- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Don't Get Me Wrong, Linux sucks as much as Windows
|
|
|
Comments (152)
Check out the comments.
114 earlier comments in the full thread.
"Straining at gnats and swallowing camels", for those who care, means making great big deals of out trivialities, and hand-waving large issues. Literally, it's straining to poop out a gnat but swallowing a camel with no problem. Which is a perfect summary of the FUD quality lately.
You know, in the other thread, where I referred to Claus and nicsmr as Microsoft shills, astroturfers and FUDmeisters and said I didn't mean borax_man. I've changed my mind. borax_man, you qualify in spades.
No matter how much "bleach, borax, and brighteners" are used Windows remains dingy.
No matter how much "bleach, borax, and brighteners" are used Windows remains dingy.
@borax_man
Then this:
Leave aside updates, even a full distribution upgrade for a debian box, including third-party software, from *one version to another* can be done while still working on it (yeah, there may be some rare cases where there is third-party software that is not in repos so needs manual updating but those are few that one can easily keep track of). If there is a dire need of some updated software not in repos and one does not want to do a full distribution upgrade, then mostly backports or ubuntu ppas or openSuSE build service, for example does it. Otherwise one can choose a distribution that has a rolling update policy. So there is full flexibility and one can make an informed decision as per requirements (hint, think lock-in etc for the other OS). In any case, the point of not providing the latest and greatest in an old distribution is precisely that the software be well tested and work with *that* version of OS, unlike in Windows where things merrily break in a way that user has to reinstall the whole OS in many cases.
So by all standards most linux distributions are far better engineered than Windows. In fact, the engineering of Windows is crude and primitive at best and shows no signs of improvement.
Regarding this:
So apart from vague assertions your points do not hold any water. If your claims are limited to desktop appearance etc, then sure there has been continuous progress in linux which is actually its strength. It is true that the desktop experience has undergone a sea change in past years on linux which is in keeping with the continuous progress that the platform has been seeing. In other words unless your assertions that linux computing experience changes dramatically are demonstrated with concrete examples, it is nothing more than hot air.
Again this:
Quoting: I didn't say Windows was perfect, and yes upgrades are problematic there too. However we are dealing with an upgrade every few years, and many people didn't even bother with Vista, or went back.Oh yeah, you have no basis to claim that Windows is "perfect" when by most metrics Linux is far ahead of Windows. XP SP2 was a necessary upgrade and it broke more things than I can remember. Vista would have been a necessary upgrade more than an year back, had it not been for the netbooks and the widespread dissatisfaction with the overall quality of Vista that forced MS to extend the support for XP. Most updated software *does not* work for anything less than XP SP2.
Then this:
Quoting: That is to say, there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software.is incorrect. MS does not support updates to most of its basic software for Win2K or XP < SP2 like IE7/8 or Windows Media player 11. Win2K is in extended support meaning only major security fixes (btw, on which MS has a shameful record to say the least). Same holds for most third-party software including anti-virus, etc which are considered basic for Windows, as also for MacOS where most updated software requires some version of OSX. Then again one should take note of the painful (and continuous) experience that updating all third party software is on Windows. First one needs to continuously keep track of all the third-party software that should be kept updated (or at least those which may have security or other serious vulnerabilities), then update them one by one and pray that everything works. In most cases following this drill leads to something or other breaking down completely. Most users don't bother with all of this (partly) leading to security and other nightmare that is WinOS.
Leave aside updates, even a full distribution upgrade for a debian box, including third-party software, from *one version to another* can be done while still working on it (yeah, there may be some rare cases where there is third-party software that is not in repos so needs manual updating but those are few that one can easily keep track of). If there is a dire need of some updated software not in repos and one does not want to do a full distribution upgrade, then mostly backports or ubuntu ppas or openSuSE build service, for example does it. Otherwise one can choose a distribution that has a rolling update policy. So there is full flexibility and one can make an informed decision as per requirements (hint, think lock-in etc for the other OS). In any case, the point of not providing the latest and greatest in an old distribution is precisely that the software be well tested and work with *that* version of OS, unlike in Windows where things merrily break in a way that user has to reinstall the whole OS in many cases.
So by all standards most linux distributions are far better engineered than Windows. In fact, the engineering of Windows is crude and primitive at best and shows no signs of improvement.
Regarding this:
Quoting: Show me acknowledgement from the Linux development community that people who adopt Linux and make that platform their own, and having set up software, hardware, downloaded it, learned how to use it, bought books etc are guaranteed to keep their computing environment as they have it, even after updates?the point is that there is no such legal guarantee in any OS platform whatsoever (MacOS->MacOSX, Windows 2000->XP->SP2->Vista etc), free or non-free. On the other hand an impartial analysis will show that from sysadmin point of view Linux and other UNIX flavours in general have been much more consistent than other platforms and most UNIX concepts of the 70s and 80s are still applicable. From API point of view there *is* some level of commitment that linux will stick to POSIX API which may undergo revisions in future but will provide backward compatibility to as much extent as possible. From both points of view there is absolutely no guarantee on either Windows or MacOS (latter may have some going forward having switched to BSDish API with OSX). Case in point that there is *absolutely no* standardization of the WinAPI (apart from consumer pressure on MS to keep the API consistent which was completely ignored in the Vista transition), not to mention the horrendous nightmare that is WinAPI.
So apart from vague assertions your points do not hold any water. If your claims are limited to desktop appearance etc, then sure there has been continuous progress in linux which is actually its strength. It is true that the desktop experience has undergone a sea change in past years on linux which is in keeping with the continuous progress that the platform has been seeing. In other words unless your assertions that linux computing experience changes dramatically are demonstrated with concrete examples, it is nothing more than hot air.
Again this:
Quoting: There is no documentation or anything written by the Linux community to say something to the effect of "we endeavour to provide a platform which will support your user requirements".is incorrect. A cursory look at the FSF goals will show that they state explicitly that their efforts are aimed at providing a free UNIX like operating system and so meets the requirements of users who require the capabilities of a modern UNIX OS. In any case such a vague statement like "user requirements" has little or no meaning in absence of quantification of the same. Neither does MS or Mac provide any such meaningless guarantee, so your point is way off the mark.
jdixon
It's actual cost is for many people, a minor consideration.
Depends on the app. A lot of software is written in house, for specific purposes. I've written such software. My company uses software in certain specialised areas where upgrades are no longer possible.
It is both desirable to be able to A) Upgrade apps without upgrading the OS, and B) upgrade the OS without having to upgrade the apps. Depending on the situation, you may need to do A or B. It's not contradictory and different situations meet different requirements. I was a co-admin of a very heterogenous IT system and ran into both scenario frequently.
My point is this. It doesn't matter how Linux is, if you are prepared to accept that an OS which follows certain models might only be adopted by certain people. What I don't understand is, why people are so keen to attack Windows users for their choice of OS, and call them incompetent, foolish, etc, yet at the same acknowledge that Linux is not designed for closed source apps? Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice? Is that what I'm to understand from what you've said? Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more?
Quoting: XP, yes. Not Windows 2000. Only a small percentage of companies still support Windows 2000.There is no contractual guarantee, but there is a history of compatibility. There is no 'guarantee' that the next Volvo make will be a safe, practical car, but its a good bet because the company caters to that market. Ferarri don't need to make sports cars, but I can bet the next one will be, despite there being no written evidence to that effect.
Show me where there's any such guarantee with Windows.
Quoting: However, if you insist, let's start with the most commonly used application on any desktop computing platform, text editing: vi and emacs.No one uses them where I work.
Quoting: Except that with the Linux distro's you're discussing, they didn't "buy" any software.There is nevertheless expenditure when you migrate. Even if the software is free. If I move into a free house, I'm still making some kind of commitment. This is where I'll be living, this will be the neighbourhood I'm living in, this will be where my kids will grow up. The fact that the house cost me nothing, doesn't remove the importance of these other considerations. Likewise, the OS might be free, but there is nevertheless, for those migrating, an analysis of the environment.
It's actual cost is for many people, a minor consideration.
