even with their almost unlimited funds, and huge warchest they can't touch what the community brings to you for free.
That page says 20.8 megabytes, not 21! D'oh! You Linux zealots are all the same, always painting MS Windows in the worst possible light!
Deem <grin/duck/run> included
Deem <grin/duck/run> included
XP Pro is £80 or LESS - there aren't that many differences between XP Home and Pro anyway - Remote Desktop and Domain Joining and server capabilities.
PC World is a shop, not a magasine for adverts.
PC World is a shop, not a magasine for adverts.
Get some more experience before foot-in-mouthing
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 09:27 AM
I have pulled down a sound-card driver for XP which was 28 (not 21!) megabytes and that was just the driver, no bundled apps. I have also pulled down an XP printer driver (maybe for a Lanier?) and that was just mind-boggling, something like 47 megabytes for just the driver - that is, bigger than an entire Linux kernel! I accuse BMP images in the DLLs with the absence of useful compression.
KDE is easier to use for computer illiterates than MS-Windows. What makes it seem hard for you is having to un-learn all of the bad habits you picked up from ages of doing things the dumb way (or ways, given how much MS's UIs have changed over the years).
What you're actually hating is the sensation of looking and feeling like a dumbass, and your comment here didn't help that little problem at all. Swallow your pride, take an objective, un-panicked look at the two systems and you might come to a different conclusion.
KDE is easier to use for computer illiterates than MS-Windows. What makes it seem hard for you is having to un-learn all of the bad habits you picked up from ages of doing things the dumb way (or ways, given how much MS's UIs have changed over the years).
What you're actually hating is the sensation of looking and feeling like a dumbass, and your comment here didn't help that little problem at all. Swallow your pride, take an objective, un-panicked look at the two systems and you might come to a different conclusion.
It might be easier to use for you, but I know that I dumped Windows back in 3.11 days for general used and have stuck to Linux and some BSD since then, and frankly, to me, Windows certainly ins't easier to use. I've always had more hardware problems with Windows than with Linux. It's true that configuring hardware was often less user friendly in Linux than in Windows (read less clicking involved), however problems were much clearer (i.e. errors were usually spelled out instead of labeled as "0x94368D" which probably isn't documented anywhere apart from the source code anyway) and easier to fix (documentation was provided, no calling "pay by the minute" call centres was involved).
I still usually keep a small Windows partition on my main machine for gaming and it usually works well enough for that (after I've gotten the system to work which can be a problem given the obscurity of it). But working in Windows is really too painful given the lack of decent tools in that environment.
Of course as a long time sysadmin, I also have to deal with Windows problems on a regular basis and between the fact that each version changes the way things are done and that there is no documentation with the system (even in the so-called "professional" versions) makes it very difficult to use indeed. Luckily nowadays most of my activity is tearing those down so it's not too bad.
I agree that I'm definitely not representative of a random user, but then a random user never gets to use the system. All he'll ever see are a couple applications. Whether they run in Windows or Linux, or AmigaOS, most of them probably would never notice if the widgets looked the same...
I install a lot of office workstations for "random users" and they manage just fine (or let's say the same as they used to in Windows, except that there's less breakage involved). Of course they don't do any administration of their machines. But then they didn't do any administration of Windows machines either.
In the end only very experienced users actually care what the system is. Others don't care and probably won't notice.
Run Windows if you want to play games that aren't available in Linux (or if you don't want to bother messing with Wine, I know I don't), or if you need an application not available in Unix. Apart from that, there's really no reason why anyone should bother with it.
I still usually keep a small Windows partition on my main machine for gaming and it usually works well enough for that (after I've gotten the system to work which can be a problem given the obscurity of it). But working in Windows is really too painful given the lack of decent tools in that environment.
Of course as a long time sysadmin, I also have to deal with Windows problems on a regular basis and between the fact that each version changes the way things are done and that there is no documentation with the system (even in the so-called "professional" versions) makes it very difficult to use indeed. Luckily nowadays most of my activity is tearing those down so it's not too bad.
I agree that I'm definitely not representative of a random user, but then a random user never gets to use the system. All he'll ever see are a couple applications. Whether they run in Windows or Linux, or AmigaOS, most of them probably would never notice if the widgets looked the same...
I install a lot of office workstations for "random users" and they manage just fine (or let's say the same as they used to in Windows, except that there's less breakage involved). Of course they don't do any administration of their machines. But then they didn't do any administration of Windows machines either.
In the end only very experienced users actually care what the system is. Others don't care and probably won't notice.
Run Windows if you want to play games that aren't available in Linux (or if you don't want to bother messing with Wine, I know I don't), or if you need an application not available in Unix. Apart from that, there's really no reason why anyone should bother with it.
I completely agree...I have 3 hard drives in my computer...3 250GB SATA2 drives and each has a different OS on it. Gentoo, Windows XP, and Windows 2003 X64 Server...Gentoo is the one I use regularly as the installs and maintenance (if you can call it that) are extremely easy. If I want something I just emerge it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
What is really interesting is taking a person who has absolutely no computer experience and sitting them in front of a computer.
It takes lots of teaching that you would never expect because you're so used to it and it is second nature to you.
Things like, move the box to the right of the keyboard around and an arrow moves on the screen, type in your username and a password only you know to get into the system, this picture is to get onto the internet, etc.
For these people I think starting with Linux or Apple or Windows would be the same effort.
In all 3 cases they would need someone who has experience to set up the OS first and teach them the basics.
This is probably why Linux is taking off in 3rd world countries. There are probably lots of people there who have literally never used a PC. Amongst them all 3 are going to be about the same, the difference is that two of them cost a lot more than Linux does and one (Windows) will cause them security problems unless very, very carefully set up.
Opinions like "it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user" miss the point. The point is that the "mainstream or average user" is almost certainly, in the USA or Europe, someone who has had quite a bit of experience with PCs or Macs so there is already an inherent bias.
When you rephrase it more correctly it goes like this:
Most of the people that buy and use new PCs for home and even more so for business in Europe and America will already be fairly experienced with Windows systems of various sorts.
For them to switch to using Linux would mean a period of learning much like when they first started to use PCs many years ago (although probably not quite so intense), i.e. they would need a great deal of help and could not learn it by themselves. (If you've ever worked with a complete computing neophyte you'll know what I mean.)
At any given time the relative cost/effort involved for them in retraining is probably bigger than the benefits in terms of cost savings, reliability and security.
It takes lots of teaching that you would never expect because you're so used to it and it is second nature to you.
Things like, move the box to the right of the keyboard around and an arrow moves on the screen, type in your username and a password only you know to get into the system, this picture is to get onto the internet, etc.
For these people I think starting with Linux or Apple or Windows would be the same effort.
In all 3 cases they would need someone who has experience to set up the OS first and teach them the basics.
This is probably why Linux is taking off in 3rd world countries. There are probably lots of people there who have literally never used a PC. Amongst them all 3 are going to be about the same, the difference is that two of them cost a lot more than Linux does and one (Windows) will cause them security problems unless very, very carefully set up.
Opinions like "it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user" miss the point. The point is that the "mainstream or average user" is almost certainly, in the USA or Europe, someone who has had quite a bit of experience with PCs or Macs so there is already an inherent bias.
When you rephrase it more correctly it goes like this:
Most of the people that buy and use new PCs for home and even more so for business in Europe and America will already be fairly experienced with Windows systems of various sorts.
For them to switch to using Linux would mean a period of learning much like when they first started to use PCs many years ago (although probably not quite so intense), i.e. they would need a great deal of help and could not learn it by themselves. (If you've ever worked with a complete computing neophyte you'll know what I mean.)
At any given time the relative cost/effort involved for them in retraining is probably bigger than the benefits in terms of cost savings, reliability and security.
In the original article the writer tells about hardware with which I am very familiar. In my experience he should have used a different computer than the HP d220. I have several clients with these machines and NONE, I mean N-O-N-E of the pertintent hardware devices come up with WinXP. Not the network, not the video, not the audio. Dell, IBM, Toshiba and even Fujitsu systems work great with XP and most, if not all drivers install properly.
I have a great deal of experience with HP workstaitons, and I will never purchase one, nor will I recommend to any of my clients these machines.
I can appreciate the writer's angst toward Windows XP with this system. However, if he were to use a different system I think his experience would most certainly be different.
I like Linux, especially Knoppix. But putting down Windows XP due to a problematic machine is just plain wrong.
I have a great deal of experience with HP workstaitons, and I will never purchase one, nor will I recommend to any of my clients these machines.
I can appreciate the writer's angst toward Windows XP with this system. However, if he were to use a different system I think his experience would most certainly be different.
I like Linux, especially Knoppix. But putting down Windows XP due to a problematic machine is just plain wrong.
I really get ticked off by people that winge and complain that it's not Windows' fault that the hardware sucks... Yeah, they are right, but Linux and other open source operating systems never have problems on the same hardware. That's the key issue here.
If 3 or 4 open OS's run fine, and Windows struggles, Windows IS the problem.
If 3 or 4 open OS's run fine, and Windows struggles, Windows IS the problem.
If linux doesn't work on closed hardware, for which the manufacturer only provides windows drivers, it's definately the fault of the operating system.
If windows doesn't work on hardware, on which more than one open source operating system works perfectly, it's definately _not_ the fault of the operating system.
I totally agree that you should choose your hardware based on the software you want to run (os and applications). But I don't understand why most people find this quite normal if you want to use windows, and not if you want to use linux (in this case, it proves that linux isn't a good operating system).
If windows doesn't work on hardware, on which more than one open source operating system works perfectly, it's definately _not_ the fault of the operating system.
I totally agree that you should choose your hardware based on the software you want to run (os and applications). But I don't understand why most people find this quite normal if you want to use windows, and not if you want to use linux (in this case, it proves that linux isn't a good operating system).
I have Debian Sarge installed on both my laptop and desktop. The desktop is a very high end machine, with an Athlon 64 4000+ and a GeForce 6800 Ultra, not to mention a PVR card and an Audigy 4. ALL of the hardware works great. I play Doom 3 on it at 1600x1200 on Ultra quality at 60 fps. The laptop has ATI graphics and 802.11G, which I got working after a few hours of hassle. The wireless support is getting better though. For a desktop computer, hardware support is great.
I bought a couple of 64-bit machines (Athlon 64) and easily installed and ran Mandrake Linux 64-bit version. No problems - all hardware found and configured correctly upon installation.
On the same machines, I can't get a 64-bit Windows (I'm forced to used 32-bit in "compatibility" mode). M$ still haven't delivered their 64-bit "operating system". I've been using 64-bit Linux for more than two years.
M$ have a very long way to go to catch up with proper operating systems!
On the same machines, I can't get a 64-bit Windows (I'm forced to used 32-bit in "compatibility" mode). M$ still haven't delivered their 64-bit "operating system". I've been using 64-bit Linux for more than two years.
M$ have a very long way to go to catch up with proper operating systems!
I agree with you that Windows XP is easier to use than Linux, at least for an experienced Windows user who is just starting Linux.
But what I don't know is the free Windows themes. I couldn't find any free themes for Windows XP (they require some software that is commercial). So if you know where to get some, please tell me!
Thanks in advance.
But what I don't know is the free Windows themes. I couldn't find any free themes for Windows XP (they require some software that is commercial). So if you know where to get some, please tell me!
Thanks in advance.
I tried to intall WinXP on my very standard HP d530 and it refused to detect the built in NIC as well as the Video Card. HP was so nice to ship it with a custom CD, but that refused to install anything except one large partition.
Well, finally I booted up from KNOPPIX, checked what NIC is inside and downloaded the driver and saved it to a Windows partition, booted up XP again, found out it was the wrong driver, booted up KNOPPIX again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....
And since I've installed XP, I didn't use it more than 10% of my work. I am not sure it was worth the pain of installing it.
And on my Laptop (Dell Inspiron 500) Ubuntu recognized all hardware (including a PCMCIA wireless card) instantly and was ready to use after about 10 minutes.
And finally, a friend of mine, using a very old Toshiba Satellite from +- 1997 came to me. His Win95 refused to boot, but he had all his data on it and the thing did not even have a NIC. He was sure that the data ist lost forever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Using a boot floppy, a Morphix Linux CD and a Orinoco WiFi card, the data was off the laptop within half an hour<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but where now do I find that version Windows which I can install on that Laptop ???
Well, finally I booted up from KNOPPIX, checked what NIC is inside and downloaded the driver and saved it to a Windows partition, booted up XP again, found out it was the wrong driver, booted up KNOPPIX again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....
And since I've installed XP, I didn't use it more than 10% of my work. I am not sure it was worth the pain of installing it.
And on my Laptop (Dell Inspiron 500) Ubuntu recognized all hardware (including a PCMCIA wireless card) instantly and was ready to use after about 10 minutes.
And finally, a friend of mine, using a very old Toshiba Satellite from +- 1997 came to me. His Win95 refused to boot, but he had all his data on it and the thing did not even have a NIC. He was sure that the data ist lost forever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Using a boot floppy, a Morphix Linux CD and a Orinoco WiFi card, the data was off the laptop within half an hour<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but where now do I find that version Windows which I can install on that Laptop ???
Windows is a horrible OS: horribly written and designed. It is inefficient, slow, buggy and unstable. M$ is as popular as it is because of sheer lack of competition, not because of product quality. The XP install is better than previous installers, but there are Linux installs out there that are easier. Any hardware problems encountered during a Linux install is because the hardware vendor is in bed with M$.
A major irritation I have at work, where I'm forced to spend some time with Windows NT, is that copy/paste can't be done entirely with the mouse. Having highlighted the text to copy, you then have to go to the keyboard and type ctrl-C to copy it. Then having moved the mouse pointer to the destination, you can't just middle-click, you have to go to the keyboard and type ctrl-V. Nuts. Is this fixed in XP?
HowTo:
1) Select text
2) Right click and select "Copy Text"
3) Point your mouse at the desired position
4) Right click and select "Paste"
I really don't think that's much harder. And who uses a mouse for text editing really? The keyboard is much faster.
1) Select text
2) Right click and select "Copy Text"
3) Point your mouse at the desired position
4) Right click and select "Paste"
I really don't think that's much harder. And who uses a mouse for text editing really? The keyboard is much faster.
That is twice as many steps.
oops forgot to dissect it more, so in win it is (6 steps):
select,right-click,click-copy,point-dest,right-cl<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> ck,click -paste
in linux (3 steps):
select,point-dest,middle-click
i.e 2 times better, but in reality it is 3-5 times faster..
select,right-click,click-copy,point-dest,right-cl<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> ck,click -paste
in linux (3 steps):
select,point-dest,middle-click
i.e 2 times better, but in reality it is 3-5 times faster..
Nope, doesn't work, just tried it with a file and it didn't copy, did in Windows though!
<a href="http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/nt/TXMouse/" title="chalmers.se">http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/nt/TXMouse/</a chalmers.se>
When I first started using Linux, the clipboard was one of the most frustrating things of all. You couldn't copy/paste anything but plain text between applications and when you selected the area you wanted to paste into, your copied text was lost! WTF???
Now, after using Linux for several years, I have no problem what-so-ever copying and pasting whatever I like. But, when I work on a Windows machine I am now always frustrated by the way Windows "loses" my selected text when trying to copy/paste. It always gets me and I wind up having to switch back to the source text, on occassion multiple times, in order to successfully copy/paste. WTF???
It all goes to show that it depends what you are accustommed to. If you are use to Windows, Linux is the problem. If you are use to Linux, then Windows is the problem.
Now, after using Linux for several years, I have no problem what-so-ever copying and pasting whatever I like. But, when I work on a Windows machine I am now always frustrated by the way Windows "loses" my selected text when trying to copy/paste. It always gets me and I wind up having to switch back to the source text, on occassion multiple times, in order to successfully copy/paste. WTF???
It all goes to show that it depends what you are accustommed to. If you are use to Windows, Linux is the problem. If you are use to Linux, then Windows is the problem.
Oh no.. I am so used to Linux's way of doing things.. that I don't take the time to find out how a process is done in another OS.. and since XP doesn't work like Linux.. clearly the feature is missing.. !
On the other hand:
Oh no.. I am so used to XP's way of doing things.. that I don't take the time to find out how a process is done in another OS.. and since Linux doesn't work like XP.. clearly the feature is missing.. !
Oh no.. I am so used to XP's way of doing things.. that I don't take the time to find out how a process is done in another OS.. and since Linux doesn't work like XP.. clearly the feature is missing.. !
Can Windoze cut& paste across different machin
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 08:59 AM
I do this routinely between my laptop and desktop. There is a nifty program called x2x - once it is fired up, I use the mouse & keyboard on the laptop to control the pointer and to input text on the desktop display. Better yet, I can cut text from the desktop display and drag it back and paste it on the laptop display. Great for copying long URL's from Mozilla.
Re:Can Windoze cut& paste across different mac
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 31, 2005 09:13 PM
Or simply remote login on your Desktop (Xnest) and copy paste from desktop to remote desktop. Works great. And with X11 through ssh I can even copy&paste between my office desktop and a server in a secure server room with 2 firewalls inbetween<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Was there supposed to be satire?
Windows XP still doesn't have tools like apt and synaptic that point to the BIG free software repositories.
Add emerge to the list. Want to play VCD , DVD & other stuffs you need MPlayer. So go to a console in gentoo and type emerge mplayer and spend the next one to two hours with your friends , gf , bf or just look at the monitor through out the time to see how mplayer get compiled.
Anirban Biswas.
Anirban Biswas.
If I need MPlayer, I don't want to wait 2 freakin hours for it to compile. You can keep Gentoo all to yourself, those of us that want to get stuff done vs want to play with the machine will stick to binary distros. Don't even start about "the machine runs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.05% faster", as that certainly doesn't give me back the time it spent to compile it.
"or just look at the monitor through out the time to see how mplayer get compiled"
And that.. well that's just sad. You can be a Linux advocate and still actually HAVE a life.
"or just look at the monitor through out the time to see how mplayer get compiled"
And that.. well that's just sad. You can be a Linux advocate and still actually HAVE a life.
I used synaptic (with debian).
I just checked the box for mplayer
and clicked apply.
Here is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list line to get mplayer
deb <a href="ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/" title="nerim.net">ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/</a nerim.net> unstable main
I just checked the box for mplayer
and clicked apply.
Here is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list line to get mplayer
deb <a href="ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/" title="nerim.net">ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/</a nerim.net> unstable main
The question is, could it be done? Synaptic for Windows with an open source-repo? That would be a killer app. And yes, I am a Linux user - simply speculating.
They're going to make much more improvements before we'll consider testing their OS product.
No Office Product on the install CD. No graphics program, no desktop publishing program, faulty browser & e-mail clients. Unrealiable in the area of security.
Scale from 1 to 10: 7
Maybe in the coming years things will change.
No Office Product on the install CD. No graphics program, no desktop publishing program, faulty browser & e-mail clients. Unrealiable in the area of security.
Scale from 1 to 10: 7
Maybe in the coming years things will change.
windows does have a graphics program. it's called paint. it's not fancy. it's not that great. but it IS a graphics program.
true - but I was referring to something a little more professional like GIMP or Photoshop.
You forgot Microsoft Works!
what? Works is on my WindowsXP installation CD? Its for sure not on mine.
Roblimo, you are such an ass. I will switch to Linux when you can pry my Windows XP pro disk from my kung-fu death grip.
Hmmm, when you have your death grip going, don't hold your breath waiting for any Linux users to walk up and try to pry it from your hand. Someone may walk up and kick you, but that's about it. On second thought...please do hold your breath while you wait.
Give me your address, I will be glad to do it for you out of pity. I am a "Black Belt".
Hmm... must be a Kung-Fu "Blue Screen of Death" Grip...
I laughed so hard at this response I wet myself.
At the rate MS are accumulating viruses, there's gotta be a trans-species one (computer -> xpophiliac) along shortly. Or possibly XP will trash an entire partition without warning (as it has done for three of my peers now), you won't have backed any of it up, and the shock will do you in.
Just like the last several times you spent $$$ upgrading to the next Windows release.
And they won't even *pry* it out of your death-grip. You'll just let go and not even realize it.
Ya know, its so funny how I can get my nine-month old baby to let go of her death-grip on a toy with something shiny.
And they won't even *pry* it out of your death-grip. You'll just let go and not even realize it.
Ya know, its so funny how I can get my nine-month old baby to let go of her death-grip on a toy with something shiny.
Here, you can have my XplodingPile disc - all it is good for is a coaster. M$ is laughing all the way to the bank, at the expense of you poor windoze users because you don't know any better...
... I think you'll find the bank comes to Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... they own them you see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Keep trying, I'm still laughing as I install Windows XP, which auto-detects all of my drivers;
Then it's off to load one or more of tens of thousands of commercially-available software for music, business, games and network connectivity applications.
and I don't have to compile anything or search the web for obscure old versions of libraries like you linux users do.
Have fun with your freeware , slackers. Hmm, I wonder did he write the article in VI?
Then it's off to load one or more of tens of thousands of commercially-available software for music, business, games and network connectivity applications.
and I don't have to compile anything or search the web for obscure old versions of libraries like you linux users do.
Have fun with your freeware , slackers. Hmm, I wonder did he write the article in VI?
I used to use Linux. I used to believe in it. And then it hit me: it's *so much work* to maintain a Linux machine. Try to plug your digital camera in... nothing. Have to download some wacky kernel module for your quickcam... All the different interfaces are ugly as sin. All the "productivity software" is half-assed and crashes all the time. But hey, it doesn't bring the OS down.
Sigh.
I bought a Mac 3 years ago and haven't looked back. I'm more productive, and I have to do no diddling around with it to actually get stuff to work. I still have my Unix dev environment, I have a machine that never crashes, and a GUI that looks great.
The "usable desktop linux" ideal is a great one but it's a looooong way off and Windows still has you beat.
Sigh.
I bought a Mac 3 years ago and haven't looked back. I'm more productive, and I have to do no diddling around with it to actually get stuff to work. I still have my Unix dev environment, I have a machine that never crashes, and a GUI that looks great.
The "usable desktop linux" ideal is a great one but it's a looooong way off and Windows still has you beat.
This is a joke right.?? I have been a technical engineer for over a decade and Linux is one of the least user friendly environments. Starting on BSD Unix them moving to NT (total sh%t), Novel, Sun Solaris and finally to Win2k(3) and XP. Now I wont say that XP is the most secure out of the box, but once you make some very small changes (lose the admin rights, change to firefox, install antivirus and antispy) its more then secure enough for general computing.
Linux is great but it is a bore to setup, frankly it reminds me of Win9x if your hardware works your good if not you are out of luck. And pray that you dont have WiFi, and good help you if your video card isn't supported... even Windows will allow you to use it with 800x600 mode.. I can't say the same for Linux..
My fav statement! WinXP networking is difficult to setup.. WAKE UP your using HOME!! Its not made for networking, at best its networking is to allow joe schmo the ability to pass a file or two.. Pro is the networking product.. maybe you should do your research first.. Home is a joke.. MS's big mistake if you ask me.. all the necessities are gone..
And Linux is user friendly??? Um.. did you get your Linux box confused with a mac?? So compiling software is user friendly?? I know XP isn't great, hell its not even half way to OSX but Linux is one of the most user unfriendly environments I have ever worked on.. Oh no.. my KDE, Gnome etc shell hasn't started what do I do! all I have is a command prompt.. I know enter in a sting of characters to launch it.. if only I had internet access to find out what those are...
Urm.. hardware support.. !! WHAT!!! Do you only use 2 year old computers with the most popular hardware..?? Oh.. wait even when I do have support I only get to access the 20-30% of the power that somebody was able to reverse engineer.. Sorry but if the hardware manufacturers need months to sort out the driver with every bit of necessary knowledge how the hell can some guy going to guess at it??
I don't love windows.. and I personally really like a few flavors of Linux (red hat, mandriva, Helix) but you need to think over what you say.. You're clearly have been working on Linux for too long and you have become out of touch with the huge learning curve that the average user has to go through.. try this.. teach your grandmother how to use Linux and see how much frustration she goes through.. then show her OSX I doubt she will even need your help..
Linux is great but it is a bore to setup, frankly it reminds me of Win9x if your hardware works your good if not you are out of luck. And pray that you dont have WiFi, and good help you if your video card isn't supported... even Windows will allow you to use it with 800x600 mode.. I can't say the same for Linux..
My fav statement! WinXP networking is difficult to setup.. WAKE UP your using HOME!! Its not made for networking, at best its networking is to allow joe schmo the ability to pass a file or two.. Pro is the networking product.. maybe you should do your research first.. Home is a joke.. MS's big mistake if you ask me.. all the necessities are gone..
And Linux is user friendly??? Um.. did you get your Linux box confused with a mac?? So compiling software is user friendly?? I know XP isn't great, hell its not even half way to OSX but Linux is one of the most user unfriendly environments I have ever worked on.. Oh no.. my KDE, Gnome etc shell hasn't started what do I do! all I have is a command prompt.. I know enter in a sting of characters to launch it.. if only I had internet access to find out what those are...
Urm.. hardware support.. !! WHAT!!! Do you only use 2 year old computers with the most popular hardware..?? Oh.. wait even when I do have support I only get to access the 20-30% of the power that somebody was able to reverse engineer.. Sorry but if the hardware manufacturers need months to sort out the driver with every bit of necessary knowledge how the hell can some guy going to guess at it??
I don't love windows.. and I personally really like a few flavors of Linux (red hat, mandriva, Helix) but you need to think over what you say.. You're clearly have been working on Linux for too long and you have become out of touch with the huge learning curve that the average user has to go through.. try this.. teach your grandmother how to use Linux and see how much frustration she goes through.. then show her OSX I doubt she will even need your help..
Couple words for you. Go try Mepis or Kubuntu. I bet you will retract your words.
You pretend you know and like Linux, find another sucker please.
You pretend you know and like Linux, find another sucker please.
Actually as a systems admin I generally prefer the right tool for the right job.. Doesn't matter if its Linux, OSX, Windows, WinCE, PalmOS.. no one tool works for all jobs.. If it does the job I don't care what it runs on..
Simple fact.. WinXP is the most popular and thus the most heavily supported OS in the world.. And if you must know.. I am a UNIX guy.. I think that Linux is a nice copy, but despite its popularity its still a copy..
Simple fact.. WinXP is the most popular and thus the most heavily supported OS in the world.. And if you must know.. I am a UNIX guy.. I think that Linux is a nice copy, but despite its popularity its still a copy..
It is not a copy it is a clone. A small difference but valid. It cloned the api's nevery copied anything. But that said the perspective was from a home user and I think for a home user they are going to be looking at XP HOME. If you compare that to the Linux variants for a home user Microsoft has some problems with what is lacking in XP home, on the networking side. If you are talking the right tool for the job. For a home user most commericial Linux distro's work out of the box with no need to download additional software or tweak the admin of the acounts to make it secure and functional - web, mail and documents.
clone
www.dictionary.com
One that copies or closely resembles another, as in appearance or function:
To produce a copy of; imitate closely:
Merriam-Webster www.m-w.com
one that appears to be a copy of an original form
I think he is right technically speaking Linux is a copy and there is no difference between the words copy and a clone.
www.dictionary.com
One that copies or closely resembles another, as in appearance or function:
To produce a copy of; imitate closely:
Merriam-Webster www.m-w.com
one that appears to be a copy of an original form
I think he is right technically speaking Linux is a copy and there is no difference between the words copy and a clone.
