To me, it’s a miracle how every tiny article on OSNews.com, or any other tech-site, ends up in people shouting all sorts of nonsense at each other like “Linux is gonna bring back Elvis”, “Windows shot president Kennedy”, “Linux kept the cold war cold” or “Bill Gates wants to buy the moon and charge people for looking at it”. Do these people really know what they are saying, or are they just going with the Open-Source flow? Update: Rebuttal article here.Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
General Note: Please forgive any grammar mistakes as the author is not a native english speaker.
Intro
I tend to think the latter. Not because I am not a Linux fan (I happily set up my Computer with Mandrake about two years ago, they are still merrily in love), but because I have not heard anything new in the past two years. It is always “my god, not another security hole in Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP/Server 2003”, “Microsoft aggressively bought company X”, “Microsoft launches another way to protect their software” and “Microsoft software is too exspensive”. And Linux, on the other hand, is all bliss.
Well, I think Linux is not all “bliss”. Linux would be all “bliss” if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times, if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let’s say, Ati products (Ati being the number two in graphics cards!), if we forget the “geek” image of Linux, if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued, if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard).
You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs, if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion).
If you confront Linux addicts with the disadvantages I just named, you always get the same reaction: “When Linux becomes (more) mainstream, those problems will disappear.” Well, I think you should turn that around: Linux will become (more) mainstream, when those problems are solved, or at least addressed. Your OS can be great when it comes to its inner workings, but it are the looks of the OS that really matter to the masses. Would Marylin Monroe have become as famous if she was not so darn pretty? I do not think so. I mean, consumers do not want to wait forever for their PC to boot (you can read a Donna Tart in the meantime… twice), they do not want twelve different applications for one task, they do not want to choose between six different Window Managers, even though all of them are quite good. I mean, do you line up six tv’s in your living room just because they look a bit different from each other? Again, I do not think so (imagine the remote-control interference…).
What Should We Do?
So, what should happen to Linux in order to gain more marketshare at the cost of Windows? Well, a lot has been said when it comes to this particular issue.
I think the major Distributions should all “join hands” to create one version of Linux, with one desktop, a uniform look, with one update system and so on. They can still develop their own Distributions (for the fans, I do not think my Computer and Mandrake will ever divorce). By creating a standard, you will make it more accessible for the masses. Just look at the dvd recording standards now: the number of standards are really stopping people from buying a dvd recorder. They are heavily influenced by articles stating the risk of buying one: “Your standard may be unsupported in a few years”.
It will be no problem if Linux XP (couldn’t resist the temptation 
, sorry) will cost something, they can spend the earned money on research. The newly developed applications can first be put in the Distributions, and, when the community is satisfied, they can be integrated into the next Linux version, Linux Longhorn (okay, this is getting silly). This way you get the best of both worlds: the knowledge, experience and diversity of the Open-Source world, combined with the easiness and clarity of standardized software. A very good example is, in my eyes, LindowsOS 4.0. I have used it for a couple of weeks now and I must say I am impressed. Despite critizism from the Open-Source commmunity (“It’s too Windows”, “It’s not free” and “They don’t supply source-code (which is a plain lie, by the way)”), I believe LindowsOS is kind of what that new standardized Linux should look like.
Of course that kind of takes away the essence of the Open-Source concept. Open-Source is all about letting everybody not only use the software, bu also letting everybody improve the software. This has led to a diversity in the available software. This is a good thing, if you are an expert willing to put time and effort into your OS, but if you are not, than Linux just isn’t for you, at this moment.
But, as always, this is just my opinion. So please, do not send any suicide penguins my way…
About the author:
You could say I’m an expert user, but I think that is a bit overrated. When I think of an expert, I think of someone with programming skills. And I’m already happy if I can succesfully edit my Lilo.conf or my XF86Config-4 file! I’m a bit more experienced in Windows, since I have been using MS-DOS/Windows since 1991 (that’s right, I was seven at the time!). In 2001 I bought my own computer and from that time the fun really started. I installed Mandrake, played around with BeOS, SkyOS, FreeBSD and so on. But Windows and Linux will always be my favourites.
After 15 or so posts, interesting.
Let me expand on what I said.
Lets look at the new linux user, like a new person to a religion, they are extremely hardcore and zealous about their belief and any one who dares challenges them are slandered as Microsoft supporters.
Lets give them 8-9 years to calm down and get out of the rafters then maybe they will post a coherient sentence based on reality rather than cheap indeological rhetoric.
I admit, back in my days as a yongster, I was a hardcore Linux supporter believing it could take over the world. I have seen the real world and anyone who thinks that Linux can compete on the desktop are really deluding themselves to reality.
If the issue was mearly a crappy interface then fixing it up wouldn’t be so hard, however, there is a heck of alot more to be fixed up that just that.
Crappy hardware support, crappy GUI, crappy software availability and crappy Graphic Interface Layer.
I won’t compare X with GDI+, however, I would compare it with Quartz. instead of bitching over the scematics and name calling, how about look at successful Graphic Interfaces and create something which builds upon them.
I am running MacOS X 10.2.6 right now, and the responsiveness and clarity of it beat anything that XFree86 could put together.
Average users do need graphical software installers. Would you open a terminal just for typing “apt-get program” everytime you want to install something? I wouldn’t.
Someone here said “If you need a graphical installer, develop one”. The problem is, as soon as you have the skills to do so, you don’t need it anymore, so you wouldn’t waste your time, because you don’t get paid for it like at Microsoft. So I don’t see any chance.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
Uhhh… why is bashing linux a no-no? i think he spoke VERY fairly…
Average users do need graphical software installers. Would you open a terminal just for typing “apt-get program” everytime you want to install something? I wouldn’t.
Someone here said “If you need a graphical installer, develop one”. The problem is, as soon as you have the skills to do so, you don’t need it anymore, so you wouldn’t waste your time, because you don’t get paid for it like at Microsoft. So I don’t see any chance.
You have just answered your own question. As soon as you have the skills you don’t need a big bloated gui for eveything. That what learning to do things effectively is all about.
There is nothing faster than typing apt-get install <package>. Why wade through endless lists of programs when you just need one (and it even installs supporting programs and libs).
BTW If you’re obsessed by the GUI way or no-way, why not use Synaptic or Kpackage.
Hope you learn to be productive,
rob
Linux would be all “bliss” if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times,
3 s more than Windows XP here.. an then I run more services in linux.
if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let’s say, Ati products (Ati being the number two in graphics cards!)
Well… My Radeon 7500 M works fine here…
if we forget the “geek” image of Linux
Oh, you’re out of real “issues” or what?
if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued
All MS OS’es costs, and all are being discontinued
if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard).
So then why don’t you run apt-get?
You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs,
These are all very subjectal points.
if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion).
Are you trying to mock us!?!? You honestly think these creations are good???
Interesting article, someone talking some sense for once.
There’s a thing here. What happens if Linux becomes easy to use? Is that a good thing? Not necessarily. To get it so that my grandmother can use it, means it has to be dumbed down. Made less powerful. Is that good?
Why does making a system easier to use make it any less powerful?
It’s not as if it hasn’t been done before, NeXT, OS X, BeOS are all easy to use but the power is there if you want it.
So, Linux does not need to be “dumbed down”. What it needs is a layer where everything is easy to use, graphical and command lines are never even heard of. Underneath that layer the system can stay as it is. That way both geeks – and the rest of the world – can be happy.
IMHO, Linux is as easy to maintain as W2Kpro. Both of them need geeks on call. For big organisations that is fine, Linux has arrived. For the home user, not yet.
To install Linux at the moment you do have to be somewhat aware, but Joe Sixpack is not going to think of doing so, so that is OK for now.
Mandrake 9, with which I am familiar, is dead easy for a knowledgable newbie to install new software on. The Mandrake wizards are easier than the Windows Installer, for applications shipped on the Mandrake CDs. For the first few months that is fine. As they learn the newbie can add more download sources to the wizard. A few months later they can do the configure/make/make install type of source code installation. A few months on and they can handle the other stuff.
