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

Originally Posted by tiredofbilkyyaforallican You are just not worth the effort

I didn't expect more.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I didn't expect more.

It appears you still don't get it. Not surprised.

Originally Posted by dalek It appears you still don't get it. Not surprised.

So, I don't get it? May be I am to dumb to get it, so it would be kind if you can explain it to me in simple words.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Isn't that exactly the reason the average end-user uses Windows? .

The average user uses Win-D'ohs because it came with his computer, thanks to Microsofts aggressive and often unethical marketing techniques. The average person has never heard of Linux.

The average person uses Win-D'ohs not because they have considered the various alternatives and decided that Windows best fits their needs....but because it came with their computer, and Windows is all they know- so they seek to do what needs doing within the Windows universe....simply because if they don't own a Mac, Windows is all there is (to them).

Then when they encounter trouble doing what they need/want to do, because Windows breaks or degrades; or because they did not possess the expertise needed to maintain Windows or keep it free of malware and viruses, etc. they either pay someone to "fix" their computer (which usually involves a reinstall of Windows) or they buy a new computer, and thus the cycle starts all over again.

A friend of mine was constantly having computer problems and sending her computer out to be repaired every few months. The last time, it came back with XP installed instead of the Vista that was on it. I made her aware of Linux, and she is now happily doing what she needs to do and is free of "computer problems". Most just aren't aware of the source of their problems....or of the alternative OSes that exist.

Once one becomes aware of the above, disgust with Windows usually leads them to try the alternatives. I tried Linux because I do not care for the proprietary lock-in of Macs. Linux does what I need it to do. Although I was capable of maintaining my Windows quite well (11 years with no viruses, never ran AV) I don't see the sense in having to do all that extra work in order just to have an OS that is bloated and slow and which degrades and has planned-in obsolescence, when there is an alternative that allows me to do all the things which I could do in Windows, without all the aforementioned drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Sumguy I only wish I had tried Linux before getting rid of my [now]12 year-old IBM Aptiva 500MHz machine......as that baby ran almost as good with WIN98 as my current 3Ghz 'puter did with Vista. That baby would have SCREAMED with Linux!

It probably wouldn't have SCREAMED, at least not without large amount of fine-tuning.
I had a "pleasure" of maintaining an out of date 900Mhz 512MB Ram machine with linux (Slackware, then ubuntu), and I don't want to do that again. Performance was rather disappointing - stock slackware install definitely felt more sluggish than WinXP, and even simplest standard slackware speedup (rebuild the kernel with CPU optimization) didn't help much.
It is definitely possible to make it run faster, but for that you'll have to look through every single component, get rid of everything unused, and rebuild the rest from source with all possible optimization. I'd say the whole procedure would probably take a week or a bit more (also keep in mind that compiling on single-core systems slower than 1.5 Ghz is time consuming). If instead of using something fairly straightforward like slackware you'll decide to use "user-friendly" distribution like ubuntu, then there will be a major trouble. Ubuntu (at the moment I've been using it) has been running dozens of helper daemons/processes (in worst traditions of the worst windows software) you may not need, and you'll have to hunt them and shut them down. Besides, optimization possibilities will be far more limited. Another problem is that linux is less suitable for low memory situations (probably unless you have SSD for swap). On windows machine when system runs out of RAM and starts using Swapfile, things do slow down a lot (2x..4x times), but are still manageable. On linux situation when something starts using HDD swap means a slow painful death - system literally stops responding, you'll have to either try to kill desktop or use magic keys and hope that system didn't get too busy with HDD swapping business and can still process your keypress within next 50 seconds. If you take in account that on some occasions system may start insisting on disabling DMA for HDD drivers, which slows everything down even more. So, to run User-friendly distro with default config you'll need 1GB or 2GB of RAM at least, or you'll have to start disabling a lot of software, or you'll need an older distribution (something from a few years ago will work faster). This isn't some kind of myth, this is all based on personal experience, and I don't need optimization advices.

