Misinterpreted. I think that is about the best word around to describe the reactions to my previous article. Whether it has been misinterpreted due to people only reading what they want to read, due to an unclear choice of words on my behalf, or other factors, I am going to try it again. I will try to explain my position, again. Now, more stable, the code has been rewritten from scratch!
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.
Why The Comments Weren’t Hell…
Some people said I was unexperienced, some said I did not try enough distributions, some said I was favouring Windows over Linux, some even accused the editors of OSNews.com of pro-Microsoft propaganda. What have I written to upset you so much?
I never imagined so many people would not get the idea of that article. I never had the intention to diss Linux in any way; I said it in the article itself, I said it many times in the comments area, but I am going to say it again (and again, and again…): I like Linux! But just because I like Linux, it does not automatically mean I totally loose touch with reality. Linux is not perfect. Just like Window has, it has its flaws, it has its downsides, just like Windows has (and to keep it simple, and straight, I do not prefer one over the other). But that goes for everything in life, from girls, to cars, to politicians (although I cannot seem to find a bright side when it comes to that kind of people).
I wrote the first part of the article to clarify and address the fact that some of the die-hard Linux fans tend to deny the fact that Linux is not bliss (again, “bliss”, I like that word). Some people just cannot seem to look at Linux (and of course I mean the different flavors/distributions etc. of “Linux”, but you get the point) without their pink goggles on (Dutch saying, meaning you only look at the bright side).
How strange it may seem, I can understand that. If you have never experienced any problems with your OS, it has been stable like Mount Everest, fast as Micheal Schumacher’s F1 2003, and you never had to do a reboot, then it is natural to think that way. It’s like being in love; the girl cannot do anything wrong (although I do not state that your OS is as important as your girl 😉 ).
But for some (or a lot, I do not know) people, Linux has not been all that good. And to dismiss those people by saying “They should read a manual”, “They will learn it, over time” and so on, is just, with all due respect, kind of stupid. How would you feel if you got told by your driving instructor: “Hey man, driving is easy, figure it out yourself. And if you don’t succeed, here’s the manual. Still not working? Well, buy a bike, for god’s sake!”
And then you have people stating that the problems I mentioned, aren’t problems at all. Well, if I find those things annoying, uneasy, or just plain stupid, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me (you have to be a little arrogant sometimes). Simply knowing no one who ever got Aids, does not mean Aids does not exist (the movie “Kids”, anyone?).
But the comment that astonished me the most was by Lorm (2003-07-27 05:18:39). He stated:
|””In 2001 I bought my own computer” [note: speaks volumes]”.|
This really pissed me off. I was astonished to see someone write a comment without actually reading the article. Yes, I indeed bought MY OWN computer in 2001. But I have worked with computers since 1991 (my parents then bought a 286, what a beast of a machine that was!). But at the age of seven, in the year 1991, it’s impossible to have your own computer. It was all new, back then. To cut a long story short, he accused me of not being experienced enough. Sure, my friend, and the pope still plays soccer every day. But… that was not all from this post. Next, he stated:
|””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].”|
Anyone who has really read the article also read the last paragraph. I stated there:
|”Of course that [one version of Linux] kind of takes away the essence of the Open-Source concept. Open-Source is all about letting everybody not only use the software, but 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 rest my case.
…Or Why The Article Wasn’t Bliss
I made some flaws on my behalf as well. Some people rightfully addressed the apt-get issue. I stated:
|”(…) if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I’ve heard).”|
That was an unlucky choice of words. What I meant was that I haven’t used the apt-get system long enough to make a proper judgment. That’s a matter of statistics. But since a lot of people told me apt-get was good, I added that last remark. You should read it like “(…) or so I’ve heard [from people around the net].” I apologize for the inconvenience.
Another, more important, mistake I made, was about WindowsUpdate. I never experienced any problems with it, no matter what version of Windows, no matter what configuration. After I read some of the comments on my article, stating the dangers of using WindowsUpdate in some cases, I scouted the web, and I indeed found stories about WindowsUpdate delivering major problems. I will drop this issue. WindowsUpdate is not always as easy as I thought it was.
Comparing Linux To Windows (read disclaimer)
Now I will try to compare some parts of our two favorite Operating Systems, the parts most commented about (read the disclaimer at the end of the article first, please).
1. -Windows boots faster than Linux-
I have tried many distributions (Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian, LindowsOS, Lycoris, Morphix, EvelEntity (anyone? ;), … )
and they just boot/booted slower than my Windows install does/did. That is just an observation. And again, the rule I stated before goes: If I am having boot problems, then other people will have them as well. Matter of statistics. And about the Virus Scanners in the background, I do not run a virus scanner (they annoy me). Okay, no comments about me being brave and all.
2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux’-
To me (and to a newbie) I think it is more logical to have all the files of a certain program in one directory (eg. ~/Program Files/Program X/). The executables, the config files, the documentation, and so on. Of course not all Windows programs follow this standard, since some tend to install with a bit less logic. But good, decent Windows software installs using this standard. I think it is easier to browse to ~/Program Files/Program X/ than trying to find Program X’ binary in /bin, the documentation in /doc, etc. Since so many files are usually stored in these directories, they tend to load very slow. I never used the My Documents either, until some months ago. I started using the My Documents/Downloads/Music etc. folders in Windows and I realized it was kind of easy to use them! Maybe a tip to others: try using them for a while, maybe you will like them…
3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux’-
I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here. For me, on the other hand, there is no difference between a Windows installation procedure or a Linux installation procedure. They both run smoothly for me, because I have the experience to make them run smooth. But, in Windows I do not have to configure X, I do not have to choose confusing packages (it is another thing whether not being able to do so in Windows is a good thing or not), no boot loader configurations, no mounting options… And remember: look at this from a newbie’s point of view. He would not know what to do, now would he? And the help provided during install isn’t always a great help either.
Why Windows Isn’t Bliss
But, Windows is not perfect either (surprise!). A thing that especially bothers me about Windows are its shortcomings when it comes to themeing/skinning/eye candy etc. Might be a non-issue to the most of us, but for me it’s quite important. The advanced skinning features provided by for example KDE and Gnome are far beyond superior to Windows’ standard offerings. Oh, you can theme Windows, but you will have to pay quite a lot for 3rd party programs. Open-Source alternatives such as LiteStep suffer from the lack of a standard (doesn’t that ring a bell?).
Another, well-known Windows specific problem is its vulnerabilty when it comes to virii, worms and so on. Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn’t that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true. We all know that Linux is a million times less sensitive to this problem.
But the most important drawback of all are the, in my eyes, absurd high prices for Windows and Office. I am sorry, but I just do not buy the “research costs money” or “Bill Gates’ children need to eat too” nonsense. Would people buy a car for 200,000 USD without bothering the lack of brakes? No. Then why accept the high prices for Windows? Well, economically speaking, people will only buy a different product if the costs of the alternative are lower without giving in on quality ((very) simply put, that is). Makes you think, doesn’t it?
I hope I clarified my view with this response. If not, I did my best.
Disclaimer
1. I do not favor Windows over Linux.
2. I know comparing Linux to Windows is kind of silly, but right now I think it is the only way of telling you my difficulties with Linux, since the more freestyle method I used in version 1.0 did not really get through.
3a. As stated in one of my posts (in the comments area): The fact that I find parts A and B of an OS not good, does not mean the same goes for parts C through Z.
3b. Also stated in one of my posts: When reading reviews/editorials etc, don’t read more than the author has written.
3c. Also stated in one of my posts: When reading reviews/editorials etc, read the entire article, not just what you want to read.
4. I do not favor Windows over Linux.
What is your measure of ‘boot time’ — my boot time is to get to a console. Windows (of course) boots into a gooey. If your ‘kernel’ boot time is longer then your entire windows boot time, prehaps making your own kernel would be in order. To say ‘Windows boots faster than Linux’ is a terrible statement for a paragraph. Just because you and other people don’t know how to trim kernel fat, doesn’t mean that other people do not, so please don’t take us down with you. If you have to STRETCH to make a title work, odds are, try a new one.
Windows file system is clearer than Linux… Have you ever looked at ./configure? You could put files wherever you want, why do you have to say that they file system is more confusing with Linux. As for ‘Downloads and Music’ for windows, mkdir ~/Downloads ; mkdir ~/Music
I’m not sure why we are dumbing down stuff for ‘newbies’ — I was a newbie 5 years ago and ran Slackware 7.x — why is it that your are trying to tell me, and the other experienced users that choosing a boot loader is too confusing for a new user? I’m sorry if there are a lot of people who try new things and God forbid, have to read! But thats the way life is, maybe a little reading, and understanding that wasen’t given to you with an associated fancy picture is something we need. My g/f understood how to install Mandrake on her computer, by herself, and no, she doesn’t know any more about a windows install then a Linux install.
Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn’t that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true.
Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don’t have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face.
Hearing people’s opinions, good or bad, is the risk you take when you publish your thoughts. You shouldn’t have to post a second article to justify your first. When you tackle the issue of Windows & Linux, you are going to get people flaming back and forth. Even if you just wrote one sentence, “I love both Windows and Linux.” You’ll get flamed just for listing Windows first and Linux second.
<p>
Now to my own opinion of your first article, I think the reason people were outraged by it was because you claimed that you weren’t taking sides, that you liked both operating systems, but the path you took was pointing out all the good parts of windows and the bad parts of Linux. This seems VERY biased, even if that wasn’t your intention. From a quick skim of the article it seems that you are saying, “Windows is not as bad as you think it is, but Linux sucks.”