"I am a UNIX guy.. I think that Linux is a nice copy, but despite its popularity its still a copy.. "
More of a reason for you to seriously explore Linux.
More of a reason for you to seriously explore Linux.
Yeah, it's really easy to support XP as most of the fixes require a "simple" reinstall.
You imply that a copy is inferior? In what way, as pertains in context to the article.. ie: desktop usage. I would certainly say that, for destop use, Linux is far, FAR superior to any "true" Unix.
You imply that a copy is inferior? In what way, as pertains in context to the article.. ie: desktop usage. I would certainly say that, for destop use, Linux is far, FAR superior to any "true" Unix.
I have been a technical engineer for over a decade and Linux is one of the least user friendly environments.
As I follow the implied logic of your sentence, it goes (a) you are qualified to comment on Linux by virtue of your professional standing, and therefore (b) your statement that Linux has an unfriendly user environment needs no further defense.
You're a "technical engineer"? What's that? I'm a Registered Professional Engineer, and I've heard of electrical engineers, civil engineers, chemical engineers... but not technical engineers.
So I'm thinking, maybe your professional standing does not qualify you to assess Linux from a usability perspective at all. In fact, you're just another citizen with an opinion, pretending to be an authority on the subject.
...if you can't even run a graphics card in framebuffer mode. You say that you like Mandriva... which drops back to a framebuffer config if there are no native drives. I say: leave the grains alone, they're not helping your mental state.
Give the above faux pas, you may not have noticed this: unless you're using LinuxFromScratch or the like (or you're a masochist, sorry, Gentoo user), compiling software is generally not necessary - and that compiling it under MS-Windows first requires you to acquire a toolchain to do it with and the requires you to compe with a set of interfaces different to everything else on earth.
Give the above faux pas, you may not have noticed this: unless you're using LinuxFromScratch or the like (or you're a masochist, sorry, Gentoo user), compiling software is generally not necessary - and that compiling it under MS-Windows first requires you to acquire a toolchain to do it with and the requires you to compe with a set of interfaces different to everything else on earth.
Gawd they make us use Macs at work. So damn painful. It's almost as bad as using Windows and in some ways it is worse.
There seems to be no logic to their mapping of certain keys in most apps (PAGE UP, PAGE DOWN, HOME, END).
There isn't even a usable taskbar for managing the windows you have open. Their little task bar is more cute than useful.
ALT-TAB usefully doesn't let you cycle through all your open windows.
Random apps crash on me constantly (like several times a day) and they don't give any useful data about why they crashed.
Their console program really sucks and oddly enough files and directories created from the command-line don't always work from the desktop.
I'd say the Mac interface is ugly and it certainly sucks from a usability point-of-view.
What's with hiding the window bar icons that show the purpose of the buttons until the mouse hovers over them?
A single toolbar for all open apps is just retarded and hideous from a usability point.
You can't even choose the color of your choice to set the desktop to.
You can mount remote data sources (like ftp/sftp) but only as read-only which makes them of almost no use.
I've yet to find a decent ftp/sftp client for the Mac and I've tried a lot of them.
Mac apps like Safari, iTunes, and Apple Works are a joke. They just don't work well. iTunes crashes on me every time I rip a cd. Sadly, Finder crashes more than any other program.
Cutting and Pasting with a Mac is slow and annoying.
There are no multiple-clipboards for CnP either.
There isn't multiple virtual desktops.
I can't run apps off other machines as if they were local.
I could rant for hours (and many pages) but I guess I'll stop here. My overall point being that ALL computers suck and we're pretty much out of luck if we want non-sucky computing. I personally like Linux best because it does include pretty much everything including the kitchen sink and lets you customize it to your needs.
The Mac is slightly better than Windows and has some promise but I can only see it getting worse and not better as the Mac goal is to dumb stuff down so that even an idiot can use it.. make the easy stuff easier and the hard stuff harder.
Windows wants to be the Mac but executes the effort with much less style. Mostly that's due to Microsoft's obsession with making money rather than making software. Oddly Windows virtues are due to the same.. it's everywhere so every bit of hardware and software can seemingly be made to work with it.. if you push hard enough and have low enough standards.
There seems to be no logic to their mapping of certain keys in most apps (PAGE UP, PAGE DOWN, HOME, END).
There isn't even a usable taskbar for managing the windows you have open. Their little task bar is more cute than useful.
ALT-TAB usefully doesn't let you cycle through all your open windows.
Random apps crash on me constantly (like several times a day) and they don't give any useful data about why they crashed.
Their console program really sucks and oddly enough files and directories created from the command-line don't always work from the desktop.
I'd say the Mac interface is ugly and it certainly sucks from a usability point-of-view.
What's with hiding the window bar icons that show the purpose of the buttons until the mouse hovers over them?
A single toolbar for all open apps is just retarded and hideous from a usability point.
You can't even choose the color of your choice to set the desktop to.
You can mount remote data sources (like ftp/sftp) but only as read-only which makes them of almost no use.
I've yet to find a decent ftp/sftp client for the Mac and I've tried a lot of them.
Mac apps like Safari, iTunes, and Apple Works are a joke. They just don't work well. iTunes crashes on me every time I rip a cd. Sadly, Finder crashes more than any other program.
Cutting and Pasting with a Mac is slow and annoying.
There are no multiple-clipboards for CnP either.
There isn't multiple virtual desktops.
I can't run apps off other machines as if they were local.
I could rant for hours (and many pages) but I guess I'll stop here. My overall point being that ALL computers suck and we're pretty much out of luck if we want non-sucky computing. I personally like Linux best because it does include pretty much everything including the kitchen sink and lets you customize it to your needs.
The Mac is slightly better than Windows and has some promise but I can only see it getting worse and not better as the Mac goal is to dumb stuff down so that even an idiot can use it.. make the easy stuff easier and the hard stuff harder.
Windows wants to be the Mac but executes the effort with much less style. Mostly that's due to Microsoft's obsession with making money rather than making software. Oddly Windows virtues are due to the same.. it's everywhere so every bit of hardware and software can seemingly be made to work with it.. if you push hard enough and have low enough standards.
Wow, that's the most ignorant rant I've seen in awhile. If you used a mac, you might find you can do a lot of those things, possibly more. Run applications across the network? Just throw on X, set up your tunnels, off you go... ALT TAB, hahaha, CMND TAB.... There's virtual desktops, you just have to "customize" by downloading an app to manage them for you.... cut and paste slow?????..... I could go on, but most of what you've said, again, is just so ignorant.... Maybe all your problems is due to the fact you're running it in Pear???<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...feeding the trolls....feeding the trolls....
ok your a jackass , I love free software as much as the next nerd , (freebsd and debian user) but itunes beats oss music software hands down, i personally use xmms and grip but i prefer using itunes on my mac , and how often do normal user run programs over the network ? and as the other reply pointed out just install a X server on on OSX and you can run remote X11 apps . get you facts straight first, you make us linux/bsd geeks look stupid
I've had to use a Mac at work too, for about 9 months so far. I don't quite hate it (yet), but it's very annoying.
Fortunately I found "Chicken of the VNC" and spend most of my time in a full-screen VNC connection to a Gnome session on my linux cluster. It's not perfect, but it keeps me sane.
Fortunately I found "Chicken of the VNC" and spend most of my time in a full-screen VNC connection to a Gnome session on my linux cluster. It's not perfect, but it keeps me sane.
Funny, it took my fiancee a few days maximum to get rolling on a mac. Nine months and you still can't get things straight? Do you move your lips to read a stop sign too?
Mac > Linux > Windows. I didn't believe it until I gave a Powerbook an honest shot. Now I'll never go back. Funny how every developer conference I go to I see more and more guys using Macs. Presenters, coders, and attendees alike.
They know something you don't know.
Mac > Linux > Windows. I didn't believe it until I gave a Powerbook an honest shot. Now I'll never go back. Funny how every developer conference I go to I see more and more guys using Macs. Presenters, coders, and attendees alike.
They know something you don't know.
...so it feels like the most natural thing to me. Anything else is a messy tangle of unfamiliar grunts. But ask anyone who has had to learn English as a second language and they will tell you that it is an inconsistent conglomeration of gobbledegook. I've tried about 10 different distro's in the last 7 years or so (currently I like Yoper) but for some stupid reason I always keep coming back to Windows.( XP is a big improvement, gotta admit) Not that it's better than Linux any more than English is better than some other language, just that when I look at the directory structure for exampleI feel at home, just like I do with my native language, be it ever so humble.
Try to plug your digital camera in... nothing.
All the "productivity software" is half-assed and crashes all the time.
That's funny; mine works, no problems.
All the "productivity software" is half-assed and crashes all the time.
You mean OpenOffice? I've never known the current version crash at all. It does everything I need it to do, including generate PDFs. I'd apply terms like "half-assed" to office software that can't generate pdfs without some kind of add-on.
You just make it up as you go along, I suppose.
I'd apply terms like "half-assed" to office software that can't generate pdfs without some kind of add-on.
Especially when it costs some hundreds of $$$ (the office suite and the plug in too.
Especially when it costs some hundreds of $$$ (the office suite and the plug in too.
Try to plug your digital camera in...
Works like a charm.
I bought a Mac 3 years ago and haven't looked back.
How comes you make claims about the state of GNU/Linux then?
[..] a GUI that looks great
Importing photos from your camera is objective, GUI looks are not. IMO Aqua is ugly.
No work at all for me. Took a little bit to get set up (little bit, as in, not a whole lot), but maintainence is a snap (automatic updates). My digital camera works just fine, plug it in, there it appears. All the different interfaces.. hmm, well seeing as there are interfaces that emulate almost exactly XP, 95, and different mac era's, I guess those are all ugly as sin also (I tend to think that those in particular ARE ugly.. can't stand anything resembling Aqua or the old striped mac looking stuff on my machine.. blech). All the productivity software.. oh you mean the stuff that actually works much better than MS Office, being compatible with much more than just their file formats (designed only for vendor lock)? I've never had a productivity software crash. Never. Not once. Then again, for those pieces of software that I depend on, I tend to stay a bit away from the bleeding edge as I actually need to USE my system instead of play with it.
the person who wrote this article is a little misinformed. when they complain about microsoft not including vast arrays of software with XP. The fact is, Microsoft can't, remember, they were forced to split and not offer things like office, etc. for free, otherwise they would "trounce" their competitors with their monopoly.
You don't seem to understand why Microsoft have been told to take things like WMP out. It's not because they're not allowed to have them in there, it's because they're giving the users no alternative choices and are thus abusing their monopoly position.
AFAIK Microsoft have never really tried to put MS Office in there for free. Why would they? They make a lot of money by keeping it as a seperate product.
What would I like to see Microsoft do? Offer some choices during installation. This way I can just not install the unwanted fluff that they seem so keen to push on me.
AFAIK Microsoft have never really tried to put MS Office in there for free. Why would they? They make a lot of money by keeping it as a seperate product.
What would I like to see Microsoft do? Offer some choices during installation. This way I can just not install the unwanted fluff that they seem so keen to push on me.
Well you're about 3 years off your self. Project utopia has made conciderable enhancements to making hardware "just work".
The truth that this article reveals is that it is always a PITA to from a familiar to an unfamiliar move OS (be it OS X, Linux, Win), particularly if you have to install that new OS yourself to start the move.
The unfortunate fact is that almost all of the moving needs to happen in one direction which is why things will take a long time.
The unfortunate fact is that almost all of the moving needs to happen in one direction which is why things will take a long time.
I would like to note.. that he didn't say anything bad about the installation process.. I have to give MS this.. they finally made a installation that is so simple my dog can get it done...
You sound like you haven't tried Mepis or Kubuntu lately. Mepis will install in 15 minutes, Kubuntu is just as easy but will take a little longer because it gives you many more configuration options. Give them a try so you don't post stale info. next time.
Wait.. uh.. hmmm.. I dont remember writing any comparison to linux installations.. hell I wouldn't even try.. there are so many "flavors" that I wouldn't know where to begin.. I will say that Mandriva has a nice install, linspire, Red hat etc..
In fact maybe you should get hooked on phonics.. because all I said is that WinXP's installation is simple and that the person who I responded to was commenting on something that wasn't said.. The author never said anything about the installation process.. he said he had a driver problem..
So instead of preaching your silly little propaganda.. why do you first learn to read, and respond to things that were said, not to things that you think were said..
damn garden gnomes keep telling you nonsense you silly boy.. don't listen to them.. they are all liars..
In fact maybe you should get hooked on phonics.. because all I said is that WinXP's installation is simple and that the person who I responded to was commenting on something that wasn't said.. The author never said anything about the installation process.. he said he had a driver problem..
So instead of preaching your silly little propaganda.. why do you first learn to read, and respond to things that were said, not to things that you think were said..
damn garden gnomes keep telling you nonsense you silly boy.. don't listen to them.. they are all liars..
Can I borrow your dog? Because I might be trying to install XP in a few days.
This is a joke right.?? I have been a technical engineer for over a decade and Linux is one of the least user friendly environments. Starting on BSD Unix them moving to NT (total sh%t), Novel, Sun Solaris and finally to Win2k(3) and XP. Now I wont say that XP is the most secure out of the box, but once you make some very small changes (lose the admin rights, change to firefox, install antivirus and antispy) its more then secure enough for general computing.
Linux is great but it is a bore to setup, frankly it reminds me of Win9x if your hardware works your good if not you are out of luck. And pray that you dont have WiFi, and good help you if your video card isn't supported... even Windows will allow you to use it with 800x600 mode.. I can't say the same for Linux..
My fav statement! WinXP networking is difficult to setup.. WAKE UP your using HOME!! Its not made for networking, at best its networking is to allow joe schmo the ability to pass a file or two.. Pro is the networking product.. maybe you should do your research first.. Home is a joke.. MS's big mistake if you ask me.. all the necessities are gone..
And Linux is user friendly??? Um.. did you get your Linux box confused with a mac?? So compiling software is user friendly?? I know XP isn't great, hell its not even half way to OSX but Linux is one of the most user unfriendly environments I have ever worked on.. Oh no.. my KDE, Gnome etc shell hasn't started what do I do! all I have is a command prompt.. I know enter in a sting of characters to launch it.. if only I had internet access to find out what those are...
Urm.. hardware support.. !! WHAT!!! Do you only use 2 year old computers with the most popular hardware..?? Oh.. wait even when I do have support I only get to access the 20-30% of the power that somebody was able to reverse engineer.. Sorry but if the hardware manufacturers need months to sort out the driver with every bit of necessary knowledge how the hell can some guy going to guess at it??
I don't love windows.. and I personally really like a few flavors of Linux (red hat, mandriva, Helix) but you need to think over what you say.. You're clearly have been working on Linux for too long and you have become out of touch with the huge learning curve that the average user has to go through.. try this.. teach your grandmother how to use Linux and see how much frustration she goes through.. then show her OSX I doubt she will even need your help..
First, this is in the Humor section.
Second, the main differences between XP Home and Pro edition (according to MS) is the ability to join a domain, encrypting file system, and remote desktop. Even if this article was serious, the difference between the pro and home edition would not apply here as the pro edition acts mostly like the home edition when installed outside of a Windows domain and I don’t see your average home users running domain controllers in their homes.
So compiling software is user friendly??... Sorry but if the hardware manufacturers need months to sort out the driver with every bit of necessary knowledge how the hell can some guy going to guess at it??
What are you talking about? I have a machine with nForce2 based motherboard with GeForce FX based video card that I use with both Windows XP Pro and CentOS 4. In either case, I needed to go to the nVidia site and download the drivers for full functionality. As for compiling, CentOS and many of the other distros come with most of the software that a home user may need, and most of the OSS out there have option of letting you download the binaries.
Based on your post, I believe that it is you who need to be doing more research.
Second, the main differences between XP Home and Pro edition (according to MS) is the ability to join a domain, encrypting file system, and remote desktop. Even if this article was serious, the difference between the pro and home edition would not apply here as the pro edition acts mostly like the home edition when installed outside of a Windows domain and I don’t see your average home users running domain controllers in their homes.
So compiling software is user friendly??... Sorry but if the hardware manufacturers need months to sort out the driver with every bit of necessary knowledge how the hell can some guy going to guess at it??
What are you talking about? I have a machine with nForce2 based motherboard with GeForce FX based video card that I use with both Windows XP Pro and CentOS 4. In either case, I needed to go to the nVidia site and download the drivers for full functionality. As for compiling, CentOS and many of the other distros come with most of the software that a home user may need, and most of the OSS out there have option of letting you download the binaries.
Based on your post, I believe that it is you who need to be doing more research.
1) Linux actually runs on a far wider array of hardware than XP. Although many specific pieces of hardware are unsupported, the same can be said for Win.
2) The article points to the fact that switching, for a user, is always difficult, no matter from what to what.
3) Yes, OS X is great...and unmentioned in the article.
4) Linux, in most user-friendly distros (Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.) installs just as easily as Windows, more quickly and with more included software out of the box. Much of this is due to the age of XP, but is a fact nonetheless.
5) My family members that I've switched to Linux are going great. They love it far more than Windows. They didn't install it, but then they didn't install Windows either.
6) Yeah, it's a joke.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
2) The article points to the fact that switching, for a user, is always difficult, no matter from what to what.
3) Yes, OS X is great...and unmentioned in the article.
4) Linux, in most user-friendly distros (Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.) installs just as easily as Windows, more quickly and with more included software out of the box. Much of this is due to the age of XP, but is a fact nonetheless.
5) My family members that I've switched to Linux are going great. They love it far more than Windows. They didn't install it, but then they didn't install Windows either.
6) Yeah, it's a joke.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
As everyone's said... this is a joke, but this gets me:
You're clearly have been working on Linux for too long and you have become out of touch with the huge learning curve that the average user has to go through.
You're right, Linux isn't really made for the average user yet, it's still in the land of the techies - whichever way you look at it. However, for me this is also its biggest selling point: i've been using it for years, and its all pretty much second nature. I now find i'm much more productive (looking at the bigger picture, as well as daily use) as I know where apps are and can fix problems with the OS and apps very quickly thanks to built in debuggers, error reporting and bug control. The shell is also far more powerful than Windows/DOS could ever be — after putting the time into learning how to use it, you can get the fireworks you want very easily.
Think of the whole Linux vs. Windows just like Vi vs. Notepad. Vi is much more powerful and makes you much more productive in the longer run, once you've learned all the controls and mastered the buttons. Notepad is instantly accessible, and new/non-techie users will be able to jump right in and be productive. But after a year, their productivity remains constant while the Vi user's productivity is skyrocketing.
You're clearly have been working on Linux for too long and you have become out of touch with the huge learning curve that the average user has to go through.
You're right, Linux isn't really made for the average user yet, it's still in the land of the techies - whichever way you look at it. However, for me this is also its biggest selling point: i've been using it for years, and its all pretty much second nature. I now find i'm much more productive (looking at the bigger picture, as well as daily use) as I know where apps are and can fix problems with the OS and apps very quickly thanks to built in debuggers, error reporting and bug control. The shell is also far more powerful than Windows/DOS could ever be — after putting the time into learning how to use it, you can get the fireworks you want very easily.
Think of the whole Linux vs. Windows just like Vi vs. Notepad. Vi is much more powerful and makes you much more productive in the longer run, once you've learned all the controls and mastered the buttons. Notepad is instantly accessible, and new/non-techie users will be able to jump right in and be productive. But after a year, their productivity remains constant while the Vi user's productivity is skyrocketing.
And Linux is user friendly??? So compiling software is user friendly??
I installed Debian Woody with KDE 3.x for my dad a couple of years ago. He's nearly 70 years old, never used anything but a Mac (OS 8, for a couple of years), and hasn't had any problems using it. He's probably in that realm people call "average user." He uses it for email, web, and writing letters. He has no need to install extra software (whether compiled or apt-get-installed), and I haven't touched the machine since I set it up for him.
Sounds like it passes the "easy" test to me.
--
Bill Kendrick
I installed Debian Woody with KDE 3.x for my dad a couple of years ago. He's nearly 70 years old, never used anything but a Mac (OS 8, for a couple of years), and hasn't had any problems using it. He's probably in that realm people call "average user." He uses it for email, web, and writing letters. He has no need to install extra software (whether compiled or apt-get-installed), and I haven't touched the machine since I set it up for him.
Sounds like it passes the "easy" test to me.
--
Bill Kendrick
I agree about linux becoming easier to install software with. I just installed a very minimal version of OpenBSD (regretibly; I need to install millions of applications now), and it's possibly the best in that respect. Out of the box (in my case, it was a home-burnt CD) it installed the drivers for my video card and my WMP54G v4 Wireless Network Card (which, so far, no other unix derevitive has offered). now there's so many ways to compile a program. The first is through binary packages (very simple quick, and can be done over a network), the second is through ports, and of course you have the option of manually compilation and RPM Packages(though for those you need to install a program like Kpackage)
You do know BSD is not Linux, right? It's in the same *nix family, but not in the Linux family...
I taught my mother (who's mid 50s).
It took all of a day. Hard eh? I was spending 2-3 hours a week over there trying to get her up in windows... switched her to linux and I don't think I've done more than an hours support since. She even knows how to browse man pages *boggle*. Amazing. No wait... to someone who doesn't KNOW a specific os already... it really isnt much harder to learn linux than windows at a user level.
It took all of a day. Hard eh? I was spending 2-3 hours a week over there trying to get her up in windows... switched her to linux and I don't think I've done more than an hours support since. She even knows how to browse man pages *boggle*. Amazing. No wait... to someone who doesn't KNOW a specific os already... it really isnt much harder to learn linux than windows at a user level.
So compiling software is user friendly??
compiling??!! I compiled a program...once. Had a little difficulty so I spent 5 minutes searching and found an RPM, of the latest stable version and click! one installed program!
We all have personal opinions on operating system, I personally hate Mac over all other operating systems, I was forced to use it for 4 months in one job and it was a painful experience until I finally managed to get permission for a linux box. I haven't used osX so I can't critize my experience was with 9.x. I don't like windows but I use it on occasion to play games, mostly because the big third party vendors don't provide support for other operating systems. XP can be a major pain to install especially with duel monitors, what the hell is wrong with XP defaulting to PCI video instead of AGP? even when the BIOS states video is on AGP.
I love linux because it gives me a lot more control over my systems than "almost" any other operating system, I personally like gentoo although I would never recommend it to anyone without a lot of experience using Linux. In terms of WIFI it isn't that difficult to set up, I have set up WiFi on my laptop and my desktop in about 10 minutes as opposed to getting the 6 windows machines in the house working on WiFi using different cards that come with different software that all require different methods to get working, seriously why does one vendor go with the standard 128bit WEP keys and the next for some reason doesn't understand 128bit but recognises for some reason 100bit keys????? Same cards in linux both will run with 128bit WEP no problems.
Solaris is another great operating system highly configurable, easy to use when you have a little knowledge of Unix operating systems and very stable, which brings me to the question someone else asked why do all corporate offices use windows? I don't know why do 90% of fortune 500 companies use Solaris for their networks? Politics aside, if you like windows go for it, you like Mac go for it, you like linux use that.
THE ARTICLE WAS AMUSING STOP COMPLAINING AND TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY.
Geez
I love linux because it gives me a lot more control over my systems than "almost" any other operating system, I personally like gentoo although I would never recommend it to anyone without a lot of experience using Linux. In terms of WIFI it isn't that difficult to set up, I have set up WiFi on my laptop and my desktop in about 10 minutes as opposed to getting the 6 windows machines in the house working on WiFi using different cards that come with different software that all require different methods to get working, seriously why does one vendor go with the standard 128bit WEP keys and the next for some reason doesn't understand 128bit but recognises for some reason 100bit keys????? Same cards in linux both will run with 128bit WEP no problems.
Solaris is another great operating system highly configurable, easy to use when you have a little knowledge of Unix operating systems and very stable, which brings me to the question someone else asked why do all corporate offices use windows? I don't know why do 90% of fortune 500 companies use Solaris for their networks? Politics aside, if you like windows go for it, you like Mac go for it, you like linux use that.
THE ARTICLE WAS AMUSING STOP COMPLAINING AND TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY.
Geez
I hated the Mac os as well.. until OSX.. BSD based and the gui is amazing..And they finally have some powerful hardware again.. the G4 was getting long in the tooth.. Try out OSX it really is a very well put together OS.. Despite the fact that I dont use it everyday (to many win apps that I need) it really is my favorite.
yep.
xp. hrmph..
but 98se.
you take 98SE.
blow the hell of it and compile using MDM etc.
boomshakalaka. a nice machine.
take ACiDsoft Webserver, just completely gut and recompile using vs6.
irc protocols, gut and replace.. using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ts
i mean really.
you want something nice take Microsoft Windows 98SE sludge in some NT aspects along with some legacy code and 2000/ME components and say screw XP.
pretty nice.
oh yeah blast charmap too. replace with CeySkan or something.
now for the gamma correction tools. use SiS not ATI.
use NTZ or wachamacallit burner for 98SE instead of XP style burner, just gut the code in it which glitches when you have higher end ANSI within file names and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXTs.
now for security.
AdAware SE pro.
set all to maximum deep scan. and pop some crap along when running the scan. set it to scan drives that don't even exist or are not loaded at all. it catches more stuff when you activate stuff that pretty much everything else tells you not to do anything while scanning. well lavasoft doesn't say either way. and by the way. how are you supposed to catch adware in the act if it doesn't exhibit symptoms. any primary care physician could tell you that!
reconfig 98SE to load and unload drives and drive images OS X style.
i mean really. it's your machine. it's for your personal use right? mod the hell out of it, reverse engineering isn't illegal as long as it is not for the purpose of piracy nor espionage.
i could go on forever with the wonders of 98SE... becoming the next homebrewing all around desktop kit.
and yes this is about desktops right? for home use right?
well if you are like me and don't have any use whatsoever for a desktop computer other than for use in a thinktank. yep there you go. homefree. blast your 98SE silly.
it sure beats using a thinktank with XP or OS X, and linux just doesn't cut it when you want to do is simply waste all the time in the world simply spawning the 'new yet impossible reality'.
i mean with linux, yeah that's great for engineering but in thinktanks? thinktanks tackle things beyond what technology allows. and they speak in dead languages as well. you attack such a prollem in an os that isn't already essentially dead. those epiphanies aren't going to surface.
oh yeah, and it is 'viruses' not 'virii'. if 'virii' were actually Latin, it would simply mean 'that of which is or relates to man' or some jazz.
tata.
xp. hrmph..
but 98se.
you take 98SE.
blow the hell of it and compile using MDM etc.
boomshakalaka. a nice machine.
take ACiDsoft Webserver, just completely gut and recompile using vs6.
irc protocols, gut and replace.. using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ts
i mean really.
you want something nice take Microsoft Windows 98SE sludge in some NT aspects along with some legacy code and 2000/ME components and say screw XP.
pretty nice.
oh yeah blast charmap too. replace with CeySkan or something.
now for the gamma correction tools. use SiS not ATI.
use NTZ or wachamacallit burner for 98SE instead of XP style burner, just gut the code in it which glitches when you have higher end ANSI within file names and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXTs.
now for security.