Now, it is definitely possible to fix everything, finetune, and make it fly, dance and shoot fireballs, but at what cost?
By rough estimation a first time finetuning of a linux system to the optimal level may take a week or two (first time install of slackware takes two months to get used to). A USA average hourly wage is said to be somewhere around $19, but if you take something smaller like $7 per hour, then in time you'll spend on finetuning the system you could have earned (5 days in week * 8 hours per day * $7) = $280. This is comparable to the cost of the new hardware. In similar way, first time slackware install would cost me (if I were living in usa) (2 months * 4 weeks * 5 days in week * 8 hours per day * $7) = $2240. It is a rough estimate, but you get the idea. In comparison, windows machine takes 5 hours at most to configure it from scratch (from blank HDD till everything I need is installed as I want). In the same way as with software development it is cheaper to throw hardware at the problem, with computer system it may be cheaper to upgrade hardware instead of trying to finetune everything.

Originally Posted by tiredofbilkyyaforallican using Linux I'm online in about 35 seconds!

Hibernate instead of powering off on windows machine.

Originally Posted by Sumguy The average user uses Win-D'oh s because it came with his computer, thanks to Microsofts aggressive and often unethical marketing techniques.

This is incorrect. As far as I know people tend use windows, because they see no advantages from switching to linux ("linux? I heard about it, why would i want it?"), and they need to run certain windows software that has no linux equivalents, require extra effort to be converted into suitable format, or cannot be run through wine at all.

Brand new machine may actually be blank or have a dos-like custom command prompt, and linux laptops are available for purchase. If a windows came preinstalled on a new machine, it means that doing so was profitable with the computer shop.
Besides, beginner users need something on their new machine in order to use it, and since windows has more users, installing instead of linux makes sense - it is more probably that a user expected to find windos on machine with preinstalled OS.

Originally Posted by Sumguy The average person has never heard of Linux.

This is just a theory.
It is easy to keep talking about "average" user, because nobody really knows what "average user" is capable of - it is not documented, and every single person have different image for "average".

To my experience people don't care about operating system at all. They want to be able to do their work, play games they want, install applications they want, etc. OS doesn't matter at all, as long as software behaves as user expects.
However, when user's favorite game cannot be launched on OS without non-trivial manipulation and cracks, it is platform's fault for not supporting drm developer requires, for bad marketing, and for not being attractive enough for game dev to consider supporting it. The entire malware thing is not as bad as people like to say - you install free AV, free firewall, enable internet access, and you have protection.

Originally Posted by Sumguy there is an alternative that allows me to do all the things which I could do in Windows, without all the aforementioned drawbacks.

In other words people don't switch to linux when alternative doesn't allow them to do everything they could do in windows.

In my opinion, the whole proprietary/FOSS discussions and windows/linux are waste of time - it doesn't matter.
It is all much simpler if you return to the business level, and think about products and users instead of ideologies.
When you make a product and people don't know about it, it is your fault because of poor advertising/marketing skills.
When you make a product and people don't use it, it is again your fault because what you created is not attractive to the people or doesn't suit their needs.
When you make a product and another manufacturers decides not to support it, this is again your fault because your product is not attractive enough for other people to consider supporting it.
It is that easy - if there is nobody with business sense, product will be remain in narrow niche market, or will become abandoned and die. I.e. Adapt, remain niche market or die.

I.e. if OS doesn't dominate desktop PC market, it is fault of the os and the management, it isn't happening because "people don't know about linux" (if they don't know about it - fix it).

Frankly, the only thing linux needs is another Bill Gates, army of professional developers, funding and a few years. Then it might become more sucessfull.

Originally Posted by SigTerm stock slackware install definitely felt more sluggish than WinXP, and even simplest standard slackware speedup (rebuild the kernel with CPU optimization) didn't help much. It is definitely possible to make it run faster, but for that you'll have to look through every single component, get rid of everything unused, and rebuild the rest from source with all possible optimization.

It's obvious that by "stock Slackware install", you meant the KDE desktop. Therefore, the "simplest standard slackware speedup" would have been to switch from KDE to another DE or WM, such as Xfce (which is also included with Slackware).

If you had done this, you would have mentioned it to support your point.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I.e. if OS doesn't dominate desktop PC market, it is fault of the os and the management, it isn't happening because "people don't know about linux" (if they don't know about it - fix it).

I think it's more of an endless loop: People don't use Linux because software companies don't support it, and software companies don't support it because people don't use it.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Frankly, the only thing linux needs is another Bill Gates, army of professional developers, funding and a few years. Then it might become more sucessfull.