<p>
One of the worst parts of it was where you claimed that Linux had a crappy way of installing programs. Well, Windows is no better. Sure, I can grab a self-installing program off the web and install it by double-clicking on its icon. That seems pretty easy. Or, I can do “apt-get install gimp” and install gimp.
<p>
Now, you did say that you hadn’t played around with apt-get enough yet to form an opinion, so perhaps you shouldn’t have even mentioned it. Instead of just saying that Linux’s installation procedure is “crap,” you should have given examples of why it is crap… such as being stuck in RPM hell or whatever your experience is that makes you dislike it.
<p>
I guess my main gripe with your original article is that it didn’t seem to say anything useful. It seemed to be something of a ramble instead of a coherent discussion and unfortunately, very few people understood what you wre trying to do.
Keep it civilized around here, or most comments will go down. Don’t flame and don’t write flamebaits.
It’s a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.
It’s almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn’t Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn’t on a redneck forum.
Of course you’d have to remember that Ford would have to be found guilty of anti trust abuse of a monopoly position and Dodge and Chevy both to have much less of a market share…
Good point
.
But it’s not like I dont have a virus scanner, it’s just that I dont run one in the background or anything. I ocassionally scan my disks (once a month or something), and I never have found a thing.
I think I’m really playing with fate here though
As usual, it is not the author’s place to tell me what OS I should like.
It is only flame bait if you wish it to be so…
Personally, I like Linux more than Windows (for a lot of reasons) – but I was perfectly able to read the articles without being offended by them.
Maybe because I happen to agree with the author on certain points:
– Surely, Linux is great (especially if you take into consideration the quality/price factor). But it isn’t perfect (or bliss, if you will). And how would you expect Linux to improve if people who critizise it are ignored, flamed and banished from the community by loud-mouthed zealots who seem to be blinded by the forementioned bliss?
– The UNIX way of organising it’s files is quite confusing to newbies… Not because files belonging to a package are spread all over the system, but because of the meaningless (for newbies) names for the directories…
What’s in /lib? What’s the difference between /lib and /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib? (and the same goes for /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and so on). There’s no reason to have all these different places for binaries any longer. There was a time when that was practical, but it simply doesn’t apply to the average desktop system.
It’s a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.
That’s not an excuse for being rude. People should be able to counter his arguments without starting flame-wars, of which we have seen enough already.
Yours sincerely,
Simon
I would like to inform you that windows does NOT fall in the category of high-priced software (think Oracle).
The Consumer edition of windows sell for the price of 3 computer games, which is nothing to cry about.
If the main reason for choosing linux was the CD’s price tag, it would be a bit silly.
I think you totally missed the point of the Open-source vs Microsoft debate.
In any large organisation, the price of software licenses is less than 10% of TCO. If some of them choose Linux instead, it’s certainly not because of the per-unit license price.
The main reason some organisations reject Microsoft in favour of open-source is to get rid of the Microsoft lock-in and proprietary data file formats.
Other organisations reject it for political reasons (think City of Munich) and it’s also OK. Why pay millions to a very arrogant foreign corporation when you can give them to locals with a competitive product and at the same time get rid of an annoying lock-in?
Please stop posting flame-bait articles on OSNews if you do not bring anything new to the table.
I’m always a bit amazed at how pissy some posters get just because someone else didn’t share their experiences and preferences. These are the zealots who make learning difficult because they spend more time nitpicking and trolling than actually sharing information. Thanks, guys.
I’m also very amazed at the idea that so many in the OSS camp want only distros that are labor-intensive. Sorry, but most of us just want to work with our computers…whether we’re using Windows, Linux, a BSD, OSX, or anything else.
Looking at the comment from KryptoBSD above provides an excellent example. He’s abviously upset that some Linux distros are, as he put it, “dumbing stuff down for ‘newbies.'” He then goes on to explain that he started off with Slack. Well, good for him. I’m glad he did it, and I’m glad he learned a lot. Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me. There are good, ready reference guides to help me through any problems I might have, and those are few and far between. He can continue to work with Slack, Debian, or a BSD if he wants the lean stuff…it’s not like the major distros have pushed those by the wayside. Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the “easier” distros are ruining all the fun.
Well, too bad. I’m going to get back to work now…writing, not configuring.
I don’t think that you can ever make the process of installing and configuring an OS “newbie friendly” to the casual Windows user, no matter how easy you make it. The *process* of messing with your computer and installing different OS’s itself is so intimidating that most people won’t try it. When you think of it, most people don’t even install Windows, they purchase computers with Windows pre-installed. They don’t re-install it for years, and if something goes wrong they pay a tech guy to fix it which usually involves the re-installation of Windows.
And herein lies the problem with trying to make the installation and configuration of Linux “newbie friendly” – it’s pointless. only more technically inclined users will try something like installing a different OS. That was kinda of topic right?
Fine, I have this to say: the state of Linux config files is a mess – every program has a different syntax for it’s config files in /etc, just to configure your system you need to learn three dozen different syntax rules. Hell the larger programs have a different syntax for every one of their config files (X comes to mind), and to make matters worse, many apps now have XML based config files (fontconfig, gnome, gtk+, xfce4) which is a terrible way to configure your system. That’s the number one problem I think – a lack of consistency and that needs to be resolved if one expects widespread adoption of Linux.
Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.
But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let’s say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.
I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn’t care if things get left behind in registry.
The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it’s quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don’t have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn’t just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.
Can your girlfriend reconfigure and recompile her kernel to improve boot time?
What makes a Windows file system clearer than Linux’s? Habit or better design? Perhaps you should ask yourself that.
And as for the installation, apart from the partition bit – and most (I haven’t tried all distros so I won’t say all) distros have an automatic partition utility – I don’t see any stumbling blocks with Linux installations. Besides, it is an oft repeated fact but important nevertheless, a typical Linux distro consists of far more software – from Office suites to advanced networking tools – than a Windows installation; how many reboots does Windows take before the same or similar amount of programmes are installed? Unless one’s happy working with Word/Notepad I don’t see a typical home Windows installation being functional without additional software being added.
[i]
I agree with the author, every OS has its flaws. Now whether those flaws cause you not to use an OS for certain things is personal preference.
Every OS has flaws. Windows has them, Linux does, BSD does, MacOS does, OS/2 does, BeOS does, etc, etc…
There’s always going to be issues with every operating system, but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t use them. We should use what works best for us and the situation we want to use it in.
Like Windows… I know I don’t agree with Microsoft business practices at all, I hate Microsoft, I dislike Gates as well, but I use Windows here.
I also use Linux and OS/2 on a daily basis. and I’ve played with quite a few other operating systems.
All of them have “issues” which drive me crazy sometimes. But that doesn’t make them bad operating systems.
I take a neutral position when it comes to operating systems and platforms. It does do any good to argue about the subject.
I think the author was right… Windows isn’t hell nor is Linux bliss.
Every OS I’ve used seems to be a combination of both hell and bliss.
There’s always going to be “issues”.
You are clearly incompetent on the matter and do not seem to understand the least how viruses work.
Your attack on “Zeals” making virus to attack windows users is silly, gratuitious, and unfounded.
I would also like to know how “Linux […] will allways be 5 years behind”. What is your evaluation procedure and how do you obtain a score in years?
Other unsubstantiated claims :
“To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy”.
For a complete beginner, there is no difference. Being a competent windows administrator takes time, experience and documentation. So is it with Linux. Maybe a new windows users have a better illusion of control than linux users. This should be analysed in details before any claim can be made.
“Joe Sixpack doesn’t care if things get left behind in registry.”
Maybe Joe Sixpack suffer from a lack of information from his software company.
“The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it’s quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don’t have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn’t just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.”
The only obvious clue what to do when something goes wrong with windows is “Hit the reset button”. It is a blessing that doing so solves over 50% of windows problems. But you usually do not have any clue how the solve the other 50% of problems until you go through a serious troubleshooting process. Linux problems are solved the same way, by troubleshooting them seriously.
Have you heard of the story of the donkey, the man and his son? One day, a man, his son and their donkey were travelling to a city. They all set off one foot one early morning. After having walked several hours, they reached the first neighbouring town. ‘The gods be praised.’, the people of the town clamored. ‘Where I are from you and where are you headed?’, they asked invitingly. ‘We are from the neighbouring town and we are heading four towns away from this.’, they responded.
‘What idiots!’, the people of the town retorted. ‘You have a donkey and you walked all the way here on foot?!?’ ‘Surely the gods have cursed you.’ The man and son pondered upon their stupidity, and decided to board the donkey on the next journey to the next town. The next morning they travelled on the donkey to the next town.
As they crossed the next town, the inhabitants muttered, ‘Poor donkey; these two heartless souls sitting on a poor donkey.’ ‘How mean of them.’ The man and the son pondered over their cruelty and decided on the next journey only the man will ride the donkey, while the son walks. That’ll be less cruel on the animal they thought.
In the next town they were met with similar contempt. ‘What kind of father let’s his son suffer while he lavishes in comfort on top of a donkey?’, the towns people angrily retorted. The father thought of his selfishness and suggested the son ride the donkey to the next town.
The hostility didn’t get any better. ‘Disrespecful kid’, the people of the next town wailed. ‘Your father has seen many years than you have, has worn more rags than you have and has been kind enough to bring you to life, yet you treat him with disdain while you travel comfortably on the donkey’. ‘May you be cursed’, the angry inhabitants shouted.
The moral of the story, Linux can’t please the whole world. Also be kind enough to read my response on your first article titled “THE MASSES CAN GO TO HELL” That about somes it up.