Yes, for Joe, a newbie install option with standardised apps and services would be good. One choice for everything. Once he learns a bit he can install other stuff, or not, as he wants. Lindows is not a good path, IIUC, no good upgrade path to a “full” installation.
Did you saw the ARK Linux instllation?
You can play Tetris while Installing, NO JOKE!!!!
Funny that the story below this one was “Bill Gates : 5% Of Windows Machines Crash More Than Twice A Day”
And even funnier, look at the story that comes after this.
Were you setting us up, Eugenia?
———————————–
To all:
You can argue back and forth about Linux versus Windows, but it still comes down to your individual needs, and the software you use, period.
For example, I use Windows 2000 at home for one of my workstations. Now it is a major pain to install Windows 2000 + security patches + updates + .NET framework (I usually skip this part), etc… This requires me to literally spend a whole day getting my Windows 2000 system up to speed. Once I get it there, I install the few apps I work with and leave it that way. I never log in and work as “administrator”, and I never give my ordinary login permission to install. I then work from behind my FreeBSD firewall and I install Zone Alarm. I never use Outlook or Outlook Express. Why do I bother to use Windows 2000? 1. I need to support my web apps in Internet Explorer, so I need a test station, and 2. There are two Windows applications I really love: UltraEdit and Terragen (OK, CorelDraw also…). That’s pretty much it. Other than that, I really don’t care about Windows either way for my home use. I usually have no problem with the typical viruses, because I don’t run the vulnerable software or services.
Now, on My FreeBSD and Slackware test dev stations, I feel far more freedom to play around with installing/uninstalling applications, recompiling the kernel, playing with different window managers, etc… I can usually with minimal work get my FreeBSD system booting far faster than a comparable Windows one. Ditto for Slackware, although I can’t say the same for RedHat or Mandrake. But, I fit the profile for a *nix user.
At my day job, however, its a far different story. Non-tech people use Windows ranging from ’95 to XP. They use Outlook Express, they exchange Word documents with the outside world, they run default services, and they hardly ever bother doing the Windows update, because it is such a pain on their slower older machines. I, as the IT director and lead developer of this small company, am seriously considering a mandate that we move to Linux or FreeBSD desktops. This is because I am sick of reading about a new vulnerability every other day, and having people tap me on the shoulder every other hour because their system crashed, or couldn’t connect to the network, etc… These are facts that happen, not uninformed opinions about my OS preference as a geek.
Now, you might think I am crazy for considering this move. But, our company’s main job is to sell a web-based application service. We can quite easily use Mozilla for all the customer service interfaces I have built. We don’t need to exchange Word documents with the outside world, because OpenOffice supports .RTF format quite well, and our documents don’t need to be that complex. Our people use Excel a lot, but after a few comparisons I have made between OpenOffice spreadsheet (in the latest 1.1 beta), and Excel, I am impressed. Also, there is always Gnumeric.
The benefit I get from switching everyone to *nix desktops is that I can run a cheap, easy thin-client network, while still allowing people to boot into Windows occasionally if necessary. But mainly, I no longer have to run to each desktop to fix a problem, nor do I need to worry about the latest Windows vunerability. With this approach, I can just get on with my job, instead of spending half my day on crisis response.
Yes, I could tell the boss we need Windows Terminal Server, and I would immediately be shot down because we quite simply don’t have the money. And anyways, there have been quite a few vunerabilities that will affect Terminal server too. Plus, I somehow suspect I would get the same number of taps on the shoulder… If we had that kind of money, I would probably want the whole office using Mac OS X, but that’s just me ;-).
For other companies, this formula might be completely reversed, and in fact it would be more expensive to move to *nix desktops. Fine for them. So, you see, It’s not simple. There is no one system fits all, and that’s the way I like it.
But I’m glad that Linux is giving Microsoft some cause for concern. Ditto for Mac. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone drove a Ford.
Why has no one mentioned that when Windows boots up to the login screen it hasn’t really finished booting?
It takes at least another 10-15s after initial login for the computer to become useable.
Boot up Windows then without logging in shutdown it down again. You’re guaranteed a very long wait.
Interesting review of LindowsOS 4.0 — http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10639
“Similarly, Linux did NOT succeed because of any simularities with Windows.”
How much progress on the desktop do you think Linux would have made if it didn’t have Windows like DEs such as KDE or GNOME? How about if it lacked OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. and just had console apps like vi? How many home users would have even bothered to try it if Linux didn’t have an easy to use graphical installer and configuration?
If Linux/opensource programmers hadn’t copied features from other OSes and application we wouldn’t even be discussing Linux on a desktop. I doubt anyone except a few hardcore geeks would know it even existed.
Yet Linux zealots are still spouting this rhetoric every time someone criticises Linux.
Darius,
>If you don’t want spyware on your machine, then don’t
>install any. How hard is that?
I agree with your sentiment. That’s one of many reasons
why I don’t use Windows XP. Perhaps you’re familiar with
the way it keeps track of what media (music/video/dvd) you
use and reports it back to Redmond? Have you read the eula that comes with the windows media player update?
I’m sure that you were familiar with the phone home (no,
I don’t mean for help) feature in Windows 95 & 98, you know the feature that told Microsoft what was on people’s hard drives, the feature that Ralph Nader sued in federal court over?
Please don’t say that was then this is now. Fact is, YOU don’t know if Microsoft has stopped doing that phone home stuff, — UNLESS — you happen to work at Microsoft and
have inside knowledge.
I must admit though that you and all the other users of Microsoft OS’s have my mixed respect — anyone who can use an OS with over 80,000 known worms,viruses,trojans, etc., is either very brave … or very foolish in their
trust of a single profit motivated corporation to keep
their data protected even from the corporation itself.
> You have just answered your own question. As soon as you have the skills you don’t need a big bloated gui for eveything. That what learning to do things effectively is all about.
> There is nothing faster than typing apt-get install <package>. Why wade through endless lists of programs when you just need one (and it even installs supporting programs and libs).
> BTW If you’re obsessed by the GUI way or no-way, why not use Synaptic or Kpackage.
> Hope you learn to be productive,
> rob
*lol* I thought we were talking about the ease-of-use of Linux. The point is, if you have to learn C++ in order to be able to use Linux with ease, well, think about the rest yourself. The general public doesn’t consist of programmers.
And for the being productive part: Not looking at the fact that most people don’t want to build their OS but to use it, why should I be “productive” by programming something in a year a Linux geek would need a week for?
Okay, after a night’s sleep and a day at work, and reading 50+ posts, I’m finally able to give some response here.
For starters, and I’m seriously getting pissed here: I DO NOT FAVOR WINDOWS OVER LINUX! Read the article carefully and you’ll notice. All I’m saying is that Linux die-hards very often have a tunnel view; Everything oss is good, and if it’s not oss, it’s not good. Period. That’s, with all due respect, not a very intelligent way of looking at software, now is it?
Some replies to posts I found interesting:
-“”the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard)”
If you haven’t even tried the installation method that a lot of people think is the best, you have no business slagging off Linux installation methods.”
Agree, kind of bad choice of words. What I meant is that I’ve only been able to use apt-get for a short while, so my findings weren’t very representative. A matter of statistics. Sorry if this confused you.
-“Uhhh… why is bashing linux a no-no? i think he spoke VERY fairly…”
Again, I’m not bashing Linux, I’m just saying what’s wrong with it, from my point of view. Bashing is when you scream all sorts of negative nonsense about an, in this case, OS. Kind of like many of those Linux die-hards do when talking about MS.
-“”If we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued”
All MS OS’es costs, and all are being discontinued.”
Of course, that’s true, but you know the deal when it comes to MS. I think it’s more unfair to suddenly have to pay for something you’ve been using free for years, than knowing for sure you have to pay a sh*tload of money every 4-5 years or so.
“”You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs,”
These are all very subjectal points.”
What did you expect from an opinional (is that a word?) piece?
“Three stories in a row on windows?
PROPAGANDA TRICK.”