So Linux should have the same ideology as Microsoft? If that would happen, I likely wouldn't use Linux anymore. Besides, the people who mainly develop Linux and GNU would not allow it.

Originally Posted by SigTerm ...it is cheaper to throw hardware at the problem, with computer system it may be cheaper to upgrade hardware instead of trying to finetune everything.

We can't all buy new hardware whenever we might like to, and anyway, that is a waste of perfectly serviceable hardware.

About the whole usage share thing: I think SigTerm should read the last point here.

But then again, since I'm just another kid who doesn't know anything about the real world and thus has been "brainwashed by FOSS ideology", maybe no one (let alone SigTerm) should even bother reading any of the above-linked page at all...

Originally Posted by dugan I suspect that by "stock Slackware install", you meant the KDE desktop. In that case, the "simplest standard slackware speedup" would have been to switch from KDE to another DE or WM, such as Xfce (which is also included with Slackware)

From my experience, KDE was the closest equivalent to windows desktop (parts of it are actually better).
It doesn't make sense to switch operating systems on machine, if you won't get at least equivalent experience.
Also, IMO, rebuilding kernel gave better performance boost.

Originally Posted by MTK358 I think it's more of an endless loop: People don't use Linux because software companies don't support it, and software companies don't support it because people don't use it.

I think this is not an endless loop, but a linux problem.
When new software/technology appears, developer typically starts promoting the product (i don't see this happening with linux, for some reason), people become aware of it, starts trying it, and if product is successfull, other software companies starts supporting it. If the product doesn't become successful, it disappears.

A successfull examples of technology becoming adopted is PhysX and DirectX 9.
An example of failed product is PhotoStich.
An examples of products whose fate is yet unknown are Microsoft Kinect and Sony Move.

Waiting for somebody to start supporting the OS is pointless - it is simply too unlikely to happen.
As for software companies, they'll start supporting linux when it'll be profitable for them.
All you have to do is to make it profitable.

Originally Posted by MTK358 So Linux should have the same ideology as Microsoft? If that would happen, I likely wouldn't use Linux anymore. Besides, the people who mainly develop Linux and GNU would not allow it.

• IMO, it *may* be possible to build a linux-based corpoporation without changing linux ideology.
• Personally I don't need an ideology. I need a tool that suits my needs. If ideology is more important for you, then your priorities are definitely look strange to me.
• I do not trust ideologies and utopia projects. In history there were enough examples where ideologies were used to harm people (Communism, anybody?). Also, it looks like every single ideology so far have failed to build a perfect world. To me the FOSS idea looks like utopia, and I don't think there will be ever (well, not in next 50 years, at least) a "perfect" world where all software is opensource, secure and maintained by volunteers. It looks too naive to me.
  A greedy corporation that cares only about cash, but is constrained by law and has to satisfy customer's needs in order to stay aflout looks much more realistic to me - in this situation at least you will know what to expect, and in this situation it is actually possible to get a decent operating system that was designed to be efficient enough to be useable on variety of platforms. IMO, With chaotic evolution appearance of decent product is less likely.

Originally Posted by MrCode About the whole usage share thing: I think SigTerm should read the last point here.

"Why should linux want me?" Pfft. A software is meant to be my tool, that is designed to assist me, and do what I say without getting in my way. If there is a question like "why should it want me?", it is not a good software.
Slackware was close to that ideal, but it is was not "complete" and definitely too far from perfect.

Originally Posted by MrCode I'm just another kid who doesn't know anything about the real world and thus has been "brainwashed by FOSS ideology",

Well, you said it yourself.

Originally Posted by SigTerm IMO, rebuilding kernel gave better performance boost.

Than switching from KDE to Xfce or an even leaner setup. On a 900Mhz machine with 512MB of RAM. You are, of course, mistaken. Rebuilding your kernel with only the target CPU changed doesn't reduce the likelihood that you'll run out of RAM and have to swap. Switching applications (such as desktop environments and window managers) does. Significantly.

And stop pressing ENTER at the end of each sentence.

Originally Posted by dugan Rebuilding your kernel doesn't reduce the likelihood that you'll run out of RAM and have to swap.

Rebuilding kernel with optimization for machine's CPU increases overall system responsiveness.

Originally Posted by dugan Switching applications (such as desktop environments and window managerss) does.