Quoting:I dont think that pointing out a shortcoming with Windows, and saying that Linux shouldn't have to address that shortcoming is satisfactory. There are plenty of things Windows does wrong. There are plenty of things that MS does wrong. That doesn't mean its OK for Linux to do the same.
That's not true for Windows, and there's no reason it should be true for Linux.
Quoting: Again, there's no such documentation in Windows either. Because they don't and don't pretend to.Every company manages it's systems and manages change.
Quoting: Your believing it doesn't make it true, though it may make you delusional. In my experience neither users nor developers expect that. They expect to have to upgrade apps every few years. They expect interfaces to change. They may not like it, but they expect it.
Depends on the app. A lot of software is written in house, for specific purposes. I've written such software. My company uses software in certain specialised areas where upgrades are no longer possible.
Quoting: Yet you're arguing the exact opposite, that users should be able to use their old apps on current systems. As I've noted before, you folks seem to have trouble keeping your talking points straight.
It is both desirable to be able to A) Upgrade apps without upgrading the OS, and B) upgrade the OS without having to upgrade the apps. Depending on the situation, you may need to do A or B. It's not contradictory and different situations meet different requirements. I was a co-admin of a very heterogenous IT system and ran into both scenario frequently.
Quoting:We don't. We decide, based on your comments, that you're attacking Linux.A critique is not an attack.
Quoting: Except that the examples you've used aren't valid. Your point may be valid, but you appear to be incapable of supporting it.It shouldn't really matter whether the apps are closed source or not. Linux might have been desgined according to open source philosophy, but the development model the OS was designed with shouldn't influence strongly the development model that the software written for the OS.
It IS all those things: For open source applications. No, it's not all of those things for closed source applications; but neither is Windows.
However, It never seems to occur to you that Linux wasn't designed for closed source applications. Since to you that seems to be the be all and end all of an operating system, of course it's not suitable.
My point is this. It doesn't matter how Linux is, if you are prepared to accept that an OS which follows certain models might only be adopted by certain people. What I don't understand is, why people are so keen to attack Windows users for their choice of OS, and call them incompetent, foolish, etc, yet at the same acknowledge that Linux is not designed for closed source apps? Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice? Is that what I'm to understand from what you've said? Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more?
Linux isn't designed for closed source apps? Since when? You'd better let the people at Oracle know since they develop their closed source database software on Linux. Clearly they must be doing something wrong even if they are profitable and have the most popular database software in enterprise space. I remember when OpenOffice was only Star Office and was closed. Gee... that must have been a terrible mistake too. Need I go on? Tell me, what is it about Linux that makes closed source software development on the platform a problem? I don't acknowledge any such thing and I don't believe any such thing.
"Nobody at my work uses them" (the text editors) means that nobody counts except people in your workplace, I guess. Anywhere I've worked UNIX/Linux admins generally used one or the other.
Why are Windows users either incompetent or foolish? Hmmm... if they know about virii, worms, trojans, spyware, perennial insecurity, etc... and keep using the software anyway that seems pretty foolhardy to me.
Any software migration should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis before doing it. I submit that if many businesses seriously considered Linux and did such an analysis the benefits would exceed the costs very quickly for a lot of companies. Not all, to be sure, and not in all situations, but very frequently it would work out that way.
"Nobody at my work uses them" (the text editors) means that nobody counts except people in your workplace, I guess. Anywhere I've worked UNIX/Linux admins generally used one or the other.
Why are Windows users either incompetent or foolish? Hmmm... if they know about virii, worms, trojans, spyware, perennial insecurity, etc... and keep using the software anyway that seems pretty foolhardy to me.
Any software migration should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis before doing it. I submit that if many businesses seriously considered Linux and did such an analysis the benefits would exceed the costs very quickly for a lot of companies. Not all, to be sure, and not in all situations, but very frequently it would work out that way.
Netscape was originally closed, and was available for Linux in 1997 when I first tried it.
Word Perfect was available, also.
The Open Sound System (yeah, right) was closed-source, and that included kernel modules. nVidia, anyone?
Linux isn't designed for closed-source apps. Nor is it designed for open-source apps. It's designed for speed, stability, security, and the guarantee of freedom to do with it what you wish.
Word Perfect was available, also.
The Open Sound System (yeah, right) was closed-source, and that included kernel modules. nVidia, anyone?
Linux isn't designed for closed-source apps. Nor is it designed for open-source apps. It's designed for speed, stability, security, and the guarantee of freedom to do with it what you wish.
Here we go again with the "nobody is using Linux" premise which underlies so much of our current little trollingwave. We know otherwise, and so do they. It takes a special stubbornness, blindness, or paycheck to keep beating that drum. Good job not getting sucked in, Caitlyn.
But tuxchick, Boroax_Man can't be a troll or an astroturfer or a shill. I know this is so because he told me he isn't. I mean, just because everything he's written in this thread lately SCREAMS troll or astroturfer or shill doesn't mean it's so, does it?
@krisum
Upgrading all sorts of independently isntalled apps a pain? You bet it is, and the Linux system is easier, but there are caveats to that.
Now, MS does not do this any better, but market forces keep them in check, as mentioned before with Vista. They HAVE to listen because their company relies on it.
Free software does NOT rely on users. The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise?
Thats the point I'm trying to drive home. Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly. People who are migrating, especially businesses will love being able to have this information to plan ahead. The general user will like knowing whats in store for them later. People who develop the OS might like an open future where anything could happen, but users don't.
People don't like MS for this reason. But Linux could so easily trump MS in this regard.
What is the requirement of someone who uses a modern UNIX OS? If its just about requiring a UNIX OS, then people who don't need unix shouldn't bother with Linux? Then berating Windows users who dont need Unix for not switching to Linux is unjustified?
Why is there such resistance to this topic? It's not me who is 'defending' anything, but rather others who are under the false impression that something they hold dear is under attack.
To reiterate, my point is actually very simple A) MS, Apple already have locked in customers. They still have to succumb to their demands, and the customers know this. Windows users may not be happy with the arrangement, but they know the history of the product, and they can to a degree extrapolate.
B) Linux has practically no locked in customers. People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows, because they are 'entrenched' on that side and won't 'entrench' themselves on the Linux side.
C) In order to get most others to 'entrench' themselves in Linux, or at least consider Linux as the 'default' they always go back to, you need to offer a platform people will see as stable, with what seems to be, or is, a commitment to providing a satisfactory roadmap, development path, upgrade path, etc. Also it gives users a good period of time to consider the ramifications of an upgrade, and what it will involve. If you release every 6 months, it only gives the user 6 months to plan.
D) Just because Microsoft doesn't do it well, doesn't mean Linux cant do it better. This stuff matters to people and people will respond positively to a platform which elucidates as clearly as possible, its goals, the specifics of its future, the planned 'lifespan' of releases etc. Just saying 'a free OS' or 'a Unix like OS' is vague. Most of the 'goals' described by distros are generic and vague. Saying 'stable', 'moderm', 'up to date', 'innovative' and other generally positive but ambiguous statement don't define anything and just sound like every other platform.
Quoting: Oh yeah, you have no basis to claim that Windows is "perfect" when by most metrics Linux is far ahead of Windows. XP SP2 was a necessary upgrade and it broke more things than I can remember. Vista would have been a necessary upgrade more than an year back, had it not been for the netbooks and the widespread dissatisfaction with the overall quality of Vista that forced MS to extend the support for XP. Most updated software *does not* work for anything less than XP SP2.Which is still a patch for an old OS.
Quoting: is incorrect. MS does not support updates to most of its basic software for Win2K or XP < SP2 like IE7/8 or Windows Media player 11. Win2K is in extended support meaning only major security fixes (btw, on which MS has a shameful record to say the least). Same holds for most third-party software including anti-virus, etc which are considered basic for Windows, as also for MacOS where most updated software requires some version of OSX. Then again one should take note of the painful (and continuous) experience that updating all third party software is on Windows. First one needs to continuously keep track of all the third-party software that should be kept updated (or at least those which may have security or other serious vulnerabilities), then update them one by one and pray that everything works. In most cases following this drill leads to something or other breaking down completely. Most users don't bother with all of this (partly) leading to security and other nightmare that is WinOS.The Linux system of updating works only if you installed from a repository, and if your distro is pretty new, far newer than WinXP. I know, I know, MS shill, etc, blah blah, but thats the truth.
