OSNews

"I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting"

Please explain.

To me, the advantage of Linux is that there is a good GUI and an equally good CLI, so you can choose CLI or GUI depending on the situation. In windows the CLI sucks major, just compare things like command line completion in cmd.exe and bash or zsh.

Then, if you use KDE there are KIO-slaves they make you feel like you sit in front of the internet, instead of in front of your computer. Having all programs internet enabled makes life a lot easier especially if you manage things like web contents on remote web servers.

I'm required to use Windows at my place of employment, so for the benefit of anyone in the same position let me tell you what I do:

windows console replacement:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/

Has tabs and you can resize the window (OMG!)

Bash for Win32. You can find this in a number of places. Get it with a full set of Unix tools.

The combination of these two pretty well simulates the minimal Linux terminal. Works great, I've been using it for at least a year with no significant problems. I found cygwin to be problematic, I didn't need a Linux layer, I just needed a non-crappy console and shell.

here is my list:

* Windows does not have any decent virtual desktop manager
* No borderless full screen
* Not able to move windows with Alt + leftclick
* not able to resize windows with Alt + Middle click
* does not have taskbar applets
* Windows explorer has no previews
* no support for protocols like sftp in explorer
* no themes

And thats only about the windowing system, I have not even talked about the command line or other applications.

Edited 2007-10-22 12:57

The Nvidia Windows drivers do contain this functionality, so it's not entirely impossible; though why it's not enabled by default is beyond me.


Incorrect. Explorer can do thumbnail views for most multimedia formats that have proper codecs installed. Select "View" then "Thumbnails" (or "Filmstrip," as applicable) from the main menu.

As with the virtual desktop stuff, it's not inherent to Windows but it is possible. Things like Windows Blinds or other apps will allow you to fully theme your Windows install as you see fit.

What are those codecs you speak of? Windows is too hard for average user!

Alright, I see you're a power user. I never heard of all these features. I do know about the virtual desktop stuff but I never use it because my computer is low on RAM and so I use at most 2-3 applications. Most of the time I use only one application at a time, or my computer gets too slow. I don't use taskbar applets, not to pollute my desktop. Windows Explorer does have previews, both as thumbnails and in the left bar. You also have themes in Windows Explorer (I remember seeing Vista themes in Windows XP). SFTP support in Windows Explorer would be cool. In the meantime I use WinSCP.

Well, I am not the parent poster, but the Windows Desktop is limiting in this point: Virtual desktops (and I am NOT talking about the 3D effect "cube" there).

I know, there are virtual desktop addons for Windows too, but they either are unstable themselves, or make other programs unstable, or don't integrate into the taskbar (or combinations thereof).

With the linux virtual desktops you get everything you need, and then some: Stable, well-integrated and fast.

In Windows, if you have 60 applications open, things get royally messy. In Linux, I still find the application I want to switch to quite fast.
That is, because I only let the taskbar show the applications which are on the currently active Desktop, and I can keep in my mind "desktop 1 for project A and desktop 2 for project B and desktop 4 for Office stuff" easier than remembering that "explorer number 3,6,7,12 and 15 are open for project A and numbers 1,2,5 and 10 are open for project B, and the rest is for office stuff".

That is the main reason why the Linux desktop is so much better. I simply cannot understand why Windows does not have virtual desktops, one can still configure them so that only one desktop is available if one does not like several desktops.

The second thing: I am a hardcore Konqueror - addict. I use several split views in several tabs and have different stuff running in each of them (ftp, man-pages, file-browsing, pdf-viewing and console). You know, Konqueror is so far ahead of Windows Explorer you would not believe it possible. Konqueror can be everything (including a kitchen-sink ), WITHOUT being bloated, and that is the amazing thing about it. Konqueror, despite being so powerful, never shows more than 15 Buttons on it's whole interface, probably 10 of them in the button-bar. There is no such thing in Windows. I hope KDE4 is stable unter Windows, so that I can use Konqui at my workplace.

It is like stated in the article: GNOME and KDE take the good stuff from Apple and MS (in fact Xerox ), and improve on them.

And frankly, after 2,5 years of KDE, I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting.

And frankly, after 1,5 year of OSX, I find Linux GUI just ugly and inconsistent.

I've used OS X for a week or so, but I dislike the GUI. Actually, not just the GUI, the overall system. I don't remember a thing I liked better than other systems. I like Windows XP and Linux (Gnome).