AdAware SE pro.
set all to maximum deep scan. and pop some crap along when running the scan. set it to scan drives that don't even exist or are not loaded at all. it catches more stuff when you activate stuff that pretty much everything else tells you not to do anything while scanning. well lavasoft doesn't say either way. and by the way. how are you supposed to catch adware in the act if it doesn't exhibit symptoms. any primary care physician could tell you that!
reconfig 98SE to load and unload drives and drive images OS X style.
i mean really. it's your machine. it's for your personal use right? mod the hell out of it, reverse engineering isn't illegal as long as it is not for the purpose of piracy nor espionage.
i could go on forever with the wonders of 98SE... becoming the next homebrewing all around desktop kit.
and yes this is about desktops right? for home use right?
well if you are like me and don't have any use whatsoever for a desktop computer other than for use in a thinktank. yep there you go. homefree. blast your 98SE silly.
it sure beats using a thinktank with XP or OS X, and linux just doesn't cut it when you want to do is simply waste all the time in the world simply spawning the 'new yet impossible reality'.
i mean with linux, yeah that's great for engineering but in thinktanks? thinktanks tackle things beyond what technology allows. and they speak in dead languages as well. you attack such a prollem in an os that isn't already essentially dead. those epiphanies aren't going to surface.
oh yeah, and it is 'viruses' not 'virii'. if 'virii' were actually Latin, it would simply mean 'that of which is or relates to man' or some jazz.
tata.
Virii is indeed a valid word to use. However it most always misused.
"Virii" is the classification of the entities "virus".
Ex: Bacteria, Fungi, and Virii are all capable of infecting humans.
Think of it as "mankind" as opposed to "men".
Mankind = all of us as one entity or classification.
Men = more than one man.
"Viruses" is the plural of "virus".
Ex: He had a number of viruses in the past year.
So, in the Computer Field the following are valid sentences:
1) Virii and Worms are detrimental to computers.
2) These new viruses that came out last week are bad.
Refernce: Basically all of my books from school dealing with the subject matter, such as...
Epidemiology for Public Health Practice- Friis & Sellers
Viruses and Human Disease- Strauss
Infectious Disease Epidemiology: Theory and Practice- Nelson
(All are good reads!)
"Virii" is the classification of the entities "virus".
Ex: Bacteria, Fungi, and Virii are all capable of infecting humans.
Think of it as "mankind" as opposed to "men".
Mankind = all of us as one entity or classification.
Men = more than one man.
"Viruses" is the plural of "virus".
Ex: He had a number of viruses in the past year.
So, in the Computer Field the following are valid sentences:
1) Virii and Worms are detrimental to computers.
2) These new viruses that came out last week are bad.
Refernce: Basically all of my books from school dealing with the subject matter, such as...
Epidemiology for Public Health Practice- Friis & Sellers
Viruses and Human Disease- Strauss
Infectious Disease Epidemiology: Theory and Practice- Nelson
(All are good reads!)
He said "user friendly" your criticisms seem to be all admin issues that any Linux power-user could circumvent to setup a system ready for a _user_.
As for grandmothers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I use Slackware - I can set it up to have 3 icons on the desktop: Internet, Email, Word processor. The desktop starts when you switch on. You click the icon you want.
How hard is that?
For upgrade issues then an administrator (or a cron call to swaret) can deal.
Granted, this setup is probably possible in WinXP too, but get a clue already<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:0)>
As for grandmothers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I use Slackware - I can set it up to have 3 icons on the desktop: Internet, Email, Word processor. The desktop starts when you switch on. You click the icon you want.
How hard is that?
For upgrade issues then an administrator (or a cron call to swaret) can deal.
Granted, this setup is probably possible in WinXP too, but get a clue already<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:0)>
The first reasonable response.. Yes you can setup any os to have just three icons on the desktop and anyone can run it. The real point of the grandmother statement was getting them to use the OS like a normal user would. Surf the web, create documents saving them to the harddrive and retreving them later, installing new software when needed (and figuring out what that software is), and getting help easily when things don't work as expected. Linux is not good for most of this.
Linux is for geeks plain and simple, and thats fine. I hate to point this out.. but if it was so simple to setup and use it would be more popular with the average user. I am technical as hell and I can tell you that even the more friendly distro's can be a real pain to setup and work on, despite the fact that they come with so many apps. I really don't like XP all that much, but it has tons of excellent applications and its universal. If OSX had all my favorite apps I would move in a second.
Linux is for geeks plain and simple, and thats fine. I hate to point this out.. but if it was so simple to setup and use it would be more popular with the average user. I am technical as hell and I can tell you that even the more friendly distro's can be a real pain to setup and work on, despite the fact that they come with so many apps. I really don't like XP all that much, but it has tons of excellent applications and its universal. If OSX had all my favorite apps I would move in a second.
"The real point of the grandmother statement was getting them to use the OS like a normal user would. Surf the web, create documents saving them to the harddrive and retreving them later, installing new software when needed (and figuring out what that software is), and getting help easily when things don't work as expected. Linux is not good for most of this."
Got one word for you. Debian. Surf the web. Check. Create and retrieve documents. Check. Install new software. Check. Getting help easily when things don't work as expected. Moot point because things simply work.
Ironic, isn't it, that one of the supposedly most geeky distros is actually the best (IMO) for any "average user".
"I hate to point this out.. but if it was so simple to setup and use it would be more popular with the average user."
Popularity has absolutely NOTHING to do with Linux *percieved* complexity. It has EVERYTHING to do with *GAMES* (well, MS's strongarm tactics with vendors do play some part here... nasty actually). Get the game developers to port all their games to Linux.. Windows dominance on the average home users pc would vanish overnight. The only people using it would be the ones that are ignorant to what Linux really is, and those trapped by vendor lockin to nich applications to which there is yet no Linux equivalent.
Got one word for you. Debian. Surf the web. Check. Create and retrieve documents. Check. Install new software. Check. Getting help easily when things don't work as expected. Moot point because things simply work.
Ironic, isn't it, that one of the supposedly most geeky distros is actually the best (IMO) for any "average user".
"I hate to point this out.. but if it was so simple to setup and use it would be more popular with the average user."
Popularity has absolutely NOTHING to do with Linux *percieved* complexity. It has EVERYTHING to do with *GAMES* (well, MS's strongarm tactics with vendors do play some part here... nasty actually). Get the game developers to port all their games to Linux.. Windows dominance on the average home users pc would vanish overnight. The only people using it would be the ones that are ignorant to what Linux really is, and those trapped by vendor lockin to nich applications to which there is yet no Linux equivalent.
That was always the way with Debian to an extent. In comparison with several other distributions it was harder to set up, but easier to maintain once you got the basic system going and all the hardware working. Of course now it's getting easier to set up as well. And then of course there are variations like Mepis and Ubuntu/Kubuntu, which are up to date and fairly easy to get going for anyone who is competent to install an OS in the first place.
If you spend all that money for Windows why don't they include networking in the home edition as well? Why do you need to spend even more money when it comes free with Linux? This is a definite score for Linux here, no way around it.
Also, installation is no comparison. Linux gives you an entire system in less time then it takes to set up just Windows. Further, you can test it with a "live" version before installing it, and there are no codes to worry about. Linux has a huge edge in installation ease.
The truth of the matter is that Linux clearly beats Windows in some ease-of-use areas. I am extremely grateful to all the programmers and corporations who have donated to open source software.
Also, installation is no comparison. Linux gives you an entire system in less time then it takes to set up just Windows. Further, you can test it with a "live" version before installing it, and there are no codes to worry about. Linux has a huge edge in installation ease.
The truth of the matter is that Linux clearly beats Windows in some ease-of-use areas. I am extremely grateful to all the programmers and corporations who have donated to open source software.
So compiling software is user friendly??
my KDE, Gnome etc shell hasn't started what do I do! all I have is a command prompt..
Almost no Linux users compile software.
my KDE, Gnome etc shell hasn't started what do I do! all I have is a command prompt..
How often does this really happen? I've been installing Linux (various distros, mostly Redhat and Debian) on a wide range of machines for 7 years and this has never happened to me.
Compiling software is totally user-friendly - three small steps. Most Linux distros boot to X. Not sure which distros you've been installing, but for a user with 7 years of experience, I find it had to believe you think "almost no Linux users compile software." I have been using Linux since 1998 and compile software all the time. As for Gnome and KDE "not starting," that only happens if the user wants it too, or has broken X for some reason. I boot to a CLI on purpose because that is what I prefer. Don't make blanket statements about what you think "most Linux users" do without knowing, that's not fair.
That was hilarious, thank you! I needed a good laugh.
I didnt' know that linux was great as a desktop operating system, and has no problems with drivers.
I didnt know windows was a difficult and cumbersome desktop operating system.
Perhaps this explains why so many large corporate networks have linux as their desktops... Wait, THEY DONT!? HOW CAN THIS BE IF LINUX IS A SUPERIOR DESKTOP.
Look, you ignorant biggot, if you dont know enough about computers to realize that all operating systems have problems with drivers, then why the hell are you writing this article? How old are you, 19?
I didnt' know that linux was great as a desktop operating system, and has no problems with drivers.
I didnt know windows was a difficult and cumbersome desktop operating system.
Perhaps this explains why so many large corporate networks have linux as their desktops... Wait, THEY DONT!? HOW CAN THIS BE IF LINUX IS A SUPERIOR DESKTOP.
Look, you ignorant biggot, if you dont know enough about computers to realize that all operating systems have problems with drivers, then why the hell are you writing this article? How old are you, 19?
To the article author: it WAS funny, and as you made clear in the article's postscript, a good turnaround on the typical news story. Don't let the folks who feel compelled to make dim and personal comments get you down!
But just for the record: HOW CAN IT BE THAT VHS BEAT BETAMAX IF BETAMAX WAS THE SUPERIOR FORMAT?
Because, just possibly, there's more to it than technical superiority? Boy, that'd be a first!
Oh, and and biggot was misspelled. Just one "g." The poster might want to watch that next time so folks don't think he or she is ignorant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
But just for the record: HOW CAN IT BE THAT VHS BEAT BETAMAX IF BETAMAX WAS THE SUPERIOR FORMAT?
Because, just possibly, there's more to it than technical superiority? Boy, that'd be a first!
Oh, and and biggot was misspelled. Just one "g." The poster might want to watch that next time so folks don't think he or she is ignorant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
1. A faulty product design. Sony shortchanged the potential of the Betamax system by launching it with only a one-hour tape. By the time Sony launched a two-hour Betamax, Matsushita was ready to bring out a four-hour VHS machine. And by the time Sony countered with a five-hour Betamax, Matsushita was ready to launch an eight-hour VHS.
2. A myopic business model. Betamax was conceived as a closed system and Sony was slow in building up a strong coalition of manufacturers and wholesalers in support of Betamax.
3. Strong network effects (complementarity effects), arising from the emergence and increasing importance of video film rental stores.
Source: <a href="http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2003/brussels/olleros_betamax%20revisited.pdf" title="muohio.edu">Betamax Revisited: A Contextual View of the Battle for the Home VCR Market</a muohio.edu> (PDF)
2. A myopic business model. Betamax was conceived as a closed system and Sony was slow in building up a strong coalition of manufacturers and wholesalers in support of Betamax.
3. Strong network effects (complementarity effects), arising from the emergence and increasing importance of video film rental stores.
Source: <a href="http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2003/brussels/olleros_betamax%20revisited.pdf" title="muohio.edu">Betamax Revisited: A Contextual View of the Battle for the Home VCR Market</a muohio.edu> (PDF)
2&3 are nontechnical reasons, so you are pretty much backing the parent posters claim?
Re:Common explanations of how VHS beat Betamax
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 11:49 PM
That second reason has been a big objection to me for a lot of Sony technology. They are trying to use Microsoft-like techniques to lock users into their media formats. No thanks. Also, it used to be that Sony made good stuff, but lately their quality seems poor to mediocre at 25 to 50 percent more expense; what's up with that? You can only live on reputation for so long before you begin to get a different one.
It's funny, though. Once I spent a week or two familiarizing myself with Linux, the ease of use of my computer was so improved...It's amazing. I'd really recommend it. I don't see how you could use Linux and not think it is superior, truly. Easier maintenance, more stable, secure and customizable. There are many reasons companies choose Win over Linux. How old are you, 20?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
'tis sattire.
no prollem with sattire.
the entire point of sattire is to turn tables upside down and inside out.
and yes, nearly if not all sattire is in some small or major way completely intrinsically true.
tata.
no prollem with sattire.
the entire point of sattire is to turn tables upside down and inside out.
and yes, nearly if not all sattire is in some small or major way completely intrinsically true.
tata.
Surely you mean "satire"?
Awwww, someone hut your widdle feelings<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( poor little girl, here have some candy and play with your barbie.
Feel better now?
Your not the only one who's ignorance is only surpassed by their stupidity and arrogance. Allot of mental midgets shell out hundreds of dollars on an inferior operating system.
Drink the coolaid you ignoramus.
Feel better now?
Your not the only one who's ignorance is only surpassed by their stupidity and arrogance. Allot of mental midgets shell out hundreds of dollars on an inferior operating system.
Drink the coolaid you ignoramus.
Perhaps large corporations use Windows because they buy from Microsoft salesmen. Or perhaps they buy because they believe the Microsoft ads and the Microsoft FUD, or perhaps they buy because they are just stupid.
Hey anonymous win weinie, grow a sense of humor. I'll help you once you get past puberty.
Funny thing about Winweinies. The majority of them post this utter bullcrap and have never seen Linux running on anything ever. They're here cause Commandant Bill said to be here like loyal subjects. I actually work in an all windows shop. OMG what a nightmare. I have Win XP pro running on my boxes at home. BUT the first one is now switched over to Xandros Linux OCE. I have to tell you, it installed in 20 minutes including my using the custom install. Found and configured all my hardware including my gigabit Nic & my Ati AGP card (XP screwed that up, couldn't even find the nic card. Setup my sound, and network without a hitch (XP wouldn't work with the sound card). In fact is was so fast and easy I thought, I must be dreaming. But no it is true Linux is ready for the desktop. This machine duals boots so I can compare XP to Linux. Xandros runs circles around XP. Oh did I mention its a dual processor mobo? Well linux seems to love it too. I did all the upgrades to the suite of programs that came with it online with just a click of a mouse. Compiling....is that something you do if you can't sit down? lol Well anyway. There are a lot of Linux distros out there, but this is the one that made me think Windoze could be finished, at least on my comps.
And yes it was damned funnny. I laughed from start to finish.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
And yes it was damned funnny. I laughed from start to finish.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
it would´ve been funnier if someone who knows about windows had written the article. For everyone who has ever tried both OS´s this isn´t worth a laugh. Actually it makes me sad to think of the long way Linux has to go till it reaches the easiness of WinXP.
Don´t get me wrong - I really love what has been done with Ubuntu, but it´s just the first step out of many.
Don´t get me wrong - I really love what has been done with Ubuntu, but it´s just the first step out of many.
I know windows as I have to admin windows boxes. I have tried both OSes. I am writing this from a debian testing image under colinux running on windows XP SP2. I use Linux for _all_ my daily desktop stuff, and the only reason XP is there at all is because I need it for games. Try finding a (decent) replacement for Kile (LaTeX editor with a quick-referance symbol table, built in compilation buttons, syntax highlighting and 'wizards' for some of the complicated parts of latex), Kate (an IDE with support for lots of different source highlighting, (which you can add too) and integrated bash shell (how handy!)) or Kopete (Messenger with Aliases and multiple protocols) on the Windows desktop....
Kopete replacements: Gaim or Trillian
Kate: Vim or eclipse (or emacs or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)
Don't forget that KDE isn't the only choice one has for a window manager in Linux.
Kate: Vim or eclipse (or emacs or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)
Don't forget that KDE isn't the only choice one has for a window manager in Linux.
Vim with latex-suite, or emacs with auctex.
Both of them even work on windows. I use pretty much the same software at home on my debian box as at work on my windows laptop. The difference is that it took me two days to download, install and configure everything on windows, and still it doesn't really integrate with the OS that well. On my debian box, all the software came with the system, it is all pre-configured and it integrates beautifully.
Both of them even work on windows. I use pretty much the same software at home on my debian box as at work on my windows laptop. The difference is that it took me two days to download, install and configure everything on windows, and still it doesn't really integrate with the OS that well. On my debian box, all the software came with the system, it is all pre-configured and it integrates beautifully.
Linux definately has rough spots but overall I find it much easier to use. I think most people just find Windows easier because they've used it a lot more and have grown used to it's ways.
I'm currently working on toolset for making management of systems easier by abstracting the details out so that you can manage a single system, or group of systems, from a handy user-friendly interface. I love the config-file style of management for working out those situations where you need to do something out of the ordinary but management of ordinary tasks is easier through a GUI or other abstraction layer. There is no reason both can't co-exist. My toolset is mostly being designed for my Linux needs but I'm also planning on making it work with OSX, Windows, and various forms of Unix) so happily I'll be able to manage all these systems from a single user-interface.
I think this will smooth out some of those nagging rough spots for me. I don't like having to log into individual systems and edit config files for every change I need to make or just to monitor the systems status. At the same time it really does tend to be a pain to configure some basic things on Linux (printer, wireless, etc) where as it shouldn't be. A lot of that is unsupported hardware but also it is due to poor management tools.
Overall though, as an experienced multiplatform power user, I'd say that Linux makes a lot of my hard jobs easy which to me is more important than making the easy jobs easier. The good news is that we can have both and I think we are seeing some progress being made.
It seems you miss the whole point of the article. You simply can't see that this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that riles US up when we read the hoards of "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" articles. It's the same, only in reverse, where most articles you read are from people with Windows experience, and they find difficulties using Linux, this is a Linux user, who finds difficulties (and they ARE legitimate btw) with Windows.
"I really love what has been done with Ubuntu, but it´s just the first step out of many."
Ubuntu is FAR from the first step. You take for granted and give a slap in the face to those developers and projects Ubuntu stands on the shoulders of.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton
"I really love what has been done with Ubuntu, but it´s just the first step out of many."
Ubuntu is FAR from the first step. You take for granted and give a slap in the face to those developers and projects Ubuntu stands on the shoulders of.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton
As I've said before and will continue to say again: XP is a steaming loaf. Anyone who thinks XP is "easy" is fooling themselves. M$ wants money, pure and simple. They don't care about you or whether their lousy OS runs on your hardware. M$ writes bad products, floods the market with them and claims "desktop popularity." Horrible company, horrible products, and they will never get a dime of my hard-earned money. Linux is VERY easy to use if you just get out of the conditioning M$ has put millions of hapless users through.
Actually, Microsoft makes some very good mice and keyboards. It's just software that they can't seem to get right. Of course it appears that their goal with software is lock-in as opposed to quality, and that seems to have made them a lot of money over the years if nothing else. The way they ran the company works if you want several years of domination and huge income, accompanied by user ire, followed by a sales decline that you may or may not survive. But hey, they made their money. They just had to remember to check their ethics at the door. Of course many people seem to feel that ethics have no place in business, or at least big business.
After two hours of trial and error my brother and I finally managed to have a video conference. We both needed Windows XP installed and the latest Messenger 7 to make it work, and I had to register a lot of information about myself at someplace called MSN - whatever that means. There were at least two agreements I was requested to read, but I didn't bother as my brother was 1800 km away waiting for me.
I first tried a laptop with Windows 2000 and Netmeeting installed using a Philips Web Cam. This has worked fine for 5 years. I could see and hear him, but he could neither see nor hear me. After fidling with a lot of settings to send and receive video, we found a small notice on the cardboard box that came with my brothers camera "must have XP" or something.
I found XP on another laptop, and downloaded Messenger 7. Now he could receive my video, but the sound didn't come across. I tried a microphone setting and had to read a sentence that said something about seeing a yellow color, but I didn't see that, before "lowering the microphone sound". This seemed strange to me, as the problem was that my mic didn't pick up enough sound because my mouth was to far away.
Anyway, after just two hours of fiddling, we now can speak and see each other. A user friendly setup? I don't think so.
I first tried a laptop with Windows 2000 and Netmeeting installed using a Philips Web Cam. This has worked fine for 5 years. I could see and hear him, but he could neither see nor hear me. After fidling with a lot of settings to send and receive video, we found a small notice on the cardboard box that came with my brothers camera "must have XP" or something.
I found XP on another laptop, and downloaded Messenger 7. Now he could receive my video, but the sound didn't come across. I tried a microphone setting and had to read a sentence that said something about seeing a yellow color, but I didn't see that, before "lowering the microphone sound". This seemed strange to me, as the problem was that my mic didn't pick up enough sound because my mouth was to far away.
Anyway, after just two hours of fiddling, we now can speak and see each other. A user friendly setup? I don't think so.
Obviously you dont know how difficult it is to get any kind of video conferencing to work under linux. Gnomemeeetting is notoriously hard to use, and it is very hard to configure if you are behind a firewall or using NAT, thats why skype is so popular as VOIP, as it works behind firewalls due to its protocol.
So just dont talk rubbish, setting up video conferrencing under windows may be difficult, but it is a a PITA and a headache to get it to work under linux.
So just dont talk rubbish, setting up video conferrencing under windows may be difficult, but it is a a PITA and a headache to get it to work under linux.
That's funny, I thought gnomemeeting was easier than netmeeting in my brief usages of them. Also, in a recent interview the lead dev of gnomemeeting listed "Better NAT support" as a major difference between gnomemeeting and netmeeting, along with a better interface thanks to the HIG... when was the last time you used it?
<a href="http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/03/17/gnomemeeting.html" title="linuxdevcenter.com">http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/03<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> 17/gnomemeeting.html</a linuxdevcenter.com>
<a href="http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/03/17/gnomemeeting.html" title="linuxdevcenter.com">http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/03<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> 17/gnomemeeting.html</a linuxdevcenter.com>
I like the humorous slant on this, but I'm also starting to belive it's true! I help a lot of less knowledgeable friends with their home equipment, and for the average user having to deal with finding and setting up firewall software, spyware removal, virus protection and service packs is a nightmare. I can get a ubuntu box up and running in half an hour, install firestarter, and they are good to go. Sure there are a few tweaks needed, but it's way less work than downloading and installing the minimum required software to keep a windows box relatively secure....until they start browsing with IE and using outlook express. Way to go...
The reviewer obviously chose the wrong Windows XP version to review. Instead of comparing Linux to the 'Windows XP Home Cheapskate Edition', he should have compared it to the 'Windows XP Professional Enhanced Deluxe Plus! Edition'. This would have produced a more meaningful review.
A more balanced review can be found <a href="http://humorix.org/articles/2005/05/openbsd/" title="humorix.org">here</a humorix.org>.
A more balanced review can be found <a href="http://humorix.org/articles/2005/05/openbsd/" title="humorix.org">here</a humorix.org>.
You mean just because a few advanced network protocols aren't included in Home, that makes it that much more inferior to Linux than Pro? Then again, where in the article did it say what version he got?
'...advanced network protocols...'? '...advanced proprietary lock-in...' is more accurate.
'...where in the article did it say what version he got?'. First paragraph, second sentence.
I highly recommend the Evelyn Woodhouse school of speed redin' and comprehenshun - from which I received a diploma (with honours).
'...where in the article did it say what version he got?'. First paragraph, second sentence.
I highly recommend the Evelyn Woodhouse school of speed redin' and comprehenshun - from which I received a diploma (with honours).
yes, that's it. Windows XP is easy for users, if you get it preinstalled... In every other situation you need to installed drivers for around everything - and at first you need to get those drivers on the system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Linux normally comes with drivers for normally all components, sometimes very few are missing (still often WLAN, afaik never normal Ethernet).
Linux normally comes with drivers for normally all components, sometimes very few are missing (still often WLAN, afaik never normal Ethernet).
...unless your brain has been polluted, I mean, preconditioned by prior MS-Windows exposure. Thankfully, even that is curable without lobotomy.
It may be easy for some people. If I want to get any serious work done on XP, I first have to install whole bunch of software, all of which comes by default with my linux distribution. Then I have to configure it and sort out conflicts, and finally I can get to work. I know that, because couple months ago my harddisk on my windows laptop died, and I had to install everything again. Even though I knew what to get and where to download it from, it took me more than 2 days to have everything up installed and configured so that I can do just the basic stuff. But even after that, it is still a pain, none of the keyboard shortcuts I am used to from my window manager works, I can switch workspaces but there is no pager, and half of the keys in vim conflict with some hard-coded shortcut from windows. Not to mention that I constantly have to search for my files, because they get saved into all sorts of weird places. Until windows comes with a decent shell, a window manager, a complete tex distribution, with all the supporting software like postscript and pdf viewer, a good vector graphics editor and bunch of other stuff pre-installed and ready to use, and until they sort out the directory structure mess, I don't consider it a viable option on the desktop.
It may sound strange to you but Microsoft Windows XP comes with the same old fashion MS-DOS console as older versions. It has the irritating width limit that prevents it from being maximized. And, what it's more, copy & paste is absolutly painfull and inconsistent with the interface. This is no problem for the ocassional user but some programs do use the console as an output device. And, for developers, it will be a source of frustration, even worse when you look the shamefull lack of tools for the console. Linux has an compleat set of console programs that can be combined in a powerfull way. However, Windows equivalent of grep, rgrep, locate, find, man, ls are clearly inferior or do not even exists. Not to mention the lack of a bash scripting language which is widely used to automatice rutinary tasks. To sum up. Any serious Linux user will find that windows is not ready to be a development platform and has a long way to be prepared to the enterprise. Most companies will find that graphical interface doesn't give them the kind of control thay have with Linux or any other.
ok why don't people do one second of research before they speak.. You can put the command prompt in to full screen mode. Open up the console and right click the title bar select full screen from the options,.. there is a hot key as well (I think) but I never use it.
Now comparing XPs console to linux is absurd.. they are so diffrent its not funny.. XP is a purely graphical user environment, the ms dos window is mearly there for convience and for some legacy apps.
Now maybe your to young to remember this, but the OS world was broken in to two camps. Those that want and need GUI's for what they do and those that dont.. I can tell you this.. having worked on UNIX for ever.. I love the power of the terminal but for ease of use nothing beats a GUI..
The general methodology is complety diffrent XP whose GUI is the OS with a command emulation sitting on top of that.. Verus Linux whose terminal window is the OS and the GUI is the addon.. which is better.. it depends on what you need to do.. for general users the GUI based approach is better.. for most power users the GUI and then some Terminal interactions... Coders and admins no gui is ok (sometimes)
Now comparing XPs console to linux is absurd.. they are so diffrent its not funny.. XP is a purely graphical user environment, the ms dos window is mearly there for convience and for some legacy apps.
Now maybe your to young to remember this, but the OS world was broken in to two camps. Those that want and need GUI's for what they do and those that dont.. I can tell you this.. having worked on UNIX for ever.. I love the power of the terminal but for ease of use nothing beats a GUI..
The general methodology is complety diffrent XP whose GUI is the OS with a command emulation sitting on top of that.. Verus Linux whose terminal window is the OS and the GUI is the addon.. which is better.. it depends on what you need to do.. for general users the GUI based approach is better.. for most power users the GUI and then some Terminal interactions... Coders and admins no gui is ok (sometimes)
Quote: "ok why don't people do one second of research before they speak.. You can put the command prompt in to full screen mode. Open up the console and right click the title bar select full screen from the options,."
