Live data from Hacker News

Linux is Not Windows

linux.oneandoneis2.org

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#81
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mouse (stock Dell USB mouse), never did fix that, tried 3 different mice, dug up an old PS/2 mouse and made do with that, probably some obscure usb issue, but the usb hard drives and keyboard I had connected worked from the beginning Strangely I never had any mouse problem under linux for ages, but the only windows computer -alas- under my management lost the ability to use any USB devices a long time ago. USB stil…

That's quite surprising, since I hardly met any machine since 2003 where one of the common live-CDs wouldn't boot to a workable state out of the box. Bizarrely, I was able to live-CD boot to my newer machine fine. I even ran Ubuntu as my main OS for about 3 months until there was something I needed to do that wouldn't run under Wine. It worked "ok". - I needed to reboot it 3 or 4 times a day because the sound would j…

Fun fact about sound: I discovered yesterday that one can restore sound on a Ubuntu 11.04 system by killing the pulseaudio process (it will instantly restart and restore sound.) No reboot required, in my case.

This is now one of the more frequent activities I do on my machine. Next step is to make a desktop shortcut or applet "Fix my Sound" or a command-line script, to avoid going through the incantation to find and kill the right proces. Then install Windows.

With the GUIs, problem is that Gnome and KDE and Canonical have gone through so many changes to their config systems (supposedly freedesktop.org D-Bus or something is supposed to fix that, but there is always at least one team starting up a vendetta against another team, and breaking compatibility), and even if there is new stuff that works, there are tons of packages in the Canonical repository that happily edit config that your environment isn't actually using (gtk vs gconf vs dconf vs kde vs gnome, etc)

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#82
post #74
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors. Now that is user-friendly; you must spend the best part of a day removing nagwares and spywares from a brand new computer.

It takes about twenty minutes on a Dell (which tend to be among the biggest purveyors of nagware). Forty minutes or so if you just saw screw-it and reinstall the OS, plus whatever time it takes for Windows Update to do it's thing. I get that you're a partisan, but can we not be completely hyperbolic?

I really like that when I install the evince pdf viewer, it doesn't try to install the Yahoo search bar browser plugin like Adobe Acrobat. I even use evince on windows.

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#83
post #75
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite surprising, since I hardly met any machine since 2003 where one of the common live-CDs wouldn't boot to a workable state out of the box. Bizarrely, I was able to live-CD boot to my newer machine fine. I even ran Ubuntu as my main OS for about 3 months until there was something I needed to do that wouldn't run under Wine. It worked "ok". - I needed to reboot it 3 or 4 times a day because the sound would j…

> Anything that I was able to resolve had to be done by opening up an xterm and editing some config file someplace (which usually wasn't in the place pointed to by most of the online help I could find). The price of flexibility is a lack of conformity. This is fine in the server environment where you have a bunch of machines you control and learning your distro's every intricacy is worthwhile when it's amortised over…

This is fine in the server environment where you have a bunch of machines you control and learning your distro's every intricacy is worthwhile when it's amortised over all the machines you own.

Which explains why most enterprises, once they settle on a distro, will stretch that version of the distro out for years -- all their technical staff will learn it, their greybeards will know how to wrangle weirdness out of it, they'll build an internal knowledge base how to resolve the particular 10 issues they have with it...etc. Once it's configured according to the 100 step config guide it'll run like an appliance and nobody will think anything about it unless some hardware fails.

For the end user, the endless twiddling just to get something running on their system kills any dubious efficiency improvements once it's up and running. No wonder folks are simply grabbing the useful tools and replacing the broken desktop OS with OS X.

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#84
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mouse (stock Dell USB mouse), never did fix that, tried 3 different mice, dug up an old PS/2 mouse and made do with that, probably some obscure usb issue, but the usb hard drives and keyboard I had connected worked from the beginning Strangely I never had any mouse problem under linux for ages, but the only windows computer -alas- under my management lost the ability to use any USB devices a long time ago. USB stil…

That's quite surprising, since I hardly met any machine since 2003 where one of the common live-CDs wouldn't boot to a workable state out of the box. Bizarrely, I was able to live-CD boot to my newer machine fine. I even ran Ubuntu as my main OS for about 3 months until there was something I needed to do that wouldn't run under Wine. It worked "ok". - I needed to reboot it 3 or 4 times a day because the sound would j…

> I'm honestly interested in what problems people have under Windows or OS X that drives them to Linux.