For the last time: my article wasn’t pro windows… ow forget it, you can’t cure a blind man.
As I said, a part two is in the making.
I will not rest my case.
By the way, the article was written in MDK 9.2beta1 using Kate.
See, I use Linux a lot, and I like it. I don’t hate it.
I will switch from Windows to Linux–when Linux is ready, and it absolutely isn’t, unless you buy a ground-up machine with all the proper hardware (esp modem), and the main motive is to get away from the shitty company of MS and Gates, who I think is slightly insane–obscene wealth and guilt therefrom did it to him.
No matter how you try to avoid it, how you justify an interest in Linux, your switch to it will hurt MS in someway. When you zap TV channels you “hurt” the advertisers whose garrish loud commercials you want to avoid–and you hurt, very very tinily, the whole “advertising model”.
CEOs everywhere orgasm over the thought of having a fraction of the power and influence MS has. All those people EARNING A LIVING on the myriad abstruse flaws of this OS. Step on these bugs–with your commercial choices. Hey, I can always write on a REAL laptop, that is, a one dollar pad of paper–but Linux is my best choice for an escape from this madness.
“For the last time: my article wasn’t pro windows…”
Yet, you dind’s say any of the flaws of Windows and lot in Linux.
“”For the last time: my article wasn’t pro windows…”
Yet, you dind’s say any of the flaws of Windows and lot in Linux.”
That’s simply beacuse the article wasn’t about that. The first part was about the attitude some linux die-hards have (oss=good, css=bad, evil, the devil!), the second part about what should happen to Linux in general (as far as I’m concerned).
I’m getting the feeling here people only read what they want to read.
I think you need to write in a more inpartial point of view, maybe you tried to told us something we didn’d get cause the sense of the words.
Words like:
“You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs, if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion). ”
and words like:
“Well, I think Linux is not all “bliss”. Linux would be all “bliss” if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times, if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let’s say, Ati products (Ati being the number two in graphics cards!), if we forget the “geek” image of Linux, if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued, if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard)”
You sound like a pro-microsoft in the firsth part an like a Linux basher in the second part.
You just need to chose the right words so we can really understand you.
I have chosen those words very carefully. As I said, part one was about me trying to contradict the view some Linux die-hards tend to have (MS=evil, always wrong, etc. Linux=heaven, good, will bring world peace etc.).
I cannot help that when I say “parts a and b aren’t that good” you immediatly assume c through z aren’t good either.
A tip when reading articles, reviews etc: don’t try to read more than the author wrote.
I understand that part, but you need to release that this forum is read it by people who really use Linux as their main OS and had found on it a very stable and better OS than Windows, don’t you spec cheers from them.
Your article is from a point of view very particular (your own), but everybody has one.
Just take it like a constructive review.
You could say I’m an expert user
No,I wouldn’t : an expert user would know how to speed up his boot process, or would have used apt-get already. Or he would know some of the alternatives like urmpi or up2date. And most importantly, he wouldn’t write idiot articles about Linux on the internet.
How many people are going to write this article? And do they all think they’re the first?
How much progress on the desktop do you think Linux would have made if it didn’t have Windows like DEs such as KDE or GNOME? How about if it lacked OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. and just had console apps like vi? How many home users would have even bothered to try it if Linux didn’t have an easy to use graphical installer and configuration?
If Linux/opensource programmers hadn’t copied features from other OSes and application we wouldn’t even be discussing Linux on a desktop. I doubt anyone except a few hardcore geeks would know it even existed.
Yet Linux zealots are still spouting this rhetoric every time someone criticises Linux.
—–
No, you missed the point. The point is that Linux has a different purpose than Windows. And that has succeeded in fulfilling that purpose.
YOU are measuring Linux’s success by how similar it is to Windows.
I am measuring Linux’s success by how useful and fun people find it. Linus created Linux for fun, to learn from, and because he needed it.
Linux was useful and fun LONG BEFORE Gnome and KDE hit the scene. I’ve been using Linux and FreeBSD since 1994 and even back then, it was useful and fun.
Linux, *BSD, Apache, KDE, GNOME, etc. have always been successes because they have a fun, free and open development environment. There is a market for this.
Is this Linux zealotry? No. It’s freedom zealotry.
Open source is a success! Why not enjoy it and haves some fun! Stop raining on our parade.
I totally agree with you (yes! I like Linux! It’s a miracle… I’m gonna state that a few more times, maybe it’ll get through… eventually
), but, you have to agree, some critisizm can’t do no harm, now can it?
And I still believe I made some reasonable points in this article.
i partly agree with the author. it’s been proven time and time again that standardisation is the way forward. i think that having many distros is healthy but i think all the distros need to agree on ONE package format and ONE API for programming guis so graphical programs don’t need to be ‘frontended’ to KDE or Gnome. redhat’s theme for both KDE and Gnome was really smart. it seems that linux is growing alot but the growth is too unorganized.
I think people are so hard on Linux because it’s ALMOST completely freaking cool. Right now if you don’t want to give MS any more money and aren’t a geek, pretty much the only game in town is Apple.
—
God help me, I just bought an older iMac cheap off of eBay, the copy of YDL 3.0 + Manual is ordered, and the goal is to see if I can get it up and running, play a CD, surf the web, and pitch and possibly write an article on the whole experience for OS News.
—
Last night I was clicking around in my applications folder, playing around with some of the programs that were installed when I installed bsdmall’s Office Applications for OS X, a slew of *nix programs + a flavor of X Windows to run them in.
A lot of the programs have real potential but are half baked. Abi Word can’t print, nor can I copy and paste between it and Aqua. Open Office is a resource hog (but I can copy and paste), I can’t make heads or tails of the Gimp (I find Photoshop easier and more intuitive!).
But anyhow, I opened up a program called Dillo. An alpha release webbrowser that crashed on me twice (hey, it’s Alpha) but was incredibly freaking fast. Like, Safari or Opera on the PC fast. It was a really nifty little browser and I liked it enough to see if there was an updated version. There was.
Problem #1: Which flavor do I download? Darwin or BSD?
And I had this sinking feeling that when I finally picked one of them, it wasn’t going to end up on my desktop, waiting for me to double click it and =poof!= handy dandy program icon waiting to take residence in my apps folder or dock.
Problem #2: Where would the download end up on my hard drive?
Problem #3: How the hell do I install it if there’s no little icon waiting for my loving double click?
Problem #4: Can I even install it or will I have to convert it into something a PPC processor can make sense of?
I’m sure that if I spent about 45 minutes with google as my co-pilot and/or David Pogue’s guide to OS X, I could’ve answered those questions.
Needless to say, I didn’t download. If this isn’t an arguement for a *nix standard package and gui install procedure, I don’t know what is. Cute, fun looking program, but I had no clue as to how to get it up and running on my comptuer.
Almost completely awesome.
Almost.
//You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs, if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion).
If you confront Linux addicts with the disadvantages I just named, you always get the same reaction: “When Linux becomes (more) mainstream, those problems will disappear.”//
I believe Mandrake to be even easier to install then Windows. You also forget that for every piece of 3rd party software that you want to install after the initial install requires a reboot. Just check the boxes for the programs you want installed during Mandrake’s installation and not only is your hardware automatically detected but you already have all the programs you need.
If you use something like KDE then you will not only have a fully integrated Desktop but, you will not be lacking in tools either. KDE by default provides more integrated programs then Windows does.
Installing using apt or portage is ten times easier than Install Shield. Two words: no rebooting
The clear structure you speak of is not so clear. I think the Unix structure is much more intuitive. I believe this is just merely your preference and not based on any real flaw. I always hated Program Files because you would often run into some company name as the name of the directory and it had nothing to do with the program and you would have no clue what it was for. If you have enough programs on your computer it can be very confusing. If you want to know where your executable and other important information is on Linux then just do a “whereis”. Makes sense to me.
I also hate Windows Update. You cannot download everything at once. A lot of update must be rebooted before you can download other ones. They often break your system or make things unstable. Updating is very easy with apt and portage or even urpmi.