Upgrading all sorts of independently isntalled apps a pain? You bet it is, and the Linux system is easier, but there are caveats to that.
Quoting:Leave aside updates, even a full distribution upgrade for a debian box, including third-party software, from *one version to another* can be done while still working on it (yeah, there may be some rare cases where there is third-party software that is not in repos so needs manual updating but those are few that one can easily keep track of). If there is a dire need of some updated software not in repos and one does not want to do a full distribution upgrade, then mostly backports or ubuntu ppas or openSuSE build service, for example does it. Otherwise one can choose a distribution that has a rolling update policy. So there is full flexibility and one can make an informed decision as per requirements (hint, think lock-in etc for the other OS). In any case, the point of not providing the latest and greatest in an old distribution is precisely that the software be well tested and work with *that* version of OS, unlike in Windows where things merrily break in a way that user has to reinstall the whole OS in many cases.That might be true for Debian, but not other distros. Besides, not being able to work on the machine during an upgrade is hardly an issue. I dont use my computer 24/7, so downtime is perfectly fine. I agree with Linux installations lasting longer than Windows, and Windows starting to die after ad hoc upgrades. I actually have a Red Hat 7.3 box I still run, but managed to install (had to recompile) the latest OpenSSH package and upgrade SSL. My laptop, which is Fedora Core 3 (I use this distro because I 'know' RH based ones), well, I couldn't get this latest version running and was wondering why, only after a short period of time it wasn't possible. I tried to look on the Fedora site to see if there was any policy which might hint at how long, but they were just interested in the latest and greatest. What that was, wasn't specified. I looked at other distros, and only Debian really seemed to have any sort of attitude towards defining their OS in these terms. But really, you have no idea.
Now, MS does not do this any better, but market forces keep them in check, as mentioned before with Vista. They HAVE to listen because their company relies on it.
Free software does NOT rely on users. The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise?
Thats the point I'm trying to drive home. Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly. People who are migrating, especially businesses will love being able to have this information to plan ahead. The general user will like knowing whats in store for them later. People who develop the OS might like an open future where anything could happen, but users don't.
People don't like MS for this reason. But Linux could so easily trump MS in this regard.
Quoting: So by all standards most linux distributions are far better engineered than Windows. In fact, the engineering of Windows is crude and primitive at best and shows no signs of improvement.Technically yes, but again you are approaching from a technical point of view and considering construction to be the be all and end all.
Quoting:
the point is that there is no such legal guarantee in any OS platform whatsoever (MacOS->MacOSX, Windows 2000->XP->SP2->Vista etc), free or non-free. On the other hand an impartial analysis will show that from sysadmin point of view Linux and other UNIX flavours in general have been much more consistent than other platforms and most UNIX concepts of the 70s and 80s are still applicable. From API point of view there *is* some level of commitment that linux will stick to POSIX API which may undergo revisions in future but will provide backward compatibility to as much extent as possible. From both points of view there is absolutely no guarantee on either Windows or .... ... .. is incorrect. A cursory look at the FSF goals will show that they state explicitly that their efforts are aimed at providing a free UNIX like operating system and so meets the requirements of users who require the capabilities of a modern UNIX OS. In any case such a vague statement like "user requirements" has little or no meaning in absence of quantification of the same. Neither does MS or Mac provide any such meaningless guarantee, so your point is way off the mark.
What is the requirement of someone who uses a modern UNIX OS? If its just about requiring a UNIX OS, then people who don't need unix shouldn't bother with Linux? Then berating Windows users who dont need Unix for not switching to Linux is unjustified?
Why is there such resistance to this topic? It's not me who is 'defending' anything, but rather others who are under the false impression that something they hold dear is under attack.
To reiterate, my point is actually very simple A) MS, Apple already have locked in customers. They still have to succumb to their demands, and the customers know this. Windows users may not be happy with the arrangement, but they know the history of the product, and they can to a degree extrapolate.
B) Linux has practically no locked in customers. People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows, because they are 'entrenched' on that side and won't 'entrench' themselves on the Linux side.
C) In order to get most others to 'entrench' themselves in Linux, or at least consider Linux as the 'default' they always go back to, you need to offer a platform people will see as stable, with what seems to be, or is, a commitment to providing a satisfactory roadmap, development path, upgrade path, etc. Also it gives users a good period of time to consider the ramifications of an upgrade, and what it will involve. If you release every 6 months, it only gives the user 6 months to plan.
D) Just because Microsoft doesn't do it well, doesn't mean Linux cant do it better. This stuff matters to people and people will respond positively to a platform which elucidates as clearly as possible, its goals, the specifics of its future, the planned 'lifespan' of releases etc. Just saying 'a free OS' or 'a Unix like OS' is vague. Most of the 'goals' described by distros are generic and vague. Saying 'stable', 'moderm', 'up to date', 'innovative' and other generally positive but ambiguous statement don't define anything and just sound like every other platform.
@caitlyn
But everytime I make that point people go on about something else. I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because like all the others, I'm being put into a position to "defend" something I had no intention of defending. However I do have to point out that it was jdixon who said
If you can't see how users would be more willing to move to Linux if they were given clearer and greater indication that changes would be managed, that it would be done with their own requirements they have created themselves kept in mind, then there is nothing else I can say or do to change that.
You can keep banging the old "but MS don't do it either" drum, but that doesn't help anyone. Linux isn't developed by MS. Shoddyness they can get away with, Linux CANT. MS can get away with poor support of the people who use thier OS, but Linux must to better. To say that MS don't do this or that, so we can get away without addressing it too is frankly, foolish. The different development models means that different approaches are necessary.
But no one has discussed this or mentioned it. The FSF goals don't cover the point I'm making, which was the only example brought up.
This has been very unproductive. Rather than a discussion as to user expectations and requirements, its been nothing but namecalling and debating the minutae of side issues.
Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think, or just a siege mentality, I'm not sure. To suggest that Linux has a shortcoming in anyway is to be labelled an MS shill, but one cannot suggest ways in which Linux might be better adopted without implying there are reasons that it's being held back in the first place.
A catch 22. You cant suggest how Linux can do better, because you'll be an MS shill, as saying "you can do better" is to imply that "you are not the best you can be".
Quoting: Jun 15, 2009 2:57 AM GMT Linux isn't designed for closed source apps? Since when? You'd better let the people at Oracle know since they develop their closed source database software on Linux. Clearly they must be doing something wrong even if they are profitable and have the most popular database software in enterprise space. I remember when OpenOffice was only Star Office and was closed. Gee... that must have been a terrible mistake too. Need I go on? Tell me, what is it about Linux that makes closed source software development on the platform a problem? I don't acknowledge any such thing and I don't believe any such thing.OK, how many other desktop users use these tools? It's beside the point anyway, which wasn't how many people use Vi, but how clearer goals and development paths could help Linux adoption.
"Nobody at my work uses them" (the text editors) means that nobody counts except people in your workplace, I guess. Anywhere I've worked UNIX/Linux admins generally used one or the other.
Why are Windows users either incompetent or foolish? Hmmm... if they know about virii, worms, trojans, spyware, perennial insecurity, etc... and keep using the software anyway that seems pretty foolhardy to me.
Any software migration should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis before doing it. I submit that if many businesses seriously considered Linux and did such an analysis the benefits would exceed the costs very quickly for a lot of companies. Not all, to be sure, and not in all situations, but very frequently it would work out that way.
But everytime I make that point people go on about something else. I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because like all the others, I'm being put into a position to "defend" something I had no intention of defending. However I do have to point out that it was jdixon who said
Quoting:However, It never seems to occur to you that Linux wasn't designed for closed source applications. Since to you that seems to be the be all and end all of an operating system, of course it's not suitable., ont me. I simply said it shouldn't matter with a good OS how the apps which people want to develop are developed.