Joe I'm with you. I'll take Windows and Linux (Gnome) anyday over OS-X.

I had to help a client prepair a property valuation report where he was using a digital camera with audio snipits to log the various buildings are different sites. He was using OS-X and it was horrible for drag and drop of the images into a WP and listening to corresponding audio snipits to help ID the images.

Windows was much easier and led him to hiring a windows laptop to get the basics done.

I also use OS-X in a I.T. support/Digital Print role and find myself annoyed at how limiting the UI is.

STill, use what you're happy with but for me, it ain't OS-X and After testing Gutsy I have to say Gnome is great..

Funny how the initial post got scored up by saying exactly what scored you down ...

I don't see why Linux desktop should make you never look back at any other OS.

I switch from OS X this summer to linux, _completely like in the title, initially to 7.04 and update to 7.10. One major reason it's speed. I needed to run virtualized Windows for my development and business needs (accounting) and OS X was simply unresponsive on heavy load. At the same load on exactly the same computer (mac mini) Linux handle the job far more efficiently.

But what annoyed me with this -completely- exageration, is that the author use limited users needs, normally HIS.

Synchronisation in Linux, Ubuntu for me, doesn't provide something close as what you can find in windows or OSX. Palm work OK, better in Gusty, but it's still doesn't support multiple group, notes sync, crash on sync exception. Grouping is mandatory. Even if opensync is a really promissing, open source, multiplugins etc., it does not offer a viable alternative right now.

Bluetooth headset are not plug'n'play, but they are under windows and OSX. Just look the Ubuntu forum for "bluetooth headset". It's a mess to make it working.

Since this weekend I'm back in OSX, I don't need to use vmware that much. I prefer OSX for a lot of other reason. But I think Linux in general is ready for the desktop, but not "completely and never look back".

I can't believe the blatant bias of Linux zealots. Someone says: "And frankly, after 2,5 years of KDE, I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting" and gets a plus 7. Someone else says something very similar but replaces Linux and Windows with OSX and Linux and gets marked down to 0. Both arguments are not backed up with anything but we get two opposite reactions. Please explain.

They're called "Linux weenies". When people discover that there's an alternative to Windows after all, for some reason, a good percentage of them have to go through this stage as part of their maturing process. In my experience one of 4 things occurs:

1. They go back to Windows.
2. They get stuck in this phase (like some people do after graduating high school) and annoy the community forever.
3. They realize that while there are differences in OSes, they all have their place, and even if some are better overall, your choice of OS isn't a direct indication of phallus size.
4. They discover *BSD.

4. should be "They decide something *else* is the awesome and become weenies about that" and then repeat the process you outlined. Getting a clue is a separate operation from switching to BSD. You can do it in either order.

How about the fact that the pro-Linux poster talked about functionality (which is true: the KDE desktop has more functionalities than the Windows one, if only with kio-slaves), while the pro-OSX poster talked about looks (which is highly debatable: you can have a Linux desktop that is just as nice-looking *and* consistent as an OSX one).

Also, the first post wasn't limited to that only argument. For all you know, it could have been modded up for its first portion, and not the second one. The other post, meanwhile, was *only* about provocation, and a blatant attempt to ignite a flame war.

There, glad I could be of help for you - and guess what, I managed to do it without insulting anyone! You should try it sometime.

Well, I'm a Linux-nut and I have Vista on sda1. I paid for it (laptop tax), and I don't want to wipe it off just yet. I'm getting the Orange box in a few days and my hardware won't be able to take the extra hit that Wine will ask of it.

I also boot into it every now and then to remind myself why I use Linux

But seriously, say I need to do something quickly, and it requires Windows. Then I can boot in, get it done, get out. Sometimes I don't want to have to fight with Wine.

Just because you dual boot doesn't mean you're less of a fan!

*EDIT* Let me just say that if Dell offered Ubuntu laptops in South Africa, however, I wouldn't have chosen to get one with Windows on it. It would be Ubuntu only.

Edited 2007-10-22 11:59

> Well, I'm a Linux-nut and I have Vista on sda1.
> I paid for it (laptop tax), and I don't want to
> wipe it off just yet.

