Lame excuses. Why don't you give what users need?
If users need windows, so be it. My wife, my mother use Linux being hardly aware of it; it surfs the web, read emails and run OpenOffice, that covers 100% of their needs.
Linux is Not Windows
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#72Yes 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…
> 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 just stop working for no reason I was ever able to resolve.
- I could never get it to use the native resolution of my monitors. I suspect it was driver issues with my perfectly normal nvidia card.
- Video playback, flash, etc. all ran unacceptably slow.
To be honest, I'm willing to accept that not everything will "just work" perfectly out of the box. But if it takes me longer than a 2 or 3 hours to resolve a minor issue, I'm done.
One thing that still befuddles me to this day is the plethora of perfectly earnest looking GUI configuration odds and ends in Ubuntu which seem to have virtually no effect. 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).
I'm honestly interested in what problems people have under Windows or OS X that drives them to Linux. I hear a lot about insurmountable issues with these OSs, hardware that won't work or whatever. But I've almost never had an issue I couldn't resolve by downloading the correct driver for the device, clicking setup.exe and rebooting. The few times I couldn't it was because the hardware was bad.
(though there was one time I was trying to get bluetooth to work on a laptop I had, I did the above, but it borked the machine and I got a bluescreen. 30 minutes of googling gave me the magic incantations to fix it and get me back up and running...turns out the laptop was one of the submodels that didn't actually have bluetooth hardware...meh)
Now finding the drivers can sometimes be hard, especially if the hardware is oddball or very old.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, Windows takes care of things that a normal person has no need to, but Linux forces you to do. It's like being forced to think about breathing.
I disagree. Windows is always interrupting me with things. Updates, virus scans, warnings, malware etc. whereas Linux stays in the background (for me).
I don't remember the last time I was prompted for, literally, any of that, with the exception of Windows Update--which is about as annoying as Ubuntu's nagging updater (that is, not very).
But, then, I don't install crap. Most people do, but most people who do also don't care so much about whether they see those popups or not. It doesn't register to them. So, yes, there is an edge case here where you can install crap and then be offended by said crap's tendency to annoy you...but personally, I rarely see it.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper. Except that it's not true. We had Windows Vista Home Premium (IIRC) + Works refunded once from Dell, because Ubuntu was used. The refund was 80 Euro. In fact, they say it inflates the price of PCs barely, because the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors.
> 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?
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#75Earlier 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…
> 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 all the machines you own.
However, for a home user trying to do a specific thing to their one computer, being able to Google their solution and follow the instructions is very important. Fedora and Debian might be G/L but if you only have instructions for one you'll have to know how to translate it to the other, and that's beyond most people's ken. In contrast, Windows is Windows.
The only common affliction is hardware, but Linux still draws the short straw here. But it could be worse, at least you're not making yourself a Hackintosh.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#76I found the referenced article sort of jumped the shark as it were at the end there but basically makes some good points for would be Linux adapters.
I've always felt that Linux's biggest challenge was a lack of a voice. Linus does a great job of being that voice for the kernel and the closest we come for user land is Canonical. An illustrative example of how that voice might feel to users, if you have a choice between Gnome (MacOS X inspired UI) or KDE (Windows inspired UI) then the set of utilities (calculator, IM client, explorer, etc) might (in a well voiced world) have one implementation and they would change their behavior depending on window system preference. Some do of course, but many don't and it confuses new users when they use the KDE version of a tool on Gnome or vice versa. The concept is that you need one person or group which is speaking toward how things will be done, so that consistency can be achieved across a large number of things. The concept seems somewhat antithetical to some members of the Linux and FOSS communities.
Another area where a good leader / communicator would help out would be in things like audio and printing and wireless networks. These things are, to the perspective of someone coming to or trying Linux, horribly horribly broken. They "just work" on Windows or MacOS.
Graphics and windows have gotten better in recent years but anything that drops into the 'modify your .Xdefaults file' or 'Xorg configuration' just mortifies someone who just wants to use the machine they don't want to become a 'nerd' just to do something useful.
The 'edges' of Linux, especially in places where there are on-going personality of philosophical wars (like the Canonical/Gnome/KDE wars or the Wireless vendors vs the world wars) are really yucky places to have a problem.