When switching from windows Me to Vista, my stepmother had to change her scanner and printer that were perfectly working because there aren't any driver. They both still work with the latest Linux (and Mac OS X).

This is quite typical of the problems under windows : forced upgrades, nagwares, malwares...

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#85
post #79
post #66

Yes yes, Windows users just don't get "it". With "it" apparently a vast blackhole of time suck spent searching endless forums for conflicting advice for why basic hardware on random machine doesn't work right, or why xyz package failed to install or abc driver doesn't work right. No thanks, I still haven't figured out how to get the 3 days of my life back trying to share some files over my home network last year when…

Try again with different hardware and your experience will, with very high probability, be nothing like that. I've installed Linux on seven or eight computers over the years, and I've never had a mouse or a wired NIC fail to work out of the box. I've never had a graphics card problem that couldn't be resolved with one or two hours of Google-and-try, Google-and-try, and the last time I had trouble setting up graphics…

By the way, your handy thumb drive with four drivers on it -- why did you need that? And why did you have it? Why weren't you that well prepared for the Linux install? It doesn't seem like a fair comparison if you're comparing a Windows install where you knew exactly what drivers you needed and already had them on hand to a Linux install where you hadn't even Googled the right driver for your video card.

I was that well prepared for the Linux install. I had CDs burned with multiple builds of the drivers, thumb drives with multiple builds of the drivers, hell, I had an entire other computer available with working access to the internet, I spent 3 days trying to get things working which are so not even a problem on other systems. Is there some super human level of support I should have had available? Should I have built a time machine and brought forward the Oracle of Delphi and Alan Turing?

That's the point. If you read this thread, and the rest of the topic, the common factor is that Linux fails to work out of the box on regular old systems on perfectly normal hardware.

The windows I installed was regular old, bought in the store windows. The hardware was off-the-shelf in a system I built myself. Nothing exotic (even if the system was 2 years old at the time). I installed it, it "just worked". When windows doesn't it's clear, or resolvable in 5 or 10 minutes of googling, with reliable and repeatable paths to resolution, and the system is usually able to run in a reduced function level of operation well enough that I was able to patch it up with fairly minimal fuss. Yeah sure, there's some deep voodoo that Windows bluebeards know, like how to path a registry by hand or some nonsense.

I was able to get the same distro to kinda work on another machine. But I eventually uninstalled it because, while it "worked" it was "not quite right".

Since the mid 90s, I give this a go every year, to see if their is a popular distro that's up to claims of "just works".

I've never gotten a distro to "just work" and gave up after days in disgust. Video drivers don't work, common peripherals, like keyboards, don't work reliably, audio has never worked right, I've brought half working machines to LUG meetings hoping some greybeard could coax something out of it to no avail. I've worked in hardware shops with virtually unlimited access to any sort of hardware you could imagine and after weeks of banging on the machine been unable to get something as basic as syncing to a monitor to work correctly. Stupid things like identical video cards eliciting different responses from the system.

What has improved? The install and available software. I remember 6 or 7 years ago, getting past the install was seen as a major requirement for acceptance on the desktop in the community. And coinciding with that having decent productivity software.

I think the community has stepped up and more or less gotten those resolved. But useless or nonexistent GUIs, random config files floating around from distro to distro with help docs that are out of date and have no bearing on what's actually in the files let along where, or what the configuration options actually mean, broken default packages, updates that break simple regression testing, etc. All fail to impress.

I've used Linux systems at times to save failing Windows disks, or rest system passwords on NT machines, and other utilitarian sorts of things. In embedded systems I own, where Linux is running as a ground up build for that specific hardware, it runs brilliantly. I have more Linux systems in my house than I do Windows for example. But unless problems can be reliably resolved in 1-2 hours, it's a no go.

I'll never understand why people have an issue with a singular piece of hardware on a Mac or a Windows machine and use that as an excuse to move to Linux, and then tolerate an absurd and constant barrage of completely solved problems (on other systems) every day.