Assuming you're using an OEM pre-activated version of Vista and you *do* eventually choose to wipe it I found a cool program that can backup and restore Vista's activated state.

http://directedge.us/node/24

It's at the very bottom of the page, "ABRbeta3.zip", and it works perfectly: if you ever want to reinstall Vista just do so with any Vista DVD, choosing the correct edition and leaving the CD key blank field blank, when it's installed, just run the restore program and reboot and you're laughing.

It's perfectly legit and also *very* handy for fresh Vista reinstallation to strip away OEM bundleware.

Just to absolutely clarify it is _not_ a crack. the restore procedure will only work on the machine on which you backup the activation, since it's tied to the BIOS. You may be able to do 32bit -> 64bit upgrades with it though (Since 32 bit licenses are valid for 64bit use)

I agree completely, the only reason I ever boot into windows is for HL2.

Why bother? Works quite well under Cedega. Sure it's evil commercial software and all, but so is Windows and $15 is not too much next to a Windows license.

I tried cedega (granted it was a few years ago) and overall it performed very well but there were some problems with certain character models it seemed.

i so agree.
i blame it on the fact that the linux world has developers with different rules. everyone want their gui to look the way they want it so you end up having one app in gnome look completely different than app2 with huge ugly fonts not flowing correctly with the rest of the Desktop. In windows and the mac you dont have that issue.

ZOMG.. 2.. 1.. /dev/null

IMHO, PCLinuxOS gets you going with FAR less of a hassle. You get a fully functional desktop, with all the codecs you may need, in some 15 minutes. You can choose to use ndiswrapper with just a couple of clicks, you get the awesome control center (from Mandriva, I know) and Synaptic with VERY rare dependency issues, which I've had in Ubuntu. You can even install programs in RAM (I installed and used Partimage this way) and they get installed on disk. The repos are a bit smaller, but most used apps are very up-to-date, and it's a rolling release, so you don't need to dist-upgrade or reinstall to get recent packages.

Sure, Ubuntu has its advantages (for instance, bigger repos, better language support and a 64-bit version) but I get mad at those articles saying "switch from Windows to Ubuntu" instead of "switch from Windows to Linux" as if no other distro were worth mentioning.

"Sure, Ubuntu has its advantages (for instance, bigger repos, better language support and a 64-bit version) but I get mad at those articles saying "switch from Windows to Ubuntu" instead of "switch from Windows to Linux" as if no other distro were worth mentioning."

+ you up one but still the biggest factor as to why I said Ubuntu has the least hassle is the one thing you left out,unintentionally I hope and that is the community.

I have seen and even used to a minor extent distros that were easier to set up than Ubuntu, but when I hit a snag I was left cold in the dark to figure out stuff for myself which left me frustrated and headed back to Windows with a sour taste in my mouth.

I have encouraged someone to use Ubuntu and I know they are medium level Windows user and I just hooked them onto www.ubuntuguide.org and now they are as happy as a lark.I have never consulted them with a problem ever since.

Telling users to switch to Linux at this point is like telling someone who is asking for directions just to take a bus and never say which one to take.

All things considered including Ubuntu's technical merits or lack thereof Linux needs a face to be marketed.Ubuntu has that face.That is the major difference from the technically proficient super duper distro X,Y,or Z.

Plus I know how some human beings are and for whatever reason when Ubuntu isn't the novel cool thing to do, it would have opened their minds and given them confidence in their technical prowess to try more distros or even something like BSD.So in the end other Linux distros do get the nod.

All this hype about "community" - well I once bought it back in my Ubuntu days but now I use PCLinux..
P
Many of the posts in Ubuntu give the impression
of activity and help..the fact is that many of the posts
are of the nature of "the blind leading the blind".
By the way, i found this of gentoo as well..just
because forums have 1000 users/posts per day doesn't
mean they will be helpful if there is no
knowledge base.
The help forums in PCLinux have, in my opinion,
much better answers and the fact that there are
less questions just shows that PClinux has less problems.

Fair enough

Fair enough

The reason why I didn't mention Ubuntu's community as an "advantage over PCLOS" is simply that my personal experience with PCLOS community has been very possitive, so it wouldn't be fair to say it's "not as good as Ubuntu's". But sure, Ubuntu does have a great community, as far as I know

As long it works for you

I remember using PCLOS a couple years back and it was great.Everything worked out the box but I was distro hopping back then.

Cheers.