If you can't see how users would be more willing to move to Linux if they were given clearer and greater indication that changes would be managed, that it would be done with their own requirements they have created themselves kept in mind, then there is nothing else I can say or do to change that.
You can keep banging the old "but MS don't do it either" drum, but that doesn't help anyone. Linux isn't developed by MS. Shoddyness they can get away with, Linux CANT. MS can get away with poor support of the people who use thier OS, but Linux must to better. To say that MS don't do this or that, so we can get away without addressing it too is frankly, foolish. The different development models means that different approaches are necessary.
But no one has discussed this or mentioned it. The FSF goals don't cover the point I'm making, which was the only example brought up.
This has been very unproductive. Rather than a discussion as to user expectations and requirements, its been nothing but namecalling and debating the minutae of side issues.
Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think, or just a siege mentality, I'm not sure. To suggest that Linux has a shortcoming in anyway is to be labelled an MS shill, but one cannot suggest ways in which Linux might be better adopted without implying there are reasons that it's being held back in the first place.
A catch 22. You cant suggest how Linux can do better, because you'll be an MS shill, as saying "you can do better" is to imply that "you are not the best you can be".
Except Borax_Man isn't saying "Linux can do better"
Quoting: Which is still a patch for an old OS.So your point is? One could regard all ubuntu upgrades as patches to "old OS", for example. Fact is that unless people upgrade to SP2 (which broke a lot of software/drivers etc), they cannot get latest updated software. So your claim that:
Quoting: That is to say, there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software.is nothing but a lie. And this is the normal engineering practise of all OSs, a point that you repeatedly fail to grasp or pretend not to understand.
Quoting: A) MS, Apple already have locked in customers. They still have to succumb to their demands, and the customers know this. Windows users may not be happy with the arrangement, but they know the history of the product, and they can to a degree extrapolate.So all these essays to prove that lock-in is good? I am afraid but you are way off the mark and not much remains to be said in this regard. All this theorizing to show how lock-in is good falls flat in face of hard facts w.r.t. XP->XP SP2->Vista or MacOS->OSX transitions. Better go back and address those points first before making up such ridiculous theories.
> ..but there is a history of compatibility.
No more so than with Linux.
> No one uses them where I work.
Unless no one uses Unix at all where you work, that's BS. And whether you use them or not has nothing to do with the argument you were using. In other words, you have nothing, as with all of your other arguments.
> A critique is not an attack.
Correct. Come back when you have one to offer.
> It shouldn't really matter whether the apps are closed source or not.
I think that sums up your position perfectly, though I doubt you realize it.
In fact, it makes all the difference in the world.
> Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice?
If the person wants to run "only" closed source apps, then yes, Windows is the better choice.
> Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more?
I haven't done so. You're the one arguing Linux isn't suitable. I'm not arguing that Windows isn't. I'm arguing that when evaluating both by the same standards, Linux is better. Not perfect, merely better.
> Linux isn't designed for closed source apps?
That was my point Caitlyn, not his, and I'm prepared to argue it if you want. No Linux was not designed for closed source apps. It was designed for opens source ones. Because it's an open design, it's easy to code closed source apps for it, but that's not the same thing as being designed for them. Gus3's take on is also a good one, though not the same as mine.
> The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise?
Nothing. And nothing tells users they have to use it. But, just as with Linux being open source, that's beyond you, isn't it?
> Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly.
Finally, a point which makes sense and can actually be argued.
Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps if "Linux" want a greater market share, it needs to do these things. Of course, that's exactly what RHEL is designed to be, but before you even start, I know, that's not a desktop distribution.
There's only one problem. There is no "Linux". There's Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and a host of others. There is no single agent to do this, and given the way Linux works, there can't be.
At this point in time, Canonical comes closest to what you want with their LTS vesions. If that's not satisfactory, and you feel that strongly about it, then it's up to you to do it or to find people who agree with you to do it. That's how open source works.
> People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows,
Exactly. And that's the way we want it. We don't want to lock people into Linux. You may want to do so, but we don't.
> ...Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think...
Users care what users think. If you write code no one wants to use, no one uses it. Code which people use gets supported and evolves. Code which they don't withers away. But again, that's probably beyond you.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that it's freedom which matters, not the details of the code. That's the advantage Linux has over Microsoft. We're not going to give it up merely to capture a few more users in the short term. That's not what Linux is about.
No more so than with Linux.
> No one uses them where I work.
Unless no one uses Unix at all where you work, that's BS. And whether you use them or not has nothing to do with the argument you were using. In other words, you have nothing, as with all of your other arguments.
> A critique is not an attack.
Correct. Come back when you have one to offer.
> It shouldn't really matter whether the apps are closed source or not.
I think that sums up your position perfectly, though I doubt you realize it.
In fact, it makes all the difference in the world.
> Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice?
If the person wants to run "only" closed source apps, then yes, Windows is the better choice.
> Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more?
I haven't done so. You're the one arguing Linux isn't suitable. I'm not arguing that Windows isn't. I'm arguing that when evaluating both by the same standards, Linux is better. Not perfect, merely better.
> Linux isn't designed for closed source apps?
That was my point Caitlyn, not his, and I'm prepared to argue it if you want. No Linux was not designed for closed source apps. It was designed for opens source ones. Because it's an open design, it's easy to code closed source apps for it, but that's not the same thing as being designed for them. Gus3's take on is also a good one, though not the same as mine.
> The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise?
Nothing. And nothing tells users they have to use it. But, just as with Linux being open source, that's beyond you, isn't it?
> Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly.
Finally, a point which makes sense and can actually be argued.
Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps if "Linux" want a greater market share, it needs to do these things. Of course, that's exactly what RHEL is designed to be, but before you even start, I know, that's not a desktop distribution.
There's only one problem. There is no "Linux". There's Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and a host of others. There is no single agent to do this, and given the way Linux works, there can't be.
At this point in time, Canonical comes closest to what you want with their LTS vesions. If that's not satisfactory, and you feel that strongly about it, then it's up to you to do it or to find people who agree with you to do it. That's how open source works.
> People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows,
Exactly. And that's the way we want it. We don't want to lock people into Linux. You may want to do so, but we don't.
> ...Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think...
Users care what users think. If you write code no one wants to use, no one uses it. Code which people use gets supported and evolves. Code which they don't withers away. But again, that's probably beyond you.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that it's freedom which matters, not the details of the code. That's the advantage Linux has over Microsoft. We're not going to give it up merely to capture a few more users in the short term. That's not what Linux is about.
Quoting:Of course, that's exactly what RHEL is designed to be, but before you even start, I know, that's not a desktop distribution.
People at Red Hat would argue that one. They do sell a workstation/desktop version of Red Hat and do have a large desktop design team.
Quoting:B) Linux has practically no locked in customers. People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will.
That is Linux greatest strength, not a weakness. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes. Linux is about freedom of choice.
Your points about Fedora/RH 7.3 are irrelevant. Those distros never claimed to offer long term support. If that's important to a user they can choose a distro that DOES offer long term support, and there are many of those: Red Hat Enterprise/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Slackware, and Debian all do. Many other distros, even smaller ones, define the length of support up front. For Vector Linux, for example, it's two years from initial release. If that isn't long enough for you then you are better served by choosing a distro that offers five years or seven years. Some of the ones I mentioned do just that.
Quoting:The Linux system of updating works only if you installed from a repository, and if your distro is pretty new, far newer than WinXP. I know, I know, MS shill, etc, blah blah, but thats the truth.
Nope, it's a bald faced lie. Why is installing from a repository a disadvantage? That's what makes software installation and updating easier than it is in Windows. The "far newer than X"' part is the lie as a number of the distros I mentioned (i.e.: Red Hat/Fedora) don't EOL a distro that quickly. Sorry, wrong answer, clearly false, try again.
It's your repeated false statements that get you labeled. That, and repeating the same things over and over again or else going off on interesting tangents that when you realize a point just won't take. Oh, that, and your decision to argue ad infinitum on a Linux website.
Borax ... ?
A chemical found mainly in desiccated environments*. Commercial use, a detergent additive supposedly to improve whitening of laundry. Toxicitity, significant http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34... .