SInce I thought you might be correct, I just tried that with my wifes XP Pro box. Unless there's another command prompt, it will not go full screen. The only options are maximize, or minimize. The corner buttons perform the same functions. None of which will give you a full screen terminal window. Well not if you have a screen size bigger then approximately 800 X 600.
Thanks for coming out tho.
QUOTE "Now maybe your to young to remember this, but the OS world was broken in to two camps. Those that want and need GUI's for what they do and those that dont.. I can tell you this.. having worked on UNIX for ever.. I love the power of the terminal but for ease of use nothing beats a GUI.."
And this proves that you are indeed a tad full of stuff that is usually left behind by bovines. If GUI is easiest for you, so be it. For those of us who can remember commands, CLI is far simpler and easier. But then I guess I since you're so old, senility might be causing you grief.
In the end, it really doesn't matter because everyone thinks differently. Enjoy your window into the world.
SInce I thought you might be correct, I just tried that with my wifes XP Pro box. Unless there's another command prompt, it will not go full screen. The only options are maximize, or minimize. The corner buttons perform the same functions. None of which will give you a full screen terminal window. Well not if you have a screen size bigger then approximately 800 X 600.
Thanks for coming out tho.
QUOTE "Now maybe your to young to remember this, but the OS world was broken in to two camps. Those that want and need GUI's for what they do and those that dont.. I can tell you this.. having worked on UNIX for ever.. I love the power of the terminal but for ease of use nothing beats a GUI.."
And this proves that you are indeed a tad full of stuff that is usually left behind by bovines. If GUI is easiest for you, so be it. For those of us who can remember commands, CLI is far simpler and easier. But then I guess I since you're so old, senility might be causing you grief.
In the end, it really doesn't matter because everyone thinks differently. Enjoy your window into the world.
Re full-screen Command Prompt: What exactly does Control-Enter do for you? ISTR that it still takes over the entire screen, but may or may waste some space around the edges with empty blackness.
I've never tried XP, but in NT & 2K, it's Alt-Enter.
Anyway, I don't think that's what the GP is talking about, better try:
mode con cols=120
A (very small) bit of help: mode<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/?, possibly more in Windows' help.
Anyway, I don't think that's what the GP is talking about, better try:
mode con cols=120
A (very small) bit of help: mode<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/?, possibly more in Windows' help.
Ok, why can't people do one second of research before they speak? You can put the command prompt into full screen mode: Open up the console and right click the title bar and select full screen from the options. There is a hot key as well (I think) but I never use it.
Now, comparing XP's console to bash is absurd. They are so different it's not funny. XP is a purely graphical user environment, the MS DOS window is merely there for convenience and for some legacy apps.
Now, maybe you're too young to remember this, but the OS world was broken in to two camps. Those that want and need GUIs for what they do and those that don't. I can tell you this: having worked on UNIX for ever, I love the power of the terminal but for ease of use nothing beats a GUI.
The general methodology is completely different: XP, whose GUI is the OS with a command emulation sitting on top of that, versus Linux, whose terminal window is the OS and the GUI is the addon, which is better? It depends on what you need to do. For general users, the GUI based approach is better. For most power users, the GUI and then some Terminal interactions. Coders and admins no gui is ok (sometimes) ???
F. See me after class.
I'm surprised he managed to spell "methodology" right.
Hey I have a report due later this week.. you think you can correct my spelling as well??<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Right Click - Properties - Layout and set the window size to whatever size you like. Using 200 columns wide works nicely on a 1600x1200 screen.
I just started using SUSE 9.3 and have found it to be quite interesting. I just wish there were more dummy instructions built in. It would be nice if I could find a reference that correlates common Windows functions to equivalent Linux functions.
I just started using SUSE 9.3 and have found it to be quite interesting. I just wish there were more dummy instructions built in. It would be nice if I could find a reference that correlates common Windows functions to equivalent Linux functions.
Re:Windows console: homework remains to be done.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 09:43 PM
POSIX emulation layer: <a href="http://www.cygwin.com/" title="cygwin.com">http://www.cygwin.com/</a cygwin.com>
native windows commands: <a href="gnuwin32.sourceforge.net" title="newsforge.com">gnuwin32.sourceforge.net</a newsforge.com>
native windows commands: <a href="gnuwin32.sourceforge.net" title="newsforge.com">gnuwin32.sourceforge.net</a newsforge.com>
You may not be familiar with how a standard xterm emulator works. You want to resize it? You drag the window border and size it to the dimensions you want. None of this messing with dialogs and stuff. Or you do what I do and bind hotkeys to do a max vertical (80 columns X n rows is useful for a lot of things, for obscure reasons....) and/or max full-screen. By contrast, all standard legacy MS Windows command prompt dialogs require mousing through menus to set the size. It's astoundingly...primitive. And typical of a gazillion little annoyances MSFT throws in the way of making effective use of shell tools. I know few Linux / Unix heads who don't immediately throw Cygwin on any legacy MS Windows system they're unfortunate enough to have to deal with regularly.
I've bought one and only one MS OS product, NT WS 4.0, under the impression that it was a multi-user, stable, useful OS (I've used legacy MS Windows versions prior and since, from Win 3x through 2003 Server). The lack of a decent terminal client was (and remains) among the major frustrations, and I spent a lot of time fiddling with various 'Nix-on-Doze kits (MKS, Interix, Cygwin) before finding Red Hat shortely after. A subsequent switch to Debian and I've been MSFT free on personal systems since 1998. If you want to try a real terminal client in legacy MS Windows, try Cygwin's 'rxvt', which runs both in X and Win32 managed modes. You can run CMD.EXE within it rather than bash (its default), though it becomes rapidly evident that Microsoft's shell makes many, many hardwired assumptions about its terminal interface.
Note too that Linux's virtual consoles (ctrl-alt-F[1-6] usually) differ from a full-screen, console-mode command window, in that they are fully autonomous sessions, and can be entirely different users (there's more than one way to get here). So while under legacy MS Windows you can get a console-mode display under your GUI login, in Linux you can bypass the GUI entirely, log in as another user, have multiple simultaneous console (or GUI) sessions running, etc. Amazingly useful stuff.
As for SuSE: Novell publish a number of user guides, which I'd recommend you take a look at, particularly <a href="http://www.novell.com/documentation/suse92/pdfdoc/user92-screen/user92-screen.pdf" title="novell.com">SuSE Linux 9.2 User Guide</a novell.com>. Man pages, HOWTOs, and <a href="http://www.tldp.org/" title="tldp.org">The Linux Documentation Project</a tldp.org> are highly recommended. Details vary from system to system, but fundamentals are pretty solid -- Linux is a philosophy-based system, and there's a core of knowledge that will serve you well. While it's somewhat aged (1986), <a href="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-013937681X-0" title="powells.com">The UNIX Programming Environment</a powells.com> by Kernighan and Pike is among the better guides to the Unix philosophy around. Some of the specifics (filesystem layout, etc.) are now different, but the core concepts of simple shell tools, pipes, processes, users, files, permissions, etc., are the same.
I don't know if anyone has noticed this or not, but most families use their computers for more then just Internet or productivity applications... There is no denying that at the moment XP has the best quality games running on the fastest hardware.. (this will change for a little while when xbox360 and PS3 are released) Linux has a handful of quality games.. but how many high end 3d video cards can you use? Now compare that number to the ones you can use on XP.. (sorry OSX your still limited to just a few, but I hear that game speed has increased with tiger)
Wait.. how about multimedia production.. thats a pretty big one to.. Sure Win4lin, Linspire, Wine etc will let you run some apps (most of them older from my last look, but I am sure I am out of date with this info so flame off).. but aren't they running with a performance impact.. As a musician.. I can say that Linux SUX.. the sequencers are UGLY, have horrible interfaces, my 2k soundcard with high end converters and DSP is completely useless (oh but soundbastard works YA!) and my thousands of dollars worth of virtual instruments and fx are completely useless.. Give me cubase or logic on Linux and I will never look back.. I am still sad that BEos was dropped so many music apps were supposed to be ported.. I really thought we would have something great there.. oh well.. .
I think its important to keep in mind that OS's like XP and OSX are general purpose devices that do thousands of tasks well.. Linux is great, and for somethings there is no comparison but for the general user XP and OSX give them the flexibility to do nearly any task from playing games to doing their taxes.
Wait.. how about multimedia production.. thats a pretty big one to.. Sure Win4lin, Linspire, Wine etc will let you run some apps (most of them older from my last look, but I am sure I am out of date with this info so flame off).. but aren't they running with a performance impact.. As a musician.. I can say that Linux SUX.. the sequencers are UGLY, have horrible interfaces, my 2k soundcard with high end converters and DSP is completely useless (oh but soundbastard works YA!) and my thousands of dollars worth of virtual instruments and fx are completely useless.. Give me cubase or logic on Linux and I will never look back.. I am still sad that BEos was dropped so many music apps were supposed to be ported.. I really thought we would have something great there.. oh well.. .
I think its important to keep in mind that OS's like XP and OSX are general purpose devices that do thousands of tasks well.. Linux is great, and for somethings there is no comparison but for the general user XP and OSX give them the flexibility to do nearly any task from playing games to doing their taxes.
just a quick note:
All of the porblems with unavailable drivers you said that you have is due to the manufacturer's lack of any kind of support that won't give them some return. In their minds, it's "if we make linux drivers, then source code will have to be produced to the public, and if source code is given, then the driver becomes more common, and people won't buy the product." It's a sad, terrible truth.
All of the porblems with unavailable drivers you said that you have is due to the manufacturer's lack of any kind of support that won't give them some return. In their minds, it's "if we make linux drivers, then source code will have to be produced to the public, and if source code is given, then the driver becomes more common, and people won't buy the product." It's a sad, terrible truth.
Thats a excellent point.. But I thought you could release closed source programs on to linux as long as it didn't use any GPL code.. Then again all the GPL stuff gets me confused at times..
Actually, my Geforce 6800 Ultra runs just fine with 3D under gentoo...
It has some nice stuff for music.
It comes packaged with several distros.
<a href="http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/" title="rosegardenmusic.com">http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/</a rosegardenmusic.com>
It comes packaged with several distros.
<a href="http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/" title="rosegardenmusic.com">http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/</a rosegardenmusic.com>
I have tried Rose Garden, but this product really doesn't compare to the power of Cubase, Logic or Digital Performer. The basics are there but the really powerful stuff isn't. I think what a lot of people in the OSS community miss is features and power are great but if the GUI isn't easy to use its useless. Rosegarden is so ugly and unfriendly that I don't think *I* (as in me not others) could ever feel creative working on it. Then again I think the same thing about ProTools so its not a OSS thing. There are a lot of great sequencers out there and if someone created a program like Podium ( www.zynewave.com ) for linux I would absolutly work on it. Hell I would love to have a OS that I didn't have to rip apart just to get the proper latency, and I know Linux would be perfect for that. At the moment though there are no killer music apps out for linux (IMO and I have searched) OSX and Win have tons of these apps Cubase, Logic, Reason, Acid, Live, and tons of Audio units and VSTs.. Hopefully someone will get the music stuff going on linux.. (If only linux got ASIO and VST ported.. OMG that would be awesome).. oh well.. until then I will keep my eyes open..
Games? Yes, there are more games for windows than Linux, don't know when that will change. Personally, I like console games. I really like the game cube but I think when the new play station comes out, nothing will hold a candle to it. Xbox is just a computer disguised as a console.
Audio, unfortunately Sound Blaster seems to be about the only company cooperating with Linux. I have a Cirrus Logic chip in my sound card. I will not make that mistake again.
Audio, unfortunately Sound Blaster seems to be about the only company cooperating with Linux. I have a Cirrus Logic chip in my sound card. I will not make that mistake again.
I am an audio engineer. The best application for doing a digital remaster and get ready for CD was fron Syntrillium. It was the basic Cool Edit, not the pro. Well, they got bought out, and it went away. Audacity has all of the same great features and it is open source! Luckily it is also now available for Windows, so some would not have to switch to Linux to do these tasks, but, since my machine was dual boot only to support Cool Edit, now I have saves a lot of disk space.
Most of the audio engineers I know work on ProTools, Soundforge, Samplitude, Sequoia or Bias Peak. I like Cool edit/Adobe Audition, but I think most people would agree that its consumer/prosumer grade. I will check out Audacity though, it never hurts to keep a open mind. First impression after looking at the website..The OSX version looks nice, but the XP and Linux versions are so ugly.. The features seem pretty basic.. It doesn't even seem to be anywhere near the level of development that Cool Edit is at (not to even mention SoundForge)... but in all fairness those programs are over a decade old.. downloading it now..
You have to realize the usage. I use it for final mastering. For this I want something that works nicely on two tracks. It needs to have good, effective noise reduction (some of the stuff I get is mixed before I get to it, and was don on poor equipment). It needs a clean, versatile parametric EQ. It needs the ability to do cleanly and quickly the ins and outs on each track. It needs the ability to insert silence on the outs when I need it.
That is all I use the PC for. I do not need multi-track mixing. I have plenty of nice, expensive hardware for that. People who are using Protools for this do not have it as nice as I do with a true 24 track external source, and real faders to slide about. I can control more things at once than I ever could on a PC. I can control 8 faders simultaneously, all in different directions, or 4 faders, and an aux send.
If all you want to do is the final remasetering, and everything else is going to be done in dedicated hardware (large multi-track tape decks, and a real mixer) then what you need is a clean, fast, simple to use application that does not require 8 key strokes and a dozen mouse clicks to get the job done.
That is all I use the PC for. I do not need multi-track mixing. I have plenty of nice, expensive hardware for that. People who are using Protools for this do not have it as nice as I do with a true 24 track external source, and real faders to slide about. I can control more things at once than I ever could on a PC. I can control 8 faders simultaneously, all in different directions, or 4 faders, and an aux send.
If all you want to do is the final remasetering, and everything else is going to be done in dedicated hardware (large multi-track tape decks, and a real mixer) then what you need is a clean, fast, simple to use application that does not require 8 key strokes and a dozen mouse clicks to get the job done.
So Doom 3, UT2k4, Quake I/II etc. don't count as games or something? Because I've played them all on linux and they run _at least_ as fast as the windows ones on the same hardware.
I installed XP Home on a PC, then had thermal problems(in the room) combined with an electrical spike that sabatoged the motherboard, power supply and CPU. The mobo(Fry's special) came with no documentation on the jumpers and no information on setting the clock speed jumbers correctly. The last time I had had to mess with jumpers for this was with a K6 based system. Since I was pressed for time, I stuck the CPU in, re-installed windows because it just knew it was a new computer, and that I was stealing XP from someone else.
30 days later a friend and I found documentation on the internet, and fixed the clock speed to match the CPU (personally, Fry's should have done it, or at least included instructions as they were selling the mobo/CPU as a combination). Now when I started windows it identified the CPU correctly, which it had not before. It ran well in 10-30 second spurts every 40-50 seconds. I tried re-installing windows. Everything worked well until I typed in the license key, at which time the thing just hung. All I can figure is that it checked with MS and decided that I was stealing the OS.
By this time I was in a bind for time again, and put CentOS on the computer. People still tell me that windows is less hassle than linux. What I want to know is this: How many hours do I have to spend re-doing a MS install, and wiping and starting over every time something changes (some tell me that they still do a clean install every 90 days with XP to clean out spyware and viruses) to make up for the time I "waste" setting up and configuring linux to do what I need. This usually turns out to be 1 hour to install the OS with most of my apps, and another 2-4 hours if I have special configuration needs. This computer took 6 hours because I needed it to do multi-media stuff, and RH specifically disabled anything multimedia in RHEL4 (I used CentOS 4 which is a work-a-like). Still that was about 7 hours to install linux, which will probably be good for the next 5 or 6 years, and I already spent 12-15 hours messing with windows, and never gor it to work right.
Am I the only fool that MS tries to screw? or is everyone else so sold on MS advertising that they would willingly believe that 30-50 hours installing the same version of windows on the same computer over 2-3 years is less time than 3-7 hours spent installing and setting up linux over 4 years? What happened to the data these people have? or don't they have any? I know, my son does this every 90 day re-install with XP. but he puts all his data on my linux server so that it survives the wipe and re-install intact. What am I missing here? I go to church with some VERY windows oriented people. You know what, when I watch them, they all spend as much time messing with windows and its nonsense as I do, they just aren't willing to admit it. They aren't willing to log hours with absolute honesty.
Yes, there are times when linux has bombed out on me. I have spent time putting machines back togeather, it's just a heap less time than with windows. If I was willing to do whatever was necessary to not have trouble, I would switch to IBM iSeries systems. Yes, they cost more money.
Windows 9x -- 3-4 hours per week, or 150-200 hours per year to keep it running (per machine)
Windows NT(2K,XP) --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 - 1 hours per week, or 25-50 hours/year to keep it running
Linux --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 hours/week or 5 to 10 hours per year
os/400 (iSeries) --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01 hours/week, or about a half hour per year
30 days later a friend and I found documentation on the internet, and fixed the clock speed to match the CPU (personally, Fry's should have done it, or at least included instructions as they were selling the mobo/CPU as a combination). Now when I started windows it identified the CPU correctly, which it had not before. It ran well in 10-30 second spurts every 40-50 seconds. I tried re-installing windows. Everything worked well until I typed in the license key, at which time the thing just hung. All I can figure is that it checked with MS and decided that I was stealing the OS.
By this time I was in a bind for time again, and put CentOS on the computer. People still tell me that windows is less hassle than linux. What I want to know is this: How many hours do I have to spend re-doing a MS install, and wiping and starting over every time something changes (some tell me that they still do a clean install every 90 days with XP to clean out spyware and viruses) to make up for the time I "waste" setting up and configuring linux to do what I need. This usually turns out to be 1 hour to install the OS with most of my apps, and another 2-4 hours if I have special configuration needs. This computer took 6 hours because I needed it to do multi-media stuff, and RH specifically disabled anything multimedia in RHEL4 (I used CentOS 4 which is a work-a-like). Still that was about 7 hours to install linux, which will probably be good for the next 5 or 6 years, and I already spent 12-15 hours messing with windows, and never gor it to work right.
Am I the only fool that MS tries to screw? or is everyone else so sold on MS advertising that they would willingly believe that 30-50 hours installing the same version of windows on the same computer over 2-3 years is less time than 3-7 hours spent installing and setting up linux over 4 years? What happened to the data these people have? or don't they have any? I know, my son does this every 90 day re-install with XP. but he puts all his data on my linux server so that it survives the wipe and re-install intact. What am I missing here? I go to church with some VERY windows oriented people. You know what, when I watch them, they all spend as much time messing with windows and its nonsense as I do, they just aren't willing to admit it. They aren't willing to log hours with absolute honesty.
Yes, there are times when linux has bombed out on me. I have spent time putting machines back togeather, it's just a heap less time than with windows. If I was willing to do whatever was necessary to not have trouble, I would switch to IBM iSeries systems. Yes, they cost more money.
Windows 9x -- 3-4 hours per week, or 150-200 hours per year to keep it running (per machine)
Windows NT(2K,XP) --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 - 1 hours per week, or 25-50 hours/year to keep it running
Linux --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 hours/week or 5 to 10 hours per year
os/400 (iSeries) --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01 hours/week, or about a half hour per year
I find windows a LOT easier. Not only can a moron learn to install applications with less than a minutes reading; I have never had to worry about what version of what obscure-subset-of-libraries I have - Windows2k or above suffices.
I spend 4 minutes of my own time every six months reinstalling my system. That is the total time it takes to initiate the reinstall. Agreed I have a highly automated process to do so, which I might add is all off-the-shelf windows-only software.
I do this by choice, if I have not already upgraded it. Not only does that include pushing the new image onto a freshly formatted drive; but it also includes ensuring my AV, Anti-Spyware, XP updates, office updates, game updates, etc are up to date across the wire.
I have only lost data once in the last five years; and that was due to a nasty power problem that saw me replacing most of my system.
While I am against everything microsoft represents, it's business practices and general company image; I can find no reason to fault it's workstation software for ease-of-use.
I spend 4 minutes of my own time every six months reinstalling my system. That is the total time it takes to initiate the reinstall. Agreed I have a highly automated process to do so, which I might add is all off-the-shelf windows-only software.
I do this by choice, if I have not already upgraded it. Not only does that include pushing the new image onto a freshly formatted drive; but it also includes ensuring my AV, Anti-Spyware, XP updates, office updates, game updates, etc are up to date across the wire.
I have only lost data once in the last five years; and that was due to a nasty power problem that saw me replacing most of my system.
While I am against everything microsoft represents, it's business practices and general company image; I can find no reason to fault it's workstation software for ease-of-use.
Windows is way to hard to configure for end-users.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 09:04 AM
Both systems offer graphical user interfaces for basic configuration. But if a user has more specialized needs, configuration is very different from system to system.
Unix systems have a simple and consistent way to manage configuration. The configuration information is stored in clear-text, well documented, commented and structured text files. Each software component has its own configuration file. The user can very easily open these files with any text editor and modify them to suit his needs. The user can make backup of it's configuration files and even copy individual configuration between different computers if these modifications are needed on several computers.
On Windows, the configuration is absolutely awful. All configuration data is centralised in a cryptic, complicated, inconsistent binary database that can only be accessed with a specialized program (regedit.exe) so awkard that even Microsoft discourages its usage. A user cannot backup his changes, nor copy the modifications to another computer. Additionnally, the same keys in the database are often used in numerous places and forgetting to modify one can lead to configuration inconsistencies that can even prevent the system to boot. Since it's not possible to backup parts of the registry, the user can even completely destroy his system and has typically no way to recover it without a full reinstall. Furthermore, the configuration for the whole operating system and most programs are stored in that registry, leading to major confusion. It's really unwise to expect that a user could differentiate the thousands of unrelated keys stored in the registry.
Considering that adaptability and thus configurability is a key requirement for any operating system, it's strongly discouraged to use Windows except for the most basic tasks.
Unix systems have a simple and consistent way to manage configuration. The configuration information is stored in clear-text, well documented, commented and structured text files. Each software component has its own configuration file. The user can very easily open these files with any text editor and modify them to suit his needs. The user can make backup of it's configuration files and even copy individual configuration between different computers if these modifications are needed on several computers.
On Windows, the configuration is absolutely awful. All configuration data is centralised in a cryptic, complicated, inconsistent binary database that can only be accessed with a specialized program (regedit.exe) so awkard that even Microsoft discourages its usage. A user cannot backup his changes, nor copy the modifications to another computer. Additionnally, the same keys in the database are often used in numerous places and forgetting to modify one can lead to configuration inconsistencies that can even prevent the system to boot. Since it's not possible to backup parts of the registry, the user can even completely destroy his system and has typically no way to recover it without a full reinstall. Furthermore, the configuration for the whole operating system and most programs are stored in that registry, leading to major confusion. It's really unwise to expect that a user could differentiate the thousands of unrelated keys stored in the registry.
Considering that adaptability and thus configurability is a key requirement for any operating system, it's strongly discouraged to use Windows except for the most basic tasks.
Re:Windows is way to hard to configure for end-use
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 10:58 AMSince it's not possible to backup parts of the registry, the user can even completely destroy his system and has typically no way to recover it without a full reinstall.
It is possible to back up only a section of the user or system registry. Simply select the subtree you want and use the Export function. Restoring this backup cleanly, however, is a completely different story...
Re:Windows is way to hard to configure for end-use
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 01:48 PM
"It is possible to back up only a section of the user or system registry. Simply select the subtree you want and use the Export function. Restoring this backup cleanly, however, is a completely different story..."
I agree with this...In fact, there were many times I had to use the archaic (though nonexistant, according to humorix.com) registry to copy and backup keys to use on other systems or *gyah!* reinstalls of the same system before I made the transition to Linux.
I agree with this...In fact, there were many times I had to use the archaic (though nonexistant, according to humorix.com) registry to copy and backup keys to use on other systems or *gyah!* reinstalls of the same system before I made the transition to Linux.
Re:Windows is way to hard to configure for end-use
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 22, 2005 06:11 AM
If you can't restore it cleanly, it's not a backup, it's just a spare copy.
The Registry - Somewhere in some Microsoft documentation, I saw the registry described as a "database". Actually I think the registry is a giant kluge and was the worst mistake Microsoft ever made. Ini files were at least maintainable and fixable and did not get loaded up with tons of junk.
The registry is effectively a database, technically speaking. A database is a software in which data can be saved and retrieved using queries. This is the case of the registry.
But you're right to say that the registry is a kludge...
But you're right to say that the registry is a kludge...
Actually the Registry isn't a database. It's a kind of very limited file system, not unlike the FAT file system that is obsolete for 10 years already. This file system was used in the more competent product DOS. Microsoft claimed to abandon DOS, but even Windows XP is still based on DOS... like the boot loader and the component that Microsoft calls the ``Kernel Loader'', which seems to load some completely independent libraries which form the kernel, not to be confused with modules. This is still 8-bit code, and turns out to be prone to errors. The switch to 32-bit memory adress space (which Microsoft strangely calls the ``protected mode'') is made by the first library from the kernel that is loaded. This procedure is a prime example of the old DOS habits of Windows XP.
It does have weaknesses, but it's not the sitting duck that XP is.
"and if you must use Windows XP you should try to get a computer that has it preinstalled rather installing it yourself"
I have had many support calls related to this purchase root. The problem is in the distribution method of patches and servce packs.
When you purchase the pre-installed version of Windows XP, you don't get a normal installation disk for when things go wrong. Instead you have a roll back disk. This simply restores the setup to an image of the factory installation. However, this also means that you roll back to a Pre-service pack and un-patched system.
In the case of several of my customers, this procedure rolled them back to a pre SP1 state. This old vertion of XP doesn't even have basic security systems such as a Firewall. However, the only way to aquire patches and service packes, it to go online and download them. Within minutes of connecting to the net, the insecure machines become infected with various viruses which each had to be blocked in order to continue the patch download.
I think for the licience fee that you pay for this OS, that you should be send updated installation media. Allowing a fully patched SP1 and SP2 setup to roll back to an insecure base with no method of patching without exposure to attack is not acceptable.
I have had many support calls related to this purchase root. The problem is in the distribution method of patches and servce packs.
When you purchase the pre-installed version of Windows XP, you don't get a normal installation disk for when things go wrong. Instead you have a roll back disk. This simply restores the setup to an image of the factory installation. However, this also means that you roll back to a Pre-service pack and un-patched system.
In the case of several of my customers, this procedure rolled them back to a pre SP1 state. This old vertion of XP doesn't even have basic security systems such as a Firewall. However, the only way to aquire patches and service packes, it to go online and download them. Within minutes of connecting to the net, the insecure machines become infected with various viruses which each had to be blocked in order to continue the patch download.
I think for the licience fee that you pay for this OS, that you should be send updated installation media. Allowing a fully patched SP1 and SP2 setup to roll back to an insecure base with no method of patching without exposure to attack is not acceptable.
Just buy a mac - then you can start using a computer!
I come from a Windows XP Pro background.I have used most of the Windows versions from Windows 3.1, Windows 98 SE, Windows NT and the most current Windows XP Pro.I agree that Windows XP Pro is a big improvement from the other Windows versions.I gave switched to Linux using Ubuntu 5.04.