When people bring up your points they don’t get the “When Linux becomes (more) mainstream, those problems will disappear” routine from me. The problems you speak of are not there. Your statements are not true. They are not fact at all. Maybe you should get out there and actually use some of these features.
//The article was very good and basicly dead on.
For boot times he’s right, I have never had any distro boot on any of my computers in less thena few minutes, nor have a seen it on any others. Using all sorts of hacks to get it booting fast doesn’t count, its the out of the box setup that does. And for differances in times between distros, one more reason for their to be one distro. //
Mine boots in about 15-20 seconds without any “hacks” whatever you mean by that. So I’d say the article was dead wrong not dead on.
The article contains two of the familiar flaws that often are made when challenging enthusiasm for Linux.
The author writes “…You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, ” but whenever someone demonstrates a computer with Windows XP installed on it that behaves terribly with crashes and many user interface elements that simply do not work properly, the Windows fans response is always something like “it works when installed by someone who knows what they are doing”. So one has to be an expert to install Windows properly. So much for ease of installation
Then, “…if we forget the great hardware support”. but again, when it is demonstrated that a computer behaves terribly with windows, the response is usually something like “don’t expext it to work with crappy/obscure/old hardware”. Yet the same computer runs fine with a live-CD version of Linux. So much for hardware compatibility.
Then, “…if we forget the uniform look of all the programs”. This is the one area that surprised me the most about Windows XP. Using the DEFAULT (Luna) desktop scheme in Windows XP, Microsoft’s own programs show a shocking inconsistency between programs. Look at the way that menus are rendered in Wordpad, Outlook and Windows Explorer. Each one is different. This is not even third party software. These are programs that were released for that very version of the operating system! Incredible! But not only this, take a look at the way that scroll bars are rendered in Outlook. Depending on the pane, the scroll bars have a completely different look! Inconsistency within one program itself! This is not in a old version either. This is in the Office XP version! Again, incredible! Open the command prompt in XP and the complete window is rendered like no other window. Again, the program was release for XP, by Microsoft! So much for uniform look of all the programs.
So lets recap. Windows XP lacks:
hardware compatibility
ease of installation
uniform look of applications
So what is left to make Windows the supposed superior operating system?
And then there is that tired out old chesnut…
The author writes “…twelve different applications for one task, they do not want to choose between six different Window Managers, even though all of them are quite good. I mean, do you line up six tv’s in your living room just because they look a bit different from each other?” But wait, the last time I checked auto manufacturers have controls arranged in many different ways. How is it that people manage to deal with this and end up owning and driving only one car? A Honda has it’s windshield wiper controls very differently than a Cheverolet. The controls for the sunroof are also very different. Does this mean that everyone needs to own a Honda and a Cheverolet? The last time I bougt a car, I test drove several and bought the one that I liked best. Similarly with software, I try out several and keep the one that I like the best, discarding the others. Why do some have such a problem with this?
I revel in using my Linux box at home where I can choose the text editor, web browser, email program and software developement environmet of my choosing. I wish I could do the same at work, but the IT department just blindly supplies me with whatever Microsoft creates, without even going through a selection process.
I have never understood the aversion to choice. Some wish for their every living moment to be micromanaged by others I guess.
“Bill Gates wants to buy the moon and charge people for looking at it”
You really don’t think he would?
“Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed”
I guess you have been lucky those couple times you have done so? I’ve probably installed Windows over 500 times, it sucks, two words for you, “Corel Linux”, I’ve never seen anything easier than that (and this was on a Compuqe with weirdo chipsets and an SMC 8000 NIC).
“if we forget the great hardware support”
After changing the main circuit board, modem, sound card and video card of a Compaq Presario 5900Z (500Mhz AMD) and spending about 50 hours I got XP properly installed. The original mainboard was an Asus OEM board, Lucent Winmodem, OEM Sound Blaster PCI 64, Generic S3 Virge Video (it was not a REAL Compuqe with oddball parts from deepest he11) the external HP USB CD-Writer also never worked again, same goes for the scanner. This has not been completely atypical of the thirty something XP installations I’ve done so far. (okay a few went well)
“if we forget the uniform look of all the programs”
Uh, except for many of these new programs have some dumba$$ “skin” that you can’t remove.
“if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes”
You mean those glorified batch files which won’t uninstall half the time and fail completely about 1 in 30 times, that often won’t let me install stuff where I don’t want it because that partition is nearly full?
“if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc”
I would like to get rid of “My Documents” permanently. I don’t keep anything there. I use a data partition. I also install my apps to a separate partition. “Program Files” serves only to make the path longer and for me to occaisionally need to type C:Progra~1etc., that’s bullsh1t! /usr and /bin make a he11 of a lot more sense to me. I am sick of this A:B:C: sh1t too! hda0, hda1, hdb0 is well… logical?
“and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update”
I definitely don’t want “Windows Update”. I want a downloadable patch that I can test the effects of on a machine that exists for that purpose, then install to 100 desktops with a network login script entry. “Windows Update” broke the terminal client used to access the accounting system server, I had to reimage a dozen desktops.
“thousands of miles away from the Windows XP ease of use”
I’ve used well over thirty different operating systems since starting with CP/M in 1981 (Windows = 5 “Operating Systems”; 3.X, 9X, NT, 2K, XP). Currently the greatest percentage of my work week daily mileage is with NT 4 but about 25% is QNX, weekends are a different story. XP is the most difficult to use operating system I have ever encountered. It’s easier because stuff is harder to find, there’s a cartoon dog in my way and the “Start” menu is all different? I can set up a two machine p2p network in two minutes on NT. I gave up after 40 minutes trying to p2p an XPH to an XPP. Burning the data to transfer to CD was more convenient.
Boot Times? I have a fresh out of the box HP Pavillion 502n (1.3 Celeron, 256Mb) that takes over two minutes to boot XP (including after logging in). Yes, I can turn off services, get rid of crap like Messenger, edit the Registry, remove stuff from the “Start Up” folder, etc. but this is at least as complicated as Linux.
Okay, maybe you don’t favor Windows over Linux, but at the very least you believe Microsoft marketing material.
Even if you hate Linux, even if you love Windows, that does not mean Windows doesn’t suck. I’ve been using it since 3.1 was new, it hasn’t gotten better, just different. Oh, and if you bang on it hard enough you CAN make a 9X box stable.
My friend, I did not say XP was superior…
*a long, deep, VERY deep, SIGH*
-Installing Windows is, espacially compared to any Linux distro (except LindowsOS, as far as I know), easy. No mounting options, no boot loader configurations, no package selection… And look at this from a newbie’s point of view. Give a newbie a copy of MDK (in my opinion the best distro, I like MDK a lot, typing this in Opera for MDK) and XP. He’ll say installing Windows is easier.
-About the hardware support? Well, I’ve installed about every single version of Windows since 3.11 For Wrkgrps, on a lot of different configurations (not only my parents/my own pc’s, but also friends pc’s, family’s pc’s etc.) and in my experience I never had any trouble. BUT, I do understand taht it won’t be easy on all systems. Just a matter of statistics (therefore not buying me a new PC, it has been going well for too long now
)
-And then the uniform look. I never noticed the inconsistencies you talked about (and trust me, I pay attention when I install something new), but I can imagine you’re right (why lie?
) On the other hand, I’ve been using Server 2003 for while now (not a single unexpected reboot, only when fooling around with LiteStep, LS users know what I’m talking about;) ), It’s on a tie right now with my MDK install…
But please, I never said Windows was superior. I’m working on part II of the article as we speak (yesyes, again in Kate, in MDK) and I’ll try to clarify some issues.
BTW, your post was constructive. Finally…
Compaq? HP Pavilion?
Pre made pc’s are known to be unstable, slower, (and more expensive) compared to custom made pc’s.
And these days ordering a custom made pc is easy (at least over here in The Netherlands). At my expert computershop, even a complete idiot (a friend of mine for example, no offence to him though
can assemble one. Just speak with the people who work there (they’s pretty honest) and you cannot fail (since they’ll do the assembly work).