YBT
* At the very least, inconsistent naming, considering the vapors this person emits** given his/her purported origin.
** Could be due to a manufacturing process where the mixed in plasticizers necessary for efficient extrusion are emitted upon exposure.
A chemical found mainly in desiccated environments*. Commercial use, a detergent additive supposedly to improve whitening of laundry. Toxicitity, significant http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34... .
YBT
* At the very least, inconsistent naming, considering the vapors this person emits** given his/her purported origin.
** Could be due to a manufacturing process where the mixed in plasticizers necessary for efficient extrusion are emitted upon exposure.
> People at Red Hat would argue that one.
Yes, they would, and they do offer a desktop version. I know that, I'm merely anticipating Borax_Man's probable response and trying to defusing it.
Yes, they would, and they do offer a desktop version. I know that, I'm merely anticipating Borax_Man's probable response and trying to defusing it.
I'm pretty much done. There can be no end debating the merits of OS A vs OS B because there are always rules and exceptions one can bring up. It's pretty much like any philosophical debate, there is always an argument that can be brought up to support ANY position. It's clear there is no objectivity here. The fact that this is a Linux forum, doesn't give one a moral imperitive to lose objectivity.
The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. One which people just explain away due to 'idiot users', 'idiot admins' or some kind of MS propaganda, ie, some external pressure.
Well, just keep believing that and waiting for the messianic "Tear of the Linux Desktop" to come and save you, because its pretty clear no one wants to do the analysis and work necessiry to actually make it happen themselves.
The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. One which people just explain away due to 'idiot users', 'idiot admins' or some kind of MS propaganda, ie, some external pressure.
Well, just keep believing that and waiting for the messianic "Tear of the Linux Desktop" to come and save you, because its pretty clear no one wants to do the analysis and work necessiry to actually make it happen themselves.
Quoting: I'm pretty much done.Should have been done long time back since you have no valid points to make.
Quoting: The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. One which people just explain away due to 'idiot users', 'idiot admins' or some kind of MS propaganda, ie, some external pressure.Has been explained many times. For example a recent discussion on this: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/29163
Quoting:The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs.
Still quoting numbers that have been thoroughly debunked, I see. 1%? Here are some objective numbers for you:
Linux market share on netbooks in 2008: 24% (source: IDC) Netbook share of desktop/notebook market in 2008: 20% (sources: IDC, ABI Research)
Netbook sales alone accounted for a 4.8% market share and there were plenty of desktop, nettop, and laptop offerings from companies like Dell, HP, Asus, etc... Dell and HP have expanded their Linux offerings in these areas; something they would not do without customer demand.
You say we have no objectivity yet you trot out the easily disproved 1% number again. Sorry, reality is more like nearly 10%.
You're done, alright. Well done. Overdone, in fact. You won't be missed.
/me hands caitlyn a $BEVERAGE and offers a hearty well done.
I get this drivel from tons of the uninitiated
I get this drivel from tons of the uninitiated all the time, or worse from the 'I know whats up guys" that I wouldn't loan my abacus to much less a computer. The flexability and power of an OS comes from the ability to configure its functions. That requires time and effort to learn. In many ways slacware is one of the most powerful varieties of Linux, but many users shy away from it because it installs without a GUI. Ubuntu and PC Linux on the other hand are a great OS choice for the user that wants ease of installation and configuration. Some of the other distros like fedora, centos, the list goes on all, offer huge amounts of powerful apps and are user friendly. Windows is also a well rounded option, and it drives me nuts when I hear people ragging on XP because they are to disorganized to maintain there system properly. I choose to use Linux because I like what the platform stands for, millions of people world wide creating a working system together, but I migrate between Linux and Windows just fine. Even Vista works if used properly, but people continue to rag on it because the sheer weight of the OS eats up memory and you can't install every freeware option from not ready for primetime programmers. A computer is like any other machine, if you don't maintain it the processes will fail.
If you want your computer to work, use software that you understand and back up your data. If your venturing into uncharted waters, back up your OS, your data, whatever you need to fix it. It's just fine if you don't, but when you come crying to me to fix it, I'm gonna charge you to do it.
If you want your computer to work, use software that you understand and back up your data. If your venturing into uncharted waters, back up your OS, your data, whatever you need to fix it. It's just fine if you don't, but when you come crying to me to fix it, I'm gonna charge you to do it.
Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, DSL .....
Mandriva, OpenSuSE, Fedora, CentOS ....
Debian, Slackware......
synaptic, apt, rpm, yast, yum, slapt ....
synaptic, apt, rpm, yast, yum, slapt ....
Quoting:The flexability and power of an OS comes from the ability to configure its functions. That requires time and effort to learn.Indeed! No arguments here.
Not all may be astroturfers.
Does this mean everyone who genuinely supported Linux and Free Software and then ended up on Windows or at least became sufficiently frustrated about known Linux deficiencies to talk about them openly will now be immediately branded an astroturfer?
Just wanna have that clarified, because there ARE people who at least did love Linux and were its fans, but ultimately found it not THAT significantly better than other operating systems.
There is a lot of lying and FUD going on here and Linux advocates aren't always exactly innocent about it. I've just read a comment on this story which supposedly quotes a former Microsoft marketing manager without naming him and barely making clear where the actual quote ends and commenter's conjecture begins. The quote says how the reason Vista failed is because it was popular to badmouth it in the Web 2.0 sphere (blogs, digg etc.) and that Windows 7 is in fact no different at all from Vista aside from the UI change. But MS is paying people to praise it around the Web 2.0 sphere and thus it is succeeding.
I just can't believe this crap. If certain Linux advocates begin to use this kind of rhetoric it wont be long before Linux is associated, among other things, with conspiracy theory lunacies (it's enough we have things like BoycottNovell already).
Is it really possible that the SOLE reason Windows 7 gets good publicity is because Microsoft is manipulating it? Really?
And here's a nice disclosure for everyone. I have been using Windows 7 Release Candidate for about two weeks now, even after writing an article in which I make points as to why I chose Ubuntu over Windows 7. I changed my mind within a day because ultimately the advantages I felt I had on Ubuntu were more a matter of familiarity than anything else.
And Windows 7 is NOT Windows Vista. There, of course, are similarities, and former is based on latter, but I'd say that reviewers who said that 7 is Vista done right are.. right. It feels leaner, the new UI is actually, for once coming from Microsoft, something oddly innovative and it seems to harass my hard drive with pointless scanning far less.
Am I gonna be branded an astroturfer now? Is there anyone out there who will now immediately think I am somehow being paid by Microsoft? Or are you just gonna call me crazy? Or maybe you'll simply acknowledge the fact that not everyone who has a word against Linux or occasionally chooses Windows over it must be in on some sort of a conspiracy...
Btw, I still am not sure I'll stick with Win7 once time comes to shell out money for it (this is just an RC, which is legally free). I might buy a newer video card and switch to OpenSUSE 11.2 or Ubuntu Karmic Koala once they're out.
Just wanna have that clarified, because there ARE people who at least did love Linux and were its fans, but ultimately found it not THAT significantly better than other operating systems.
There is a lot of lying and FUD going on here and Linux advocates aren't always exactly innocent about it. I've just read a comment on this story which supposedly quotes a former Microsoft marketing manager without naming him and barely making clear where the actual quote ends and commenter's conjecture begins. The quote says how the reason Vista failed is because it was popular to badmouth it in the Web 2.0 sphere (blogs, digg etc.) and that Windows 7 is in fact no different at all from Vista aside from the UI change. But MS is paying people to praise it around the Web 2.0 sphere and thus it is succeeding.
I just can't believe this crap. If certain Linux advocates begin to use this kind of rhetoric it wont be long before Linux is associated, among other things, with conspiracy theory lunacies (it's enough we have things like BoycottNovell already).
Is it really possible that the SOLE reason Windows 7 gets good publicity is because Microsoft is manipulating it? Really?
And here's a nice disclosure for everyone. I have been using Windows 7 Release Candidate for about two weeks now, even after writing an article in which I make points as to why I chose Ubuntu over Windows 7. I changed my mind within a day because ultimately the advantages I felt I had on Ubuntu were more a matter of familiarity than anything else.