When I installed Windows XP Pro on my laptop, I found no problems whatsoever.However, for all the devices right from the wireless card, nic, and others, I had to make sure that I used the drivers provided by the laptop manufacturer.Other than that, installation was smooth and straight forward.Installing 3rd party software such as antivirus, firewall, open office, gaim, etc was also very easy.I don't think it will be a problem for any newbie.In fact, I had no problems with viruses or any of the so called instability that Windows is famous for.It is also very easy to use.
When I installed Ubuntu, I love it except for the problems encountered are as follows :
wireless (solved with ndiswrapper)
battery indicator (not solved yet)
touchpad (not solved yet)
function keys (not completely solved)
sound (differences between alsa and esd)
All these worked with no problems with XP.
I am sure the above are solvable.It just needs time to search through wiki, forums, etc to get the solution.
The point I am trying to make here is installing a linux distro can be a problem for a newbie unless most of the devices are detected on installation.Otherwise, time and effort needs to be put in to get most of the stuff working.
When I installed Windows XP Pro on my laptop, I found no problems whatsoever.However, for all the devices right from the wireless card, nic, and others, I had to make sure that I used the drivers provided by the laptop manufacturer.Other than that, installation was smooth and straight forward.Installing 3rd party software such as antivirus, firewall, open office, gaim, etc was also very easy.I don't think it will be a problem for any newbie.In fact, I had no problems with viruses or any of the so called instability that Windows is famous for.It is also very easy to use.
When I installed Ubuntu, I love it except for the problems encountered are as follows :
wireless (solved with ndiswrapper)
battery indicator (not solved yet)
touchpad (not solved yet)
function keys (not completely solved)
sound (differences between alsa and esd)
All these worked with no problems with XP.
I am sure the above are solvable.It just needs time to search through wiki, forums, etc to get the solution.
The point I am trying to make here is installing a linux distro can be a problem for a newbie unless most of the devices are detected on installation.Otherwise, time and effort needs to be put in to get most of the stuff working.
Call you favorite (Linux) computer supplier and have them preinstall Linux for you.
Do not call the Microsoft monopoly maintenance companies like Dell, HP, and Gateway cause they won't help you.
Do not call the Microsoft monopoly maintenance companies like Dell, HP, and Gateway cause they won't help you.
I have installed Ubuntu on two laptops and in both cases it 'just worked' apart from the winmodems (I haven't tested the Firewire). I have one wireless card that used to work but has an issue when used with a 2.6.10 kernel, but otherwise have had no problems.
All problems solved automatically except ndiswrapper (and on kubuntu you need "apt-get install synaptics", it's automatic on Mandriva).
The KDE 3.4 touchpad setup tool has allowed me to do something I've never been able to achieve with XP: turn the -ing touchpad's click off (so accidentally brushing your plam across it as you type doesn't select and maybe move stuff) without losing any other features (click withb buttons instead of pad, edge-scroll, circular-scroll if I wanted it, corner-clicks).
The KDE 3.4 touchpad setup tool has allowed me to do something I've never been able to achieve with XP: turn the -ing touchpad's click off (so accidentally brushing your plam across it as you type doesn't select and maybe move stuff) without losing any other features (click withb buttons instead of pad, edge-scroll, circular-scroll if I wanted it, corner-clicks).
It is possible to admin an XP box with minimal hassle, but it takes some seriously arcane changes to the registry and the services editor. 2 hours should net one with a reasonably secure box, knowledge in hand. Then again, t'would be wise to download ClamWin first thing and scan before progressing...what's it, like, less than 5 minutes for an unpatched windows machine to develop the croup?
And all humor aside, OpenOffice.org, Firefox and the GIMP are available to all those in need...
And all humor aside, OpenOffice.org, Firefox and the GIMP are available to all those in need...
Windows is a toy operating system. It is only good for games, and not much else. Anyone who is serious about computing will graduate up from Windows to something better like Linux.
Microsoft must be so embarassed to have spent so much money on marketing, development, etc. when all they have to show for it is a dinky toy OS that barely functions. I think that's why they are imposing product activation, to try to convince people not to use Windows any more.
They sure convinced me.
Desktop Linux user for 4 years now. Best OS I have ever used, hands down. Never ever looking back.
Windows users, open your minds. Graduate from your toy.
Microsoft must be so embarassed to have spent so much money on marketing, development, etc. when all they have to show for it is a dinky toy OS that barely functions. I think that's why they are imposing product activation, to try to convince people not to use Windows any more.
They sure convinced me.
Desktop Linux user for 4 years now. Best OS I have ever used, hands down. Never ever looking back.
Windows users, open your minds. Graduate from your toy.
One word which captures the essence of what you're saying.
That was my personal experience with Redhat, Suse and Mandrake. I had problems configuring hardware and multitasking with some multimedia and browsers was not possible because the apps did crash.
Linux is the best for networks and servers...
But anyone else that says that Linux is great for home user tasks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is a stupid moron like the guy that wrote the article.
Linux is the best for networks and servers...
But anyone else that says that Linux is great for home user tasks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is a stupid moron like the guy that wrote the article.
And you're either a Microsoft astro-troller or too stupid between the ears to learn how to use a different operating system.
You Microsoft shills are so funny. It's like you've been driving Chevys all your life, and someone gives you an opportunity to drive a Ford.
"Ew! But it's so different! I can't figure it out!"
Crybaby. A car is a car, and an OS is an OS. And frankly, to anyone with the gumption to learn something new, desktop Linux is a jet-speed sleek Ferrari compared to Windows' broken down Model T.
I could offer you dozens of examples of regular people who have figured it out. My 74 year old mom uses Linux on the desktop, of all people. I guess you're just less computer savvy than my mom.
You Microsoft shills are so funny. It's like you've been driving Chevys all your life, and someone gives you an opportunity to drive a Ford.
"Ew! But it's so different! I can't figure it out!"
Crybaby. A car is a car, and an OS is an OS. And frankly, to anyone with the gumption to learn something new, desktop Linux is a jet-speed sleek Ferrari compared to Windows' broken down Model T.
I could offer you dozens of examples of regular people who have figured it out. My 74 year old mom uses Linux on the desktop, of all people. I guess you're just less computer savvy than my mom.
He did run Linux as a desktop, and some apps crashed on him. True, he did generalise too much from this experience, but he didn't say anything about having trouble figuring stuff out.
It does not crash.
The last time I had a Linux machine crash, it was because the CPU support and on-board PSU components had been buried in fan-borne dust.
No idea what your issue is. If XP crashes often on the same hardware, suspect the hardware. Something I've discovered from painful experience is that some MS-Windows crashes are not really MS-Windows crashes, just hardware glitches buried in the noise.
The last time I had a Linux machine crash, it was because the CPU support and on-board PSU components had been buried in fan-borne dust.
No idea what your issue is. If XP crashes often on the same hardware, suspect the hardware. Something I've discovered from painful experience is that some MS-Windows crashes are not really MS-Windows crashes, just hardware glitches buried in the noise.
I had problems configuring hardware and multitasking with some multimedia and browsers was not possible because the apps did crash.
(...)
But anyone else that says that Linux is great for home user tasks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is a stupid moron
(...)
But anyone else that says that Linux is great for home user tasks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is a stupid moron
Now let's see. You had some problems. Anyone who can solve such problems for himself is a moron?
Your definition of "moron" must be different from mine.
Awesome article--and true.
Nearly everyone I know who uses Windows (about 99% of my peers) will come to me with a Windows problem. I laugh and my first response is "Well, yeah...that's because you use WINDOWS!!!" About a week later they'll come back to me (still not having solved whatever spyware/config problem they had) and I tell them to switch to Linux. Another week will pass and finally I'll realise the average users are serious about not having solved their issue. Finally I tell them how (having BEEN through all this crap myself before switching) to fix it, giving me about 2-3 days of piece before they have another problem.
With Linux users (which composes of about 3 people) I've had only one complaint. My sister-in-law complained to me that somebody had hacked her computer and installed a virus that would transfer various music files to her desktop. She swore to me up and down that she didn't do anything, and the hacker even left a couple of threatening notes on her computer about destroying her information and revealing that he knew her address... Only later did I reveal that it was actually me accessing the computer through SSH.
It was quite a laugh... Too bad there's no equivalent to SSH on Windows.
Nearly everyone I know who uses Windows (about 99% of my peers) will come to me with a Windows problem. I laugh and my first response is "Well, yeah...that's because you use WINDOWS!!!" About a week later they'll come back to me (still not having solved whatever spyware/config problem they had) and I tell them to switch to Linux. Another week will pass and finally I'll realise the average users are serious about not having solved their issue. Finally I tell them how (having BEEN through all this crap myself before switching) to fix it, giving me about 2-3 days of piece before they have another problem.
With Linux users (which composes of about 3 people) I've had only one complaint. My sister-in-law complained to me that somebody had hacked her computer and installed a virus that would transfer various music files to her desktop. She swore to me up and down that she didn't do anything, and the hacker even left a couple of threatening notes on her computer about destroying her information and revealing that he knew her address... Only later did I reveal that it was actually me accessing the computer through SSH.
It was quite a laugh... Too bad there's no equivalent to SSH on Windows.
The equivalent to OpenSSH is PuTTY, available from <a href="http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/" title="greenend.org.uk">http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> </a greenend.org.uk> . It does port forwarding, too. I work in a Linux/Windows office, and all access to the corporate LAN is through SSH. For Windows people, using PuTTY is a job requirement.
but Putty is a client only, not a SSH server...
I setup a Windows XP system a couple of years ago with an SSH server so that I could tunnel VNC via SSH from a Linux box. This worked well. Do a search - they are a number of server solutions available. But eliminating XP from the equation would make things a whole lot easier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Arrogant bastard. I bet you're the laugh at parties, eh?
windows users have the most problems because they own over 90% of the desktop market share. if linux owned that amount of desktop pcs world wide than trust me, there would be that many problems-- if not more
It's funny, I own two of the LCD monitors in question in this article and just to prove a point tried installing Windows using each one and guess what? I didn't experience any problems what so ever. Either the author of this article had a bad monitor or it was just fluff to try and write and article about how Linux is better than Windows.
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux daily but you shouldn't have to lie or misguide individuals to use the operating system. If you want the honest truth Linux will never be as popular as Windows and for the simple reason that was stated over and over and over again in this article. There are just, plain and simple, to many flavors of Linux.
You really think your average Joe Blow is going to sit around and decide which flavor or Linux they really want to use? If so then you're obviously not that bright. It's overwhelming and confusing for the average user that barely knows how to turn the system on. Until there is only ONE unified Linux solution out there Linux will never gain the momentum it needs to make any sort of real dent in the desktop world.
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux daily but you shouldn't have to lie or misguide individuals to use the operating system. If you want the honest truth Linux will never be as popular as Windows and for the simple reason that was stated over and over and over again in this article. There are just, plain and simple, to many flavors of Linux.
You really think your average Joe Blow is going to sit around and decide which flavor or Linux they really want to use? If so then you're obviously not that bright. It's overwhelming and confusing for the average user that barely knows how to turn the system on. Until there is only ONE unified Linux solution out there Linux will never gain the momentum it needs to make any sort of real dent in the desktop world.
Unfortunately, Manufacturers often change chipsets part way through, so you having no problems isn't a perfect indication. For example, the SMC 2835W PCMCIA wireless networking card has 2 different chipsets depending on your version. This may not be the case here, I don't know.
FWIW, SATA / XP is also a PITA
FWIW, SATA / XP is also a PITA
Until there is only ONE unified Linux solution out there Linux will never gain the momentum it needs to make any sort of real dent in the desktop world.
'Yes, Comrade Microsoft-fan, we must have ONE unified solution.' Sheesh, you sound like a central planning official from Moscow circa 1976.
I think all communistic Microsoft folks would benefit by seriously considering the ideas contained in the free thinking, capitalistic Free Open Source Software approach - instead of blindly lashing out against it.
did you not read the post or did you just comment like a jack-ass. if you would have read then you would have noticed that i am a linux user not a microsoft fanboy.
having one unified linux distro doesnt make you a communist as well as doesnt have anything to do with moscow.
your comment just goes to show you why more people don't use linux. you claim free thinking until someone decides they don't agree with you and then you attempt to bash them. youre a child, plain and simple.
the truth is until linux becomes less intimidating it will never be desktop friendly. there are just to many flavors of linux and that confuses the average user.
having one unified linux distro doesnt make you a communist as well as doesnt have anything to do with moscow.
your comment just goes to show you why more people don't use linux. you claim free thinking until someone decides they don't agree with you and then you attempt to bash them. youre a child, plain and simple.
the truth is until linux becomes less intimidating it will never be desktop friendly. there are just to many flavors of linux and that confuses the average user.
did you not read the post or did you just comment like a jack-ass. if you would have read then you would have noticed that i am a linux user not a microsoft fanboy.
I read your post carefully before deciding to comment.
having one unified linux distro doesnt make you a communist as well as doesnt have anything to do with moscow.
Well, the one unified Microsoft desktop is kind of like the 'Lada' of desktops. And there are alot of Ladas on the streets of Moscow....
your comment just goes to show you why more people don't use linux. you claim free thinking until someone decides they don't agree with you and then you attempt to bash them. youre a child, plain and simple.
I doubt that people are making decisions as to which desktop they want to use based on the comment thread of a 'humour' article. And no, I am not a child - but I do have children.
the truth is until linux becomes less intimidating it will never be desktop friendly. there are just to many flavors of linux and that confuses the average user.
I would guess that everyone has their own version of 'the truth'. Currently, there exist many flavours of Linux environments which are non-intimidating (e.g. Ubuntu or Mepis). The average user will, I believe, eventually make the minimal effort required to educate themselves about the choice they have when choosing a Linux flavour in order to take advantage of the enormous benefits.
no the average user will go with the product that is most familiar to them which will always be windows. you assume that the average user WANTS to learn about a new operating system which in most cases they dont. they want to be as unintimidated as possible
no the average user will go with the product that is most familiar to them which will always be windows
A statement like that will come back to haunt you one day.
you assume that the average user WANTS to learn about a new operating system which in most cases they dont. they want to be as unintimidated as possible
I assume that the average user wants a stable, trouble-free and economical system. Therefore, any one of the GNU/Linux desktops offers the best alternative. And current Microsoft users will easily make the transition.
Another biaised review from an open source idiot
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 02:41 PM
This is the funniest shit I've read in months. I'm so sick of all this anti-microsoft crap that I read everyday on slashdot, newsforge and osnews.
GNU/Linux zealots suck more than ever. All you 30 years old fat kids living in your mom basement seriously need to fucking get a life.
You are the most retarded people ever. You're always stating the same shit days after days. WE GOT YOUR POINT, YOU HATE MICROSOFT *.*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...WE KNOW IT FOR YEARS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...NOW STOP.
So much useless talk. You don't like Microsoft products, so fucking leave them alone! But you won't leave Microsoft alone, because you're all fucking jealous of them (market share, superior products (yeah baby!)) We all know that jealous people are always talking shit about other people stuff. It's the most evident shit in life. Sure now I'm talking shit about Linux. But I do it for a different reason: I'M SICK OF YOU PEOPLE. Just like a boyfriend who's sick of his jealous girlfriend.
Microsoft Windows is a much better OS than any Linux distribution. Hardware support is 100 times better and there's much more consistency between products. Linux, as a Desktop, is built on a crappy outdated X Windows that wouldn't be usable without a ton of funky half-working GUI toolkits (the worst being GTK+).
So please fucking leave Windows alone. I do use Linux but never for desktop stuff. You know why? "It just sucks"[tm]. All the applications you named are uber buggy and unfinished/unpolished. Cut&Paste isn't even working properly out of the box in most Linux distributions. THIS IS WEAK.
And I'm sick of hearing the "it's Open Source!" argument. The funniest thing is like, most Linux freaks are just retarded enought to waste their life recompiling their gentoo installation. "Open Source" means nothing for them: they aren't fucking able to write a single line of code. Please use at least "Free Software" as an argument, not "Open Source", because it means nothing for 90% of the zealots out there.
And talking about "Free Software". Once you purchase Windows, almost everything is free except the Office suite. MSDN is free online, Platform SDK is free, Visual Studio beta is free, Windows Media Player updates, MSN Messenger updates, ect, ect = ALL FREE (read: FREE SOFTWARE). It's not just Open Source, but who care, most of you aren't programmers anyway.
Seriously, you can't compare the crappy GNOME and KDE with Windows. The widgets on Windows are much better. GNOME and KDE tried to replicate them for years but always failed.
And hmm, some retarded people were saying that it's hard to install a new program on Windows. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? Even my mom is able to do that. But if I ask her to get me KDEVELOP installed, I guess she will pass out before being able to do it. Stop the "everything is installable with one-click". Shit like Synaptics are not that great. Try getting KDEVELOP installed on Unbutu. It's not there. You have to compile it by yourself... weird... I can Install Visual Studio 2005 with 2 clicks.
Now let's talk about softwares. You guys keep comparing OpenOffice and Microsoft Office. LOL. It's like comparing KDEVELOP and Visual Studio. The Open Source equivalents are always half-working ripoff of Microsoft products.
Seriously, this is one fucking issue when you use Linux as a Desktop. THERES NO GOOD IDE! Sure you can use emacs but that's another story.
So pleave, do me a fucking favor... STOP THIS BULLSHIT. Forget about Microsoft. You don't use it so please fucking leave it alone.
OK? THANKS.
GNU/Linux zealots suck more than ever. All you 30 years old fat kids living in your mom basement seriously need to fucking get a life.
You are the most retarded people ever. You're always stating the same shit days after days. WE GOT YOUR POINT, YOU HATE MICROSOFT *.*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...WE KNOW IT FOR YEARS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...NOW STOP.
So much useless talk. You don't like Microsoft products, so fucking leave them alone! But you won't leave Microsoft alone, because you're all fucking jealous of them (market share, superior products (yeah baby!)) We all know that jealous people are always talking shit about other people stuff. It's the most evident shit in life. Sure now I'm talking shit about Linux. But I do it for a different reason: I'M SICK OF YOU PEOPLE. Just like a boyfriend who's sick of his jealous girlfriend.
Microsoft Windows is a much better OS than any Linux distribution. Hardware support is 100 times better and there's much more consistency between products. Linux, as a Desktop, is built on a crappy outdated X Windows that wouldn't be usable without a ton of funky half-working GUI toolkits (the worst being GTK+).
So please fucking leave Windows alone. I do use Linux but never for desktop stuff. You know why? "It just sucks"[tm]. All the applications you named are uber buggy and unfinished/unpolished. Cut&Paste isn't even working properly out of the box in most Linux distributions. THIS IS WEAK.
And I'm sick of hearing the "it's Open Source!" argument. The funniest thing is like, most Linux freaks are just retarded enought to waste their life recompiling their gentoo installation. "Open Source" means nothing for them: they aren't fucking able to write a single line of code. Please use at least "Free Software" as an argument, not "Open Source", because it means nothing for 90% of the zealots out there.
And talking about "Free Software". Once you purchase Windows, almost everything is free except the Office suite. MSDN is free online, Platform SDK is free, Visual Studio beta is free, Windows Media Player updates, MSN Messenger updates, ect, ect = ALL FREE (read: FREE SOFTWARE). It's not just Open Source, but who care, most of you aren't programmers anyway.
Seriously, you can't compare the crappy GNOME and KDE with Windows. The widgets on Windows are much better. GNOME and KDE tried to replicate them for years but always failed.
And hmm, some retarded people were saying that it's hard to install a new program on Windows. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? Even my mom is able to do that. But if I ask her to get me KDEVELOP installed, I guess she will pass out before being able to do it. Stop the "everything is installable with one-click". Shit like Synaptics are not that great. Try getting KDEVELOP installed on Unbutu. It's not there. You have to compile it by yourself... weird... I can Install Visual Studio 2005 with 2 clicks.
Now let's talk about softwares. You guys keep comparing OpenOffice and Microsoft Office. LOL. It's like comparing KDEVELOP and Visual Studio. The Open Source equivalents are always half-working ripoff of Microsoft products.
Seriously, this is one fucking issue when you use Linux as a Desktop. THERES NO GOOD IDE! Sure you can use emacs but that's another story.
So pleave, do me a fucking favor... STOP THIS BULLSHIT. Forget about Microsoft. You don't use it so please fucking leave it alone.
OK? THANKS.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 03:00 PM
Amen. =)
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 04:46 PM
One of my favorite parts of Linux vs. Windows is the fact that before Linux had a semi-proper GUI, Linux zealots would always blast Windows for being bloated. But now, Linux is far more bloated with distros like Red Hat weighing in at 3 CDs.
It's interesting that, any Linux vs. Windows argument, given enough time, turns into a political argument. It always does. It's because Linux has no real technical merits over other operating systems. So it boils down to an argument over GNU, over open source vs. closed source. And then, eventually, communism vs. capitalism. And we all know communism loses because of little things like reality and human nature. And there you have it. =)
It's interesting that, any Linux vs. Windows argument, given enough time, turns into a political argument. It always does. It's because Linux has no real technical merits over other operating systems. So it boils down to an argument over GNU, over open source vs. closed source. And then, eventually, communism vs. capitalism. And we all know communism loses because of little things like reality and human nature. And there you have it. =)
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 08:34 AM
Since when was bloat mesured in CD's?
I'm guessing you're American, you seam like a big fan of arguing trench-warfare style.
sorry about the name-calling..
Rune Petersen
I'm guessing you're American, you seam like a big fan of arguing trench-warfare style.
sorry about the name-calling..
Rune Petersen
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 12:57 PM
> And then, eventually, communism vs. capitalism.
Actually, OS software is entirely logical in a capitalist environment. A large number of manufacturers are spending a fortune making linux run on their router, cellphone, embedded device. In the past there has always been two choices; rent software (like you rent your copy of windows) or develop your own. For most vendors, option 2 was not an option. Now a company like Motorola has the option of giving the community the code to make the linux kernel work on their cellphone in exchange for years of tested stability. We live in a capitalist world, but you are naive if you assume that the recent growth in GPLed software is motivated by an internal feeling of altruism. I fund development not because I am being generous, but because the development cost of customising GPLed software and releasing the source is far less costly than to either develop it myself or to be tied into a M$ licensing scheme.
Actually, OS software is entirely logical in a capitalist environment. A large number of manufacturers are spending a fortune making linux run on their router, cellphone, embedded device. In the past there has always been two choices; rent software (like you rent your copy of windows) or develop your own. For most vendors, option 2 was not an option. Now a company like Motorola has the option of giving the community the code to make the linux kernel work on their cellphone in exchange for years of tested stability. We live in a capitalist world, but you are naive if you assume that the recent growth in GPLed software is motivated by an internal feeling of altruism. I fund development not because I am being generous, but because the development cost of customising GPLed software and releasing the source is far less costly than to either develop it myself or to be tied into a M$ licensing scheme.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 02:28 PM
last i checked this article was about the desktop enviroment, not cellphones.
I agree that Linux is getting pretty bloated to my taste, but as far as the 3 cd's go, look what's on them. To get equavalent software for windows, you would have to buy several other products, and the neumbet of cd's would definitely be significantly larger than 3.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 04:56 PM
Actually, I have to say turn about is fair play. I always hear you pro microsoft clowns stating the same weak old chewed 'n stale lines. I personally don't care if you like or don't like linux. As a matter of fact I generally tell people I love windows, it keeps id10ts like yourself off of my operating system. BTW, it is only a knock off if you don't come up with it first, have you recently read how many parts of XP are actually ported (GPL'ed) software?
Thanks for proving that general windows users ARE so intellectually challenged as to not be able to understand the basic concepts of humor and that Linux isn't the only o/s with trolls and flamers.
Have fun and enjoy your BSoD.
-Jason
Thanks for proving that general windows users ARE so intellectually challenged as to not be able to understand the basic concepts of humor and that Linux isn't the only o/s with trolls and flamers.
Have fun and enjoy your BSoD.
-Jason
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:07 PM
I think you're the idiot as the whole article has been written by a moron like you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and you can fully embrace your shitty "operating system" and stick it as far as you want in you dirty zealot ass.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:24 PM
Why, thank you for the thoughts. But, as long as you stay on your crappy o/s and not mine, i don't really care. BTW, you do realize that labeled a zealot, I may have been, but people such as yourself still call tech support at the first sign of trouble or flatline your hard drive. I point out that persons such as yourself are the reason Darwin Awards exist. Blame me, or any Linux user, but the simple fact is that you come here and flame, then act worse then my three year old neice (without the creativity to back it up)
-Jason
-Jason
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 12:53 AM
I know probably more than you will ever know. This is just another lame conclusion zealots like you always come with: "Windows users know nothing".
The fact is, it's not true. From my programmer perspective, it requires much more knowledges to develop on Windows. Yeah it requires much more effort to learn the Windows programming model than a funk toolkits. But once you know it... you don't write crap all the time.
The fact is, it's not true. From my programmer perspective, it requires much more knowledges to develop on Windows. Yeah it requires much more effort to learn the Windows programming model than a funk toolkits. But once you know it... you don't write crap all the time.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 09:51 PM
If Jason's a "zealot", then what does that make me? I'm a software developer with my primary development environment in Slackware Linux using KDevelop because I find that Linux as a whole, and KDevelop as a program are more stable than Microsoft Windows XP (as a whole) and Microsoft Visual Studio (all versions).
Oh, and I neglecticted to mention that I write cross platform applications using the wxWidgets API, so I am current on both Windows and Linux, and relitively current on Macintosh OS-X (10.1 thru 10.4). So my oppinions are not with out merit. And the main reason that Linux is more stable (in my humble opinion) is that every linux distrobution I know of comes with the tools and utilities needed to fix it if something breaks. I cannot say the same for Microsoft Windows.
Oh, and I neglecticted to mention that I write cross platform applications using the wxWidgets API, so I am current on both Windows and Linux, and relitively current on Macintosh OS-X (10.1 thru 10.4). So my oppinions are not with out merit. And the main reason that Linux is more stable (in my humble opinion) is that every linux distrobution I know of comes with the tools and utilities needed to fix it if something breaks. I cannot say the same for Microsoft Windows.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:06 PM
Visual Studio? You have to be kidding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I've unfortunately had to use Visual Studio (previously InterDev) for 3 years (employer mandated), and I've hated every minute of it. There's a severe contrast between almost any Linux development application and something with a shitload of features that happens to fuck up your code on a regular basis (VS). Corporate-developed programs, such as Visual Studio, are slow to fix errors while open-source equivalents might not initially be as feature-rich, but are certainly more stable.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:10 PM
Lies.
Microsoft guys are really fast for delivering important quick fix when it comes to development stuff.
Probably you never joined some msdn newsgroups...
Microsoft guys are really fast for delivering important quick fix when it comes to development stuff.
Probably you never joined some msdn newsgroups...
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 07:47 PM
Obviously, you have a limited vocabulary. But probably that is do to your age because you obviously were not around before Windows. There was life before windows and there will be life after windows.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 12:56 AM
I started with a C64.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 07:55 PM
Well sorry to tell you that, but I'm 19 years old, I have a girlfriend, friends, a life... I develop open-source software and even do graphic design work for the community...
I use Anjuta as a dev. env. with glade, which work just great and is really easier to use for me than visual studio...
Oh just one last point, please give better arguments than "It just sucks[tm]"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
I use Anjuta as a dev. env. with glade, which work just great and is really easier to use for me than visual studio...