I’ve found the linux file system to be more intuitive and better organised than Windows XP and it predecessors. The Reiser, ext3, XFS, JFS are all faster than NTFS and they hardly fragment like NTFS, FAT or FAT32 do.
My Gentoo Linux box boots up faster than my Windows XP machine. If you are so disgruntled about certain things in Linux the most productive and honorable way of going about it is to start a project to correct what you think are the defficiencies. Linux will never be windows or copy it. Linux will never be MacOS or copy it. To acknowledge that, is the to begin to understand the wisdom of Linux.
By the way, have you ever tried searching for binaries or executables in Windows? Are you telling me it’s easier than searching /bin or /usr/bin? How about .dlls? Are you telling me it’s easier than /lib or /usr/lib.
Friend, you need to come to terms with Linux. Bootup time, placement of files and filesystems hardly qualify as the problems facing Linux as it were today. In some instances, they are its merits.
Regards,
Mystilleef
It’s almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn’t Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn’t on a redneck forum.
The implication that truck enthusiasts are all “rednecks” ?
Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven’t we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?
Its probably because linux has more protection against such things. The system being naturally more secure probably has a bit to do. But the rest has to do with Linux having enough diversity that there will never be as many machines to be infected.
A single virus could wipe out all Windows installs, but a single virus wouldn’t nescesarily effect Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, Gentoo, and Slack. In computing as with life, no genetic diversity is a bad thing.
As in any religion. (sect?)
Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.
And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.
Can Virii be counted as Open-source software ?
The author writes…
” But for some (or a lot, I do not know) people, Linux has not been all that good. And to dismiss those people by saying “They should read a manual”, “They will learn it, over time” and so on,…”
But this is almost exactly what many (not all) Windows enthusiasts say when one points out a Windows installation that boots slowly, or crashes often. It’s always, “well, you installed it wrong” “your hardware is no good” “you have to know what you are doing”.
This is why I claim that Window’s alledged hardware compatibility and esse of installation are myths. Why is it the on the very same computer Windows chokes on configuring a video card, printer, scanner, dsl internet connection when Knoppix does not? Using the same logic as the author “…Well, if I find those things annoying, uneasy, or just plain stupid, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me…” if I find these problems with Windows, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me.
The problem here is that the author takes generalities and drews conclusions from them (something that is done by many of all persuasions). From the author’s second article…
“…I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here…”
That may be, but do your friends represent a random sample? Maybe they do, maybe they do not. I can show a group of people with little computer systems knowledge that have had nothing but trouble installing Windows XP and getting it to work properly. I can tell you that when the operating system is unable to configure your hardware (as Windows XP was for mine), the operating system that does do it without asking any questions (Knoppix) is far easier to install. But this is not enough to conclude that one is universally easy to install than the other.
This is not to suggest that Linux is better than Windows. Just that this author has stumbled into a disseration that exhibits the very problems that the author objects to. Just substitute lauding features of Windows (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced) instead of features of Linux (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced).
In attempting to display the faults in the evidence of superiority of Linux by its proponents, the author has provided the equivalent for an alternative operating system (although unintentionally). But maybe that was the point in the first place. Illustrate obsurdity by being obsurd.
The implication that many rednecks are truck enthusiasts. Your logic skills need some fine tuning.
Please explain why linux users need to search for libs.
And applications make these handy entries in the Applications menu in Gnome.
“Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me.”
I am an administrator, and desktop user. I used slackware for my desktop OS back when I started with Linux.
“Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the “easier” distros are ruining all the fun.”
Did I say anything about ruining ‘fun’ – I am talking about Linux. If you can’t install Mandrake, read a manual. If you can’t understand Slackware, read a manual. If you can’t set your VCR clock, read a manual. But if we continue to remove the features which set Linux as LINUX and not Linux trying to be Windows, at what point does it even matter? It should matter, just like Mac OS isn’t Linux, Mac OS isn’t Windows, Windows isn’t QNX… and so on goes the string. Please don’t planet ideas that I didn’t say. Making things easier, doesn’t make it less fun.
I don’t think so. (Period).
Wrong! Some applications make an entry in the Gnome menu, some make it in the KDE menu, some make it in both, and some make it in neither.
She doesn’t complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical. Unlike the people who think that Linux HAS TO boot faster then Windows, to make it better then Windows… she accepts what she runs and doesn’t bitch because she can’t talk on AIM 5 seconds faster then Windows XP. For a NEWBIE article, why dwell on something like BOOT time, everyone knows its relative to what your hardware is, what your kernel is, what your system starting processes are, etc. Atleast the directory and other gripes were warrented to question.
Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven’t we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?
I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you’d find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.
Please excuse me, I only use Gnome applications, on my gnome desktop. KDE apps are added in thier own subfolders at the bottom of the applications menu in gnome, I have no idea what KDE does since I haven’t used it in a while.
She doesn’t complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical[sic].
Well, I probably wouldn’t complain much either if I had you around to show me what to do when shit doesn’t work right.
Also, when you talk about ‘dumbing down’ the OS for newbies, you seem to have this mentality that “Well, since I had to do it this way, everyone else should too.” That reminds me of somebody’s grandpa saying “Yeah, when I was your age, I had to walk to school butt naked through 90 miles of snow.”
The argument about boot time being different on different configs doesn’t go; Of course I ment the diff’s on a single config.
Do I have to spell everything out?
Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.
Good question, but I’m suprised you asked. There have been instances I’ve been plagued by ‘Missing *.dll error’ errors. Most users who have used Windows Long enough now what I’m talking about. When did you say you started using Windows again?
And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.
Yes, and if you’ve used Windows long enough, you most have experienced broken shortcut links both in the start menu and program files. In which case you begin a hunt to see if the executable is present at all in C:Progam FilesName of Filesearch a bunch or randomly ordered files.
I’ve never experienced broken links or missing libraries to begin with in Linux. But their instances when I’d love to launch a program both I errorneously use the programs wrong launch name. For example to launch xchat version 2, I can need to type xchat-2 and not xchat or xchat2. In such instance I find easier to search /usr/bin for the executable real name. Try that on windows, and tell me it isn’t messier.
Single configuration… of a Linux system… GOOD LUCK. If you are going to tell me that, then where are the system specs, your kernel config, and your init.d scripts, what your kernel has been patched with, on and on? How am I POSSIBLY suppose to make a fair judgement if your opinion isn’t factually supported. I am sorry if you want to TELL ME that windows boots faster, SHOW ME it does. ‘One onethousand…. two onethousand…’
Yes, I had to show her around how to click the foot on GNOME and find the internet utilities category for GAIM. PHEW!
Forgive my typos, I was in a rush. It would be nice to have a preview button and some spell checker utility on osnews. 🙂 Don’t you all agree?
Regards,
Mystilleef
Single configuration… of a Linux system… GOOD LUCK. If you are going to tell me that, then where are the system specs, your kernel config, and your init.d scripts, what your kernel has been patched with, on and on? How am I POSSIBLY suppose to make a fair judgement if your opinion isn’t factually supported. I am sorry if you want to TELL ME that windows boots faster, SHOW ME it does. ‘One onethousand…. two onethousand…’
If you were to compare a Linux distribution to Windows, you would pick one that is similar to Windows is usability, installation, and what have you. Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
I believe a fair pick would be Mandrake. And it certainly isn’t booting as fast as Windows XP.
In fact, though you probably won’t accept it as an argument, my Gentoo installation boots a little slower than my Windows XP installation (on the same machine). The Gentoo installation has everything optimized 110%, all sorts of performance-improving patches for the kernel (and X and so on), and it’s still that little tad slower… (booting, not in operation) And no, of course I don’t count in Apache and MySQL…
Of course, if you have the technical ability, you can make Linux work waay faster than any Windows installation… But few people have. As someone said earlier, not everyone bothers to take the time installing a Slackware, Debian (not the worst), Gentoo, [insert average geek distribution here]. Yes, if you can’t figure out how to install Slackware, read a manual… But there is so much less manual-reading needed to install Mandrake, Red Hat, or Windows. Why? Because everything doesn’t have to be configured. It is done automatically. Joe Sixpack doesn’t like to tell his computer which kind of computer it is, he just wants it to do what he tells it to. Nothing more, nothing less.
– Simon
Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
Of course, I meant without… I’m in for the preview-button thing… 😉
– Simon
Mystileef, then we can agree to just have had different experiences. I have had the exact opposite experience you have (and since you asked, I have been using Windows since 3.1). I have never had any problems with DLLs with the exception of a single VB utility that did not come with a proper installer, and I have never had a game or application install broken menu entries with windows (although I have in Linux- Mandrake 8.2 had broken menus with the default install).
There is some truth to the fact that if more systems exist, more will potentially be hacked. Viruses will never be the problem on Linux that it is on Windows since it has much stricter permissions to run programs. If you write an email virus you would need to get someone to execute the program by choice rather than active-x. Then it may work in kmail, but people are running evolution, pine, mutt, mozilla mail or any number of other programs to read their mail. It is possible to write a Linux virus but they will be more easily contained.
Also, if being more popular is the only reason for more viruses or hacks, then why is IIS hit more often than Apache?
By Vargasan (IP: —.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) properly noted:
“Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn’t that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true.”
“Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don’t have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face.”
He doesn’t know–as his offerings attest, he is a novice computer user.
I don’t disagree with you. I believe you Gentoo boots a little slower, I also belive my Debian boots a little faster, neither of us probably care that much. It’s not wise to compare boot time between two operating systems period is the POINT I guess.