And Windows 7 is NOT Windows Vista. There, of course, are similarities, and former is based on latter, but I'd say that reviewers who said that 7 is Vista done right are.. right. It feels leaner, the new UI is actually, for once coming from Microsoft, something oddly innovative and it seems to harass my hard drive with pointless scanning far less.
Am I gonna be branded an astroturfer now? Is there anyone out there who will now immediately think I am somehow being paid by Microsoft? Or are you just gonna call me crazy? Or maybe you'll simply acknowledge the fact that not everyone who has a word against Linux or occasionally chooses Windows over it must be in on some sort of a conspiracy...
Btw, I still am not sure I'll stick with Win7 once time comes to shell out money for it (this is just an RC, which is legally free). I might buy a newer video card and switch to OpenSUSE 11.2 or Ubuntu Karmic Koala once they're out.
> ...because there ARE people who at least did love Linux and were its fans, but ultimately found it not THAT significantly better than other operating systems.
Significantly better for what? Playing games? Running Windows only programs which are required for work? Visiting some Windows only website or service (mercifully few any more)?
No, it's not better for those.
For your average home user who is simply browsing the net, getting email, instant messaging, writing the occasional letter, and maybe keeping a checkbook?
Yeah, it's better. A lot better.
Now, you're a fairly long time poster here, so your posing such a question on a location you often show up at isn't unusual. Have you ever seen most of these other posters here before? You try to answer question posed to you and offer legitimate arguments supporting your position. Have they done so? The arguments they're using are the same old ones that have been used before, often for years. They're easily refuted, and they offer no counter arguments when you refute them. They're trolls and astroturfers, pure and simple.
> The quote says how the reason Vista failed is because it was popular to badmouth it in the Web 2.0 sphere (blogs, digg etc.) and that Windows 7 is in fact no different at all from Vista aside from the UI change. But MS is paying people to praise it around the Web 2.0 sphere and thus it is succeeding.
Have you stopped to think that Microsoft may actually believe this? It's not like they haven't exhibited a significant detachment from reality before.
> Is it really possible that the SOLE reason Windows 7 gets good publicity is because Microsoft is manipulating it? Really?
Not likely, no. Windows 7 probably is quite a bit better than Vista, at least as far as the user interface and interaction goes. It's still Vista underneath though.
However, you're also overlooking an important consideration in comparing Vista and Windows 7. Is this the same machine you would have been running Vista on? If not, you may wish to reconsider exactly how much better it is. Most users are running Windows 7 on machines quite a bit more powerful than the ones which were around when Vista came out. If Microsoft had released Vista on new machines today, it would not have anywhere near the performance problems it did originally.
> have been using Windows 7 Release Candidate for about two weeks now, even after writing an article in which I make points as to why I chose Ubuntu over Windows 7. I changed my mind within a day because ultimately the advantages I felt I had on Ubuntu were more a matter of familiarity than anything else.
Familiarity is also the only real advantage Windows has over Linux for your average home user. :)
> Am I gonna be branded an astroturfer now?
Depends? Are you claiming that you can't possibly recommend Linux to folks? Or are you simply saying that Windows 7 is enough better than Vista that there's no real reason people will want to switch? The latter may very well be true.
> Or maybe you'll simply acknowledge the fact that not everyone who has a word against Linux or occasionally chooses Windows over it must be in on some sort of a conspiracy...
You want to use Windows? Use Windows. You have a legitimate complaint about your distro? Make it. We'll try to help, though that help will probably be pointing you to the relevant support site for your distro. That's not what these folks have been doing.
Significantly better for what? Playing games? Running Windows only programs which are required for work? Visiting some Windows only website or service (mercifully few any more)?
No, it's not better for those.
For your average home user who is simply browsing the net, getting email, instant messaging, writing the occasional letter, and maybe keeping a checkbook?
Yeah, it's better. A lot better.
Now, you're a fairly long time poster here, so your posing such a question on a location you often show up at isn't unusual. Have you ever seen most of these other posters here before? You try to answer question posed to you and offer legitimate arguments supporting your position. Have they done so? The arguments they're using are the same old ones that have been used before, often for years. They're easily refuted, and they offer no counter arguments when you refute them. They're trolls and astroturfers, pure and simple.
> The quote says how the reason Vista failed is because it was popular to badmouth it in the Web 2.0 sphere (blogs, digg etc.) and that Windows 7 is in fact no different at all from Vista aside from the UI change. But MS is paying people to praise it around the Web 2.0 sphere and thus it is succeeding.
Have you stopped to think that Microsoft may actually believe this? It's not like they haven't exhibited a significant detachment from reality before.
> Is it really possible that the SOLE reason Windows 7 gets good publicity is because Microsoft is manipulating it? Really?
Not likely, no. Windows 7 probably is quite a bit better than Vista, at least as far as the user interface and interaction goes. It's still Vista underneath though.
However, you're also overlooking an important consideration in comparing Vista and Windows 7. Is this the same machine you would have been running Vista on? If not, you may wish to reconsider exactly how much better it is. Most users are running Windows 7 on machines quite a bit more powerful than the ones which were around when Vista came out. If Microsoft had released Vista on new machines today, it would not have anywhere near the performance problems it did originally.
> have been using Windows 7 Release Candidate for about two weeks now, even after writing an article in which I make points as to why I chose Ubuntu over Windows 7. I changed my mind within a day because ultimately the advantages I felt I had on Ubuntu were more a matter of familiarity than anything else.
Familiarity is also the only real advantage Windows has over Linux for your average home user. :)
> Am I gonna be branded an astroturfer now?
Depends? Are you claiming that you can't possibly recommend Linux to folks? Or are you simply saying that Windows 7 is enough better than Vista that there's no real reason people will want to switch? The latter may very well be true.
> Or maybe you'll simply acknowledge the fact that not everyone who has a word against Linux or occasionally chooses Windows over it must be in on some sort of a conspiracy...
You want to use Windows? Use Windows. You have a legitimate complaint about your distro? Make it. We'll try to help, though that help will probably be pointing you to the relevant support site for your distro. That's not what these folks have been doing.
Good points..
I would also add hardware support in limited amount of cases. While Linux supports stuff that it supports out of the box and detects it without effort, when such support is incomplete or buggy I think most people would still rather put up with having to download and install a driver manually if it'll then work beautifully then have everything detected and enabled automatically if it WONT work well. Case in point, of course, is my own case with a Radeon X800 graphics card. Although there is no driver for Windows 7 either, the fallback driver on Windows 7 still performs better than a fallback in Xorg (the free radeon driver) which freezes KDE desktop effects (and sometimes even without them), shows artifacts on the screen and generally feels flakey and sluggish.
Another thing to add to that is audio and video support, from the general lack of comparable tools for music production or video editing (though things may be improving with PiTiVi being funded, I'm yet to try it..) to the deficiencies in the kernel itself (at least as far as my amateurish understanding of it goes) which has to be specifically tuned to get any decent real time audio support meaning one either has to have two kernels in the same installation or dual boot with a "studio" variant of the distro (like Ubuntu Studio or Studio64). There's also the whole mess with ALSA, pulseaudio etc.. I've heard some advocate OSS as a standard replacement that is more stable and better performing (but don't quote me on that...). I think OS X uses OSS.
Note that sometimes insufficient hardware support (like flakey video card drivers that can freeze the desktop) can put a shadow on even the basic uses for which you say Linux is better.
I didn't.. but it's a good point. Then the question would be should we believe it.. If it's not true then of course we shouldn't since if it IS the case that Win7 actually is a better OS (arguably best Windows ever made) and if we know where it is better then we're better equipped to make Linux OS's competitive in those areas (though if you're a non programmer all you can do is talk about it constructively).
Well I built this machine in May 2007 and Vista was released in January 2007 for what that's worth. I've upgraded RAM and HD since, but it'd probably be quite capable. Anyway good point, but then again I don't necessarily consider high hardware requirements a sin if it actually means it's improving the experience. I'd rather have an OS take full advantage of my hardware and then provide me with awesome than not use all of hardware yet perform crappy... (not saying Linux OS's do that all the time).