Poor swap performance is an OS problem. Switching applications decreases likelihood of the problem, but doesn't fix it.
Besides, when windows machine runs similar environment, why a linux machine should be more resource-hungry? Looks like a design flaw to me.

Originally Posted by dugan Then install Windows 7 on that machine.

Windows 7 system requirements.

Originally Posted by dugan When you start having performance issues, are you going to be unwilling to switch back to XP because it's not "at least equivalent experience?"

Obviously, that depends on tasks machine is meant to do. Windows 7 has certain features/technologies that are not and will not be available on WinXP or Linux. You can't program for certain APIs on WinXP, for example. If those features are needed in the long run, I'll upgrade hardware and/or optimize the system (if possible) instead of going back to WinXP.

Originally Posted by dugan And stop pressing ENTER at the end of each sentence.

I format the text the way I see fit. If you don't like it - don't read it.

Originally Posted by SigTerm why a linux machine should be more resource-hungry?

Because you're running resource-hungry applications on it. You had the option of switching to a less resource-hungry application, but you chose not to take it.

I format the text the way I see fit. If you don't like it - don't read it.

Interesting. Is there a reason why you see fit to format it that way?

Originally Posted by SigTerm It probably wouldn't have SCREAMED, at least not without large amount of fine-tuning. I had a "pleasure" of maintaining an out of date 900Mhz 512MB Ram machine with linux (Slackware, then ubuntu), and I don't want to do that again. Performance was rather disappointing - stock slackware install definitely felt more sluggish than WinXP, and even simplest standard slackware speedup (rebuild the kernel with CPU optimization) didn't help much. It is definitely possible to make it run faster, but for that you'll have to look through every single component, get rid of everything unused, and rebuild the rest from source with all possible optimization. I'd say the whole procedure would probably take a week or a bit more (also keep in mind that compiling on single-core systems slower than 1.5 Ghz is time consuming). If instead of using something fairly straightforward like slackware you'll decide to use "user-friendly" distribution like ubuntu, then there will be a major trouble. Ubuntu (at the moment I've been using it) has been running dozens of helper daemons/processes (in worst traditions of the worst windows software) you may not need, and you'll have to hunt them and shut them down. Besides, optimization possibilities will be far more limited. Another problem is that linux is less suitable for low memory situations (probably unless you have SSD for swap). On windows machine when system runs out of RAM and starts using Swapfile, things do slow down a lot (2x..4x times), but are still manageable. On linux situation when something starts using HDD swap means a slow painful death - system literally stops responding, you'll have to either try to kill desktop or use magic keys and hope that system didn't get too busy with HDD swapping business and can still process your keypress within next 50 seconds. If you take in account that on some occasions system may start insisting on disabling DMA for HDD drivers, which slows everything down even more. So, to run User-friendly distro with default config you'll need 1GB or 2GB of RAM at least, or you'll have to start disabling a lot of software, or you'll need an older distribution (something from a few years ago will work faster). This isn't some kind of myth, this is all based on personal experience, and I don't need optimization advices. Now, it is definitely possible to fix everything, finetune, and make it fly, dance and shoot fireballs, but at what cost? By rough estimation a first time finetuning of a linux system to the optimal level may take a week or two (first time install of slackware takes two months to get used to). A USA average hourly wage is said to be somewhere around $19, but if you take something smaller like $7 per hour, then in time you'll spend on finetuning the system you could have earned (5 days in week * 8 hours per day * $7) = $280. This is comparable to the cost of the new hardware. In similar way, first time slackware install would cost me (if I were living in usa) (2 months * 4 weeks * 5 days in week * 8 hours per day * $7) = $2240. It is a rough estimate, but you get the idea. In comparison, windows machine takes 5 hours at most to configure it from scratch (from blank HDD till everything I need is installed as I want). In the same way as with software development it is cheaper to throw hardware at the problem, with computer system it may be cheaper to upgrade hardware instead of trying to finetune everything.

Are we talking about a version of Slackware or Ubuntu which was released at a time when the hardware in the offending 'puter was still current/supported?

I believe that if I had installed Lubuntu on my old 500Mhz IBM, I would still be using it today. I wish I still had it- just to see. (I had sold it to a queer, and his house burned down- so it is no longer in existence). Ububuntu in it's current form? Not so much- as the 'puter only had 256 megs of RAM. But I've seen people on this forum using even older machines successfully with various light distros of Linux.