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#86
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite surprising, since I hardly met any machine since 2003 where one of the common live-CDs wouldn't boot to a workable state out of the box. Bizarrely, I was able to live-CD boot to my newer machine fine. I even ran Ubuntu as my main OS for about 3 months until there was something I needed to do that wouldn't run under Wine. It worked "ok". - I needed to reboot it 3 or 4 times a day because the sound would j…

Fun fact about sound: I discovered yesterday that one can restore sound on a Ubuntu 11.04 system by killing the pulseaudio process (it will instantly restart and restore sound.) No reboot required, in my case. This is now one of the more frequent activities I do on my machine. Next step is to make a desktop shortcut or applet "Fix my Sound" or a command-line script, to avoid going through the incantation to find and…

The thing that surprises me most, and something I'd find absolutely unacceptable to release, is that the stock GUI config tools are broken or do nothing. This is a QA issue. I personally don't care if it took them a decade to properly test and sort this out. You should never release, release level software with broken GUI components like that.

Taking the car analogy further, suppose I tried to turn on my radio, only to find out the volume knob (which I can quite clearly see and manipulate) doesn't work, 2 or 3 days of Googling into it lets me know that there's a new knob, over on the other side of the steering wheel to control volume, that's undocumented, doesn't work properly, and dumps all the petrol from the gas tank if it goes above 7.

The actual way to resolve the volume knob operation is to swap out the radio the car came with with another one, except doing so will cause an engine conflict requiring a new transmission and a green left rear tire. Until of course the radio stops working, which requires you to rearrange the spark plugs in a random order. But hey, the new radio you put in has satellite radio that works so long as the windshield wipers aren't on intermittent wipe...so you can check that feature box I suppose.

Reading the manual for illumination it says: "to lengthen the distance of wave propagation attenuation from the magnetic speaker drivers, rotate the amplitude control clockwise (unless south of the equator where clocks work double negatively backwards )"

Searching the Internet for help always ends up with conversations like

"you shouldn't have bought that radio, every body knows that"

"which one, the stock one, or the new one? I didn't have a choice with the stock one"

"RTFM"

"I did and it's entirely not helpful"

"did you try removing your shoes?"

"no"

"do that, it'll fix it. I have the same car you have, but from 1962, and that's how I solve my tire problem everytime"

"I don't have a tire problem, I have a radio problem"

"that's what you think...."

blah blah blah blah

and in the end we're talking about different cars anyways

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#87
post #68
post #2

You know, to a certain extent, unfriendliness is what I like about Linux. I like "friendly" systems for browsing the web, email, and watching video. But for hacking, Linux simply can't be beat. I really don't see why Linux needs to be an OS for Joe Internet User. What's wrong with Linux being a server/development OS?

As the saying goes, "Unix is user-friendly. It just isn't promiscuous about which users it's friendly with." (Rob Pike IIRC). Yes, there is some elite, snob, warm fuzzing feeling about all this, and you know what? I'm elitist, and I think it's all right.

This is fairly ok. Except when the elites start ranting about the serfs not getting it :P

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#88
All the Linux community wants is to create a really good, fully-featured, free operating system. If that results in Linux becoming a hugely popular OS, then that's great. If that results in Linux having the most intuitive, user-friendly interface ever created, then that's great. If that results in Linux becoming the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry, then that's great.

It's great, but it's not the point. The point is to make Linux the best OS that the community is capable of making. Not for other people: For itself. The oh-so-common threats of "Linux will never take over the desktop unless it does such-and-such" are simply irrelevant: The Linux community isn't trying to take over the desktop. They really don't care if it gets good enough to make it onto your desktop, so long as it stays good enough to remain on theirs. The highly-vocal MS-haters, pro-Linux zealots, and money-making FOSS purveyors might be loud, but they're still minorities.

I believe this still reflects the opinion of the Linux community, but there is a growing public consensus that is entirely opposite: the goal of Linux is to gain market share comparable or superior to the major commercial desktop operating systems, and since the current Linux community itself is a rounding error by comparison, the goals of Linux have nothing to do with the needs of its current users and everything to do with serving the people who so far want nothing to do with it. It seems to me Linux is in the early stages of acting out the cliché sitcom plot where the main character is sidetracked onto a quixotic mission to remake themselves as a popular kid, culminating in a humiliating realization that they aren't any closer to being popular than when they started, they've picked up vices without learning any virtues, they've alienated their friends, and worst of all, in the process of rejecting their identity they've rejected and abandoned their own good qualities.

Linux should learn from what the cool kids do well, of course. It should learn to be friendly, approachable, well-groomed, and confident. I'm glad it's doing that. With GNOME, KDE, and Canonical, we have three big projects devoted to making the Linux desktop smooth, polished, and friendly. Linux and all its users are benefiting tremendously from that, just like I (a rather frumpy geek) benefit from periodic attention to upgrading and expanding my wardrobe.