Constructive reply though.
What about having to *trick* Windows into doing something? You know, lying to a wizard to get the desired effect and other underhanded methods when you just know better and Windows won’t listen. When you must resort to voodoo.
With Linux you say “jump” and it jumps, yes it may fall and break it’s leg but if you knew better and that it would be okay when it landed, you are done. Linux obeys. There’s none of this “waving a dead chicken in the right place” stuff.
I’m not going to mention the half dozen ways of installing a printer driver, a random two of which will work for any given printer.
“Pre made pc’s are known to be unstable, slower, (and more expensive) compared to custom made pc’s.”
Hi, yes you are right except for the more expensive part (i.e. the crap Dell and Gateway sell for $500). I used those examples because they are typical of the garbage people buy, then bring to me to fix. One would think that Compaq’s very intimate connections with Microsoft (the VMS – NT thing and others) that Compuqes would run Windows BETTER than a “cherry picked parts” machine. Also, this low – end Acer junk from all the big manufacturers runs Linux better than Windows as often as not.
“”There’s none of this “waving a dead chicken in the right place” stuff. “”
This explains everything, you need an albatross.
Albatross? But those are so hard to find these days, please email me your source.
This last piece again underscores the fact that this forum is not oriented toward actual computer professionals, but hobbyists. For example,
Special Contributor Thom “Slakje” Holwerda wrote:
“In 2001 I bought my own computer” [note: speaks volumes]
“if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard)” [note: so he has “heard”?]
“I think the major Distributions should all “join hands” to create one version of Linux, with one desktop, a uniform look, with one update system and so on.” [note: thus expressing a fundamental ignorance of the nature of Linux].
None of this, of course, is to disparage Thom “Slakje” Holwerda’s offering–he took the time to write his (largely) unqualified, uninformed comments and it stands on its own merits. *The problem* is that this forum reflects the nature of its “editor” not its contributors, who is–at best–a crass, unlearned person that has *no business* pretending to be the editor of anything, let alone the “editor” of a technical forum dedicated to operating systems.
No responsible editor, let alone literate, restrained person, would ever respond in such a manner on a public forum:
By Eugenia (IP: —.client.attbi.com) – Posted on 2002-09-13 22:14:15:
“Why don’t you fuck yourself El Al?”
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1737&offset=60&rows=75
Posted on 2003-07-26 22:34:57 by abraxas:
<quote>
//The article was very good and basicly dead on.
For boot times he’s right, I have never had any distro boot on any of my computers in less thena few minutes, nor have a seen it on any others. Using all sorts of hacks to get it booting fast doesn’t count, its the out of the box setup that does. And for differances in times between distros, one more reason for their to be one distro. //
Mine boots in about 15-20 seconds without any “hacks” whatever you mean by that. So I’d say the article was dead wrong not dead on.
</quote>
What’s your hardware? 2 GHz + 512MB RAM?
Interestingly I wonder why most people find Linux v.hard to use.
I have tried it on many occasions, easy to install, easy to setup adsl connection. BUT!
I am no programmer and if it isn’t a properly packaged rpm, I cannot understand why it should take me ages to install software!
The problem with Linux is that it is a programmers OS, it has nothing but pain for those of us mere mortals.
So, even though I would like to dump windows, I will continue to use it, due to its ease of use, I have never needed to read a thick manual on how to use windows!, installing is dead easy, software installation is v.easy compared to Linux. People like that idea of Linux, they just don’t like the hard work. Am I lazy? Maybe, but I want an easy life, I want to get a software package, click install and viola!
“if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard).”
I can’t believe that somebody who doesn’t know the power of APT is writing articles for OSnews that critisizes Linux. That’s like letting the owner of a Hotdog stand run a french kitchen. Most of the RPM based Distro’s that come out these days, has ways of dealing with dependencies. Either APT, URPMI or similar Apps are used, or services such as Red carpet are utilized, Installing software has allready become a centralised task in Linux that windows can only dream of. I hate having to go out on the net to find apps manually (Hint:Windows…) Not so long ago, I had to find and copy DLL’s manually from the Win32 folder to get a relatively popular App running. In other words. Dependency hell works fine on Windows…
I guess the good “scribes” are on vacation.
I installed an adsl modem last week on my machine and i had to install it 3 times before it was properly installed! last night i had to install quicktime 6 times before it properly installed! badly installed packages are more prevalent in windows than linux. i admit i did have problems with rpms in mandrake, that’s why i changed to debain
Guys, guys, please first browse through the posts before commenting. If you did that, then you would’ve known I already replied to the “or so I’ve heard” question. It was kind of an unlucky choice of words, I explained that already. Please, take time to read the comments, before dissing someone.
And about the “in the 2001 i bought my own computer”. Look at the “my own” words. We have had computers in this house since 1991. That’s too late for you in order to be kind of experienced? Well sorry, I was seven at the time, much earlier and I would’ve been a friggin’ baby! Read before commenting… My god…
And then you reply to my “join hands” suggestion. Read the last paragraph of my article. I’ll post it here for you:
“Of course that kind of takes away the essence of the Open-Source concept. Open-Source is all about letting everybody not only use the software, bu also letting everybody improve the software. This has led to a diversity in the available software. This is a good thing, if you are an expert willing to put time and effort into your OS, but if you are not, than Linux just isn’t for you, at this moment.”
For the last time: If you read an article, READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! Don’t just read what you want to read.
And the you call me unqualified.
Sure if you only use mandrake. I bet you never heard about CRUX linux or ARCH linux. try them and see what booting is.
Windoze has always tried to be friendy to Joe-user,wheras Linux seems to pride itself on it’s complexity,and that is why it remains a ‘geek OS’.The Linux crowd needs to apply the concept of KISS (Keep It Simple,Stupid).The only other OS that I have seen do this to any degree was BeOS (I’m not gonna get into Mac because it requires it’s own hardware)and it did it to the point of surpassing Windows in many ways,A simple concise file-tree and an intuitive drag and drop GUI.Linux in it’s present form is like finding your way around in a large foreign badly layed-out city,full of narrow alleys and dead end streets,and the software installation is attrocious.and who thw hell,other than the true geek,wants to see that verbose boot mumbo-jumbo describing all the system calls,etc.I mean it’s fun the first time but it gets old fast and shoud be able to be switched off,once a user sees evrything does indeed work.
The multiple window managers are also an example of bloat and IMO X-windows should be abandoned in favor of something nice and lite like Photon in QNX(which IMO would make a hell of a nice desktop OS with some more software and a more BeOS-like software installation)Linux is way more easier to install for the average person than say FreeBSD but once you get there it’s still a bloated mess.I have said this before and will say it again ,It’s too damn bad that BeOS was crushed under the wheels of the M$-opoly before it really had a chance to get off the ground,It was way cheaper than Windows to buy (less than some of the Boxed Linux distros)every bit(and maybe more so)as user friendly,and given a few more years of professional development(i’m not talking ’bout a bunch of college kids with a website hacking on a 3yr-old unreleased version,that seems to rival the new Amiga OS in postponing a release date)would have been a serious contender for the M$ throne
Linux is just too scatterd and bloated with unnecessary stuff to ever be in it’s present form.
I actually own a piece of low-end Acer junk and trying to run alt OS’s on it has ,to say the least,has always been an exercise in patience ,if not futility.I think this is why I use it for a tryout platform for alt-OS’s,if it will run on the proprietory built-for-Windoze98-Low End Acer it will most likely run on anything,BeOS failed miserably at this(no USB keyboard and mouse support,altho I rigged a serial Mouse up and had mouse and joystick and sound,so it worked for a jukebox and to play a few games)Linux passed this by and stalled out on the Acer win-modem and the Acer USB scanner and the HP712C printer. But the software installation was so easy in BeOS and the interface was oso slick ,it made me go get a box that would run it.
In response to my original post, the author writes…
“-And then the uniform look. I never noticed the inconsistencies you talked about (and trust me, I pay attention when I install something new).”