Oh just one last point, please give better arguments than "It just sucks[tm]"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 07:54 AM
Bravo!
Thank you, Mr. Ballmer. You've certainly enlightened us all with your trademark razor-sharp reasoning and rock-solid mental stability.
Have some more for free: apt, yum, YAST, emerge... they all do stuff automagically that MS-Windows has no equivalent for. Installing KDevelop is a matter of clicking on the KDevelop icon in RPMdrake (or insert fave GUI packagae management tool here) and then saying, yes, installing these dependencies is OK.
Welcome to the 21st century. URPMI is older than the Windows 2000 family. I use Linux not as a replacement for MS-Windows, but because of the many things which Linux does smoothly that MS-Windows simply will not do. Package management, especially with fully automatic dependency resolution, is just the tip of the iceberg, the atoll on the seamount.
The reason that you find open source software frustrating is that you don't "get it", and that much is obvious in so many places in your rant. Wait here while I get my clue-by-four.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 01:26 PM
While inflamatory, I agree with some of what you are saying. Open source zealots can blind themselves to reality. For years M$ has driven development and designed things in a way that the Open source community mimics. However, there are problems with your argument.
Open source is quite different to free; even for those who do not know how to program. One only has to look at mp3, which was free until it was everywhere and now charges for the use of the patent. At any moment your free copy of MSN or Outlook Express (shudder) could stop being free. While that may or may not sound unlikely, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that all those programs began running off a united subscription fee for Windows. The important thing about open source software is that, at any time, someone else can pick up development and run with it. In addition to that, open source products tend to, in fact, use open standards and make interoperability easy. By their very nature, free demos of products have a vested interest in getting you locked in to their products.
As an aside, I do advanced university papers in MS Office at University, and I find that OOo 2.0 is able to handle them all without a problem; and without the NZ$700 price tag. Perhaps you should try 2.0 as it is a big step up from its predecessor.
In my opinion, most users are apathetic and will use whatever is installed on their machine. If one has to set up either from scratch it is a pain in the rear and requires a lot more knowledge than your average user has.
The biggest problems with Linux currently are the lack of hardware drivers, which is the vendor's fault but Linux's problem, and the lack of Linux variants of software. If market share for Linux was to grow to 20 or 30% then, ironically, these problems would start to go away.
From a security point of view, M$'s backwards compatibility is always going to hurt them. It may well be possible to run Firefox on Windows as a separate user with less privileges, but users don't need to so they won't. People expect everything from a previous version of Windows to work on the next, whereas most Open Souce software changes more frequently then that 10 year old Pacman you have on a windows floppy somewhere and the latest version can be downloaded.
I think that the open source community needs M$. They need it to emulate, to learn from their mistakes and to keep them fighting hard to improve products. A lot of software doesn't work as well as the market leader on a windows box, but there is no reason why those vendors wouldn't roll to Linux if the demand was there (e.g. Adobe/Macromedia). Even M$ makes Mac versions of software.
The way that I look at things is that, were M$ to double their license fees tomorrow, how would I cope. If I wanted to get my address book out of my current email program and do something with it that was out of the ordinary, would a proprietary program give me enough access to my information.
If the price of windows doubles, will you pay twice as much for the same program? If people like yourself put that money towards hiring the programmers to fix what you didn't like about GPLed software, you as a member of the community would own that as an asset. Forever you would have software that would fit your needs but which you controlled. That isn't communism, that is sensible capitalism.
Feel free to tie yourself into M$ at an uncertain cost every year, I would prefer to stop bitching about open source and make it what I want it to be.
Open source is quite different to free; even for those who do not know how to program. One only has to look at mp3, which was free until it was everywhere and now charges for the use of the patent. At any moment your free copy of MSN or Outlook Express (shudder) could stop being free. While that may or may not sound unlikely, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that all those programs began running off a united subscription fee for Windows. The important thing about open source software is that, at any time, someone else can pick up development and run with it. In addition to that, open source products tend to, in fact, use open standards and make interoperability easy. By their very nature, free demos of products have a vested interest in getting you locked in to their products.
As an aside, I do advanced university papers in MS Office at University, and I find that OOo 2.0 is able to handle them all without a problem; and without the NZ$700 price tag. Perhaps you should try 2.0 as it is a big step up from its predecessor.
In my opinion, most users are apathetic and will use whatever is installed on their machine. If one has to set up either from scratch it is a pain in the rear and requires a lot more knowledge than your average user has.
The biggest problems with Linux currently are the lack of hardware drivers, which is the vendor's fault but Linux's problem, and the lack of Linux variants of software. If market share for Linux was to grow to 20 or 30% then, ironically, these problems would start to go away.
From a security point of view, M$'s backwards compatibility is always going to hurt them. It may well be possible to run Firefox on Windows as a separate user with less privileges, but users don't need to so they won't. People expect everything from a previous version of Windows to work on the next, whereas most Open Souce software changes more frequently then that 10 year old Pacman you have on a windows floppy somewhere and the latest version can be downloaded.
I think that the open source community needs M$. They need it to emulate, to learn from their mistakes and to keep them fighting hard to improve products. A lot of software doesn't work as well as the market leader on a windows box, but there is no reason why those vendors wouldn't roll to Linux if the demand was there (e.g. Adobe/Macromedia). Even M$ makes Mac versions of software.
The way that I look at things is that, were M$ to double their license fees tomorrow, how would I cope. If I wanted to get my address book out of my current email program and do something with it that was out of the ordinary, would a proprietary program give me enough access to my information.
If the price of windows doubles, will you pay twice as much for the same program? If people like yourself put that money towards hiring the programmers to fix what you didn't like about GPLed software, you as a member of the community would own that as an asset. Forever you would have software that would fit your needs but which you controlled. That isn't communism, that is sensible capitalism.
Feel free to tie yourself into M$ at an uncertain cost every year, I would prefer to stop bitching about open source and make it what I want it to be.
This is the funniest shit I've read in months.
Glad that you found it funny since there is a reason why this is in the HUMOR section.
All you 30 years old fat kids living in your mom basement seriously need to fucking get a life.
I guess your passion for Windows make you irresistible to women?
But you won't leave Microsoft alone, because you're all fucking jealous of them.
By your logic, MS launched anti-Linux advertisements and Ballmer makes fun of Linux because they are jealous of it.
So please fucking leave Windows alone. I do use Linux but never for desktop stuff. You know why? "It just sucks"[tm]. All the applications you named are uber buggy and unfinished/unpolished. Cut&Paste isn't even working properly out of the box in most Linux distributions. THIS IS WEAK.
You honestly expect us to believe that you use Linux for non-desktop use (server?) when you can't even use it properly as a desktop?
most Linux freaks are just retarded enough to waste their life recompiling their gentoo installation.
And this is coming from a guy doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "humor".
Please use at least "Free Software" as an argument, not "Open Source", because it means nothing for 90% of the zealots out there.
Actually, I don't really mind most of MS Products out there. I even believe that Windows XP can be relatively secure and reliable given good firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, and being careful about installing crappy programs and drivers. I personally even think that Windows is easier to use for the end users than most of the Linux distros. The beef that I have with MS is that they treat their customers like thieves by the use of activation features and highly restrictive licensing terms. If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you read their EULA.
And talking about "Free Software". Once you purchase Windows, almost everything is free except the Office suite. MSDN is free online, Platform SDK is free, Visual Studio beta is free, Windows Media Player updates, MSN Messenger updates, ect, ect = ALL FREE (read: FREE SOFTWARE). It's not just Open Source, but who care, most of you aren't programmers anyway.
Since when does updates and MSDN online = FREE SOFTWARE? My your logic, Half-Life 2 is a free software because online tech support's free and you can get free updates for it.
Seriously, you can't compare the crappy GNOME and KDE with Windows.
From my personal experience, KDE and GNOME pretty much has same general functions as Windows desktop, not to mention that they also support virtual desktops which Windows don't. And MS have been replicating functions found in the other browsers, such as tabbing viewing and pop-up blocker, for use in IE (which is part of Windows according to MS). I honestly do not think that someone who cannot get the concept of humor and believes that MSDN online and updates = free software has the ability to learn enough about GNOME and KDE to make a valid comparison against Windows.
And hmm, some retarded people were saying that it's hard to install a new program on Windows. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? Even my mom is able to do that. But if I ask her to get me KDEVELOP installed, I guess she will pass out before being able to do it.
There's also been some retarded people here thinking that this article is a serious piece even though it's labeled as HUMOR and believe that a software is free (as in beer) if the publisher provides updates for it. Besides, an average user won't have a need to install KDevelope as much as he/she has a need to install Visual Studio. And the funny thing is that installations of Windows don't come with Visual Studio either. While I haven't played around with Visual Studio 2005 beta yet since I don't use beta software for production use, I have installed Visual Studio.NET and the process was more than just "2 clicks". Heck, "./configure && make && make install" would’ve been much easier in that case.
Seriously, this is one fucking issue when you use Linux as a Desktop. THERES NO GOOD IDE! Sure you can use emacs but that's another story.
Have you ever tried Eclipse? Since when did KDevelope become mother of all IDE for Linux distros? And your comment about emacs really shows that you are really clueless about non-windows IDEs as emacs really isn't even in the same class as Visual Studio, KDevelop, or Eclipse.
Glad that you found it funny since there is a reason why this is in the HUMOR section.
All you 30 years old fat kids living in your mom basement seriously need to fucking get a life.
I guess your passion for Windows make you irresistible to women?
But you won't leave Microsoft alone, because you're all fucking jealous of them.
By your logic, MS launched anti-Linux advertisements and Ballmer makes fun of Linux because they are jealous of it.
So please fucking leave Windows alone. I do use Linux but never for desktop stuff. You know why? "It just sucks"[tm]. All the applications you named are uber buggy and unfinished/unpolished. Cut&Paste isn't even working properly out of the box in most Linux distributions. THIS IS WEAK.
You honestly expect us to believe that you use Linux for non-desktop use (server?) when you can't even use it properly as a desktop?
most Linux freaks are just retarded enough to waste their life recompiling their gentoo installation.
And this is coming from a guy doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "humor".
Please use at least "Free Software" as an argument, not "Open Source", because it means nothing for 90% of the zealots out there.
Actually, I don't really mind most of MS Products out there. I even believe that Windows XP can be relatively secure and reliable given good firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, and being careful about installing crappy programs and drivers. I personally even think that Windows is easier to use for the end users than most of the Linux distros. The beef that I have with MS is that they treat their customers like thieves by the use of activation features and highly restrictive licensing terms. If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you read their EULA.
And talking about "Free Software". Once you purchase Windows, almost everything is free except the Office suite. MSDN is free online, Platform SDK is free, Visual Studio beta is free, Windows Media Player updates, MSN Messenger updates, ect, ect = ALL FREE (read: FREE SOFTWARE). It's not just Open Source, but who care, most of you aren't programmers anyway.
Since when does updates and MSDN online = FREE SOFTWARE? My your logic, Half-Life 2 is a free software because online tech support's free and you can get free updates for it.
Seriously, you can't compare the crappy GNOME and KDE with Windows.
From my personal experience, KDE and GNOME pretty much has same general functions as Windows desktop, not to mention that they also support virtual desktops which Windows don't. And MS have been replicating functions found in the other browsers, such as tabbing viewing and pop-up blocker, for use in IE (which is part of Windows according to MS). I honestly do not think that someone who cannot get the concept of humor and believes that MSDN online and updates = free software has the ability to learn enough about GNOME and KDE to make a valid comparison against Windows.
And hmm, some retarded people were saying that it's hard to install a new program on Windows. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? Even my mom is able to do that. But if I ask her to get me KDEVELOP installed, I guess she will pass out before being able to do it.
There's also been some retarded people here thinking that this article is a serious piece even though it's labeled as HUMOR and believe that a software is free (as in beer) if the publisher provides updates for it. Besides, an average user won't have a need to install KDevelope as much as he/she has a need to install Visual Studio. And the funny thing is that installations of Windows don't come with Visual Studio either. While I haven't played around with Visual Studio 2005 beta yet since I don't use beta software for production use, I have installed Visual Studio.NET and the process was more than just "2 clicks". Heck, "./configure && make && make install" would’ve been much easier in that case.
Seriously, this is one fucking issue when you use Linux as a Desktop. THERES NO GOOD IDE! Sure you can use emacs but that's another story.
Have you ever tried Eclipse? Since when did KDevelope become mother of all IDE for Linux distros? And your comment about emacs really shows that you are really clueless about non-windows IDEs as emacs really isn't even in the same class as Visual Studio, KDevelop, or Eclipse.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2005 06:20 PM
And your comment about emacs really shows that you are really clueless about non-windows IDEs as emacs really isn't even in the same class as Visual Studio, KDevelop, or Eclipse.
Another smart ass reply from a stupid average linux user. Hey stupid, instead of "trying" to make me look like an ignorant, cant you just think before replying?
I was saying that because i know alot of people who use emacs for almost EVERYTHING. I do use emacs but honestly, not for everything.
So, some people don't give a fuck about KDEVELOP, Eclipse, ect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because they use emacs for everything. While it's perfecly acceptable and I'm happy for them to be able to do everything with one editor (do I need to say that emacs is more than a editor to shut your mouth off?), it's something that I'm not used to do. Well, not for non-console applications.
So, this is a real problem.
BTW: Eclipse sucks for C/C++ development. Using CDT is so painfull...
Another smart ass reply from a stupid average linux user. Hey stupid, instead of "trying" to make me look like an ignorant, cant you just think before replying?
I was saying that because i know alot of people who use emacs for almost EVERYTHING. I do use emacs but honestly, not for everything.
So, some people don't give a fuck about KDEVELOP, Eclipse, ect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because they use emacs for everything. While it's perfecly acceptable and I'm happy for them to be able to do everything with one editor (do I need to say that emacs is more than a editor to shut your mouth off?), it's something that I'm not used to do. Well, not for non-console applications.
So, this is a real problem.
BTW: Eclipse sucks for C/C++ development. Using CDT is so painfull...
Another smart ass reply from a stupid average linux user. Hey stupid, instead of "trying" to make me look like an ignorant, cant you just think before replying?
Actually, you already made yourself look stupid by taking a humor article seriously and calling everyone names, like a spoiled brat in a playground. Besides, I'm a sys admin for a Windows domain so I know first hand about the default behaviour of XP Pro in a domain setting and a non-domain setting. It's quite sad that this "stupid average linux user" knows more about Windows than you.
As far as emacs goes, it's pretty much a few features away from becoming an OS itself and as I said before, cannot really be compared to more "pure" development tools like Eclipse or Visual Studio.
Actually, you already made yourself look stupid by taking a humor article seriously and calling everyone names, like a spoiled brat in a playground. Besides, I'm a sys admin for a Windows domain so I know first hand about the default behaviour of XP Pro in a domain setting and a non-domain setting. It's quite sad that this "stupid average linux user" knows more about Windows than you.
As far as emacs goes, it's pretty much a few features away from becoming an OS itself and as I said before, cannot really be compared to more "pure" development tools like Eclipse or Visual Studio.
Re:Another biaised review from an open source idio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 09:13 PM
And another person who just doesn't "get it". Probably missed the "humor" label this story is under.
Well, even though this article may sound as a joke (a good joke...), it's not completely wrong. I have switched to Linux because of WinXP hardware compatibility problems (they won't work with Radeon9100 + nForce2, strange), and now I see I couldn't do better. To the software installation - I haven't found anything easier to work with as apt (-> synaptic) is. And of course, licensing issues improve usability of Linux as well.
Sad, sad, sad. Other than the "Woo Hoo - Linux is FREE!" argument, basically every other argument here could be said MORE commonly of Unix clones. For example, Windows is far more likely to support your common hardware out of the box than Linux is, but the author has gone out of his way to struggle to find hardware that will work on Linux but not Windows. In a period of years, I've yet to find a single piece of hardware that didn't work on all my Windows systems, whereas every time I've tried to install a Unix clone, there has been at least one device on each system that the Unix clone wasn't ready for.
This isn't journalism, nor is it comedy - it is a parody of the remarkably sad state of affairs where Unix clones simply are nowhere near ready for the main stream.
This isn't journalism, nor is it comedy - it is a parody of the remarkably sad state of affairs where Unix clones simply are nowhere near ready for the main stream.
"This isn't journalism, nor is it comedy - it is a parody of the remarkably sad state of affairs where Unix clones simply are nowhere near ready for the main stream."
Well said!
Well said!
"For example, Windows is far more likely to support your common hardware out of the box than Linux"
I have an old Power PC and I want to install a newer/modern OS. Can you help me install Windows on it?
I have an old Power PC and I want to install a newer/modern OS. Can you help me install Windows on it?
Cent 1.) To everyone who immediately said that windows is far better: THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A JOKE. It's just that people who have used linux for years as their primary desktop are tired of hearing that their reliable computer is not what they KNOW it is.
Cent 2.) I have been using linux for six years now, and I can say with confidence: ease is very subjective. Put me in front of a linux machine and I'll look intellegent; put me in front of a windows machine and I'll look like an ignorant jackass. Yeah, I said it, windows makes me look dumb on a regular basis because I don't know what to do when it's obvious to everyone else.
For instance, I would have no idea how to kill a process that refuses to die, get rid of a virus, or fix a critical system file that was altered for the worse in windows. I'd be looking around for a kill command or live cd or something. In linux, though, that wouldn't even begin to resemble a problem for me. (minus the virus remark... but I don't think very many *nix pros would know what to do if they ever got a virus)
Now I'm not trying to make some "I am 1337 h4x0r" remark... far from it really... what I trying to say is that if you've only used windows then yes, windows will SEEM much easier to use. But the same would be true for any OS.
Cent 2.) I have been using linux for six years now, and I can say with confidence: ease is very subjective. Put me in front of a linux machine and I'll look intellegent; put me in front of a windows machine and I'll look like an ignorant jackass. Yeah, I said it, windows makes me look dumb on a regular basis because I don't know what to do when it's obvious to everyone else.
For instance, I would have no idea how to kill a process that refuses to die, get rid of a virus, or fix a critical system file that was altered for the worse in windows. I'd be looking around for a kill command or live cd or something. In linux, though, that wouldn't even begin to resemble a problem for me. (minus the virus remark... but I don't think very many *nix pros would know what to do if they ever got a virus)
Now I'm not trying to make some "I am 1337 h4x0r" remark... far from it really... what I trying to say is that if you've only used windows then yes, windows will SEEM much easier to use. But the same would be true for any OS.
To kill a process? nothing changed since DOS: CTRL-ALT-DELETE. (task manager...)
Live CD? Just use the Windows installation CD and type R to get into the recovery console. It's well documented in the microsoft knowledges base. There's NOTHING you can't do from there.
Live CD? Just use the Windows installation CD and type R to get into the recovery console. It's well documented in the microsoft knowledges base. There's NOTHING you can't do from there.
Apparently there is, get a clue. So how do you get a clue from microsoft's support site? That's right, you are talking about flaming a guy who just got through trying to be amendable. Clues are useless to you except when trying to aquire a target to spew crap at. Thanks, you just proved his point, and not yours.
ok now stfu.
Okay, I will as soon as you can actually prove you are actually over the age of 18 and are not the two year old your post makes you appear to be. On a brighter note, do you even realize that this original article was writen as a humor article? You do know what humor is? It's you, joke.
Killing: hmm.... Now it looks like fixed but I had difficulties killing processes named "mstask.exe" and "svchost.exe". All I got was: "Access denied". These wasn't system processes, it was viruses. Later I tried to rename notepad.exe to mstask.exe and Windows tas manager refused to kill this process...
I'm or rather my wife using Windows2000 on that desktop just for one reason -- shee needed Corel Draw for university studies... I've thrown out Windows for more than two years. Four of six notebooks I've had ran on Linux (left two was PowerBooks 170 and PowerBook 165 -- too slow adn too weakto run anything else than Mac OS 7.5).
Emergency Recovery Console: Try to delete 100 files.... (hint: substitution - "*" does not work...). All it is good for: fixboot, fixmbr. If something worse happened much better to use "Hirens Boot CD" with power tools or even Knoppix Live CD. Or rather just reinstall...
The article was nice payback with the same coin for Windows zealots -- shounting "Linux not ready for desktop". That may be true if you use crappy computers, when manufacturers even doesn't bother to tell you WHAT DEVICES ARE USED. Due to accident I've burned my PowerBook and now bought Asus and problems arise... PowerBook supported sleep out of the box, Asus don't. I've spent more than two weeks trying to find what kind of **** WiFi adapter used on my Asus A4500D. I've still hadn't found. The gratest Windows identified it as "Generic USB Wireless adaptor" not much help...
That would be the reason to shout "Now you see Linux doesn't support whil Windows does". But sorry, guys I've even DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEVICE IS! Maybe it is supported - I only need to force module loading because manufacturer decided to change device identification. The same happened when I tried to use USB flash drive on Windows 98. While Linux identified it flawlessly as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda1. I spend more than two days to find drivers for Samsung Mihty drive. In the end I've unpacked drivers from other manufacturer, plugged flash into USB and from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Hardware/enum/usb found rigth Device ID. I've copied these into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.inf file and My Samsung flash was identified as PQI or some other brand.
Problem is with devices and their manufacturers. They do not support Linux - not the otherwise! We can only be thankfull that still there is enough wise guys, that can hack binaries, understand them and rewrite drivers to work in Linux.
I'm or rather my wife using Windows2000 on that desktop just for one reason -- shee needed Corel Draw for university studies... I've thrown out Windows for more than two years. Four of six notebooks I've had ran on Linux (left two was PowerBooks 170 and PowerBook 165 -- too slow adn too weakto run anything else than Mac OS 7.5).
Emergency Recovery Console: Try to delete 100 files.... (hint: substitution - "*" does not work...). All it is good for: fixboot, fixmbr. If something worse happened much better to use "Hirens Boot CD" with power tools or even Knoppix Live CD. Or rather just reinstall...
The article was nice payback with the same coin for Windows zealots -- shounting "Linux not ready for desktop". That may be true if you use crappy computers, when manufacturers even doesn't bother to tell you WHAT DEVICES ARE USED. Due to accident I've burned my PowerBook and now bought Asus and problems arise... PowerBook supported sleep out of the box, Asus don't. I've spent more than two weeks trying to find what kind of **** WiFi adapter used on my Asus A4500D. I've still hadn't found. The gratest Windows identified it as "Generic USB Wireless adaptor" not much help...
That would be the reason to shout "Now you see Linux doesn't support whil Windows does". But sorry, guys I've even DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEVICE IS! Maybe it is supported - I only need to force module loading because manufacturer decided to change device identification. The same happened when I tried to use USB flash drive on Windows 98. While Linux identified it flawlessly as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda1. I spend more than two days to find drivers for Samsung Mihty drive. In the end I've unpacked drivers from other manufacturer, plugged flash into USB and from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Hardware/enum/usb found rigth Device ID. I've copied these into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.inf file and My Samsung flash was identified as PQI or some other brand.
Problem is with devices and their manufacturers. They do not support Linux - not the otherwise! We can only be thankfull that still there is enough wise guys, that can hack binaries, understand them and rewrite drivers to work in Linux.
Couldn't agree more. I have found that with long-term no-windows computer usage, I have become less competent than "dumb" windows users when it comes to their turf. They seem to know more about the free software for windows. Like so an so that can burn DVDs. So it's all relative to what you're used to. I try to keep my comfort levels high on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X, by using all of them. I find that each has their strengths, and weaknesses.
I use Windows for storing digital photos because thumbnail view works great on explorer. And Picasa only runs on windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(. I keep this machine off the internet though. So I don't bother with updates, anti-viruses, or firewalls. It has never crashed!
I use Linux for running a webserver, and I have to use it at work anyway. But it's mostly terminal/console based usage.
I use Mac OS X for my daily tasks like web browsing, ssh to work machines, learn Python<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:), hobby java programming. Mostly working on the terminal. There's a lot to learn from OSX. The initial usage was awkward, but... you get used to it. More importantly, you appreciate the difference in design concepts. E.g., preferences are always at the same place (and the same shortcut!). Proxy settings are tied to "locations" (important for a laptop).
So i guess (1) you get used to it, and (2) it depends on what you want to do.
I use Windows for storing digital photos because thumbnail view works great on explorer. And Picasa only runs on windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(. I keep this machine off the internet though. So I don't bother with updates, anti-viruses, or firewalls. It has never crashed!
I use Linux for running a webserver, and I have to use it at work anyway. But it's mostly terminal/console based usage.
I use Mac OS X for my daily tasks like web browsing, ssh to work machines, learn Python<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:), hobby java programming. Mostly working on the terminal. There's a lot to learn from OSX. The initial usage was awkward, but... you get used to it. More importantly, you appreciate the difference in design concepts. E.g., preferences are always at the same place (and the same shortcut!). Proxy settings are tied to "locations" (important for a laptop).
So i guess (1) you get used to it, and (2) it depends on what you want to do.
See, but on Windows you don't have to know how to do those things.
How do you kill a process that refuses to die?
You just try to close it normally, Windows will detect its frozen and give you the option to forcefully kill it.
Get rid of a virus?
Assuming that virus protection is installed, which it is on virtually any OEM Windows install, you don't do anything again. All virus software has an auto-protect scanner.
Fix a critical system file?
Again, you never will need to because Windows protects critical system files from being modified.
How do you kill a process that refuses to die?
You just try to close it normally, Windows will detect its frozen and give you the option to forcefully kill it.
Get rid of a virus?
Assuming that virus protection is installed, which it is on virtually any OEM Windows install, you don't do anything again. All virus software has an auto-protect scanner.
Fix a critical system file?
Again, you never will need to because Windows protects critical system files from being modified.
Not exactly.
Kill a process? Yes, Windows will offer to kill the process for you but only if it has visible window. There's plenty of times when a program will still be running but show no windows. Then you have to know how to use the Task Manager to kill it.
While OEM installations of Windows come with antivirus software it's not effortless. The software must be activated and you need to download new definitions every few days. The subscription you get with your computer is only for 60 days or so. Then you buy a new one. Even if you do all this you can still get infected by a fast spreading virus that the software doesn't recognize.
Windows protects critical system files from being modified by installation programs. They can get trashed by other means. I just fixed server that a corrupted HAL.DLL file. It's a good thing this old UNIX guy was there because the MCSE trying to fix it was in over his head.
Kill a process? Yes, Windows will offer to kill the process for you but only if it has visible window. There's plenty of times when a program will still be running but show no windows. Then you have to know how to use the Task Manager to kill it.
While OEM installations of Windows come with antivirus software it's not effortless. The software must be activated and you need to download new definitions every few days. The subscription you get with your computer is only for 60 days or so. Then you buy a new one. Even if you do all this you can still get infected by a fast spreading virus that the software doesn't recognize.