However, Linux needs to think just as much about its strengths, and we don't hear enough about that. Linux is a powerful system for sophisticated users. It's got a great command line. It's mostly open-source and has a great community. Linux has two major integrated desktop environments, and inside the integrated environment of your choice, or even from a niche window manager put together by a handful of people, you can run apps from another integrated environment. On one desktop I run KDE, and on my laptop I usually run Awesome. When I want to run a KDE app under Awesome, I just apt-get install it and run it. Isn't that amazing? Not to mention that Linux (like other open sources Unixes) runs on a range of hardware platforms that puts Windows and OSX to shame. When's the last time a Windows user needed to run an OS on a virtual ARM processor on an FPGA, looked in the FPGA manual, and discovered, "Oh good, it supports Windows, so I'll just install that and have a nice familiar environment?"

Now, many people who have read this far will wish this was a different kind of forum where they could just quote the last paragraph followed by the picture of Ogre screaming "NERDS!!!!" and be done with it. However, it's ridiculous to dismiss Linux's strength, and in fact everybody's image of Linux is affected by those strengths. Anybody who cares enough about Linux to click to this page cares about its geeky awesomeness. If you truly dismiss those strengths from your mind and see Linux only as a desktop operating system for unsophisticated users, then Linux is just a pathetic third-place OS that only a mother or an open source zealot could love. That would be a tragic crisis of confidence. That's like when the kid who's great at music or math or poetry hits rock bottom and tells him or herself, "None of the things I'm good at matter. Nobody cares about them. Nobody sees me as a kid with this great ability. They judge me the same way they judge each other. They just see me as an ugly kid with mediocre social skills." Of course, that's when the learning starts, and by the end of the sitcom or the Saturday morning special, the kid learns that it's okay to be a little frumpy but her talent is something to treasure, and for her, two hours of doing her hair and applying makeup in the morning (which she hates) is not going to pay off as well as a couple of hours playing the cello or writing code or whatever it is that she really loves and is good at.

Linux needs to skip the Saturday morning special trap of defining itself solely by its ability to cater to the mainstream. The Linux community needs to look at itself as users and say, "Damn, Linux rocks my socks off. How can we make it more awesome for us?" Not, "Well, I'm a weirdo, and real users are nothing like me, so it doesn't really matter that I like Linux. I guess from a normal user's perspective I can't think of anything that Linux is especially good at. How can the Linux community make Linux suck less for other people?" Not that the answers to those two questions are entirely disjoint. There's a lot of overlap between them. It's just that the first is an important perspective that is in danger of being lost as we concentrate more and more on the second.

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#89
post #85
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try again with different hardware and your experience will, with very high probability, be nothing like that. I've installed Linux on seven or eight computers over the years, and I've never had a mouse or a wired NIC fail to work out of the box. I've never had a graphics card problem that couldn't be resolved with one or two hours of Google-and-try, Google-and-try, and the last time I had trouble setting up graphics…

By the way, your handy thumb drive with four drivers on it -- why did you need that? And why did you have it? Why weren't you that well prepared for the Linux install? It doesn't seem like a fair comparison if you're comparing a Windows install where you knew exactly what drivers you needed and already had them on hand to a Linux install where you hadn't even Googled the right driver for your video card. I was that w…

You have had the worst luck with Linux that I have ever heard of. Among my dozen or so personal and work acquaintances who have installed Linux for desktop use, none of them have put in one tenth of the work you have, and all of them have multiple fully functional desktop systems to show for it. My condolences for your absolutely spectacular bad luck.

Re: Linux is Not Windows

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, the composited window managers? They're actually smoother than without due to the graphics cards. Even with minimal features (for more stability, since ahem, shipping versions of compiz aren't always crazy stable, despite how much I admire where compiz is going). Take the time to try a composited window manager. While you're at it, install vlc, and make sure you manually tell it to "Use Hardware Acceler…

Most people that use window managers like Awesome have no need for a composited window manager. Yes, they make window moving smoother, but you don't move windows in Awesome, so it's just a waste of resources. Similarly, I use VDPAU output for mplayer and full-screen it, taking the window manager and compositing manager out of the equation entirely. Not everyone wants OS-X-style eye candy.

>Not everyone wants OS-X-style eye candy.

I think I pretty well acknowledged that even. I didn't know that you don't move windows in Awesome, especially since the comment was about tearing, and I merely mentioned that using a compositor helps with tearing...

Post reply on HN