Are you saying that the menus have the same look in Notepad and in Outlook? Again, I am talking about the default XP theme (Luna). But it gets even more interesting if you go into the desktop settings and change the selection colour. Then look at the colour of the selected menu item in various programs(Outlook and Notepad for instance). Some programs have the selection colour entered in the control panel, come programs have a faded version of the selection colour, some programs use the selection colour only as a border around the selected menu item, and other programs still ouse a completed different colour entirely. Once again, all Microsoft programs meant for Windows XP. No third party programs, no old versions.
Are you telling me that the window border for the Command Prompt looks the same as the window border in Outlook? I suppose it could be true that both my computer at work and at home have something strange about them that causes this. But that goes back to the ease of installation. Sure, the process is eaay. But the end result is not. Again I mention the response that the Windows enthusiast give when shown a poorly behaving Windows XP system. They almost always say something like “You have to know what you are doing and it will work every time” The only possible interpretation of this is following the instructions that are given when installing Windows XP is not enough. Appearantly there must be more esoteric proceedures necessary to make it work properly. Unless of course, it just does not work properly in the first place. It is one or the other. It cannot be had both ways.
Then…
“But please, I never said Windows was superior”
The statement is not made explicitly, but the author’s article unquestionable implies it (possibly unintentionally). Read the article again as if reading it for the first time and tell me that the objections to Linux and the lauding of Windows (although false from my experience) does not imply Windows superiority?
In another post I said something like:
“If I say parts A and B aren’t good, it doesn’t mean C through Z aren’t good either.”
I’ts just the way you look at it.
Author = closed mind and he won’t admit his article is 90% wrong.
Well, despite the lad being dutch
and despite him not being a Linux wizz, he does point out a few problems with current distro’s.
However, my personal opinion is that the diversity of open source is what gives it it’s strength. If you don’t like one desktop? Well, take another. Thats one of the ideas i’ve founded Morphix on (and the one-tool-one-job idea), and people like to be able to choose (within limits, ofcourse). Trying to bring uniformity to Linux (like UnitedLinux has tried) just doesn’t work. There are too many different desktops, to many different communities and too many different types of update systems to just throw all into one. That being said, APT & synaptic is truely the pinnacle of package management, closed or open
Anyway, there are decent parts in the article concerning the problems, but the ideas aren’t very useful from my point-of-view. Does sound like some of my ranting 3 years ago among the debian-ranks, but sometimes ranting/writing isn’t enough: If you want something done, help out! There are too many people that take distributions for granted. Find one you like, and make it better. Even submitting bugreports or suggesting tips helps out. Don’t ask what your distro could do for you, ask what you can do for your distro
For the last time if you want to compare Linux to a MS “product” compare it to c:windowssystem32 not the entire windows package.
True, there are probably about 1000 OSs around that consists of the same software packaged in diffrent ways, still they are OSs in their own right. The problem is that the brand Linux is flawed, people think Linux is an OS.
An OS is NOT a Linux distribution it is an OS built on top of Linux. One could market the RedHat OS as built on Linux if you would want to emphasise stability and network performance but thats it, Linux does not have a package managment system, Linux does not have a GUI, Linux is nothing more than a common codebase for building kernels.
What the other packages are concerned. They are also a commmon codebase that happens to compile into a reference implementation. OS makers are not supposed to just provide the compiled code, they are supposed to integrate the code into their product in a consisten way.
If one compare RedHat 9.0 to MS Windows XP one shoul hold RedHat acountable for the problems, not the Linux community!
Just my thoughts.
Ofcourse, but I’m not gonna say “Operating systems based on the Linux kernel developped by a group of people, initiated by Linus Torvalds” every time.
But, you’re right
. Period.
Its not an Open Source philosophy to argue which OS is better. Mac zealots have been doing it since before Linux existed. VMS vs Unix wars were legend. Apple II vs TRS-80?
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of computing history will know that this is just “par for the course”.
Also, your TV analogy is all wrong. While nobody chooses 6 different TVs based on interface, I _WOULD_ choose a TV that gave me 6 different remote controls (interfaces) vs one that locked me into a remote control (interface) that I didnt like. Get it?
It amazes me how much people seem to lack a basic understanding of technologies. Might I suggest that _everyone_ read Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte. In it he very articulately explains the reasons that _protocols_ are important. Not interfaces. Standardize the protocol, and the best interface will win.
In particular, check out:
http://www.linuxbase.org and
http://www.freedesktop.org
Both aim at different parts of the compatibility issue. So buy only LSB compliant distributions. And use only freedesktop compliant window managers/operating environments. Support the standards and let the best implementation one.
This is a FAR better solution than one, single distribution.
Surely this depends on your disk and processor. Also dont forget that Lindows loads a _lot_ of windows libraries and compatibility libraries. I can guarantee you Lindows will boot slower vs Windows or “pure” Linux on each and every machine you can find.
I would like to correct your TV statement, it is not a case of having lots of different types of TV in your house, but in your local shop. A user doesn’t have to use them all, and during the installation of even Mandrake as you will know, they give you the option, so select the one you like. Job done, who wants to be offered one option, when you can have more than one option?
Linux isn’t slow at booting up, thats a fact, the user has the option of selecting which services he/she wants to start at bootup, these also are offered at bootup in Mandrake.
Mandrake is a very bad distribution to use as a representation of linux because it is the slowest distribution by far that I have used. It is far ahead of other distributions in bulk and at no expense. Gentoo, Debian and Archlinux to name 3 are very quick distributions and Archlinux in particular has a reletively simple installation too, all of them have a package system which is cleaner and quicker than that of Mandrake, supporting local and remote packaging.
Whats this lots of tools to do the same job? There arn’t that many and besides, it caters for different people, those who prefer console or gui over eachother, and of course so you can pick the one for your ‘specific desktop environment’ so you don’t have to ‘pick even more types of application’.
I don’t want to sound offensive, but before you write another artical like this one, do more research because you have selected the worse linux representation to compare to windows (which yes, doesn’t have many options).
I think if you did your research more indepth and includes all comparisons that are to be made, with no hidden information or information that you do not yet know, you would discover that Linux is much better than Windows in lots of ways. I do agree with you however, that Linux has some things to do before it will catch on like Windows has, but do some _research_ into the popularity of Linux and how it has grown over the last, o say 5 or 10 years. Microsoft in all its size and power now see’s Linux as a threat, so maybe Linux has already caught on, and as it simplifies more people will use it, but with more and more people these days becoming computer literate, will it need to simplify to the point that windows has?
Please contact me about this issue, if you have read the comments that is.
P.S. I have been using windows products since I was 8 (I’m currently 15) and have been using linux for no more than one and a half years, so I do have Windows experience with all versions that have been released. I thus can make an opinion fairly, because I have also used lots of linux distributions, unlike you I feel.
Great article.To all the folks who hated the article…get a life.Linux is great,if you know what you’re doing.If you’re a first time user,it’s hell.It has the look and feel of a beta version of any MS OS.Buggy as hell,unfinished and difficult to tame.Unless Linux whishes to remain a “geeks only” OS,it had better get up to par.Bitch and moan all you want about Windows and Microsoft.The fact is,the have a good product.It’s simple to use and stable enough.Face facts,no matter what OS you run,there will be an issue or two.Even the perfect PC,matched with the perfect OS…The user will find some way to screw it up.
Linux is like an underground OS,whereas Windows is truly a polished product that is well-marketed and simple.Who the hell has time in the real world to fight with a PC?
K-I-S-S = Keep It Simple Stupid.Linux ain’t simple.
This article does make a few good points. One that Linux does need some installer support for programs, and that at times Distros do give too many choices. That’s why Lwindows is there. Gives you 1 of everything, and Click and run makes installing simple. Never used it, but reviews say it’s really simple to use.
As for the bad, I see the unification of all distros bad. I like choice, and having 1 overbearing company (aka: MS) control my OS entirely, makes Linux less appealing. Having to pay for Linux, neccessarely, is impossible since it’s GPLed. It would also mean the source isn’t freely distributed, in which case I’d stop using it. I like to be able to play with the code, see exactely what’s happening, and if I need a feature for something, implement it.