Windows protects critical system files from being modified by installation programs. They can get trashed by other means. I just fixed server that a corrupted HAL.DLL file. It's a good thing this old UNIX guy was there because the MCSE trying to fix it was in over his head.
this whole linux and windows debate kinda reminds me of learning to drive a stick shift.
automatics are wildly more popular. they're easier to use. all you have to do is put it in drive, and hit the gas. a bit more expensive. a bit boring. etc...
a stick has OPTIONS. you can really make full use of the engine. sucks when you're on a hill, or in stop and go traffic. great for racing and weaving in and out of traffic. great for going down hill (engine braking). little hard to learn at first.
now, is windows the stick or the automatic?
automatics are wildly more popular. they're easier to use. all you have to do is put it in drive, and hit the gas. a bit more expensive. a bit boring. etc...
a stick has OPTIONS. you can really make full use of the engine. sucks when you're on a hill, or in stop and go traffic. great for racing and weaving in and out of traffic. great for going down hill (engine braking). little hard to learn at first.
now, is windows the stick or the automatic?
windows is definately the automatic.
some people think the sticks are better, car freaks wouldn't use anything else, but we all know they aren't that good, just like linux.
you think you get more flexibility, but you get tons of issues as well. there's an overhead using them, just like linux.
btw, i really prefer the automatic.
some people think the sticks are better, car freaks wouldn't use anything else, but we all know they aren't that good, just like linux.
you think you get more flexibility, but you get tons of issues as well. there's an overhead using them, just like linux.
btw, i really prefer the automatic.
"automatics are wildly more popular."
Only in the USA, because the people in the US don't learn how to drive and their driving license is a joke...
In other parts of the world, people prefer manual speed selectors...
Only in the USA, because the people in the US don't learn how to drive and their driving license is a joke...
In other parts of the world, people prefer manual speed selectors...
MS-Windows is the one with the hood welded shut
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 10:43 AM
Linux has automatic, CVT, manual, electric, name it available. All it lacks is the slick salesmen, the network of outlets, and the supermarkets to carry the aftermarket gear.
a stick<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sucks when you're on a hill
Not if you were taught how to do hill starts. Then it's second nature; you don't think about it. This used to be part of the standard British driving test 35 years ago, don't know whether it still is.
You seem to have much better control on snow & ice at low speeds with a stick shift. I don't know why that should be, but it's my experience.
I can't believe this article even went up. It's like the biggest load of falsehoods I've ever seen, using the pretense of having "hope for Windows", when it's all about bashing Microsoft and every OS they've made without coming out and saying it.
Since when was Linux more user-friendly than Windows? The answer is NEVER. NOT EVEN EVER. Linux won't be close to being newbie-friendly for many more years down the road.
This article talks as if Windows is the one that's never been suitable for the desktop environment. I honestly don't know what this guy has been using, but it sure wasn't Windows. Even Windows 98 was/is still a more friendly platform than Linux is.
I saw a comment from a fellow previously where he complained that software installation required one to download the program and then have to install it seperately. I guess double-clicking an application icon to install it is simply too hard! And you people like to make fun of Windows users for being lazy/stupid.
I very much like Linux for what it can do, and use it quite often in various applications, but Windows is still my primary OS, and as such I'm awfully tired of these blatantly biased articles.
People need to just stop lying to the public about how Linux is so great. It has far too many downsides to be ready for the casual user. Period. All of the articles I see about why people should switch to Linux never mention these things. Newbies would cry at the thought of having to compile software to use it. This is just not a concern in Windows. Windows may have plenty of flaws, but it'll never lose its level of usability over Linux.
Since when was Linux more user-friendly than Windows? The answer is NEVER. NOT EVEN EVER. Linux won't be close to being newbie-friendly for many more years down the road.
This article talks as if Windows is the one that's never been suitable for the desktop environment. I honestly don't know what this guy has been using, but it sure wasn't Windows. Even Windows 98 was/is still a more friendly platform than Linux is.
I saw a comment from a fellow previously where he complained that software installation required one to download the program and then have to install it seperately. I guess double-clicking an application icon to install it is simply too hard! And you people like to make fun of Windows users for being lazy/stupid.
I very much like Linux for what it can do, and use it quite often in various applications, but Windows is still my primary OS, and as such I'm awfully tired of these blatantly biased articles.
People need to just stop lying to the public about how Linux is so great. It has far too many downsides to be ready for the casual user. Period. All of the articles I see about why people should switch to Linux never mention these things. Newbies would cry at the thought of having to compile software to use it. This is just not a concern in Windows. Windows may have plenty of flaws, but it'll never lose its level of usability over Linux.
Exactly.
I think his point was more valid than you admit. Installing is not a simple matter of double clicking a program icon. You double click, then you wait, they you fail to read a Licence, then you click next, and again, and again... and again...
Sure, it's easy, but it's not exactly painless. In many distributions it *is* just a matter of a couple of clicks, to get new programs, update old ones or even upgrade the whole system. For people who aren't scared of the command line, this can be achieved in a single command. And it's done, no further participation needed. It's not a matter of being stupid or lazy, it's about getting a tedious and frequently repeated task done efficiently.
I certainly prefer that to firing up a browser, finding the file, clicking through the "you are about to download a file. You may like to click yes and save in an easy to remember location" bullshit, and then the tedious next... next...oh god next cycle.
I'm sorry, but installing software IS easier and quicker in most GNU/Linux distributions, because it's a priority for users. Even a pretty blue and green fisher price gui won't change that.
Sure, it's easy, but it's not exactly painless. In many distributions it *is* just a matter of a couple of clicks, to get new programs, update old ones or even upgrade the whole system. For people who aren't scared of the command line, this can be achieved in a single command. And it's done, no further participation needed. It's not a matter of being stupid or lazy, it's about getting a tedious and frequently repeated task done efficiently.
I certainly prefer that to firing up a browser, finding the file, clicking through the "you are about to download a file. You may like to click yes and save in an easy to remember location" bullshit, and then the tedious next... next...oh god next cycle.
I'm sorry, but installing software IS easier and quicker in most GNU/Linux distributions, because it's a priority for users. Even a pretty blue and green fisher price gui won't change that.
The thing is, only software provided by your distro makes it this easy. If you decide you want to install something you come across on the web, you have to do ten times more work than clicking through some next buttons. In Windows, between each next button press, you're usually configuring the install process, which you generally don't get the option of in Linux, as it just dumps it all into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/sbin or some other general program location. This could be seen as a disadvantage to the "one-click install".
Even worse, if it's a program that didn't come with your distro, you usually have to configure/compile/install, and chances are you'll run into some kind of problem either with dependencies or what have you, which is pretty much just a frustrating experience. It's not something an average user should have to deal with.
Having said that, I do like the fact that Linux software can be configured as much as it can. Compiling an application based on your exact system can have its advantages, despite the frustration sometimes involved. But again, this doesn't make for an easy install procedure, and as such, doesn't make Linux an OS for anyone but a command-line guru.
Even worse, if it's a program that didn't come with your distro, you usually have to configure/compile/install, and chances are you'll run into some kind of problem either with dependencies or what have you, which is pretty much just a frustrating experience. It's not something an average user should have to deal with.
Having said that, I do like the fact that Linux software can be configured as much as it can. Compiling an application based on your exact system can have its advantages, despite the frustration sometimes involved. But again, this doesn't make for an easy install procedure, and as such, doesn't make Linux an OS for anyone but a command-line guru.
If you decide you want to install something you come across on the web, you have to do ten times more work than clicking through some next buttons.
Spyware alert! Having to go trough './configure', 'make' 'checkinstall' is a good user sanity ceck.
People need to just stop lying to the public about how Windows is so great. It has far too many downsides to be ready for the casual user. Period. All of the articles I see about why people should switch to Windows never mention these things. Newbies would cry at the thought of having to find and install software with yet another different installer to use it. This is just not a concern in GNU/Linux.
Trying to change what I said might have worked had the opposite of it actually been true. I haven't heard of any cases where a person always used Linux and then switched to Windows, so there aren't any articles about it. Newbies would also never cry at having to find or install software, because they're not whiny like so many of the Linux zealots who write articles and comments like what we see here.
Never is a long time.
Uh, I think you completley missed the point.
This is labeled as humor.
It's not supposed to be a serious discussion about XP vs linux. It's supposed to be a satire of all those "Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?" articles, using the same bad logic against MS Windows as most of those use against Linux.
This is labeled as humor.
It's not supposed to be a serious discussion about XP vs linux. It's supposed to be a satire of all those "Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?" articles, using the same bad logic against MS Windows as most of those use against Linux.
It's totally true, I entirely missed the humor label! I later found out that's what it was supposed to be. Though I'm not sure if it's worse that I fell for it, or that there are actually people out there who agree with it.
user-friendly is not newbie-friendly.
Users, by definition, are not newbies. Users use the system, newbies are trying to learn how to use it. Since I am a newbie only for a short time, and user for the rest of my life, I much prefere user-friendliness of linux over newbie-friendliness of windows.
Users, by definition, are not newbies. Users use the system, newbies are trying to learn how to use it. Since I am a newbie only for a short time, and user for the rest of my life, I much prefere user-friendliness of linux over newbie-friendliness of windows.
LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developement
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 04:18 PM
Linux doesnt have anything like macromedia Dreamweaver!
It's laughable and pathetic to beleive that there still are guys who are orgasmic when they read things like roblimo has posted. I CHALLENGE THE AUTHOUR of thei article to name a linux equivalent of DREAMWEAVER.
Linux still is not a good desktop environment, it still is trying to catch up with xp after all these years and the cycle will continue with the release of longhorn which will revolutionise the desktop.
It's laughable and pathetic to beleive that there still are guys who are orgasmic when they read things like roblimo has posted. I CHALLENGE THE AUTHOUR of thei article to name a linux equivalent of DREAMWEAVER.
Linux still is not a good desktop environment, it still is trying to catch up with xp after all these years and the cycle will continue with the release of longhorn which will revolutionise the desktop.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:56 PM
Hi,
I am not the author of this article.
I am currently use both Linux and Windows OS.
I think that everyone MUST try all operating systems. At last will find one that will fit his needs.
A few years ago, I had win98, witch has to be reinstalled at about 30 days.
Now I have XP, witch is better. It can resist about a year without a reinstalation.
I must use windows to test web pages with IE.
Widows have Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Ironic, I bought this licences with money earned with open source software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))
Linux is a very good OS.
It is stable. (I have a Slack distro installed from about 1,5 years).
All jobs are done without headaches.
Now,... if you need a tool like dreamweaver under linux: try to use "WebSphere Homepage Builder"...
It is more that you want.
Bye.
I am not the author of this article.
I am currently use both Linux and Windows OS.
I think that everyone MUST try all operating systems. At last will find one that will fit his needs.
A few years ago, I had win98, witch has to be reinstalled at about 30 days.
Now I have XP, witch is better. It can resist about a year without a reinstalation.
I must use windows to test web pages with IE.
Widows have Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Ironic, I bought this licences with money earned with open source software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))
Linux is a very good OS.
It is stable. (I have a Slack distro installed from about 1,5 years).
All jobs are done without headaches.
Now,... if you need a tool like dreamweaver under linux: try to use "WebSphere Homepage Builder"...
It is more that you want.
Bye.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 06:19 PM
Just in case you weren't aware, ie6 runs (quite badly though) in recent versions of wine.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 10:21 PM
Real Developers don't use Toy Tools for web development. vi is a perfectly good editor, and faster, more flexible and far more useful than Dreamweaver. Bluefish is very good as well, if you prefer the world of GUI editing.
'course, if you want a WYSINWGY html editor, by all means use Dreamweaver. Professionals write thier own html.
'course, if you want a WYSINWGY html editor, by all means use Dreamweaver. Professionals write thier own html.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 02:16 PM
professionals do write there own code but when working in a professional enviroment with a team of 5 or more developers than Dreamweaver is the way to go. at this moment in time there isn't a program out there in the open source world that is half the product Dreamweaver is for site managment in a team enviroment.
when not in a team enviroment and im the only one writing my code i use notepad since i dont have to worry about someone working on the same peice i am and i dont need to keep track of who worked on what last. lets not forget how much time Dreamweaver saves you when youre in a crunch.
so in closing, yea professionals write there own code but they ALSO use Dreamweaver.
when not in a team enviroment and im the only one writing my code i use notepad since i dont have to worry about someone working on the same peice i am and i dont need to keep track of who worked on what last. lets not forget how much time Dreamweaver saves you when youre in a crunch.
so in closing, yea professionals write there own code but they ALSO use Dreamweaver.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 31, 2005 04:37 PM
Well, lets see here...
You could run Dreamweaver in Linux with WINE.
Or you could wait until Macromedia releases the Linux version they're working on.
You could run Dreamweaver in Linux with WINE.
Or you could wait until Macromedia releases the Linux version they're working on.
Re:LInux doesnt have a good tool for web developem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 02:28 AM
NVU<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Nview
<a href="http://www.nvu.com/" title="nvu.com">http://www.nvu.com/</a nvu.com>
Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users as well as Microsoft Windows and Macintosh users to rival programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver.
<a href="http://www.nvu.com/" title="nvu.com">http://www.nvu.com/</a nvu.com>
Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users as well as Microsoft Windows and Macintosh users to rival programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver.
Hi, I'm very intrigued by your review of Windows XP. I am a current Windows user, and I wonder where to find all these other operating system choices you compared Windows to.
I heard you can download them from the internet, but I do not always have high speed internet, so I would rather get it in person. I almost never buy things online (I heard it's not safe), so that won't work either.
What can I get in a store? Did you see them in Office Depot where you bought Windows? Do they all work with your hardware out of the box? How much are they? And I have the same questions about the applications.
One more thing, in your article you didn't mention technical support. Microsoft's support has not been ideal, and sometimes the calls cost quite a bit. However I sometimes can get things solved by asking the IT guys at work (don't tell them it's for my home computer, hehe). I wonder how it is with other competitive products?
Sorry for asking so many things. As an ordinary user, this whole business with choosing an operating system can be quite a challenge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
I heard you can download them from the internet, but I do not always have high speed internet, so I would rather get it in person. I almost never buy things online (I heard it's not safe), so that won't work either.
What can I get in a store? Did you see them in Office Depot where you bought Windows? Do they all work with your hardware out of the box? How much are they? And I have the same questions about the applications.
One more thing, in your article you didn't mention technical support. Microsoft's support has not been ideal, and sometimes the calls cost quite a bit. However I sometimes can get things solved by asking the IT guys at work (don't tell them it's for my home computer, hehe). I wonder how it is with other competitive products?
Sorry for asking so many things. As an ordinary user, this whole business with choosing an operating system can be quite a challenge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Re:Where can I get the other operating systems?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:22 PM
Don't bother, this article is total BS. It is not mentioned that you have to be every bit as careful choosing hardware and such for Linux, or oops! it doesn't work...
It is not the magical thing they make it seem...
It is not the magical thing they make it seem...
Re:Where can I get the other operating systems?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 06:16 PM
Since you can try it for yourself for free, and not have to rely on the opinions of fanboys, i'd recommend www.ubuntu.org. Suited my parents just fine. If you don't fancy downloading it and don't know anyone with broadband, they'll ship you a cd for free. What mendacious, deceitful monsters linux developers are.
Good luck with it, it's a lot of fun.
Good luck with it, it's a lot of fun.
Re:Where can I get the other operating systems?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 02:15 AM
You're a troll.
Comp USA sells Suse and RedHat boxed distros on their shelves
Barnes and Noble, and Borders bookstores, sell all kinds of flavors of Linux, on their shelves, either as stand-alone boxes, or as CDs included with the cost of a How-to book. I have seen virtually every flavor of Linux for sale in bookstores.
Go to a meeting of a local Linux User's Group and because, unlike asshat Microsoft proprietary restriction-ware, Linux is encouraged to be freely copied and shared, you can receive a wealth of distros on CD or DVD from friends.
Go to ubuntu's website and ask them to send you 100 free ubuntu disks in the mail. They will mail them to you for free.
Desktop Linux is here, you're trolling for Microsoft, but Microsoft is a dying phenomenon. Bye, Microsoft.
Comp USA sells Suse and RedHat boxed distros on their shelves
Barnes and Noble, and Borders bookstores, sell all kinds of flavors of Linux, on their shelves, either as stand-alone boxes, or as CDs included with the cost of a How-to book. I have seen virtually every flavor of Linux for sale in bookstores.
Go to a meeting of a local Linux User's Group and because, unlike asshat Microsoft proprietary restriction-ware, Linux is encouraged to be freely copied and shared, you can receive a wealth of distros on CD or DVD from friends.
Go to ubuntu's website and ask them to send you 100 free ubuntu disks in the mail. They will mail them to you for free.
Desktop Linux is here, you're trolling for Microsoft, but Microsoft is a dying phenomenon. Bye, Microsoft.
Re:Where can I get the other operating systems?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 11:17 AM
Actually in many places you can't just walk into a store and find Linux there. I live in Canada and I've been around several parts of this country and I can tell you that I've only seen two stores that carried copies of Linux, both stores were still trying to sell old version of distributions they had purchased experimentally to test the market (Mandrake 8.2 in one case, SUSE 7.3 in the other).
In the United States I heard there are more stores carrying copies of Linux, but unfortunately it has yet to make such inroads in Canada.
In the United States I heard there are more stores carrying copies of Linux, but unfortunately it has yet to make such inroads in Canada.
Re:Where can I get the other operating systems?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 04:59 AM
I understand that you might find computers challenging. When it comes right down to it, they really are extraordinarily complex products, and pretending they're not can only lead to trouble.
What you can do about this as a consumer? The easiest route is to just buy a computer with Linux preinstalled. Talk to Dell or one of the many other system integrators who sell fully preinstalled systems.
The time eventually comes when you want to reinstall or upgrade the system. Whatever operating system you use, that's going to put you onto a steep learning curve, because the inherent complexity of your system will be exposed to you. But there is no problem in getting whatever operating system you want. Just call around to your local computer store to see what selection of software they have. If they're any good at all, they'll have a selection of Linux distributions and BSD too, even Microsoft Windows, though it will be a lot more expensive and just as hard to install. But fortunately, you have a choice.
What you can do about this as a consumer? The easiest route is to just buy a computer with Linux preinstalled. Talk to Dell or one of the many other system integrators who sell fully preinstalled systems.
The time eventually comes when you want to reinstall or upgrade the system. Whatever operating system you use, that's going to put you onto a steep learning curve, because the inherent complexity of your system will be exposed to you. But there is no problem in getting whatever operating system you want. Just call around to your local computer store to see what selection of software they have. If they're any good at all, they'll have a selection of Linux distributions and BSD too, even Microsoft Windows, though it will be a lot more expensive and just as hard to install. But fortunately, you have a choice.
This article is right up there with the best "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" offerings.
It shows up Linux to be perfect, and shows problems with Windows - just like the articles usually find Windows to be perfect but have problems with Linux.
It's clear from the responses of the Windows 'Zealots' that they don't like their operating system shown in a bad light any more than we do.
Perhaps you could write an article on how Microsoft is getting out of hand, and that this has been made obvious from the childish and venomous posts that members of its 'community' make?
It shows up Linux to be perfect, and shows problems with Windows - just like the articles usually find Windows to be perfect but have problems with Linux.
It's clear from the responses of the Windows 'Zealots' that they don't like their operating system shown in a bad light any more than we do.
Perhaps you could write an article on how Microsoft is getting out of hand, and that this has been made obvious from the childish and venomous posts that members of its 'community' make?
> Perhaps you could write an article on how Microsoft is getting out of hand, and that this has been made obvious from the childish and venomous posts that members of its 'community' make?
I second that, Rob.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
You can start with the ever-so-insightful post right after OwlWhacker's parent post.
And don't forget to say that you received theatening e-mail, and that NewForge was subjected to a denial-of-service attack. After all, no one can prove otherwise.
Other things you can include:
- You can tell us what Windows users would admit to, if only they were thinking rationally.
- You can tell us about the "close friends" you have in the Windows world, and the truths they reveal to you.
- You can talk about how Windows zealots treat Windows as a religion, while Linux users just want to use what works. Don't forget to mention how the zealots take part in tithing contracts, and other payments of tribute to the Elders of Redmond.
- You can question how it is possible for anyone, other than Microsoft, to make money, by basing their Business Model on Windows.
- You can talk about the "future version of Linux" that is going to blow Windows out of the water.
Wow. I never realized how much fun FUD can be.
Actually, scratch that last bit. I'd feel really scummy if I had to lie for a living.
But, parody? Yeah, that's fun.
I second that, Rob.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
You can start with the ever-so-insightful post right after OwlWhacker's parent post.
And don't forget to say that you received theatening e-mail, and that NewForge was subjected to a denial-of-service attack. After all, no one can prove otherwise.
Other things you can include:
- You can tell us what Windows users would admit to, if only they were thinking rationally.
- You can tell us about the "close friends" you have in the Windows world, and the truths they reveal to you.
- You can talk about how Windows zealots treat Windows as a religion, while Linux users just want to use what works. Don't forget to mention how the zealots take part in tithing contracts, and other payments of tribute to the Elders of Redmond.
- You can question how it is possible for anyone, other than Microsoft, to make money, by basing their Business Model on Windows.
- You can talk about the "future version of Linux" that is going to blow Windows out of the water.
Wow. I never realized how much fun FUD can be.
Actually, scratch that last bit. I'd feel really scummy if I had to lie for a living.
But, parody? Yeah, that's fun.
Since you didn't give any antecedent to disambiguate what you mean by "this guy", I'll assume it means you.
You don't have to assume it. He was so kind as to provide us with a proof.
You know, Linux and the other associated parts that make it a complete OS are alright and all, but I personally prefer any of the BSD's (especially netBSD) to Linux hands down.
As for usability, I use Windows and Macs and Linux boxes DAILY at my workpace and I hate to say it, but in order from 1-3 in terms of usability, it definitely goes:
1) Mac
2) Windows
3) Linux
and I have been using un*x, Macs and Windows boxes for at least 15 years now. Linux is simply NOT ready for the desktop of regular mom & pop users, which is the REAL taget audience of selling computers, not us "geeks".
"The GIMP" is exactly that when compared to Adobe Photoshop, a gimp. It is not nearly as easy to use. Open office, while a fine product, doesn't support 50% of the spreadsheets, word docs, etc. that I get emailed to me daily correctly. Firefox/Thunderbid, rock the house and I use them exclusively on both my un*x and Windows boxes (I use Safari on the Mac).
When it comes to security, un*x and Mac win hands down. Even with Norton AV, a firewall, and 4 seperate spyware apps on my Windows XP Professional box, I STILL get spyware on my computer on a pretty regular basis. This is not so with Linux/BSD and Mac.
When I reccomend a system to nay user that walks into my shop, I reccomend a MacOS X system every time, and I reccomend it for the following reasons:
1) The software that people are most likely to use (Quicken, Web Browser, email, Microsoft Office) are all available on the Mac just as they are on Windows, but not on Linux/BSD, and there are no known viruses for the Mac.
2) Most People are not Gamers per se, so they don't need to have Windows (which most games are made for). If you want games, it is better to purcahse a console (PS2/XBOX/Nintendo) anyway
3) Though Linux/BSd are great Operating systems, and I love BSD (I don't love linux, but I do like it sorry), they simply are not easy enough to use for the average Joe user. Even installing Linux on my PC at work was not as easy as it should have been. Things didn't "just work" like they do with the Mac and even with Windows (but to a lesser degree).
Users should not have to worry about configuring services, xf86Config and the like, or if they do, the configuration apps should be smart enough to probe things like the monitor to get the correct geometry, and referesh rates, etc.
As I stated before I use Linux and BSD a lot, I am not unfamiliar with any aspect of either OS, but they are simply NOT ready for the desktop of Joe User at this time.
As for usability, I use Windows and Macs and Linux boxes DAILY at my workpace and I hate to say it, but in order from 1-3 in terms of usability, it definitely goes:
1) Mac
2) Windows
3) Linux
and I have been using un*x, Macs and Windows boxes for at least 15 years now. Linux is simply NOT ready for the desktop of regular mom & pop users, which is the REAL taget audience of selling computers, not us "geeks".
"The GIMP" is exactly that when compared to Adobe Photoshop, a gimp. It is not nearly as easy to use. Open office, while a fine product, doesn't support 50% of the spreadsheets, word docs, etc. that I get emailed to me daily correctly. Firefox/Thunderbid, rock the house and I use them exclusively on both my un*x and Windows boxes (I use Safari on the Mac).
When it comes to security, un*x and Mac win hands down. Even with Norton AV, a firewall, and 4 seperate spyware apps on my Windows XP Professional box, I STILL get spyware on my computer on a pretty regular basis. This is not so with Linux/BSD and Mac.
When I reccomend a system to nay user that walks into my shop, I reccomend a MacOS X system every time, and I reccomend it for the following reasons:
1) The software that people are most likely to use (Quicken, Web Browser, email, Microsoft Office) are all available on the Mac just as they are on Windows, but not on Linux/BSD, and there are no known viruses for the Mac.
2) Most People are not Gamers per se, so they don't need to have Windows (which most games are made for). If you want games, it is better to purcahse a console (PS2/XBOX/Nintendo) anyway
3) Though Linux/BSd are great Operating systems, and I love BSD (I don't love linux, but I do like it sorry), they simply are not easy enough to use for the average Joe user. Even installing Linux on my PC at work was not as easy as it should have been. Things didn't "just work" like they do with the Mac and even with Windows (but to a lesser degree).
Users should not have to worry about configuring services, xf86Config and the like, or if they do, the configuration apps should be smart enough to probe things like the monitor to get the correct geometry, and referesh rates, etc.
As I stated before I use Linux and BSD a lot, I am not unfamiliar with any aspect of either OS, but they are simply NOT ready for the desktop of Joe User at this time.
Joe User. Perhaps Joe User is not too smart, or maybe is smarter than we give him credit for. But when I look around at High School curricula and even College curricula, I see Microsoft being shoved down the students throats. In high schools, so called computer science classes end up being learning how to operate Microsoft Office. So why do we pay tax dollars to promote Microsoft in the schools? I compare it to pushing Coco Cola in the schools so that they can get a rebate for signing an exclusive contract, when soda has no place in the school and promotes tooth decay and obesity.
I say let them learn on Linux, get the software for free and teach the students some aspects of operating systems and computer languages.
For people who only surf the web, use email and write some letters, Linux is just as intuitive as Windows. For people who want to be hassle free, want a smooth computing experience and can afford it, Mac is probably the way to go.
I say let them learn on Linux, get the software for free and teach the students some aspects of operating systems and computer languages.
For people who only surf the web, use email and write some letters, Linux is just as intuitive as Windows. For people who want to be hassle free, want a smooth computing experience and can afford it, Mac is probably the way to go.
As a student I agree with a lot of what you've said.
I got to a catholic high school and I was very irritated when I finally had to relent and purchase a copy of Microsoft Office to do my projects. I'm a Linux user and I believe the choice of operating systems should be in the hands of each student, not dictated by a board of education that wants to pass down its microsoft-only brainwashing.
I have to use MS Visual Studio for computer science, fortunately that was licensed by the school board so I got it for free. Microsoft Office wasn't free or cheap though, and neither was Windows XP.
It seems dumb to me that we are supposed to be learning "Java" in computer science and yet we are using J#.net which is inconsistent with Java itself. If we were using real Java I could get the appropriate compiler for any platform and still take my work back to school and run it on any platform with a JRE.
I have openly objected to being forced to use Microsoft products at school but no one cares; its an unforunate fact that everyone else has already been brainwashed and doesn't see why anyone would use anything but Windows or why they would have trouble paying the bloated and uncecessary cost for something like Microsoft Office. I used to use OpenOffice.org but the stuff we were doing in school was just picky enough to come across too many incompatibilities between OO.o and MS Office, my only choices were Microsoft Office or low grades since the computers in the school library are always taken.
