Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

I agree with that 100% ... That is why linux offers distros ... Some people don't want eyecandy ... They want Text editor,Internet, and a calculator, PERIOD ... Whereas someone else wants to get games,photo editors, text, widgets, internet, sound recorder, music mixer, movie player, and waffle iron. Linux can offer whatever a person is wanting to use.

Which as I said before, If windows offered a more advanced customizable version, as well as their basic 'duuhhhhh' system I'd have a little more respect for them. But as far as they know, Everyone is the same ... and all their systems must be the same. Which makes their job easier I guess ... Make one system for 3 billion people 'All your box are belong to us!'

That's one of many benefits of linux is customization. I opt for distros where I can do minimal installs and add accordingly. Distros like LFS, Gentoo, debian, Arch and crux are some examples.

Mint and ubuntu are fine distros but they are a bit bloated with software you don't want.

Another thread here about RMS reminded me that, also, Windows is to blame for the closed nature of a huge percentage of software.
If we imagine a history where it wasn't possible to copyright or patent software then you can imagine the kind of world we would live in:
We'd all be using something akin to Ubuntu (picked because it's popular) and we'd be able to interface with our portable devices without jumping through hoops and, actually, we would not be "behind" in any computer technology.
The state of Linux today (and OpenSolaris and the BSDs) is the state of the art of complete freedom also -- and the only reason people use locked in software nowadays is because they're too used to Windows or someone is sitting on the patent.

I do agree in part with the above. Personally I use both Windows 7 and a minimal linux distro (currently LFS) as a server for various tinkering activities and some serious, like hosting my code repositories.

For some things Windows is the best tool in the box. I say that not because it's well-written or designed, but because some tools are specifically designed to work with it. My attitude has always been that; use what works best for your needs. Part of my needs are gaming and developing games and associated components, and that is an industry dominated (in the PC sector) by Microsoft and Windows (I assume mainly nowadays because the big lazy studios find it easier to port their Xbox games to Windows... Sigh).

For serious things I do trust linux more; I trust it with my sensitive files more because it's always been more stable to me and because ext4 has better fault tolerance than NTFS. I trust it to route packets through because I can configure its firewall rules more readily and take better control over the network stack, etc, etc. Linux lets me be a control freak and I love it.

My biggest bugbear with Windows is how often it wants to be restarted. Change a configuration in linux, and most often you can just rehash the service, or at worst restart that service in some cases. Windows tends to require a reboot at that point.

Windows was good when I was still learning... then all the releases seemed repetitive. All the same under the bonnet and rich guys couldn't get enough of my money, I decided to start pirating and buying my candy from the local corner shop. Now the corner shop owner is a rich dude I decided to keep me money and use Ubuntu, Fedora and now Slackware.

WAIT!! It's not what you think... I mean for this to be a reasonable discussion about Linux, NOT Linux vs. Windows.

To rate my skill level 1-10, I would say I am about a 5-6, not a super hacker, but I definitely know my way around. So, I have been using Linux for 10 years or so now and I must say, I love it. The only problem is, why doesn't everyone else love it? I mean, many aspects about it are clearly superior. i.e. package manager, flexibility, power, etc.

I now realize that Linux is still at the bottom not because it is under-developed and too simple. Rather, the issue is that it is MUCH too complicated for an average user. Windows assumes all users are idiots, which is true about 75% of the time. Linux, on the other hand, assumes everyone is a computer whiz.
Example:
Windows installer is straightforward: select your partition, and done.
The SUSE installer let me choose between ext4, ext3, xfs, jfs, reiserfs, etc. Most people don't even know what the hell a filesystem is, much less how to choose a good one. It's not the lack of features, it's too many choices. Dumb it down, as people would say.


Linux is great, but the command line scares a lot of people off. All Linux needs are solid and simple user interfaces. The average user (including me) does not want to mess with commands to install software, something I have had to do numerous times. Developers need to hide the complicated/ugly looking stuff from normal users, but have to option of having full control over your system. In short, it doesn't have to work perfectly, just look pretty.