My take is that if people WANT a system that can boot faster, it can. If they don’t care, like as in above whatever amount of posts, like my girlfriend, they live with it because it really doesn’t matter. I just think it’s a bad idea to CLAIM one thing, and not give proof, nor care to give any factually based information why you would say such a thing, or make a comparision like that in the first place, I still think he was stretching for a paragraph to write.
Bill Gates doesn’t have to lift a finger to crush linux on the desktop, because so many people in the linux community are doing his job *for* him.
To think that we’ve got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling “RTFM” and “the problem is that people don’t want to learn” and “linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD” and ” ‘Usability’ is BS. Don’t dumb down linux”, and all the while we’re concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it’s impact on people adopting linux.
Well, I have been using Linux for a year now. I’m currently running Slack 9 and have tried just about every distro. Now I would like to bring forth my option about Linux and Window…
I’m gonna present my views as an experienced user because I don’t believe in asking everyone to switch to Linux- its your choice and well, if you decide to try it, good luck with and hope you’ll stay with the club!
1) Windows sux at multitasking- When you have some apps which consume a lot of resources or somthing that is heavily reading/writing files to your HD, the GUI responsiveness goes down to like 20 % Whereas in Linux, if you have a good kernel (I use the ck3 patch for 2.4.21), the GUI is about 90% responsive….low latency anyone?
2) Fun – to me, Linux is more fun because you get to play around and tweak stuff- its just my nature to mess with things and see how they work.
3) Feel Different- Hey, I can brag to my friends that I, unlike 85% of the masses, am using Linux 😀
4) Gotta love the console- do I need to say more?
(with tab- autocompletion)
So, I don’t hate Windows- I respect it for it makes some stuff easier, but my “Preference” is Linux…and I use Linux 99.9% of the time.
The author of the article has done a wonderful job and I would like to thank him for the same.
“I’m a die-hard Linux user” 😀
Lorm! Again you don’t read!
Look at the posts! You’d notice I made a response already! God!
Is it really that hard to read? I’m not even gonna post it again for you– You are making yourself completely ridiculous this way. Note that other’s didn’t comment on it anymore!
My God…
Who said our community cares whether Bill Gates loses money or not? Our community just wants to use what we like. If others want to use Linux, go ahead. There are thousands of learning resources (incl. articls here) which help them. ‘RTFM’ isn’t the nicest way to put it, but since when did reading the documenation associated with a product make you LESS intelligent?
I don’t care if you run Windows or Linux. Please don’t assume everyone on Linux even remembers the last time they used a Windows machine at home or work, because some of us do not. Why do you have to interject that we all want Bill Gates to see failure? I want him to use his power and fortune to release quality products and set standards which I can associate with. The new windows looks promising (longhorn I believe it is).
Your article could have been written without reference to windows at all, and would have cuased a lot less flame and might have generated some usefull commentary. You do not favor windows over Linux but have more issues with Linux than with windows. So write an article called “Timely Linux Questions for All Time” and detail therin all of your issues. Do so in a fashion that encourages suggestions. You are not the first with these issues, you will not be the last. I am ready for your third try.
To think that we’ve got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling “RTFM” and “the problem is that people don’t want to learn” and “linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD” and ” ‘Usability’ is BS. Don’t dumb down linux”, and all the while we’re concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it’s impact on people adopting linux.
There are actually people in the Linux ‘community’ (and I use the word loosely) who don’t want Linux to grow because they’re afraid their exclusive tree-house club will become tainted by popularity.
Here are some of the author’s statements from the original article:
1. Linux would be all “bliss” if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times…
Only a user who constantly reboots or shuts down a machine would even comment on this. Maybe it is just me but I don’t ever turn my computers off. And as noted by others, this statement does not apply to Gentoo.
2. …if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let’s say, Ati products
Try to install certain webcams, along with certain other pieces of hardware, in Windows XP and you have the same problem, so what does this statement prove, if anything?
3. … if we forget the “geek” image of Linux
Which Linux has the “geek” image? Is it Xandros, Lindows, Mandrake, ELX or what? I better tell that to my friend who switched from AOL on Windows 95 to Mandrake 7.0 on Earthlink all those years ago. She will be quite surprised to learn she is a geek.
4. …if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for
Oh you mean some Linux distros have to be paid for, just like Windows XP? Again, the point of this statement is what? What does it prove?
5. …if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued
Oh you mean like how Windows 3.1 & 95 got discontinued?
6. …if we forget the crappy way software is installed
Okay, first of all, configure, make & make install works on every distro I have ever used. Yeah I know that you may not have all dependencies installed, which means it won’t always work, but that is what devel-rpms and devel-debs are for. But even if we ignore this information, tools such as apt-get and urpmi are far too useful to be called crappy.
Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.
Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader’s expense.
I suppose you mean “viruses”. Virii means something totally different. This is a common mistake.
Sorry, I’m not English. Viruses sounded kinda stupid. And since I had Latin in school I thought “Virii” sounded pretty smart
point 1:
Every windows system I’ve seen seems to load a bunch of stuff after one has logged in, including networking, plus all the other crap that goes in the system tray, while a *nix system tends to load (virtually) everything before login.
point 2:
You actually mean the file layout standards used, not the FSs themselves. In that case, one word: “PROGRA~1”. They couldn’t just call it “Programs”? it’s even an 8-letter word! I agree that the traditional *nix way of installing can cause scattered-file-hell, but I would venture to say that the BeOS FS layout scheme reached just about perfection in clarity. Also, drive letters suck, and I’ve read they are finally going away (well, hidden) in Longhorn.
point 3:
Most users don’t install the OS themselves. If a user is competent enough to install and OS himself, then he can probably figure out the fun GUI linux installers that come with most distros. Really, I’m no newb, and I’ve had a number of problems with Windows installs from 95 up to XP, from crashes to stalls.
…we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop. Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don’t have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows. The original article was dead on, and this guy shouldn’t have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one.
The vast majority of people using computers use it for a purpose. It helps them complete some task that would otherwise be much more difficult, i.e., spreadsheets, word processors, databases, etc. They neither “love” or “hate” Windows or Linux. For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people. If the underemployed geek sector of the economy wants to gnash their teeth about “dumbing down” Linux for newbies, they will simply be dumbing themselves out of future employment.
In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux.
Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.
A troll? I think not! The author is simply explaining his opinions on different matters (which you may would have understood completely if you did read the whole article).
1. (already commented)
2. Compared to Windows, not nearly as many hardware devices are supported. This is, however, not Linux’s fault, as a lot of drivers for Windows are developed by third party vendors (e.g. those who created the hardware in the first place). As Linux isn’t quite as widely used, hardware vendors have not yet prioritized the development of Linux drivers very high… The will change, hopefully…
3. Using another OS than the one that was shipped with the computer is geekish, like it or not… In order to install a new operating system you need to have certain technical skills… Not to mention that (almost) only geeks would be unsatisfied with Windows.
4. I think it is the “suddenly” part that is the focus, not the “paid for” part… First it’s free, then you have to pay for it, suddenly… That’s not a healthy policy.
5. (no comment)
6. Agreed, software installation on some Linux distributions is ‘crappy’… However, things like Portage (emerge), Debian’s apt-get and Mandrake’s urpmi are far superior to Windows’ InstallShield thing, as they keep total control over every (every!) file installed in a central place, making maintaining installed software a breeze…
Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader’s expense.
In fact, no one asked you to read the article… But since that’s a lousy argument, I must say that I think it is justifiable to ‘cry’ about being flamed, as it is a very childish way of performing your opinions and shouldn’t be exercised at all, especially not in supposedly mature boards like this one… (oh well)
– Simon
“we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop”
True. Linux will rise due to corporate use, then the workers will want to have it at home.
“Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don’t have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows”
A positive statement about Windows !=FUD about Linux, which is what we are combatting here.
“and this guy shouldn’t have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one. ”
Trolls always generate heavy responses.
“For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people.”
I see, Linux is not yet usable by these people. Better tell that to Burlington since they have it on the desktop now, and lo and behold! It is already usable!
“In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux.”
And the Windows trolls couldn’t possibly have too much time on their hands, could they? And could their time be better spent plugging/finding security holes in Windows?
Say, are you related to the author of this article?
//Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.//
This is a common misconception. Most people write viruses to take down servers not someone’s home machine. There is no fun in that. Unix/Linux/BSD owns the server market, espicially webservers yet more windows machines get hacked and get infected with viruses. Windows is too careless in letting arbitrary code to run. This along with the tight integration between several programs (office, outlook, ie) and the kernel creates a perfect breeding ground for viruses.
//But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let’s say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.//
Linux is not 5 years behind, not even close to it. It is very much on the same level if not better. I believe that some of the easier distributions are just as easy to use and install as Windows. That’s besides the point though. What is more advanced about the Windows kernel that the Linux kernel is 5 years behind?
//I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn’t care if things get left behind in registry.//
Do you have any experience with maintaining a Linux machine? I left windows because of the maintnence issues. Maybe your experience has been better but that doesn’t make it fact. For me Windows has destroyed my computer several times. Many programs won’t uninstall, dll’s from other software break the system, and programs tend to always find a way into the system tray. Inexperienced users never delete any of the 50 million icons off of the desktop and they never remove items from the system tray. After a while the system becomes unusuable. I love trying out new programs but with windows it’s not a good idea to install and uninstall programs over and over unless you plan on doing a reinstall of the entire OS. That has been my experience and the biggest reason for my switch.