The article is from the "September 2007" issue of APC Magazine, which means it was probably written sometime in July at the latest - well before 7.10 was released.

Even so, 7.04 would probably have been a better option.

Edited 2007-10-22 11:34

"There is no reason to apologize to Microsoft zealots which haunt the halls of OS News looking for people to scare and haze. Ignore them."

Uhm, OSNews has it's share of zealots of all stripes, OS X, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD. You yourself are showing quite a bit of zealotry.

It's good to see Ubuntu getting all this good press, it certainly helps the cause, but don't believe that your choices will work for everyone, every one needs to be able decide what works best for them.

No he's not - well, apart from that "world domination" comment at the end, which is meant in jest. The rest of his comment is simply how he and his wife get along great without Windows. That's a statement of fact, and there's nothing zealotous about it.

I think people throw the "zealot" and "fanboy" epithets around much too casually here...

The statement I was addressing was quoted at the beginning of my post, and that's all I was addressing. I found the statement rather hypocritical. I was not addressing any other part of his post. Dealing with just the statement:

"There is no reason to apologize to Microsoft zealots which haunt the halls of OS News looking for people to scare and haze. Ignore them."

It sounds like a statement a zealot might make. That's my opinion. I agree that "zealot" and "fanboy" are tossed around way to much, and wanted to point out the fact that by making that statement, he sounded just like the zealots he was complaining about.

Fair enough. :-)

"Uhm, OSNews has it's share of zealots of all stripes, OS X, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD. You yourself are showing quite a bit of zealotry."

Yes. You bet. I don't deny it. Unlike most, I was a Windows-only systems administrator for six-years. I must still manage them for some of the Oracle servers I maintain and manage.

I've had some really interesting e-mails from Windows zealots off list. Generally I grab some pop corn, sit back, read and chuckle at the `Monkey Boy` Balmer-like words they write.

There is no reason to apologize to Microsoft zealots which haunt the halls of OS News looking for people to scare and haze. Ignore them.

Actually I think the reverse is true more often. I think Windows users are more on the defense here than the alternatives, nevermind the fact that they may actually need to use Windows for their employment or hobbies.

While I think most people here appreciate your frustration, in the end driver and kernel authors are the source of it and you have to accept that the name Ubuntu or Canonical does not carry with it the same level of "buck stops here" responsibility that Apple or Microsoft does. And this is coming from someone who badgered kernel authors over the multimedia problems 2.6.15 created for owners of tuner cards with the BTTV chipset (a large chunk of the Myth userbase).

A distribution is just that. You yourself noted that no distribution you tried resolved the nVidia docking problems. If you're not comfortable with how a Linux ecosystem works differently than a centralized, corporate, commercial OS, your solution is simple. Stay with what you're comfortable with.

And again, you're absolutely right that this should 'just work.' My Latitude C610 has ATI graphics and video works fine in the dock. You should have the same experience even if the graphics card vendor is different.

You do realise, don't you, that Ubuntu 7.10 will install and run fully and correctly on far, far more machines than either Vista or OSX?

Ubuntu 7.10 will not only run on most machines, unlike Vista, it will run far better as well:

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10006214o-2000331758...

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10006217o-2000331777...

So are you prepared to use the same argument applied to Vista? It doesn't matter if Vista is hyped to the heavens and advertised on all the TV channels, it still doesn't work well on most hardware, it is compatible with less existing software than Ubuntu is, and it is miles and miles behind in functionality and cost compared to Ubuntu 7.10.

Install Vista ... where is the Office suite? For that matter, where is anything at all beyond Notepad & Paint?

Install Ubuntu ... is there anything missing at all? OK, then just install it for free using the package manager, it takes all of 10 seconds to search for whatever you wanted.



Whatever. Just don't expect anyone to believe you when they can see for themselves the true story. They will be using their free, fully functional and working Ubuntu desktop (without having to shell out for new hardware or extra memory) while you are still having to sweat through your next BSA audit.

Looks like the usual thing in any Linux distro: It's great when it recognizes all your hardware, and it royally sucks if it doesn't.

The only thing that I find disturbing are regressions. But on the other hand, if you don't test the development versions on your hardware when they are still beta, you are not entitled to a working system.

Mot much of a compensation, I know, but that's what free software is about: Scratch your own itch, if you don't scratch, don't complain about the itch.