I got to a catholic high school and I was very irritated when I finally had to relent and purchase a copy of Microsoft Office to do my projects. I'm a Linux user and I believe the choice of operating systems should be in the hands of each student, not dictated by a board of education that wants to pass down its microsoft-only brainwashing.
I have to use MS Visual Studio for computer science, fortunately that was licensed by the school board so I got it for free. Microsoft Office wasn't free or cheap though, and neither was Windows XP.
It seems dumb to me that we are supposed to be learning "Java" in computer science and yet we are using J#.net which is inconsistent with Java itself. If we were using real Java I could get the appropriate compiler for any platform and still take my work back to school and run it on any platform with a JRE.
I have openly objected to being forced to use Microsoft products at school but no one cares; its an unforunate fact that everyone else has already been brainwashed and doesn't see why anyone would use anything but Windows or why they would have trouble paying the bloated and uncecessary cost for something like Microsoft Office. I used to use OpenOffice.org but the stuff we were doing in school was just picky enough to come across too many incompatibilities between OO.o and MS Office, my only choices were Microsoft Office or low grades since the computers in the school library are always taken.
I run a mixed environment: XP Home and Mepis Linux. Yesterday my network went down briefly. My Linux boxes were back on line quickly (ifup ath0) but I STILL can't get my XP box to reconnect to the network. It's not the hardware--I dual boot and the Fedora wireless connection connects but NOT XP.
Totally exasperating...
Totally exasperating...
sounds like your XP box went to auto IP addressing i.e. 169.XXX.XXX.XXX. Sometimes it is a bitch to get it to let go.
i think that we love linux because its free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... its as simple as that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i do feel something special working on an operating system which was written from top to bottom ( ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... most of it) by volunteers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and i am still amazed by the fact that the worlds fastest super clusters like nasa or ibm are powered by this free operating system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
having said that i should say that the name of microsoft provokes very few strong emotional reactions with me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... windows 95/98 were as unstable as the linux zealots claim microsoft products to be in general<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since windows 2k came to the market though microsoft products greatly improved in all respects and many of their server products are very good too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
the question i am asking is why so many linux enthusiasts are wasting their time on trying to hypnotize themselves and their linux boxes ???? linux on the desktop is streets behind windows xp in terms of usuability<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... probably we can improve this ugly situation but this only on condition that we ll have serious and open discussion about this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
but if we keep going this way it will never happen or it will be done by SUSE and other commercial companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... linux is not usable for an average home user<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in the corporate environment its not that important since big companies can standardise on their desktop hardware and software and thats why here we do have some companies experimenting with linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
but the home desktop market is out of reach for linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. an average user there is uncapable of configuring and reconfiguring linux without assisstance and thats the point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there are reasons why linux on desktop does nt have the same success as linux on server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... conspiracy theories are great and entertaining but they provide one with very few clues as to what should be done to get the thing done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
so why really people write these self decieving articles or indulge in such pathalogicaly sick forms of wishfull thinking ???? why not to discuss things in the open and honest manner ????
oskar
having said that i should say that the name of microsoft provokes very few strong emotional reactions with me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... windows 95/98 were as unstable as the linux zealots claim microsoft products to be in general<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since windows 2k came to the market though microsoft products greatly improved in all respects and many of their server products are very good too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
the question i am asking is why so many linux enthusiasts are wasting their time on trying to hypnotize themselves and their linux boxes ???? linux on the desktop is streets behind windows xp in terms of usuability<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... probably we can improve this ugly situation but this only on condition that we ll have serious and open discussion about this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
but if we keep going this way it will never happen or it will be done by SUSE and other commercial companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... linux is not usable for an average home user<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in the corporate environment its not that important since big companies can standardise on their desktop hardware and software and thats why here we do have some companies experimenting with linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
but the home desktop market is out of reach for linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. an average user there is uncapable of configuring and reconfiguring linux without assisstance and thats the point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there are reasons why linux on desktop does nt have the same success as linux on server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... conspiracy theories are great and entertaining but they provide one with very few clues as to what should be done to get the thing done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
so why really people write these self decieving articles or indulge in such pathalogicaly sick forms of wishfull thinking ???? why not to discuss things in the open and honest manner ????
oskar
2 reasons, and BTW this is a humor post, not ment to take seriously. Most of us are sick of the tit for tat as well. This is just poking fun @ the 'my o/s is better then your o/s' media.
Microsoft's 'Get the Facts'
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/fact<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /default.mspx</a microsoft.com>
Novel's 'Unbending the Truth'
<a href="http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/" title="novell.com">http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/</a novell.com>
Microsoft's 'Get the Facts'
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/fact<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> /default.mspx</a microsoft.com>
Novel's 'Unbending the Truth'
<a href="http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/" title="novell.com">http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/</a novell.com>
Back about Redhat 7.0, I had trouble with video drivers and network configuration. Since about Suse 8.0 I have had very few problems. Hardware is recognized and I am up and running in an hour to an hour and a half. Oh, that includes Open Office, and a bunch of other software that I would have to install separately on Windows ( and pay dearly for.)
The one thing I miss in Linux that I use at work is a really good RAD development tool like Delphi. Notice I didn't say Visual Basic. Borland took a little stab at it with Kylix and then gave up. Probably because Microsoft hired away their leading programmers.
Those are the technical aspects I have experienced with Windows and Linux.
The other thing is that I hate being ripped off by companies sucha as Microsoft. Do you think that Bill Gates made 45 billion dollars or whatever the figure is now by charging a fair price?
The one thing I miss in Linux that I use at work is a really good RAD development tool like Delphi. Notice I didn't say Visual Basic. Borland took a little stab at it with Kylix and then gave up. Probably because Microsoft hired away their leading programmers.
Those are the technical aspects I have experienced with Windows and Linux.
The other thing is that I hate being ripped off by companies sucha as Microsoft. Do you think that Bill Gates made 45 billion dollars or whatever the figure is now by charging a fair price?
What's an Operating System again?
Ah, yea, it's this little help app that starts emacs, right?
Ah, yea, it's this little help app that starts emacs, right?
I have to agree with the author. I have a nice new machine with SATA drives in it. I added a DVD burner. There was firmware upgrade for the burner. The upgrade tool was Windows only. Simple enough. Install the copy of Win2k I have sitting around, since the machine is still just a vanilla Debian install with no real data on it. No problem. However, Win2K won 't recognize that I actually have hard drives. No way to install without hard drives. Maybe XP would have figured it out, but I wasn't going to shell out $200 on a maybe. Instead, I had to go digging for an old PATA EIDE drive to do the install on.
Issue number 2: I have a nice Sony camcorder. It hooks up via firewire. Plug it into a friend's Win 98 box....BSOD, even though the book said it should work. Ok, visit someone else, plug into Win XP. It works ok, but as it states in the book that came with it, no remote control. I actually have to hit the buttons on the camcorder. This makes extra slack on the ends that I need to trim off. Plug it into my Linux box: It works perfectly including the remote controls, all via Kino.
Issue number 2: I have a nice Sony camcorder. It hooks up via firewire. Plug it into a friend's Win 98 box....BSOD, even though the book said it should work. Ok, visit someone else, plug into Win XP. It works ok, but as it states in the book that came with it, no remote control. I actually have to hit the buttons on the camcorder. This makes extra slack on the ends that I need to trim off. Plug it into my Linux box: It works perfectly including the remote controls, all via Kino.
Compare XP with a linux distro of the SAME AGE!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 09:07 PM
First of all Roblimo has commited several mistakes,
1. He is comapring winxp which is several YEARS old and is trying to compare its hardware support with the latest linux distribution running the latst kernel-2.6.11.patchlevel-326.73 etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The point is if you want to compare XP's hardware support then CHOOSE A LINUX DISTRIBUTION RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME AS XP, NOT THE LATEST linux distro.
Windows xp professional was released in 25 October 2001, is it FOUR YEARS OLD. So compared it to a linux distribution which is 4 years old and see.
You can see that even still, ie 4 years since XP's release date still linux is trying to catch up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Go on Roblimo, dig out a linux distribution which is 4 years old and run it on your machine and tell me about its hardware detection.....:P
Its pathetic to think that no other uber geek running linux was able to find out the flaw of this guys testing, despite their supposedly high IQ which gives the superiority over us windows lovers, and which is also supposed to help them compile a whole distro from source over 5 days and then sit back and say.."That was easier than installing windows!!!"
The final nail in the "linux is easier to install than windows" crowd would be when microsoft releases the much anticipated (and feared by the OSS clowns) Longhorn!
1. He is comapring winxp which is several YEARS old and is trying to compare its hardware support with the latest linux distribution running the latst kernel-2.6.11.patchlevel-326.73 etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The point is if you want to compare XP's hardware support then CHOOSE A LINUX DISTRIBUTION RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME AS XP, NOT THE LATEST linux distro.
Windows xp professional was released in 25 October 2001, is it FOUR YEARS OLD. So compared it to a linux distribution which is 4 years old and see.
You can see that even still, ie 4 years since XP's release date still linux is trying to catch up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Go on Roblimo, dig out a linux distribution which is 4 years old and run it on your machine and tell me about its hardware detection.....:P
Its pathetic to think that no other uber geek running linux was able to find out the flaw of this guys testing, despite their supposedly high IQ which gives the superiority over us windows lovers, and which is also supposed to help them compile a whole distro from source over 5 days and then sit back and say.."That was easier than installing windows!!!"
The final nail in the "linux is easier to install than windows" crowd would be when microsoft releases the much anticipated (and feared by the OSS clowns) Longhorn!
Re:Compare XP with a linux distro of the SAME AGE!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 09:56 PM
Funny you should mention that. I have the latest from Microsoft, XP Pro 64 bit, and it won't boot on a computer that does boot 2 versions of 64 bit Linux and 64 bit FreeBSD. Darn shame.
Re:Compare XP with a linux distro of the SAME AGE!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 11:54 PM
The 4-year-old distro reasoning is (mostly) fallacious. Just the same as you would probably update to SP2 imediatly after installing windows, I'd update my distro with all patches and updates available. Difference? None. Result? I'm using today's distro. Conclusion? Might as well download today's distro to begin with, and not bother patching. Just like you could use WinXP with SP2 pre-installed.But that wouldn't have made you update almost ALL programs in your computer.
Also, note that the testbed hardware is not brand-spanking new stuff, and would've come pre-loaded with Windows and all working from scratch in "ordinary" conditions. Roblimo went and got himself a copy of XP, just the same as you would get a copy of linux if you were to try it out. He got the most recent one available, just the same as I assume you would. He noted the trouble he had, just the same as you would have.
Oh, and most linux users I know don't really go for the "I use linux so I'm smarter than you" thing. So don't tag us like that. And we're talking about distributions proper, not Linux From Scratch. Most users don't really go for that sort of extreme customization.
Try Ubuntu (or any other Debian-based distro) one of these days. Try simply opening a small application (which is in the administration menu, and is not some obscure command) and select what program you want from a list. Click it, mark it as desired, and just watch the program select all other programs it requires to run, download the whole set, and install. No asking for where to install, no asking for nothing. Just click, and install.
Incidentally, how is Excel or Powerpoint any more explicit a name than apt-get? At least Synaptic is identified as Synaptic Package Manager in the menus. People just assume you know Excel is a spreadsheet. Being used to something doesn't really mean that something is intuitive
Also, note that the testbed hardware is not brand-spanking new stuff, and would've come pre-loaded with Windows and all working from scratch in "ordinary" conditions. Roblimo went and got himself a copy of XP, just the same as you would get a copy of linux if you were to try it out. He got the most recent one available, just the same as I assume you would. He noted the trouble he had, just the same as you would have.
Oh, and most linux users I know don't really go for the "I use linux so I'm smarter than you" thing. So don't tag us like that. And we're talking about distributions proper, not Linux From Scratch. Most users don't really go for that sort of extreme customization.
Try Ubuntu (or any other Debian-based distro) one of these days. Try simply opening a small application (which is in the administration menu, and is not some obscure command) and select what program you want from a list. Click it, mark it as desired, and just watch the program select all other programs it requires to run, download the whole set, and install. No asking for where to install, no asking for nothing. Just click, and install.
Incidentally, how is Excel or Powerpoint any more explicit a name than apt-get? At least Synaptic is identified as Synaptic Package Manager in the menus. People just assume you know Excel is a spreadsheet. Being used to something doesn't really mean that something is intuitive
Look, if I go in a store and buy WinXP, the four-year old version is the one I would receive!
That makes it the most recent one.
Sure, a pre-installed WinXP comes with oodles of updates, loads of gratis SW etc, etc, but that is not the point of the article.
Its premise is to have an exerienced Linux user look at WinXP. Of course, such a person will not see the shortcomings of his platform any more than a life-long Windows user would, but will be quick to point out the flaws in other OSs (...a bit like all those articles by Windows users on their first experience with Linux) That is the point of the article!
The reactions to this also clearly show the venom with which Windows fanboys react when 'their' OS is presented in a bad light, mirroring the often-mentioned-in-commercial-press Linux zealotry which occurs when clueless Windows 'journalists' do the same tests from their POV
To point out the problem with your proposal, think of this: I suppose you think that MS-DOS is vastly superior to WinXP since the only fair comparison test would be to buy both products in the state they were when the oldest was released. There you have it: DOS vastly superior to WinXP by default!
That makes it the most recent one.
Sure, a pre-installed WinXP comes with oodles of updates, loads of gratis SW etc, etc, but that is not the point of the article.
Its premise is to have an exerienced Linux user look at WinXP. Of course, such a person will not see the shortcomings of his platform any more than a life-long Windows user would, but will be quick to point out the flaws in other OSs (...a bit like all those articles by Windows users on their first experience with Linux) That is the point of the article!
The reactions to this also clearly show the venom with which Windows fanboys react when 'their' OS is presented in a bad light, mirroring the often-mentioned-in-commercial-press Linux zealotry which occurs when clueless Windows 'journalists' do the same tests from their POV
To point out the problem with your proposal, think of this: I suppose you think that MS-DOS is vastly superior to WinXP since the only fair comparison test would be to buy both products in the state they were when the oldest was released. There you have it: DOS vastly superior to WinXP by default!
Fool, all you have to understand is that the point i was making is that he is using a old version of windows 4 years to test out hardware.
Anyway hardware support under windows is allways easier than linux, all you have to do is to insert the disk/download the drivers for that hardware and you are set to roll in windows.
Let me make this point, ALL HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS WHO DESIGN FOR X86 machines have a hardware driver for windows, otherwise they will run out of buisiness.
I wish i could say the same about linux, there are thousands of TV CARDS, scanners, printers not supported under linux. So there. Go on you linux users, be a good boy and run back to compiling your kernel modules and searching google for drivers to support your latest hardware, yes good boy.
Anyway hardware support under windows is allways easier than linux, all you have to do is to insert the disk/download the drivers for that hardware and you are set to roll in windows.
Let me make this point, ALL HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS WHO DESIGN FOR X86 machines have a hardware driver for windows, otherwise they will run out of buisiness.
I wish i could say the same about linux, there are thousands of TV CARDS, scanners, printers not supported under linux. So there. Go on you linux users, be a good boy and run back to compiling your kernel modules and searching google for drivers to support your latest hardware, yes good boy.
So the fact that Microsoft can't cobble together a new version that works in almost four years is somehow Linux's fault?
Maybe they should install Linux on more boxes inside Microsoft. The ones they have are probably the only ones they can get any work done on.
Yes, you heard me right, MORE boxes, not SOME boxes. Microsoft uses Linux in some parts of the organization. Just search "Microsoft uses Linux" in Google.
Maybe they should install Linux on more boxes inside Microsoft. The ones they have are probably the only ones they can get any work done on.
Yes, you heard me right, MORE boxes, not SOME boxes. Microsoft uses Linux in some parts of the organization. Just search "Microsoft uses Linux" in Google.
Why should I compare software based on the day it was released? I want to compare software that is currently available.
Re:Compare XP with a linux distro of the SAME AGE!
Posted by: paranoidgeek on July 26, 2005 10:03 AM
a) This compares the best from MS and the best from the OSS world. So he bought the computer ( with Linux ) then went to look at what he would have if he bought a MS product from the store to replace the Linux software.
b) Longhorn ( now Vista ) is feared ? I think after ME, 2k and XP all failed to provide what Linux has and has had for a long time this isnt going to make much of an impact. All Longhorn is going to provide is more Windows and more Microsoft. Including DRM etc......
b) Longhorn ( now Vista ) is feared ? I think after ME, 2k and XP all failed to provide what Linux has and has had for a long time this isnt going to make much of an impact. All Longhorn is going to provide is more Windows and more Microsoft. Including DRM etc......
As Ben Franklin is quoted as saying "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
My computer, my OS, my freedom, my choice.
Free as in freedom. I will not be dictated too.
My computer, my OS, my freedom, my choice.
Free as in freedom. I will not be dictated too.
Nice quote, but totally irrelevant. Windows isn't about 'safety' it's about convenience.
Windows is about convenience!?!?!?
Ha hah hahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!
That is the funniest thing I have read in years. Let's see:
1. Proprietary, can't be copied or shared? Check.
2. No source code provided? Check
3. Product Activation? Check.
4. Phoning home to the mega-corporation? Check
5. Expensive? Check
6. More virus-laden and insecure than Linux? Check.
7. Clippy the annoying little get-out-of-my-face-you're-ruining-my-computer-exp<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> rience paperclip? Check.
8. Crashing, less stable OS? Check.
9. Microsoft programs that annoyingly try to anticipate your desires and replace what you're doing with what the mega corporation thinks you're trying to do? (e.g. start typing a numbered list in Microsoft Word, and it annoyingly starts treating it as an outline, whether you wanted it to or not)? Check
10. DRM? Check.
Yep, Windows shure is convenient, eh, fan boy? Not!
Ha hah hahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!
That is the funniest thing I have read in years. Let's see:
1. Proprietary, can't be copied or shared? Check.
2. No source code provided? Check
3. Product Activation? Check.
4. Phoning home to the mega-corporation? Check
5. Expensive? Check
6. More virus-laden and insecure than Linux? Check.
7. Clippy the annoying little get-out-of-my-face-you're-ruining-my-computer-exp<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> rience paperclip? Check.
8. Crashing, less stable OS? Check.
9. Microsoft programs that annoyingly try to anticipate your desires and replace what you're doing with what the mega corporation thinks you're trying to do? (e.g. start typing a numbered list in Microsoft Word, and it annoyingly starts treating it as an outline, whether you wanted it to or not)? Check
10. DRM? Check.
Yep, Windows shure is convenient, eh, fan boy? Not!
I like satire too but sarcasm is better. Here's some for you:
Linux is so great for the desktop that it takes almost 5 times as long to boot into it (WinXP takes about 30 seconds, Linux...3 minutes, on the same machine).
Linux is so useable that until recently, on most distributions you couldn't even re-configure the desktop resolution without going into some archane config file. In WinXP it takes 3 clicks.
Linux is so user friendly that you have to remember all sorts of little "command" words like "apt-get" or "yum" (words that really don't sound like they have anything to do with anything) just to get something done. On XP, almost everything is visually represented so normal people can use it.
Yeah, you're right. Linux is way more useable than Windows XP.
Linux is so great for the desktop that it takes almost 5 times as long to boot into it (WinXP takes about 30 seconds, Linux...3 minutes, on the same machine).
Linux is so useable that until recently, on most distributions you couldn't even re-configure the desktop resolution without going into some archane config file. In WinXP it takes 3 clicks.
Linux is so user friendly that you have to remember all sorts of little "command" words like "apt-get" or "yum" (words that really don't sound like they have anything to do with anything) just to get something done. On XP, almost everything is visually represented so normal people can use it.
Yeah, you're right. Linux is way more useable than Windows XP.
Nice try, but:
1. my Debian boots 12 seconds (on x years old Celeron 700)
2. Ctrl+Alt+[+/-] - even faster than 3 clicks
3. I have a shortcut to Synaptic Package Manager on my desktop
Yeah, for me is Linux way more useable than any Windows.
1. my Debian boots 12 seconds (on x years old Celeron 700)
2. Ctrl+Alt+[+/-] - even faster than 3 clicks
3. I have a shortcut to Synaptic Package Manager on my desktop
Yeah, for me is Linux way more useable than any Windows.
Point one:
Yup, Login screen in 30 seconds, and then you have to wait another 2:30 minutes for everything to start in the background before you can actually work on the bugger... (my own experiece. I suppose yours is different)
Point two
"...until recently" Who the hell cares about a status that existed until recently when you are looking at that status today (until recently, John-Paul II was alive. Fat lot of good that does him today...)
Point three
WinXP also has those 'command' words.: EXCEL.EXE, POWERPNT.EXE ARP.EXE(words that really don't sound like they have anything to do with anything)
On linux, almost everything is also visually represented
Yup, Login screen in 30 seconds, and then you have to wait another 2:30 minutes for everything to start in the background before you can actually work on the bugger... (my own experiece. I suppose yours is different)
Point two
"...until recently" Who the hell cares about a status that existed until recently when you are looking at that status today (until recently, John-Paul II was alive. Fat lot of good that does him today...)
Point three
WinXP also has those 'command' words.: EXCEL.EXE, POWERPNT.EXE ARP.EXE(words that really don't sound like they have anything to do with anything)
On linux, almost everything is also visually represented
I got myself a new Acer Aspire T140 a few months back (nice Athlon 64 box) and decided to wipe the hard disk (came with XP Home) and install Fedora Core 3 64-bit and XP Pro 32-bit (and created a few other spare partitions for other Linux distros).
Fedora Core 3 64-bit went on like a dream - recognised everything (even the TV card !) and was spot on. Yes, I ended up with 2D-only graphics drivers for the ATI X300, but the livna repository fixed that (but I could have stayed at 2D with 1280x1024x16 if I wanted).
XP Pro 32-bit (yes, I tried XP Pro 64-bit, but it was only a release candidate and was threatening "product activation" in a couple of weeks, so I deleted it) was a nightmare. It installed the OS fine enough, but then I found that it didn't recognise either the sound device or, even worse, the network chip that's onboard the nForce 4 motherboard on the T140! I even installed XP Service Pack 2 that I'd luckily burned to CD a while back (yep, how do you get it if your network doesn't work?) and *even that* didn't recognise the sound or network devices. Also, resolution seemed to be limited to 800x600. I was utterly staggered to be honest - it was also terrible that Windows insist that the first partition on your drive is Windows...in this day and age of multi-boot PCs, that's disgraceful.
So I then booted back into FC3, Googled around and found that I needed the "standalone" Nvidia NForce drivers from www.nvidia.com (if I was a newbie, I'd have had a tough job even knowing that the MB was actually an NForce 4, because Acer have put their name all over it when you use tools to query the MB - it's the individual components that give it away). Once burned onto DVD in FC3 (k3b is such a doddle to use) and rebooted back into XP, installing the Nvidia drivers finally did the trick (though a good job I read up not to use the hardware firewall on the MB - apparently that gives you a load of problems).
Post-customising Windows is a nightmare - took me half a day to download all the stuff I'm accustomed to having in FC3 (a decent Web browser, an office suite, ssh/FTP tools, decent mail client etc. etc.). FC3 customisation took 30 mins and that was mostly trimming services and tweaking the desktop - only had to download a few things on top (Flash, Java and mplayer), but far less than for XP.
Conclusion - if you're using a modern PC and installing the OS from scratch, Linux is *far* superior to XP. The problem is, of course, is that almost all PCs come with XP pre-installed, so people never discover the nightmare of OS installation until their XP blows its brains out and needs a re-install, which could be a year or more down the line. It's only *then* that users either feel the re-install pain or ask one of their friends to do it because it probably is too hard for most XP users to do a re-install and actually get it right, especially on recent PCs and the awful restore CDs they give you.
Fedora Core 3 64-bit went on like a dream - recognised everything (even the TV card !) and was spot on. Yes, I ended up with 2D-only graphics drivers for the ATI X300, but the livna repository fixed that (but I could have stayed at 2D with 1280x1024x16 if I wanted).
XP Pro 32-bit (yes, I tried XP Pro 64-bit, but it was only a release candidate and was threatening "product activation" in a couple of weeks, so I deleted it) was a nightmare. It installed the OS fine enough, but then I found that it didn't recognise either the sound device or, even worse, the network chip that's onboard the nForce 4 motherboard on the T140! I even installed XP Service Pack 2 that I'd luckily burned to CD a while back (yep, how do you get it if your network doesn't work?) and *even that* didn't recognise the sound or network devices. Also, resolution seemed to be limited to 800x600. I was utterly staggered to be honest - it was also terrible that Windows insist that the first partition on your drive is Windows...in this day and age of multi-boot PCs, that's disgraceful.
So I then booted back into FC3, Googled around and found that I needed the "standalone" Nvidia NForce drivers from www.nvidia.com (if I was a newbie, I'd have had a tough job even knowing that the MB was actually an NForce 4, because Acer have put their name all over it when you use tools to query the MB - it's the individual components that give it away). Once burned onto DVD in FC3 (k3b is such a doddle to use) and rebooted back into XP, installing the Nvidia drivers finally did the trick (though a good job I read up not to use the hardware firewall on the MB - apparently that gives you a load of problems).
Post-customising Windows is a nightmare - took me half a day to download all the stuff I'm accustomed to having in FC3 (a decent Web browser, an office suite, ssh/FTP tools, decent mail client etc. etc.). FC3 customisation took 30 mins and that was mostly trimming services and tweaking the desktop - only had to download a few things on top (Flash, Java and mplayer), but far less than for XP.
Conclusion - if you're using a modern PC and installing the OS from scratch, Linux is *far* superior to XP. The problem is, of course, is that almost all PCs come with XP pre-installed, so people never discover the nightmare of OS installation until their XP blows its brains out and needs a re-install, which could be a year or more down the line. It's only *then* that users either feel the re-install pain or ask one of their friends to do it because it probably is too hard for most XP users to do a re-install and actually get it right, especially on recent PCs and the awful restore CDs they give you.
I realised that this thread was under the HUMOR thread!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p
But can someone tell me why linux distros are starting to look more and more XP like?
I just wish we can come to terms with the fact that some will like coke (the drink!) and some will like pepsi. Likewise, some will like Windows and some linux/X11/KDE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... note that I wrote linux/X11/KDE because linux by its very self does not include the GUI manifest right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
So, let's just leave it ok?
I used SimplyMepis and WindowsXP on dualboot for different applications.
But can someone tell me why linux distros are starting to look more and more XP like?
I just wish we can come to terms with the fact that some will like coke (the drink!) and some will like pepsi. Likewise, some will like Windows and some linux/X11/KDE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... note that I wrote linux/X11/KDE because linux by its very self does not include the GUI manifest right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
So, let's just leave it ok?
I used SimplyMepis and WindowsXP on dualboot for different applications.
Still has unfriendly UI widgets
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 02:38 AMstill requires much manual snoopervision (and the
associated dexterity) to keep the mouse-pointer
inside that itty-bitty narrow track.
A scrollbar-handle should understand its function
and know that "down is down", like friendlier
X-windows based widgets have for the last fifteen
years.
Until Microsoft can get user-friendly widget
behavior, it should not be considered for home
or non-specialist use.
#