Please don't be offended by this post. Yes, I realize I get everything for free and I shouldn't complain. But if that's the attitude of the community, we will never get anywhere.

thank you,
rabbit2345

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 I now realize that Linux is still at the bottom not because it is under-developed and too simple. Rather, the issue is that it is MUCH too complicated for an average user. Windows assumes all users are idiots, which is true about 75% of the time. Linux, on the other hand, assumes everyone is a computer whiz.

Ubuntu assumes that the user is a total dolt.

Gentoo assumes that the user is a paranoid know-it-all who wants to watch everything compile.

Debian assumes to some extent that the user is politically motivated.

Slackware assumes that the user is at least not a total mook.

Having a potentially infinite number of different distributions makes this point moot, don't you think?

Originally Posted by foodown Ubuntu assumes that the user is a total dolt. Gentoo assumes that the user is a paranoid know-it-all who wants to watch everything compile. Debian assumes to some extent that the user is politically motivated. Slackware assumes that the user is at least not a total mook. Having a potentially infinite number of different distributions makes this point moot, don't you think?

That's exactly the issue. There are simply too many options for a regular Windows user to comprehend. How are they supposed to distinguish between Slackware and Ubuntu? They can't.

And BTW, Ubuntu is still too complicated for first-time users, as shown here: https://www.google.com/search?q=ubun...147c48b2eb760f. Although it's dead f*cking easy to use for us, it's not the same for them.

You're wrong, I don't think it's the problem at all. I love the choice, which is simply why i use Gnu/Linux. I know that the choice can get in the way sometimes, but i'd rather that option over, having the usual choice automatically selected and i have to search everywhere else to find the other options that i may want; anyday. I don't care if Gnu/Linux becomes popular or not, as long as it is what i want, i'll continue to use it.

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 That's exactly the issue. There are simply too many options for a regular Windows user to comprehend. How are they supposed to distinguish between Slackware and Ubuntu? They can't.

Unfortunately, the very paradigm of Linux development and distribution defies your premise. Linux isn't developed by a centralized entity for a unified distribution. Its development and distribution are free and open.

Also keep in mind that maximizing market share is not, has never been, and never will be a concern for Linux developers, nor is achieving industry-leading ease of use. This is not a problem ... there are plenty of commercially developed and distributed operating systems which aim for both of these things and nothing else.

It's worth noting in this discussion that most of the "hard" stuff we're referring to which confounds "average" users is installation and initial configuration. This is only a non-issue for Windows because almost all PCs come with Windows already installed on them. Ubuntu is, in fact, much easier to install, configure, and use than Windows 7. The main difference putting it further from an "average" user's wheelhouse than Windows is the fact that it must be installed and configured at all.

Having supported Desktop systems and worked in sales in the past, let me share something with you. A lot of people, when their OS needs to be reinstalled, opt instead to spend thousands of dollars and buy a brand-new computer. No shit. If all PCs came with blank hard drives, only about 20% of the population would be able to use computers at all.

A common misconception is that Linux and Windows are somehow in competition with one another. This is understandable since they run on the same hardware, and therefore ostensibly appear to compete for the same space. They do not.

Microsoft has a complete monopoly on the desktop PC operating systems market. You could argue that Apple competes with them, but that's a lot like trying to argue that Ferrari is in competition with Ford, GM, and Chrysler; it is simply not the case. Apple is a boutique operation when it comes to the desktop and the consumer's cost of entry doesn't even compare with Microsoft's.

Throwing Linux in and trying to say that it competes with Microsoft is like trying to say that International competes with Ferrari, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. International makes industrial equipment like tractor-trailers. Their products are like the other companies' in that they all have wheels, tires, engines, transmissions, and steering wheels, but the similarities mostly end there. They are, most decidedly, not in competition with anyone building passenger cars.

Linux is for informed computer users; People who use Linux view and use their computer as the general purpose machines that they are. Windows users view their computer as an appliance which performs popular functions. An "average" desktop user turning to Linux, for whatever reason, is an exception.

Let me avoid appearing to cast dispersions; Linux users are not better people than Windows users, they are not smarter, and they are not "more enlightened." They are simply two different groups which do not and, in my opinion, should not overlap any more than they already do.