And there is the point that was made in the article that when you do have a problem you can't really find an answer sometimes. I wish there was the 'redhat for desktop' equivalent one could point those people at. Canonical is closer but having a staff that manages issues rather than a wiki/forums page would make it worth paying for in some circles.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#77I'd be interested to see a more concise and less sarcastic modern summary of how Linux is Not Windows. This reads more like a rant at how windows people Just Don't Get It more than a genuine attempt to be helpful. edit: Here's an example of a more helpful style, comparing linux and BSD, and he even self-deprecatingly files it under rants: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
Excellent - thanks for posting that. I ironically moved from FreeBSD to Debian about 10 years ago. Perhaps it's time for another look.
Replying to my own post. It still sucks for getting shit done.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#78I'm guessing the X in title of this post is standing for "desktop", since that's what the other post on the front page today was referring to. But I think the problems in this article have nothing to do with the mainstream indifference towards Linux on the desktop. (And before I start, I should say I love Linux and have used it as my primary machine for years--and am still using it now.) I think the problems are: 1.…
For #1, use a Long-Term Support version every 3 years, and, if you like, install an individual software package with its own non-Canonical (ha, pun!) .deb, or a PPA, or just download a package from the publisher.
For #2, a thousand times amen. My project for today is re-partitioning my hard drives to make room for a Windows installation. Wifi-sharing doesn't work anymore (because someone decided that bridging wifi to ethernet adapters was a misfeature?), but still happily advertised in Network Manager.
Suspend and Hibernate don't work (even worse, they lock up the system), and the summer weather is too hot to keep the desktop running 24/7.
Apparently, desktop Linux only works if you want to version-lock on 2-to-5-year-old hardware and features that were designed for that hardware, that took 2-5 years to port to Linux and debug, all the while creeping through the minefield to avoid reressions in stability, functionality, and user experience.
If you can't use modern software, and you can't use the capabilities of modern or bargain hardware, than what's the point? It adds up to a hidden tax because you endure an ongoing lag against progress and wasting money on hardware you can't fully exploit. You may as well buy proprietary OS and software with all the money you can save by buying new-generation Windows-certified hardware, and money can earn by not spending 10 hours a week trying to fix you machine.
Fighting for freedom is noble, but it's a martyr's calling. It's hard to be so in love with technology, while at the same time never getting to enjoy using it. It's sadomasochism.
This goes for the desktop. On the server, where we have hardware drivers with 10-year lifecyles, and top-to-bottom programmability and network-transparency, Linux is a dream.
I am planning to switch to Windows to get wifi and multimedia to work, and run Linux on a virtual machine inside it, treating the VM like a local low-latency headless Linode/EC2-style instance.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#79Yes 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 was the first time I set up dual monitors, about six years ago. I work at a Linux shop where the desktop IT department will only touch Windows, and the group of people running Linux on their desktops and laptops is much, much larger than the "OMG I love it when stuff breaks" tinkerer crowd. Most of us don't enjoy being our own sysadmins, and if it was much trouble, we wouldn't bother.
Also it has to be said over and over again: setting up Windows from a generic install disk can be just as much of a nightmare as Linux. The reason Windows works so well for most people has nothing to do with Windows; it has to do with using essentially a special distribution of Windows put together by the company that assembled the hardware. They've located, tested, and installed the right drivers on the system, and they've put together a recovery/reinstall disk that has all those drivers. Try installing Windows without having the right drivers pre-selected for you and you can easily end up in the same hell as a Linux install gone bad, except with less help available online because it's not a common thing to attempt.
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.
Re: Linux is Not Windows
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper. If all you are going to do is connect to Wifi and run Chrome... guess what, you don't need a Windows license. After that, it's all details. Windows has spyware. Linux has apt-get. But users don't care.
Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper. Except that it's not true. We had Windows Vista Home Premium (IIRC) + Works refunded once from Dell, because Ubuntu was used. The refund was 80 Euro. In fact, they say it inflates the price of PCs barely, because the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors.
Right, but you can extend that logic to other software, and in general the tradeoffs are very similar. Photoshop vs GIMP, MS Office vs Libreoffice, Scribus vs InDesign. It adds up after awhile.
You don't have to switch to linux to take advantage of free software, but it's usually easier and regardless, many of the Linux issues raised in the original article apply to the FOSS alternatives as well.