I think 7 was still slimmed down in terms of requirements. They do have netbooks to worry about now don't they afterall? :)
I can definitely recommend certain Linux OS's to people with specific kinds of needs and if their hardware is all very well supported, which to be entirely honest in at least half the cases it is. Video cards are a baddy, but at least with proprietary drivers, both AMD and Nvidia seem to have good support now.. IF you have a newer card (unlike me).
I would have to agree with the latter though, except legally people still need to pay for Windows 7 and make some kind of a "switch".. though I guess they're similar enough for this to be less painful than full switch to Linux.
But I also have another concern. It is possibly better enough that it can (and trust me, does) switch *Linux users* to Windows! Two friends of mine with whom I meet almost daily on IRC have been using Windows 7 these days and they were big Linux guys for years! That's 3 long time Linux users who have been impressed by Windows enough to consider paying for it. I know Free Software purists will never be impressed by this stuff, but those who actually believe in the merit of technical and experience superiority as incredibly important elements for wooing people over to Linux must be concerned at least a bit.
MS may be a slow monolith, but they don't have the disadvantages of chaos that exist in Linux lands, are still slowly evolving and have billions to shove into whatever they call innovation. And this means that sometimes it will actually work and they actually come up with something good. Windows 7 might be an example of that.
Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSUSE have got to prepare a response. :P Oh and btw I think KDE4 will be increasingly important in enabling such a response!
Anyway.. this ended up waay longer than I indented. Rant over.
Quoting: Significantly better for what? Playing games? Running Windows only programs which are required for work? Visiting some Windows only website or service (mercifully few any more)?
No, it's not better for those.
I would also add hardware support in limited amount of cases. While Linux supports stuff that it supports out of the box and detects it without effort, when such support is incomplete or buggy I think most people would still rather put up with having to download and install a driver manually if it'll then work beautifully then have everything detected and enabled automatically if it WONT work well. Case in point, of course, is my own case with a Radeon X800 graphics card. Although there is no driver for Windows 7 either, the fallback driver on Windows 7 still performs better than a fallback in Xorg (the free radeon driver) which freezes KDE desktop effects (and sometimes even without them), shows artifacts on the screen and generally feels flakey and sluggish.
Another thing to add to that is audio and video support, from the general lack of comparable tools for music production or video editing (though things may be improving with PiTiVi being funded, I'm yet to try it..) to the deficiencies in the kernel itself (at least as far as my amateurish understanding of it goes) which has to be specifically tuned to get any decent real time audio support meaning one either has to have two kernels in the same installation or dual boot with a "studio" variant of the distro (like Ubuntu Studio or Studio64). There's also the whole mess with ALSA, pulseaudio etc.. I've heard some advocate OSS as a standard replacement that is more stable and better performing (but don't quote me on that...). I think OS X uses OSS.
Note that sometimes insufficient hardware support (like flakey video card drivers that can freeze the desktop) can put a shadow on even the basic uses for which you say Linux is better.
Quoting:Have you stopped to think that Microsoft may actually believe this? It's not like they haven't exhibited a significant detachment from reality before.
I didn't.. but it's a good point. Then the question would be should we believe it.. If it's not true then of course we shouldn't since if it IS the case that Win7 actually is a better OS (arguably best Windows ever made) and if we know where it is better then we're better equipped to make Linux OS's competitive in those areas (though if you're a non programmer all you can do is talk about it constructively).
Quoting:However, you're also overlooking an important consideration in comparing Vista and Windows 7. Is this the same machine you would have been running Vista on?
Well I built this machine in May 2007 and Vista was released in January 2007 for what that's worth. I've upgraded RAM and HD since, but it'd probably be quite capable. Anyway good point, but then again I don't necessarily consider high hardware requirements a sin if it actually means it's improving the experience. I'd rather have an OS take full advantage of my hardware and then provide me with awesome than not use all of hardware yet perform crappy... (not saying Linux OS's do that all the time).
I think 7 was still slimmed down in terms of requirements. They do have netbooks to worry about now don't they afterall? :)
Quoting:Depends? Are you claiming that you can't possibly recommend Linux to folks? Or are you simply saying that Windows 7 is enough better than Vista that there's no real reason people will want to switch? The latter may very well be true.
I can definitely recommend certain Linux OS's to people with specific kinds of needs and if their hardware is all very well supported, which to be entirely honest in at least half the cases it is. Video cards are a baddy, but at least with proprietary drivers, both AMD and Nvidia seem to have good support now.. IF you have a newer card (unlike me).
I would have to agree with the latter though, except legally people still need to pay for Windows 7 and make some kind of a "switch".. though I guess they're similar enough for this to be less painful than full switch to Linux.
But I also have another concern. It is possibly better enough that it can (and trust me, does) switch *Linux users* to Windows! Two friends of mine with whom I meet almost daily on IRC have been using Windows 7 these days and they were big Linux guys for years! That's 3 long time Linux users who have been impressed by Windows enough to consider paying for it. I know Free Software purists will never be impressed by this stuff, but those who actually believe in the merit of technical and experience superiority as incredibly important elements for wooing people over to Linux must be concerned at least a bit.
MS may be a slow monolith, but they don't have the disadvantages of chaos that exist in Linux lands, are still slowly evolving and have billions to shove into whatever they call innovation. And this means that sometimes it will actually work and they actually come up with something good. Windows 7 might be an example of that.
Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSUSE have got to prepare a response. :P Oh and btw I think KDE4 will be increasingly important in enabling such a response!
Anyway.. this ended up waay longer than I indented. Rant over.
Quoting:Does this mean everyone who genuinely supported Linux and Free Software and then ended up on Windows or at least became sufficiently frustrated about known Linux deficiencies to talk about them openly will now be immediately branded an astroturfer?
I have yet to meet such a person in real life. I am not saying they don't exist. I am saying that they are quite rare. I am also saying that there aren't many deficiencies compared to Windows. Som, immediately branded an astroturfer? No. Are most of them astroturfers? Probably.
> Just wanna have that clarified, because there ARE people who at least did love Linux > and were its fans, but ultimately found it not THAT significantly better than other > operating systems.
If you are talking about MacOS I'd say that of course that's true. MacOS is expensive but it is, at the core, UNIX with a pretty GUI. If you are talking about the BSDs I won't argue. If you're talking about Windows then I'd ask "better for what". You acknowledge that hardware is well supported in over half of cases -- I'd say it's much higher than that. Of course, if you have a poorly supported graphics card it's 100% an issue for you. For those of us who don't have that situation is a 0% issue.
You say that high hardware requirements is not a sin. In a deep recession or possibly a depression I say that it is. Granted, folks who are doing well won't care. Those who aren't will and people are more conscious of this issue than ever before.
So, no, I don't discount what you say in all cases. However, your claim that Linux advocates are generally using FUD or lying is over the top most of the time. There is no doubt that Microsoft has an organized anti-Linux campaign.
I can agree with most of that.
I'm not saying Linux advocates are *generally* using FUD or lying, just that this isn't below ALL of them. Majority of Linux advocates may be fine, but given the feather shaking nature of FUD even a minority is enough to raise a pretty bad ruckus and do enough damage to matter.
I'm not saying Linux advocates are *generally* using FUD or lying, just that this isn't below ALL of them. Majority of Linux advocates may be fine, but given the feather shaking nature of FUD even a minority is enough to raise a pretty bad ruckus and do enough damage to matter.
> I would also add hardware support in limited amount of cases.
Agreed. Though I would point out the the current video problems are temporary, and should be fixed in a fairly short amount of time.
> Then the question would be should we believe it.
I don't think we do. I think Microsoft does, and has reacted accordingly. There's nothing wrong with noting that.
> ...though I guess they're similar enough for this to be less painful than full switch to Linux.
From Vista, yes. From XP, probably not.
> It is possibly better enough that it can (and trust me, does) switch *Linux users* to Windows!