//The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it’s quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don’t have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn’t just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.//
Where do you go for viruses? If you have thrid party software that will help you, until your subscription expires. Most people never update their subscription. On the other hand there is always a place to go when you have a problem with Linux. It’s called the internet. It works wonders when you have a problem. You can even get a hold of a real live guru on IRC if you need to.
If we compare Windows and Linux to cars, I think that the choice is evident.
The Windows car :
– Automatic (Wich reflect the ease of use).
– Sometimes stops without any reason.
– Goes at a correct speed.
– You can’t do any internal modifications. (Good for ordinary people)
– Just a little bunch of models.
Price : about 300 $ (Add more cash for every ad-on)
The Linux car :
– Build on a better standard than the Windows one.
– Manual (I mean by that less facility of use at the begening).
– A choice of a lot of models.
– Goes at a correct speed.
– You can do any internal modification.
Price : Free !! (Add-on are free also)
So if you have the choice between two products that are comparable when we talk of quality but one of them is free, I think that the choice is evident.
..basically the author has nothing new or interesting to say; he just was irritated by the criticism meted out to his article when it ran. Eugenia, I love OSNews, but even on a slow news day this has no place on the site. It’s just a catalog of poorly-thought-out critiques and whining that the posters here are linux snobs. I’m a strong advocate of the “linux != panacaea” point-of-view, but this guy’s attempt to make his point embarasses all of us.
KOMPRESSOR
I wish I could have written an article like this one. Your are the second person in my life I’ve seen writing an article about windows and linux and being neutral. Good work and everything you says is true, absolutly true. I used so much distribution and this is the same details which makes me choose windows after all. Boot slow, lack in standards (interfaces), not intuivite, programs takes time to start (Like open office). I dream about the day you will buy a computer and you will hear “Windows Or Linux”. This will be great. But, unfortunatly, the Linux community must answer a simple question : “Do you really want this ?”. I think most pple use linux because it makes the ego feel well like (“I’m a better computer user, I use linux! With linux I have to configure everything myself which makes me a better computer user than windows user cause windows is “too eazy”.) If the linux community REALLY wants to see linux as high as windows for desktop use, you’ll to know that linux will have to be easy as windows or easier or a lot less expencive. Anyway, If I have some reply like “your are too much inexperienced, it will only show everything I said about the ego thing is true.
Good Work Thom “Slakje” Holwerda, I’ll be glad to see other article like this one.
// I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you’d find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.//
All 10 of them huh? Nothing like the thousands for Windows.
Windows XP does have a nice boot time… mind you this is for it’s BOOT — however, it continues loading things AFTER you’re on the system. I’ve notice this and find it a great deal more annoying because my system pretty much stops responding for a few minutes after it has “booted” — until all this stuff gets loaded, and while I can sit and stare at my desktop, it’s unable to use until everything is fully loaded (at least use properly). What I would see as a very interesting project is the removal of INIT from Linux on a distro… WHAT YOU SAY!#%!#%!#$@^@$^!#$^ Yeah, why the hell not? Why not have your login manager as the first thing executed after you boot up? Then services can be started and stopped according to what user you choose or what environment. My kernel goes from load to init in maybe a few seconds… X takes all of a few more to start up, so I’d probably be seeing a login screen in about 6 or 7 seconds on my system if this were the case. Furthermore, Linux seems to load things post boot more efficiently than Windows — and I don’t tend to see any huge drop in desktop responsiveness — thus, loading daemons and services that my specific user account is designed to load, I’d be able to not only config what gets loaded per user but I’d be able to begin using things immediately.
Furthermore, as I said you could have environments — login managers could easily add some sort of profile for various environments: IE: server, desktop, development station etc… all services being loaded when the user logs on, and killed when the user logs off, thus, if server environment is choses, the argument that boot time doesn’t matter because of infiinite uptime truly starts to make sense. — then again, I don’t run a server with X anyway, but some people do, and this would make perfect sense.
What’s wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows.
1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!
2) Then why don’t you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You’re not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don’t like that you are free to use anything else.
3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven’t tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year.
Please don’t be offended by this; but it would be better for all of us if you could think through your articles properly. Please see Kuro5hin for a good example on how to write article that catches people’s interest. I understand you are very young and it is exciting to read your stuff “in print” but you will get much better response if you write more throughly.
The points against linux I disagree with. Not that I’m a zealot, I just beleive you haven’t looked at everything that’s available.
1. -Windows boots faster than Linux-
If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn’t come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don’t take this one out though, it’s very usefull], portmap, so on) you’ll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast.
2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux’-
I’m not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that’s true, but I prefer the Linux version. There’s something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It’s comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It’s just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other.
3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux’-
Lwindows. It’s so much simpler to install then windows, it’s not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray.
Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you’re running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That’s why it’s good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use.
I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that).
An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a ‘RTFM’. Most people aren’t used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus).
So in the future when you see a person ask you, ‘Where is MS office in linux’ just answer kindly, and move along.
My experience is that Linux can be tweaked to load and to run desktop apps faster than Windows XP. (hdparm, kernel recompiling, etc.) Actually, the only reason why I haven’t formatted Windows from my hd is that most of the computer games I have bought only run under Windows.
On the other hand, tweaking Linux and finding out which distros, desktop environments, window managers, or applications you like best can be the most fascinating computer game ever invented. I think that many people love to play the problem solving game called Linux and this may also be why Linux advocates tend to be so passionate about their OS.
Quote (Jonas B.):
“What’s wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows.”
People always bring up this argument in Linux VS Windows debates. When people refer to ‘Linux’ and compare it to Windows, it is understood that what is being referred to is Linux as an operating system; the common collection of software thrown together by distributors.
“1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!”
Ok, I’ll agree with you that the _kernel_ boots quickly, but how do you know the Windows _kernel_ doesn’t boot just as quickly? Secondly, I’d like to see how some default init scripts could be custom-tailored to match the loading speed of Windows _while_ retaining a reasonable amount of functionality for desktop usage. (I’m not saying this is impossible – I’d be interested if someone who did it could show me.) Also, the point is that Linux systems generally boot slower out of the box than Windows systems. No modification should be necessary to have Linux boot faster. If it indeed is capable of booting faster while maintaining its current functionality, why haven’t I see it yet?
“2) Then why don’t you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You’re not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don’t like that you are free to use anything else.”
If you organize files in a different format from the Linux norm, chances are you’ll run into problems sooner or later when a program tries to install itself into the default locations. Then you’ll have inconsistency with some of your packages installed one way and some installed the other way. Also, suppose your package manager somehow failed to install a package, or you have some commercial software which uses its own custom installer (and doesn’t have an uninstaller). Now it will take more work to identify and delete each individual file of the package, because it is scattered throughout the file system. Compare this to just deleting a package’s directory. This is the advantage.
“3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven’t tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year.”
You are only somewhat correct. There are tons Linux distributions whose installers require much more user knowledge/input than an install of Microsoft’s latest offering, XP. Admittedly, some installers (LindowsOS, Xandros come to mind here) require even less technical know-how than XP’s installer, but those types of distributions are far fewer in number.
Warning: Today I’m pissed so I may get in you face
I didn’t bother reading the bloody coments (exept the first) but hers mine.
I HATE Windows and Linux ( if you care why, it’s explained here http://madalien.com/archive/000038.html ) but personal view aside i still find increadible how some people defend their “side”, there isn’t a single OS in the world that ALL people will like, and that’s what the author is trying to say (if not the stupid me).
If works for you it works for you, that doesn’t say jack about everybody else some people will always more of the good other will see more of the bad becouse all OS’s have them.
And for the Linux worshipers: PEOPLE SHOULDN’T NEED TO BE ROCKET CIENTISTS TO HAVE A GOOD TIME USING A COMPUTER did i make my self clear? so no more talking about those dam kernel recompile, config file messing or whatever you pour bastard think everybody should know how to do.
PS: And if all you gona do is say my speeling is bad don’t even botter.
Computers aren’t toasters. They do 1000x more things. Don’t expect them to be as easy.
Yeah, everyone knows how to use a TV, but can they fix it? Most likely not. You can easily teach someone to use any operating system, but if theres a problem,thats when they have to have some knowledge.
Quote (T’Eval):
“If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn’t come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don’t take this one out though, it’s very usefull], portmap, so on)”
Windows XP by default also has some default startup services that are not strictly necessary for a desktop system. Also, I would not say that /most/ of the Linux services are unnecessary, as I’ve tried removing unnecessary services before, but the resulting boot time still does not match Windows. In addition, desktop-oriented Linux distributions should already have such non-desktop services removed from boot, although I find that even desktop Linux distributions are slower than Windows in boot.
” you’ll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast.”
Sure, you could say that swapping KDE with something like Fluxbox or simply the console would make it lightning fast, but you could also describe it as “doesn’t have many features.” A typical response to this is that much of the functionality is unnecessary and creates bloat – while this may be true for a good portion of KDE, there are features that are convenient to have, some that are aesthetically pleasing, and others that genuinely contribute to greater productivity.
“2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux’-
I’m not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that’s true, but I prefer the Linux version. There’s something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It’s comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It’s just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other.”
There are aspects that give one way advantages over another, above a simple user preference. Consider the manual uninstallation dilemma I touched on in my prior comment – this exploits a nice trait of the “put all package files in one directory” approach – you do not have to know each individual file of the package to manually remove it – just the package directory.
“3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux’-
Lwindows. It’s so much simpler to install then windows, it’s not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray.”