People who love beer and enjoy dissecting subtle aspects of the flavors and bodies of different brews will not often prefer Budweiser or Miller Lite. People who don't care much about beer outside of hanging out with friends and getting a little (or a lot) intoxicated will. Is one group of people better than the other? No. They are simply different.

There are people who design microchips for a living and use Windows exclusively; they just don't care about or even understand software that much. Are they dumb? Are they even less than knowledgeable about computer science? No.

What you describe are not "the problem" with Linux, they are just symptoms of what makes Linux so awesome for what it is.

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 WAIT!! It's not what you think... I mean for this to be a reasonable discussion about Linux, NOT Linux vs. Windows.

Maybe bring up windows was a bad idea then?

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 All Linux needs are solid and simple user interfaces.

Its got them. Sure, some distros dont have a GUI for everything. If you want a distro that does have a GUI for almost everything, try mint, or ubuntu, or PCLinuxOS, and probably others as well.

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 The average user (including me) does not want to mess with commands to install software, something I have had to do numerous times. Developers need to hide the complicated/ugly looking stuff from normal users, but have to option of having full control over your system.

If you dont want to 'mess with commands' to install software, then select the right distro and use the standard tools and programs.

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 In short, it doesn't have to work perfectly, just look pretty.

If you want windows with aeroglass, go out and buy a copy of win7. Fixed.

I'd MUCH rather have a system that works perfectly than something that looks prety and is unstable, or buggy, or has a GUI for everything. (BTW, windows fans, I'm not suggesting that windows is inherently unstable, or has a GUI for everything)

Originally Posted by rabbit2345 And BTW, Ubuntu is still too complicated for first-time users, as shown here: https://www.google.com/search?q=ubun...147c48b2eb760f. Although it's dead f*cking easy to use for us, it's not the same for them.

Technical comptetence varies, just like all skill sets we have. Its a continuum from the genius down to the incomptent.

Some people with no experience can be given a the hayes manual for a datsun 200B, a few tools and then proced to disassemble, fix and reassenble the whole car. I've seen a 12 year old who did just that. Some people cant use a rubix cube without breaking it.

Some people have problems with ubuntu, sure. Some subset of those people might be able to use windows like a wizard, but most of them would be just as incomptent with windows. If somebody makes a distro for the terminally technically challenged and can get it to work, or even if it doesnt work that well but 'looks pretty' than more power to them. Its not a distro I could ever see myself using.

In short, you seem to want a GUD (grand unified distro) with a GUI for everything, with none of the choices that we currently have, forget any problems that might arise from that. I feel that part of the strength of linux is its diversity, and even if you wanted to have a GUIed up GUD you arent going to get it. Not without getting rid of all the linux users that are happy with the system as it stands, and you'd also need to change the whole way that open source works.

The current distros will still exist unless they are forced to stop.

@rabbit2345: GNU/Linux as a whole does not need to dumb down to market itself to lazy people who do not wish to learn or read documentation. There are more than enough operating systems out there to suit such people as it is.

The only problem is, why doesn't everyone else love it? I mean, many aspects about it are clearly superior.

I like playing the guitar. The only problem is why doesn't everyone else love it? I mean, many aspects about it are clearly superior...blah...blah...blah.

"The" problem,

as if there was only one!! hehe

People don't want to think or decide, that's why there are two party systems,
the majority of the people use windows and iphones (version 1,2,3 or 4 easy...) and less N97 N9something Sonic 849 version 4.40593 whatever,
(don't get me wrong, you can use windows, vote one party or buy an iphone because you like it)
but most people do that because then they don't have to think or decide too much.

Linux is made for people that want to think, choose and decide.

@foodown
Comparing OSs to wheeled-vehicle manufacturers is a good analogy.
Good thinking.

@rabbit2345
"The only problem is, why doesn't everyone else love it? I mean, many aspects about it are clearly superior. i.e. package manager, flexibility, power, etc."

A very important consideration to keep in mind, is that most people do not know Linux and BSD exist. In China, when I tell people I do not use Microsoft, almost every time the incredulous wide-eyed response is, "How does your computer work?" Almost everyone here believes Microsoft is the only operating system. North America is not much different. There, people know about Apple, but very few people are aware of Linux's existence.
It does not matter how good something is. If people do not know about it, they cannot use it.
中
國
湖
南