And this is a problem how? If Windows 7 is better for any specific user than Linux, then they should use Windows. This isn't a zero sum game, and we're not out to deny people the freedom to use what they want. We (or at least I), simply think Linux is better.
> And this means that sometimes it will actually work and they actually come up with something good. Windows 7 might be an example of that.
And if it is, good for Microsoft. My problems with Microsoft are with their management, not their actual products, though I still think Linux is better than anything they have to offer.
> Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSUSE have got to prepare a response
Linux will keep improving, even if there are missteps along the way. If Windows 7 is that good, it will only spur development. And do you really think Windows 7 would be such an improvement over Vista if Linux weren't providing competition?
Agreed. Though I would point out the the current video problems are temporary, and should be fixed in a fairly short amount of time.
> Then the question would be should we believe it.
I don't think we do. I think Microsoft does, and has reacted accordingly. There's nothing wrong with noting that.
> ...though I guess they're similar enough for this to be less painful than full switch to Linux.
From Vista, yes. From XP, probably not.
> It is possibly better enough that it can (and trust me, does) switch *Linux users* to Windows!
And this is a problem how? If Windows 7 is better for any specific user than Linux, then they should use Windows. This isn't a zero sum game, and we're not out to deny people the freedom to use what they want. We (or at least I), simply think Linux is better.
> And this means that sometimes it will actually work and they actually come up with something good. Windows 7 might be an example of that.
And if it is, good for Microsoft. My problems with Microsoft are with their management, not their actual products, though I still think Linux is better than anything they have to offer.
> Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSUSE have got to prepare a response
Linux will keep improving, even if there are missteps along the way. If Windows 7 is that good, it will only spur development. And do you really think Windows 7 would be such an improvement over Vista if Linux weren't providing competition?
> If Windows 7 is better for any specific user than Linux, then they should use Windows. This isn't a zero sum game
This is a distinction which an astounding number of people cannot grasp.
There is so much that people focus upon that is zero-sum, it seems to infect much of what people expect of everything in life.
This is a distinction which an astounding number of people cannot grasp.
There is so much that people focus upon that is zero-sum, it seems to infect much of what people expect of everything in life.
I find it counterproductive to insist on a certain specific OS/distribution for a certain specific computer and task.
When I set up a system, Ubuntu is right for some things, Debian for others. I'm not limited to those two, either.
I haven't gotten to the point over the past couple years where I need to use Windows, but I wouldn't rule it out. I might choose to do it in a VM (first I'd have to figure out how VMs are done) if WINE wouldn't work, but for 99.9 percent of what I do, a free Unix-like OS can accomplish it.
Right now I'm helping someone use Final Cut Express. That's a Mac-only app. If I absolutely needed to run it, I guess I'd have to get a Mac. But there are other ways to edit video. On my current "to do" list is figuring out how to use Blender to cut video. Blender is everywhere, including OpenBSD, and that's the kind of cross-platform app I value extremely highly.
To run Web browsers, office suites, image editors, text editors (to code just about anything), FTP clients and mail clients, Linux and the BSDs have served me very well.
Depending on the situation, I'll use Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, PCLinuxOS, Puppy, Vector, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD or Solaris (yep, I've got a legit copy of Solaris 9 for Sparc).
There are numerous distros/projects that are probably as good as or better than these, if only I knew more about them and why they'd do the job better (or at least better for me).
We all tend to use what we're most familiar with, and familiarity isn't something to be sneezed at, especially if said familiarity goes beyond a single operating system.
I don't know about the rest of you, both LXers and the occasionally-posting lovers of Windows, but I find that the more I know about Windows, the less I want to use it.
When I set up a system, Ubuntu is right for some things, Debian for others. I'm not limited to those two, either.
I haven't gotten to the point over the past couple years where I need to use Windows, but I wouldn't rule it out. I might choose to do it in a VM (first I'd have to figure out how VMs are done) if WINE wouldn't work, but for 99.9 percent of what I do, a free Unix-like OS can accomplish it.
Right now I'm helping someone use Final Cut Express. That's a Mac-only app. If I absolutely needed to run it, I guess I'd have to get a Mac. But there are other ways to edit video. On my current "to do" list is figuring out how to use Blender to cut video. Blender is everywhere, including OpenBSD, and that's the kind of cross-platform app I value extremely highly.
To run Web browsers, office suites, image editors, text editors (to code just about anything), FTP clients and mail clients, Linux and the BSDs have served me very well.
Depending on the situation, I'll use Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, PCLinuxOS, Puppy, Vector, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD or Solaris (yep, I've got a legit copy of Solaris 9 for Sparc).
There are numerous distros/projects that are probably as good as or better than these, if only I knew more about them and why they'd do the job better (or at least better for me).
We all tend to use what we're most familiar with, and familiarity isn't something to be sneezed at, especially if said familiarity goes beyond a single operating system.
I don't know about the rest of you, both LXers and the occasionally-posting lovers of Windows, but I find that the more I know about Windows, the less I want to use it.
> When I set up a system, Ubuntu is right for some things, Debian for others. I'm not limited to those two, either.
Which made my head ring with that wonderful line from _The Blues Brothers_,
"We like both kinds of music here: Country, AND Western!"
"We like both kinds of music here: Country, AND Western!"
You know, it's unfortunate that some people genuinely like and use Windows. Not for the "those pitiful losers" type of reason, but rather because Microsoft's documented FUD campaigns (http://inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/msft.shilling.htm...) mean that nobody in their right mind takes a pro-MSFT opinion seriously. Well, maybe trade-rag journalists at ComputerWorld and InfoWorld do, but MSFT does a lot of advertising in their papers, and no matter how much a journo protests about "chinese walls" and "separation of editorial and marketing", nobody believes that either, and for the same good reason.
The less time we spend on inter-geek war and the more on user interface, user experience, user education, marketing and promotion and good old evangelism, the further we'll get with bringing more Windows and Mac users over to free, open-source solutions.
I'm willing to give up a great deal of purity in order to make that happen.
I'm willing to give up a great deal of purity in order to make that happen.
> I'm willing to give up a great deal of purity in order to make that happen.
Mamphred, do you know why I drink only rain water and pure grain alcohol? It's the purity of essence.
But seriously, I'm not sure that compromise is going to work. It is the value of principle that puts F/OSS head and shoulders above proprietary software in terms of quality and speed of development.
Yes, the nay-sayers get to say "You can run FireFox and GIMP on Windows and get the best of both worlds", but we know that the more people experience the benefits of Our Precious Essences, the easier it will be to tell them that they will get exactly the same usability that they love without paying the obscene price tag in money and liberty.
Mamphred, do you know why I drink only rain water and pure grain alcohol? It's the purity of essence.
But seriously, I'm not sure that compromise is going to work. It is the value of principle that puts F/OSS head and shoulders above proprietary software in terms of quality and speed of development.
Yes, the nay-sayers get to say "You can run FireFox and GIMP on Windows and get the best of both worlds", but we know that the more people experience the benefits of Our Precious Essences, the easier it will be to tell them that they will get exactly the same usability that they love without paying the obscene price tag in money and liberty.
Ken brought up an interesting point some time ago, are you an application user or computer user. The answer for most is application user. Email, writing, websurfing ...etc. In this Linux is head and shoulders a superior product to windows, so they dont even try to compete but muddy the waters with bullet points, Photoshop and CAD. Over and over this implies on the face that if these two dont work then there are a untold plethora of others that dont work either or that there are no replacements for.
So the issue is, are you an application user or computer user. Short of the bobbing head response above, FOSS in general does have a replacement application, or via wine which adds immensly to the list of apps that work on Linux.
So the issue is, are you an application user or computer user. Short of the bobbing head response above, FOSS in general does have a replacement application, or via wine which adds immensly to the list of apps that work on Linux.
Not all may be astroturfers... some may just be weeds.
Quoting:... some may just be weeds.Well if ;you really think so, I suggest we get some Roundup™ and test to see if they have been genetically altered. They do have some very anomalous survival characteristics on specific forums to be just be weeds. My bet most are manufactured as are their post.
YBT
If they are genetically altered, at least they can be banned from some countries I guess.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post