Many Linux distributions also go astray. This is especially true of the desktop audience, where a broad range of exotic hardware is present, and Linux does not always contain the necessary drivers or workarounds for them. (Sometimes Linux even can’t cope with them; my friend has had Linux lock up on him, it choked upon recognizing his hard drive).
Also, not all Linux distributions are as simple as LindowsOS to install. (I do agree that LindowsOS is much simpler than Windows to install, however.)
“Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you’re running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That’s why it’s good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use.”
For basic desktop usage, there is only one user anyway. It would not be too difficult to write a virus to delete all files in the user’s home directory. While this may not harm the actual system in any form, for a desktop user it is just as bad. In addition, judging by the many users who are click-happy and willing to run any kind of random program, if the software cannot do any harm without root privileges, they will request it and the naive ones will grant access. Bam – system destroyed
When it comes down to the core, security is about trust.
“I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that).”
Yes, dependency hell is a problem. Although Debian seemingly solves this problem elegantly with apt-get, the stable and testing branches are horribly outdated, and the unstable branch is, well… unstable (yes, I have used Debian Unstable for quite awhile before I got sick of random breakages and constant package maintainance problems). Gentoo is not much better; there appears to be almost no QA testing at all, and compiling big packages and their dependencies takes ages.
“An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a ‘RTFM’. Most people aren’t used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus). So in the future when you see a person ask you, ‘Where is MS office in linux’ just answer kindly, and move along.”
I couldn’t agree more.
//i’ve used windows (xp currentelly) for 5 years, and linux for a couple of days, with windows i found things of all kinds to hate him, with linux i just dislike the way it’s done (but i do like the consept, so linux groupies calm down, ok
)//
What concepts do you like? What don’t you like about how it is implemented? I think you’re just a troll tyring to give your stance more credibility by your semi-positive remarks. After all you claim to only have used Linux for a couple of days while you have used Windows for 5 years. Who the hell would trust anything you say about Linux?
//And for the Linux worshipers: PEOPLE SHOULDN’T NEED TO BE ROCKET CIENTISTS TO HAVE A GOOD TIME USING A COMPUTER did i make my self clear?//
Fine, then don’t use it. Most Linux users seem to have plenty of fun with their operating systems and most are not rocket scientists (that’s spelled with and S my friend). As it is apparent from your spelling you are definitely NOT a rocket scientist. It is also apparent that you prefer to get your panties in a bunch because someone has defended Linux. Oh no! You used Linux for a couple of days once, you better set them straight.
//Gentoo is not much better; there appears to be almost no QA testing at all, and compiling big packages and their dependencies takes ages.//
While I’d have to agree that gentoo unstable can easily break a machine if you don’t know what you are doing, the stable branch works quite well and I never have a problem with it. Dependecies suck but gentoo and debian do a very good job at satisfying them. How is it different from dll hell anyway? Yes it does take a long time to compile but it is a SOURCE distro. It’s not a big surprise.
As for the standard RTFM response:
1) Try Gentoo! The forums are very friendly and helpful
2) Sometimes it is a valid response. There are a lot of people out there who just pick a Linux distro and don’t read a god damn thing but want all the answers from somone. After years of answering the same questions many of the distros have manuals or FAQs of some sort. They are there for a reason. Some newbies just have absolutely no patience and refuse to look around for answers themselves. Then they want to complain that no one is helping them when they are told that there is an FAQ or manual that explains the answer already. It’s quite understandable to be a little irritated if you have to answer the same question 100 times a day even though it is clearly explained in what should have already been read. With that said, I do believe some people could be a little nicer about telling people to RTFM.
What i like about linux: it’s OSS, it’s made of pieces like lego you imagenation is the limit.
What i hate about linux: it was not made with desktop in mind X11 seems to been pasted onto it, it’s made of pieces like lego so you can kiss standarts goodbye
I don’t defend any side, or atack it, i just dislike comments like “problems? just recompile the kernel” some people just want to use the dam thing, they don’t care to learn how it works “inside” and nobody should force them to.
Has always some one comented my speeling, ok so i’m a lousy writer, so i wasen’t born in a country that speeks english, what does that say about me, my comment and the topic?
“I think most pple use linux because it makes the ego feel well like (“I’m a better computer user, I use linux! With linux I have to configure everything myself which makes me a better computer user than windows user cause windows is “too eazy”.)”
This is not true in all cases.
I never had a home computer for most of my life. I finally purchased one from Best Buy 4.5 years ago. Of course it came with Windows 98. For the next year and a half, I could not surf for more than 15 minutes at a time. Internet Explorer would crash every 15 minutes, and bring the whole system down with it. Yes, I kept 98 updated completely, checking for updates once a week. Yes, all of my hardware was correctly installed and configured.
After a year and a half in Windows, I only wanted two things:
1. I wanted to know why people were paying for Windows, especially businesses. I knew I would never pay for it again if that was how it performed.
2. I wanted to know what could I use other than Windows, that might not be so crashy.
Luckily, I found out about Linux on the internet and even more luckily, found a business near where I lived that would help with Linux installs and hardware configuration, one night a week.
I took the plunge. The people at the business helped me do the install and off I went. Linux left me absolutely amazed. You see these articles all the time now about how Linux is not ready for the desktop, but imagine how it was 3 years ago. Yet, I could connect to the internet and surf for extended periods of time, with no problems at all. Everything just worked. I didn’t have to reboot just to install new software or load a driver.
There were a thousand little things about Linux that just made the entire experience more pleasant. It literally took me 6 months before I realised, I never needed to turn the computer off again. I just thought turning it off at night was normal and necessary before Linux.
Now it wasn’t the easiest ride to get into, as I knew nothing about computers. And I am grateful I had help. But the system was like a Rubik’s cube that I had to wrap my mind around to learn. I had no clue for the longest time it was “unix-like.” But over time. it began to make more and more sense. One day, it all finally clicked and came together – the file system – the permissions – the services – they all clicked. And the design of it all left me absolutely astounded and still does. It was only then, that I understood WHY it performed so much better than Windows 98. The design of the system, from the ground up, is ingenious, and still is.
Now there are those who will say, oh if windows 98 was crashing it must be a hardware issue. That may well be true, but all I know is, that same hardware issue did not exist, nor reoccur in Linux, EVER. Then there are those who say, well you need to try Win XP, as all of those 98 issues are now dead issues in Win XP. I have installed Win XP 4 times in the last two years. I just can’t get with it, even though I have tried. It makes no sense and I have no control over the system. What you have to do to lock it down alone is more than I am willing to do. Why would I spend time trying to lock down XP, when I can build Linux from the ground up, with ONLY the services I need enabled? It is so much easier to start with nothing and ADD what is needed, than to go find the huge list of what I don’t need and is dangerous to have enabled, and to then remove them. And quite frankly, Microsoft lost all of my trust, due to the instability of Windows 98. I don’t see them ever having me as a customer again. So XP has never stayed on my system for more than 10 days. I remove it and go with what “just works” EVERY time, no matter what distro I am using at the time.
So please, don’t automatically assume everyone who uses Linux thinks it makes them a better or superior person. I will never buy another Chrylser for ever similar reasons.
I found a better mousetrap FOR ME, and beat the path to the door.
You have misunderstood what I wrote. I don’t believe you read it very carefully, which you should do if you’re going to respond. My point is that there are myriad distros, and just because one distro is made simpler does not mean another one is. Sorcerer, Gentoo, and Debian are no more simplified now than they were five years ago. If that’s what you want, fine. Have a good time, and I wish you all the best. But don’t whine about those of us who want a system that requires less maintainance from us. I am not a sysadmin, and I do not have the interest or the time to become one just for my computer.
Face it, folks: other than the kernal, Linux is no longer a single entity. It has branched off into avenues that satisfy a broader number of people, and that is why it is succeeding.
There are actually people in the Linux ‘community’ (and I use the word loosely) who don’t want Linux to grow because they’re afraid their exclusive tree-house club will become tainted by popularity.
Wow, Centinel, I couldn’t have said this better myself…and I love Linux.
By the way, I would also like to echo some previous sentiments: this was, in my estimation, a well written article. Good job.
Quote (abraxas):
“Dependecies suck but gentoo and debian do a very good job at satisfying them.”
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, both Debian and Gentoo have their own handful of problems that can render them unacceptable for desktop usage, as I was trying to point out earlier.
“How is it different from dll hell anyway?”
Short answer: DLL hell is less of a problem than Linux’s dependency hell.
Notice how the supposedly problematic “DLL hell” is not nearly as ubiquous as Linux’s “dependency hell.” Why? Well, much of Windows software distributes the necessary DLL’s along with the application (the software maintainer is responsible for tracking and including dependencies) Since this is not a commonplace practice among Linux software developers, this solution is impractical (it would be hard to persuade all Linux software developers to distribute their respective packages with its dependencies). Debian and Gentoo carry out a slightly modified solution to “dependency hell”: instead of making every software developer distribute dependencies with their app, the burden of tracking and including appropriate dependencies falls on the distribution maintainers. If the responsibility of tracking and including package dependencies is delegated to nobody, then you have dependency hell.
“Yes it does take a long time to compile but it is a SOURCE distro. It’s not a big surprise.”
Which is why Gentoo is not a proper solution for your newbie Linux desktop user (the point I was trying to make originally).
I don’t really think you can complain about Gentoo not being easier to use than it was five years ago… Gentoo isn’t exactly that old… Now Slackware on the other hand…
(Slack has made a lot of progress, what with checkinstall and Dropline)
Is the case sensitivity of the file system. Maybe there are technical reason for it being so, but I think it is not necessary, especially with long file name support. All that is required is to reorganize directories to make sure you do not have the same names of apps or files.