I also like to choose my desktop enviroment. KDE is good for some things, while a simple xinit is good for others.
What this article proposes is a change in the basic philosophy of Linux, and a loss of everything that makes it unique (it’d make for a hell of a reason to switch to hurd (when if that ever comes out)).
It’s exactely like people making KDE/Gnome/(insert yours), look just like MS. Do something new, this isn’t Windows, it’s Linux, and if you look at someone which isn’t used to computers and put them in front of a windows you’ll see just how bad the design really is.
My 2 cents, though, I doubt anyone will read this.
The author uses some very good points. Yet, I disagree with some of them from my own experience.
Not all users flame windows. I must admit, if I tend to use windows a lot, I can appreciate the fine directory outline, the ease of use, and the fact I can play a lot of games I can’t play @ linux.
Also, my windows 2000 professional boots twice the time my gentoo box needs to boot. And it’s a standard install, so (like others suggested) I just think you start up too much. If you haven’t at least recompiled your kernel and tried to stop programs you don’t need from starting up, your linux is indeed slow.
Your ‘lousy hardware support’ comment is not something I agree with neither… I have three computers running linux, and another two computers wich I installed (computers of a friend) and NONE of them had hardware linux couldn’t handle. If linux has crappy hardware support in you eyes, it’s because the manufacturer of the hardware refuses to aid programmers in making drivers for linux. That’s something that CAN’T be reversed, like you suggested. Cooperation from hardware manufacturers will come only if linux gets more popularity.
About the geek image: I recently installed a computer near the tv for viewing divx. My mom wanted to check her mail on that computer, so I started gnome for her and she managed to check her mail without my help. Installing linux, that’s the hard part. But most users let their local computer seller install windows for them and don’t know how to do that themselves too. Once redhat is installed, it’s probably as easy to use as windows. Problem is most computer vendors aren’t likely to learn linux, but maybe someday, there will be a costumer who will want linux on their machine… (like in big offices today where IBM installs linux on the server and the administrator just configs it)
Some distribution indeed have to be paid for. But that’s SOME. You don’t have to pay for all the distributions, and you get ALL the software for free. Yesterday, I went to a computer store and saw Microsoft Office on the shelf for 250 euro or so… I recently installed OpenOffice on the pc of a friend who had SunOffice. It practically IS the same software, but SunOffice costs 50 euros… I don’t want to pay that much just for costumer support. And costumer support for linux is being worked on (www.linux.be for instance). I think it’s a crappy thing too that you have to pay for vmware or winex. But at least you can use them for free.
The crappy way software is installed? Mandrake and Slackware are two distributions where that is the case. You ever tried Red Hat with their rpm’s? Debian with apt-get? Gentoo with emerge? No… I don’t think you have enough knowledge to compare linux to windows. You can just compare MANDRAKE to windows. That’s a world of difference. (btw, you can install apt-get on other distro’s too
)
I agree that windows is easy to install. Though it still frustrated me that, on a pc wich didn’t supported ACPI, it BSODded. On a pc with an old cd-drive, it BSODded and I didn’t found out untill a year later, when the cd-rom drive broke down and I replaced it and installed XP again (later that month). And also, I think mandrake is even easier to install. And mind me talking about knoppix (wich doesn’t even need installation at all).
Maybe windows supports hardware better than linux. But did you ever have a driver that erased your RAID configuration and wiped out 80 gigabytes of data? No, I don’t think you ever did…
Why do you think Install-shield is so positive? It just does the same thing as a Red Hat rpm-install, a Gentoo emerge or a Debian apt-get. No, I was wrong, it doesn’t, sometimes, a program starts with: vbrun5.dll is missing, exiting, or something like that.
I sincerely think that the linux directory structure is better organised. Configuration files go in /etc, system critical files go in /boot, user programs go in /usr, system programs go in /sbin, home directories go in /home. And if you don’t like your directory structure, you can always go on and symlink yourself a new one in your home dir, or start with LFS and choose everything yourself. What if you don’t like the windows structure. I guess you’re stuck with it then…
About the windows update, I never had something that was easier than ’emerge -uD world’… You just don’t know all that, because you only tried Mandrake (thoroughly).
“they do not want twelve different applications for one task”: and windows provides one easy application? NOT! I know a couple of ftp-programs, some download accelerators (or who do you call that stuff), some browsers, some office-suites, a lot of IM clients, … Microsofts just installs some for you, the ‘standard’ ones. Kde does that too, it installs an office package, a standard browser, … I don’t see any difference between linux and windows there.
“They do not want to choose between six windows managers”. I would… And why do you think the phenomana ‘skins’ have that much succes? I’ve met several users who switched to windows xp because ‘it looked prettier’. So I’ve switched from KDE to gnome (because of the better arrangement of menu’s) to fluxbox (because it was more functional) to waimea (transparency, hmmmmmm). I think it’s a good thing there are that many window managers. If the performance of windows was bad, wouldn’t it be great if an user could just switch to a window manager with less fuzz, and that way, clear up some mem? Unfortunately, the only alternative they know is buying some new mem…
And btw, do you run six window managers AT THE SAME TIME? I would buy a new tv if it had more options, or if it had a clearer view, or if the menu was easier to handle (remote control instead of buttons on the tv). You should make that comparision…
The power of linux is that it’s costumizable. In my opinion, making a distribution is what EVERY user should do… Only the user knows exactly how he wants it and where he wants it. Distributions are just an example. And a way to gain idea’s and experience to create your own distribution (LFS), but without the distribution part. The power of linux is the variation. One window manager fit-all would be a terrible waste. A beginning user will want KDE, but someone with more experience will want something else, a programmer will want something with lots and lost of terminals, a graphic artist will want something pretty, and so on. You can’t just combine all that in one window manager. The versitaillety is the power of linux.
You are impressed of lindowsOS… Wich computer do you use? In my opinion, a 486 could make an excellent desktop pc. Just use it as an x-terminal and run gdm on a more powerful computer. I think lindowsOS is a nice attempt, but it won’t be populair because it depends too much on wine, and it just is too much windows. If you have windows, you’ll stick to windows, and if you don’t want windows anymore, you won’t use lindowsOS ’cause it IS almost like windows, without the option to play games.
As a conclusion, I want to say I don’t WANT linux to become populair. There are also many negative points about popularity. Linux virusses would appear. Friends would ask for help (now, I can just get rid of ’em by saying: I use linux, I don’t know windows). And also, you wouldn’t be special anymore. Isn’t that what we all want to be. Our little bit of individuality and freedom of choice?
“I actually own a piece of low-end Acer junk and trying to run alt OS’s on it has ,to say the least,has always been an exercise in patience ,if not futility.”
Note that I wrote “as often as not”. Whether due to killing time, or just curiousity I often do an installation of some random OS (BeOS, Solaris 8, some Linux distro, etc.) on a box that I’m about to reformat the drive anyway. Sometimes it goes well on these new, cheap, junky computers often sourced from Acer (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, eMachines, etc.), sometimes it doesn’t go well. It seems about 50 – 50 chance (not scientific, just an estimate). Interesting, the few bits I’ve seen branded Acer were of decent quality.
..and some people who aren’t.
Bullitt: [1]
And what movement? Anybody who thinks Linux is a movement, is an idiot. A community, yes, a movement, no.
Does anybody really believe that something so mundane as an operating system is as important as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Poland’s Solidarity?
move-ment (muv’-m&nt), noun, plural “-s
1 a) An occurence of great socio-political significance that only happens in the 20th century AD to peoples of African descent, or Polish nationals.
Err: [2]
The many eyes theory doesn’t work, has been proven not to work
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985221.html
jief:
You flame wars are useless. It is all a matter of personal choice. You want to use Linux? Fine do it. You don’t like it? There’s plenty of choices out there.
I couldn’t agree more! Well said, jief! This article was written in a very objective bent. No, it wasn’t perfect, just like eveything in existence is imperfect[3]. But the need to respond to this article with anything but respectful disagreement is nil. Anyone who responded to this article with a flame[1] is a moron!