Actually, the only reason I stopped using that machine in '08 was because WIN98 was no longer supported, and it was becoming impossible to find software and peripherals that would work with it.

As for "the average person", I'm basing my conclusions on what I see. When I talk to friends and acquaintances who aren't computer hobbyists, and who just use a computer for email, surfing the net and office tasks at work, you'd be surprised how computer illiterate most people still are (At least amongst us older folks. The young'ins are naturally more universally computer literate....but then again, many of them are using Linux).

I was speaking to a friend back in the spring, complaining how I was getting so annoyed with Windows- and he said "What else is there, unless you get a Mac?". This is how the average consumer thinks. I instinctively said "There's always Linux"- and that is in fact what prompted me to give it a try.

When I see people whom I know shopping for computers, they never give a thought as to the operating system. It is just assumed that it comes with Windows (And believe me, when buying my current 'puter, I looked and looked to try and find one that DIDN'T come with Vista- to no avail. All the low-end consumer stuff came with it). The only question on most people's minds is what version of Winders it comes with.

Now of course such behavior would not characterize you or I (although it did characterize me when I bought my IBM!)- but that is only because you and I are a little more advanced than the housewife shopping at Wal*Mart for a 'puter for their kids, or the guy who uses a few office programs at work, and who has to call the tech guy when he gets the BSOD.

And yes, many people do want Windows in order to achieve certain tasks......but that is likely because: a)All the programs they know/already own work only with Windows; b)They know how to use Windows, since it comes with almost every PC sold in the last 15 years and is the one they learned on in school, if they learned in school; c)They're afraid of the unknown and like what is familiar- as computers are scary to many people- they just want to be able to do what they know, without having to learn something new, and d)They just don't give it much thought, since Windows gets most of the ad space in the PC world and all their friends have it.

As I have been pushing Linux these last months, the reaction upon my first mentioning Linux to the average Joe/Jane is usually "What's that?" followed by a barrage of questions...foloowed by something like "Could you make me a CD? I'd sure like to try it if it will get me away from all this!".

If Windows truly does what you need it to do, better than the other OS's, and you're happy with it, kudos to you- but for many of us, getting away from resource-hungry always-have-to-get-new-stuff Windows was as liberating as getting our driver's license. And while I could afford to go out and buy the latest and greatest computer, and plunk down cold hard cash for it, I don't care to do that, because when I purchase something, I want it to be durable and serviceable for a LONG time- and I don't care to replace old things unless they are worn out or no longer do what I need them to do- and not because some corporation deems that I need a new operating system every 2 or 3 years, and that they design their systems to use more and more resources to accomplish the same thing my old one did with a fraction of those resources. When I spend my money, I want benefits commensurate with the outlay. In the case of MS products and obligatory constant need for newer hardware, I don't see any benefits for said outlay- just something planned, not for my benefit, but rather as a marketing ploy to sell more OS's and more new equipment which uses said OS's.

We can certainly disagree, based on our individual needs and wants when it comes to computers and OS's- I mean, O-K, if you use Auto CAD or are a hardcore gamer, you may indeed need Windows- so be it. But for the average consumer, Linux is as viable or more viable than Windows- you should admit that. It is just not [yet] as popular due to the lack of knowledge.interest on the part of the average consumer and because of MS's heavy-handed marketing. Most people just want to drive the car. They don't concern themselves with the mechanics until something breaks or until they see poor performance which they can actually see and feel. (The fact that Cadillac is still in business, despite making nothing but disastrous engines for the last 25 years, is a testament to such a fact!)

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Wait until all people use Linux, just as you want. There will always be ways to compromise any OS, and that means Linux too. If Linux becomes the most used OS the count of viruses for Linux will make you run a antivirus software.

To be fair, a Unix-like design which differentiates between root and everyday user appears to be inherently safer than Windows. If you don't operate as root, you are limited to the amount of damage you can do to your operating system. Furthermore, having separate / and /home (as well as /tmp, /var, etc) partitions is another limiting factor.

That's not to say that Linux is invincible, just safer than Windows.

I do agree to an extent that viruses will proliferate as Linux grows in popularity. But as it is, there are more Linux users than Mac users, and yet the number of viruses remains marginal. Rich corporations are more enticing targets than community-sponsored, open source operating systems for virus authors.