Secondly, I once suggested that there be ‘executable folders’ on some other forum. These would be folders which allow executable apps in them to run, with restrictions of course. These folders could then be given some extra restrictions themselves. No executables would be allowed to run from elsewhere. This could mean extra security.
Thirdly, hidden files. All that is needed is a hidden file attribute to be added to the file system spec. This .files are hidden makes it difficult to work with them. I would like to be able to hide files I do not need to see with ease, without having to update references to them to include the dots.
Some of this is just a sleepy me ranting off before I go to bed. Before I am flamed, these are just suggestions. You do not have to take me seriously.
Are you JOKING me? When was the last time that you’ve seen progra~1? I can tell you the answer: not since DOS and Windows 3.1! Files had to have eight-character names. In Windows 95 and on (or maybe it was Windows 98 and on, in any case, five years ago) it’s fixed. When I saw “progra~1” I had almost forgot what it meant. Unless you really HAVEN’T seen Windows since 3.1/95, this is most definitely a flamebait.
@Null: Linux simply cannot use the same system as Windows. Its development model is entirely unsuited to it. In the Linux world, there is no central authority to impose standards on application developers. Whether there should be is debatable, but the simple fact is that such an authority would be unfeasible. As a result, software exists as a collection of independent projects, which are weaved together by distro makers. From my experience with advanced package management systems like Portage, Apt/DPKG, and Apt/RPM, the model seems to be working very well. In my years of using Linux, the only time I ever had problems with dependency hell was (early on) when I tried to treat Linux like Windows and download and install RPMs manually.
@Maynard: From a programmer’s point of view, the first two ideas are terrible. Very unorthogonal and hackish. While something like this may be easy for the user, it cannot be the *right* solution. The *right* solution is obviously correct both from a developer’s standpoint and a user’s.
1) The underlying system should be precise. Ignoring case is imprecise. If case-ignoring properties are desired, they should be implemented higher up, perhaps in the file manager. New users point-and-click anyway, so file paths are pretty much irrelevent.
2) The user should be abstracted from the filesystem representation of how programs are installed. Programs should just be little links in a menu, nothing more. Executable folders become irrelevent at that point.
3) Great. Except, filesystems should have arbitrary metadata rather than a single-purpose hidden bit, and the file manager should be configurable to filter files based on arbitrary metadata.
“although I do not state that your OS is as important as your girl”
Keep in mind that some posting comments might have an “Operating System” INSTEAD of a girlfriend.
“…I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here…”
I am the IT department for a company with about 100 desktops, 200 users, 5 servers, 3 “servers”, and a WAN that covers about 75 miles at four locations. I also do computer work and consulting on the side working for myself. I live in a small community and don’t accept new customers more than ten miles away.
When I read the comment above I suddenly realized how much my side work has increased since Windows XP came out. Before XP I had about a dozen customers. Since XP I have about four dozen.
Except for two using OS X (they bought Macs at my recommendation and I don’t get much business from them anymore) nearly all these customers are running XP.
I have one customer who has installed it himself. Others have tried, but then found me in the yellow pages.
The customer who installed it himself has a machine which is in need of a reformat and reinstall due to a massive klez virus infection. He wants me to install XP for him this time because of how much trouble he had doing it last time.
Hmm… I think I would decide to LIKE Windows XP if it didn’t take time away from spending it with my girlfriend.
Sorry, but when I read your first article I thought … Now I’m convinced.
P.D. Don’t take me wrong, go out, you have a life, enjoy yourself, relax. True I’m not trying to annoy you. You like Windows, great! use it. You don’t, use Linux. You’d like Linux to be different. Hey! you are in luck! change it! OGL allows you. Smile, be happy.
This one is not pure flamebait. If you start out an article slandering the users of an OS you will not get anywhere.
This article is a lot better.
Linux is all about choice. Multiple Windows Managers, DEs, platforms, development tools, shells, apps and anything else you can think of.
Along with this freedom of choice is the possibility of making (only?) poor choices and ending up having a very bad time. 😉 (Please don’t write an article comparing linux to windows if this is your experience!)
Another thing to keep in mind – using distro X(your fav) doesn’t make you a linux expert. It just means you’ve been exposed to a pre-selected collection of apps/services/pkg management / functionality etc. Linux can be designed run on only one floppy, pendrive, installed from multiple CDs, networks ………..etc
Stating the obvious: Tomsrtbt isn’t like windows nor is DamnSmall Linux or Knoppix.(and the list goes on and on)
Most troubling of all: these linux/windows comparisions are really comparing Desktop Environments and not the Operating systems.
Lastly a troll <grin!>. I don’t use windows and my only exposure to it are people asking me to look at their windows PCs that are broken or unstable. That also makes it hard to read these articles and take it seriously!
regards
rob
Quote (Rayiner Hashem):
“@Null: Linux simply cannot use the same system as Windows. Its development model is entirely unsuited to it. In the Linux world, there is no central authority to impose standards on application developers. Whether there should be is debatable, but the simple fact is that such an authority would be unfeasible.”
If you had read my entire comment, you would see that I already acknowledged the fact that imposing new measures on the entire Linux community is near impossible. Instead, I was trying to explain why DLL “hell” is usually not, and compare it with the alternative used by Debian and Gentoo to resolve dependency problems.
“As a result, software exists as a collection of independent projects, which are weaved together by distro makers. From my experience with advanced package management systems like Portage, Apt/DPKG, and Apt/RPM, the model seems to be working very well.”
Again, I had already acknowledged that Portage and apt-get were able to resolve dependencies well, but they introduce other issues which would probably be unsuited to a newbie Linux desktop user. Portage is based on compiling source, a tediously slow process. Debian’s Apt/DPKG repositories are triple-divided into three branches, none of which are quite suitable – stable & testing are outdated, and unstable really is unstable (and they always seem to be doing major package transitions in unstable). Apt/RPM noticably slower than its Debian counterpart, and the Apt/RPM repositories provide far less packages for selection.
I don’t really think you can complain about Gentoo not being easier to use than it was five years ago… Gentoo isn’t exactly that old… Now Slackware on the other hand…
(Slack has made a lot of progress, what with checkinstall and Dropline)
Okay, you got me on Gentoo, but you know what I mean. And yes, I’m aware of what Slack has done. But I was certainly not “complaining,” I was pointing out that these distros (and others, such as Sorcerer–is that still being developed?) are still very hands-on and, in some respects, labor-intensive, while others have simplified things by providing auto-detection, graphic tools, etc. I suppose the best word for the former is “manual,” while the best description for the latter is “semi-auto.” At any rate, the reason both types are still around is that there is a market for each, and modifications in one branch have basically no practical effect on the other (except, maybe, marketshare, but techies who use the “manual” distros tend not to care about that anyway).
I guess that boot time may be different on different machines,on mine Linux is faster – in this order: Slackware 9 (15 sec from POST to KDE),Mandrake 9.1 (23) and W2K Pro(about 35 sec,but some services are still starting).
Umm.. If the author is wondering why people took offense to his last article…well, did he look at his title again?
“Why Windows Isn’t Hell Or Why Linux Isn’t Bliss”
Both sides of the conjunction basically state the same thing, or this is the impression it would give most people at first glance:
Windows == (good) OS;
restated:
Linux < Windows;
You rankled a large user base right from the start no matter what your intentions. Probably not the way to approach the start of an essay, whatever its final conclusion be.
I took one look at the title and immediatly felt myself getting annoyed. And I use both Linux and Windows XP.
Oh… and comparisons of boot times is really a strange thing to do. It really has no bearing on how good or bad an OS is. I didn’t read all the posts so that’s probably been said already several times.
Very simple. I didn’t have to read far to realize that your statements were subjective and opinionated, as opposed to being grounded in fact. If you want to make claims, please post some hard numbers for boot times, etc.
My computer takes 20 seconds to boot Slackware 9 into a gui – the same computer takes 50 seconds to boot win98 to the gui. Do you see what I mean about the facts, Jack?
Always the same sh1t from most of linux user, always… They dont have much words to say except “windows sux” and some god damn statistic about linux. I’ve read all reply and you guys piss me off. Can’t you open your god damn eyes ? Stop saying the same shit about linux and stop comparing it to Windows. Window’s a desktop and Linux is a geek tool which makes the geek feel more powerfull in computer stuff. 5 Years ago, only using linux (any distro) and you were a geek, now you must use a much harder distro to be one. What’s the point ? I think I know it. Linux users DONT REALLY WANT to see linux on common desktop. Why ? Because if everyone use it, he’s no more “special”, nobody will be impress when he’ll say “I use linux”. That’s the point so stop telling a sh1tload of retarded things about linux and windows. You don’t want simplicity ? Right! It’s up to you ! ,use your god damn linux and shut your mouth about it.
Fawking pointelss debate… always the same thing.
P.S. I dont hate linux, I don’t hate windows. I use both and I like both.
/*
but how do you know the Windows _kernel_ doesn’t boot just as quickly?
*/
ntloader is loading the kernel when you see the black screen with the white progress bar. Once the screen goes to color the kernel has loaded.
/*
I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution.
*/
couldn’t agree more. when I install win2k on my system I have to install drivers for my modem, video card, sound card, burning software, and an office sweet. with mandrake 9 this is all taken care of in one step and with a much nicer installer (though XP did improve on 2000 here).
all in all though I find that I am moving away from Linux towards FreeBSD. For a few reasons really. one being how Linux has become so trendy (everyone just has to use it) another being that I just love the ports concept. Finally I prefer the BSD liscence to the GPL (personal preference)
All in all I have found myself hating windows the more I *nix, but that’s just for my personal use. I’m perfectly fine with the masses using windows or mac os (though I guess this is a *nix now too).