JK:
Most users don’t need version management software and development environments, most home users wouldn’t even know what they are.
End-users have the exact same need for version management software and IDEs as they do for regedt32 or drwatson.exe.
“Similarly, Linux did NOT succeed because of any simularities with Windows.”
How much progress on the desktop do you think Linux would have made if it didn’t have Windows like DEs such as KDE or GNOME? [2]
How much progress on the desktop do you think Windows would have made if it didn’t have an Apple like DE such as MacOS?
It’s not halfway daft to deride Linux for “copying” from Windows, when the only thing MS didn’t buy/borrow/steal was and is “Clippy”:
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml
ILTBT,
Good Grief
——————————
[1] Congratulations! You are a moron! Or at least you were for the duration of your moronic post. Moron.
[2] Almost a moron. Watch your giblets next time.
[3] Except Anita Blonde. Anita Blonde is perfect.
“Guys, guys, please first browse through the posts before commenting. If you did that, then you would’ve known I already replied to the “or so I’ve heard” question. It was kind of an unlucky choice of words, I explained that already. Please, take time to read the comments, before dissing someone.”
Didn’t feel like reading 141 posts to comment on a mediocre article.
“Of course that kind of takes away the essence of the Open-Source concept. Open-Source is all about letting everybody not only use the software, bu also letting everybody improve the software. This has led to a diversity in the available software. This is a good thing, if you are an expert willing to put time and effort into your OS, but if you are not, than Linux just isn’t for you, at this moment.”
I’m not an expert and definitely not a programmer, but still Linux is 101% useable for me. I’m not actively participating in software development except for occasional bugreporting, but that doesn’t make the software any less functional for me than the equivalents in windows. Your conclusion is misleading.
For the last time: If you read an article, READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! Don’t just read what you want to read.
I see nothing in my post that indicates that I didn’t read the entire article, Please specify. I didn’t freely “interpret” your article for a convenient bashing. but took the article for what it is. Polemical. When writing from that angle, things are bound to heat up… Duh.
If you can’t take the heat, don’t light the fart…
“And the you call me unqualified.”
That’s right dude.
If I was to complain about any one OS having slow boot times, I would complain about Windows. I have both Linux and Windows and generally neither are slow at either booting up or shutting down. However, I do have one strange problem with Windows. Sometimes when I try to logon, Windows 2000 gets stuck for about 5-10 minutes saying something about loading security profile. It is a stand alone computer so it is strange that it does this. It also does it sometimes when shutting down saying something about updating security profile. It doesn’t do this too often, only about 1 in 20 boot ups, so it isn’t a big deal. However, it is extremely annoying when it does it.
I just wanted to say some stuff that I have not seen before.
I use windows xp at home on my own built computer and its very stable, it crashes once per 6 months in average. I install lots of apps/games/utils, both final and beta. I usually dont run my computer for more than 12-16 hours at a stretch since my computer is just to noisy
But I know it can be very stable, for instance when I was on vacation(went to work again today) I had it running for 4 weeks at home while I was away and used remote desktop to control it, works perfect! Sofar I have used linux on several occasions and I really like linux but I dont prioritize it enough to hand it a hdd to run right now 
My experience with linux is that is cool but not very usable and hard to configure and its SLOOOOW but I have only used the default xwindows gui that comes with redhat 8.0(I dont remember how fast xwindows was the last time I tried a couple of years ago) I think its unfair to compare linux and windows by my own experience since I have almost 15 years of experience with ms-dos and windows and only a couple of weeks with linux.
aaaah Im sure I didnt make too much sense here but I just wanted to bring forth some things that werent here before.
Forgot to add that at all the times I used linux it were unstable. At the time when I was running msdos-win9x and linux, linux was more stable altho not by much. In the last years when I have been running win2k and winxp, windows has been far more stable than linux. I guess linux just doesnt like my computers
I am getting sick and tired of reviews or editorials like this saying that the only way Linux will succeed is if it has a unified look or way of installing programs or if the distros team up. My response to this is that linux/oss is developed by volunteers(*mostly, i know some people are paid*) in their free time. As a result the developers are going to program what they want to program. If that’s a way to unify the look and feel or installation methods then that’s great but if it’s yet another editor or wm b/c they just aren’t satisfied with the way the other 100 or so similar apps work then they have the right to. These developers that aren’t working on a unified look and feel or installation method aren’t doing so b/c they don’t care about it enough to do something about it. If it bothers *you* soo much then why don’t *you* learn to program and work on these things that linux needs to succeed or at least hire someone to do the work.
The way I see it, if you aren’t doing anything to fix the problem then you have no right to complain. This doesn’t solely include coding, it could be something as simple as filing a bug report(*bugs don’t get fixed if the developers don’t know about them*).
So my challenge to you is if these problems bother you enough, then learn to program and work up a solution to the problem. If the solution is even marginally good it *will* attract attention and help from other developers that may be interested in this problem but didn’t have the initiative to work out a solution and they will improve upon it. You never know, it may cause a paradigm shift in linux/oss.
To be honest I only read the 15 comments on page 1 and the comments on this page. In the past I’ve wallowed through enough of these topics to see what’s out there.
Mr. “mufasio” ‘s response (the last one I read just before posting) exactly sums up one of the key problems: “It’s all the user’s fault!” and “They should change stuff they don’t like.”
If regular users had the time, skills, and inclination to change those things they wouldn’t be users, they’d be contributors. If the goal of the Open Source community really is to make GNU/Linux a complete, viable solution for an average user then the community needs to step up and show some leadership to solve the remaining issues.
There are many great projects that have shown the leadership (Apache, Samba, KDE, Gnome, Oppen Office, etc.) needed in bringing expected features into the mainstream Linux OS experience. It’s those projects, the ones that really step out with vision and improve a major feature of the complete expierence that really help drive acceptance further into the mainstream.
When the missing needs have been addressed by stong solutions acceptance more mainstream use will follow.
BG didn’t build MS by saying “That’s a great idea, but DOS is perfect for all my needs; why don’t you write something to do that?”
I think many people will agree with me on this, its not the job of “the community” to do anything nor is it the job the user to do more than “use” the system. FACT: Many applications in the Linux world are not finished and contain inconsistencies.
I don’t condone all of the practices or methods of Lindows, but from what I’ve heard, it sounds to be like a huge leap in the right direction. Whatever that means. They are attempting to make software consistent and stable for their implementation of Linux. This is definitely a good thing. Many purists hate what Lindows does, but personally, I’m considering trying it out.
On linux vs Windows… I don’t think this comparison can be made. The comparison should be, *some specific kernel* + *some implementation of X11* + *some specific window manager*. Is the linux kernel more stable than the windows equilivalent? Absolutely. Is a linux-based GUI as stable or as quick as windows on all hardware? Absolutely not. The problem (in both windows and linux) usually is drivers. Linux stability doesn’t stretch to the X server. Crappy hardware will bring down either OS. I’ve been in situations where a linux box was unrecoverable because X locked up and took the keyboard and mouse with it. (It was impossible to ssh in, at the time, to do anything about it so…. reboot!)
I see the OS as a tool. Use the right tool for the job. If you are doing multimedia / digital photo work, it pains me to say it… get a Mac, otherwise use win2k. If you enjoy doing sys admin work more so than getting things accomplished, run linux… if you enjoy developing software (like I do) run linux and accept the fact that you will have to do a little bit of seemingly unnecessary sys adminish work, but its worth it, trust me! If you enjoy video games, get win2k or a console.
I say win2k, because just about everything runs on it… winXP does nothing but waste resources. I used to run winXP and then wisened up after several months of dealing with incomplete drivers and older software that just didn’t quite work anymore.
Just my 2 cents…
Linux may be a good server OS.
It will never be a good desktop OS. (In terms of working _with_ a computer, not _on_ a computer)
If it really wanted to be a good desktop OS, it should have taken a different path ten years ago. I think a lot of people still haven’t realized this.