I guess I don’t really have a point so I’ll just quit typing.
Jared.
[i]2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux’-
To me (and to a newbie) I think it is more logical to have all the files of a certain program in one directory (eg. ~/Program Files/Program X/). [i]
To have config and executable in the same directory is a backup nightmare for me. How do you wanna easy backup your configurations so you can use it after you re-installed Windows? Sure, most Windows newbies don’t even know there are config files … but the should
… would make their (re-installing-)live much easier.
I’m not thrilled by our article I have to admit. I not sure what you want to say with it, it’s just another attempt to compare to ‘things’ not comparable. But if you feel better when sharing your thoughts with the Internet, go on
I really don’t see what these (or other Linux comp. Windows) article are use for? Who thinks that a newbie will read this and that she/he will decide to install or not install Linux based on an article like this.
Either she/he is ‘brave’ enough to install Linux (after some reading) or she/he is just happy with her/his actual OS and won’t touch anything as long as she/he has not to.
As always: Just my humble opinion
Cheers Thomas
Then I have something to say about file locations too.
What does it matter where the files are placed? Because we have these cases:
– LFS user: this kind of user will probably know where the files are.
– debian/whatever TUI (=console) user: this user knows where the files are, or if they don’t, it is not a problem, as there are TUI configuration tools, and there is the PATH variabele, so you can just type the name of the program to start it, and you can use rpm or apt to install software, and you do not need to know where it is installed to.
– GUI user: install -> nextnextnextfinish. Afther that you want the program to appear in the menu.
Both Linux and Windows satisfy these needs, so in most cases the FS layout does not matter anything, well, maybe you can backup config files more easily in Linux, but who makes backups anyway 😉
And about GUI consistency, have you ever heard anyone complaining that it is a hell to play computer games because they all have a different UI? It seems that if the elements (scrollbars, buttons, edit boxes) behave *roughly* the same, it is good enough. On the application front, you can see this too: who complains that Mozilla uses it’s own toolkit?
This means that I see no problem in using Mozilla/OpenOffice/Gnome/KDE applications at the same time, as all the controls in these applications work about the same way. However, this *does* mean that xaw applications *are* a problem, because anyone who has used Windows/KDE/Gnome or such, will probably not know how to scroll upwards in XaW, for example. No, this isn’t fictional, when I first used a XaW application, xman, when I needed to browse upwards in a manpage, I quitted the manpage and reloaded it!
And no, I am not stupid, I have never had any problems with the UI of Windows, KDE, Gnome, games, QBasic, Turbo Pascal, the Norton Commander…
First if you knew there will be lots and looooooooooooots of comments, then why ohh why another.
As for the slow boot: try oooooh try installing linux, any distro you choose on an 133mhz based PC then only compare the results. and please dont write a third:]
Linux was first designed as an Unix-like operating system, not as an Windows-like one. No matter how many distros try to hide this fundamental design decision, no matter how they try to market Linux, it (hopefully) won’t go away: Linux won’t ever be like Windows, nor it should. Its fundamental goal from day one has been to empower its users, even if this doesn’t result in a system that’s simpler to use. So, I must say I feel your comparison is fundamentally flawed, since you’re comparing apples to oranges here.
I am not an advocate of either Windows or Linux but boot time depends a lot upon the survey and measurements. If you have had your windows distribution for longer and have had the time to tweek it. Then most certainly it will boot fast than a quick un thoughtful install of any distribution of Linux that has not been on your machine for 72 hours or so.
Example, I have a Windows 2000 server machine at work that takes almost 7 minutes to boot to a point that a person can login. It is a senereo that I am working on and need to get fixed but it is a case and point.
The only OS that falls out this trend is BeOS.
Quote (jared):
“ntloader is loading the kernel when you see the black screen with the white progress bar. Once the screen goes to color the kernel has loaded.”
In this case, the Windows kernel boots faster, then. I have Windows and Linux both installed on the same machine, and I see the white progress bar for a split second (sometimes I don’t even see it – it proceeds straight to the color spash screen). In Linux, the kernel is initializing for slightly longer before you see the init scripts do their thing.
Quote (Daan):
“And about GUI consistency, have you ever heard anyone complaining that it is a hell to play computer games because they all have a different UI? It seems that if the elements (scrollbars, buttons, edit boxes) behave *roughly* the same, it is good enough. On the application front, you can see this too: who complains that Mozilla uses it’s own toolkit?”
Most serious computer games typically fill the entire screen. On a desktop with multiple windows open, having multiple widget styles decreases the uniform look and makes the system look less pleasant. Plus, having multiple toolkits loaded in memory at the same time is not exactly efficient.
I must say that Windows does NOT boot faster than Linux, it’s just that Windows use some clever tricks, as Bill Gates himself said on the subject of performace “appearance is 50% of reality”.
If you boot Windows and try to use it the instant the GUI is up and running you will find that it is still slogging away for a few minutes. After a while you can actually use the machine. This makes it appear faster.
Linux on the other hand (at least Gnome and KDE) wait until everything is loaded until they let you use the OS (as, if you’re going to crash and overload the system you’ll do it in those minutes its still loading).
So its all just clever trickery with Windows I’m afraid.
As this is my first contribution to Linux discussion, there are several points that I really need to get out of my mind. Sorry if it is something confusing.
Most of people can discern the pros and cons between different OSs, from clearness of the file system organisation to simplicity of the GUI. I must agree on several points from author?s view but I?m a some tired of measuring the ?correctness? of a OS based on simplistic points of view. For most of author?s concerns there are their equivalents on Windows. From file organization (oh my, I don?t know which OS is most complicated, but I just know that both are a total mess) to easiness of GUI (Windows GUI rocks but KDE/Gnome are showing amazing improvements at every release). The only point I agree totally is booting time. I know, you can twist your Linux installation in order to have faster boot-up times and better overall performance (I have done that for my x86 and for an Alpha). But from my experience, the booting time of Linux is far way longer than XP when the simple installation of a distribution of Linux is used .This applied for Mandrake 9 and Redhat 8 for two PCs, one from Dell (2 GHZ, 512 Mb) and one self-assembled ( 3 GHz, 2 Gb), and for me booting-time means the time length between turning-on the computer and having the desktop loaded and ready to work. I know there are people with the opposite situation and I give them credit, I?m only asking to the ?inquisition? guys of Linux to give the same credit to other people who have the misfortune of not having the right HW configuration to enjoy from the beginning the power of Linux.
But, do you know what? I don?t care about if Linux takes longer to boot-up, as I don?t care if the Os organization force users to decipher the <configuration files>/registry to do any special task (I think that 10% of my tasks are ?special?), and I don?t care any other complication provoked ONLY by the difference of the solution adopted by Linux or Windows or whatever. The OSs are products made by humans, with all the benefits and complications provoked by that. But, oh my, I still use Windows and that is due only for a simple reason: productivity. I?m most a ?scientific? user rather than business or home user. That means that I use my PC mostly to do research work to get my Ph. D: a lot of C/C++, some assembler, a lot of Matlab, word processing and spreadsheet. Even if I hate MS because their baseness vision, I really like the fact that ONLY A FEW LINES of code (C++, or VBA, or Matlab) are need to put all my applications to work together. While I?m writing this, an Excel/VBA macro is executing where a quite complex simulation is being prepared. The Excel spreadsheet contains all simulation data, the VBA macro will generate the input for a C++/C/aseembler/vectorized program that would export data to Matlab . At end, a Matlab program will process data and results will be shown in a Word doc. All the communications between programs are made using the COM protocol. As you can read, it is not about ?free?, neither ?amount of software?, neither complexity, it is about how an OS, 3rd party apps and user apps can be powered together by the OS subsystems. In this area, Windows does not have rival, and maybe it is the only honest reason that provokes that most developers still prefer MS technologies.
I don?t want an exact replacement of every aspect of Windows to do my work. I?m only waiting for more mature OS/apps before switching definitely to Linux. OpenOffice is doing a wonderful work on BASIC, they are on their way but I?m still a little sceptic because BASIC it is just a direct and simplistic replacement of VBA without a real integration to the OS.
But maybe I?m waiting for a real miracle from Linux community; the miracle will be the moment where Linux developers stop of pushing their contradictory solutions. I?ll always love to have several options to do my work, but my feeling is that inflated egos of some important efforts in Linux are hurting the end user. Oh yes, I?m thinking in Gnome and KDE. I have tried 3 times both, and it has been an extremely frustrating experience; yupi , I have five different ways to do the same thing and most of them are really difficult to understand how it should works. And of course, there is my most unpleasant feeling about Linux: ?taboo, taboo? a lot of apps hangs my PC (most of cases only recompilation solves the problem), ?but Linux never hangs your PC?, please, stop hypocrisy, how do you want that masses use Linux if every time you have to recompile?.
Or maybe I?m just old. I started using ?unix-likes? in 90?s :HP-UX, Aix , NextStep and, my still preferred, Solaris. Oh my, I should be the only guy that still prefers Solaris? GUI from 90?s as ?unix-like? GUI; their dbxtool was just great, years before VisualStudio their tool had a GUI to test your code. My main concern is that Linux is still missing something important: consistence and some of honesty.
If I?m some critic about Linux it is because I really believe in it, I want that OpenSource becomes the model of software. All this is about democracy of knowledge.