GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
At work I support an all Windows network peppered with everything from Windows 95 to XP machines. My PHB's (IT "professionals") can't even SPELL linux. Last week, due to the overly helpful Nachi worm (which also installed a trojan on the PCs it "helped") nearly took our whole network down due to the traffic it caused and only about a quarter of the computers have 2000/XP installed. I spent two days patching computers because Windows can't keep its ports shut.
So aside from Linux being 1) free 2) far more configurable 3) far more online tech support and a generally more knowledgable community 4) more out of the box functionality and 5) with a properly configured system, faster it's also far more secure than Windows can ever hope to be.
Oh, but I will give Windows one thing. It has better games. Of course I really only play Neverwinter Nights and for that I just use my Slackware box...
I took a break from the LQ for a couple of days simply for the reason that I've grown tired of the ignorance here, (at least on this subject) as well as the feelings some of you have that all people should take the time and "learn linux". I'm sorry, but.....
Dmadcat, as soon as linux grows to the popularity equal to MS, then you will see just as many viruses for the linux platform as you do with microsoft. To think otherwise shows complete denial and lack of understanding as to how and why viruses are created. I would agree however that due to the nature of the linux filesystem it will never be as bad as it has gotten for MS. But they will be there nontheless.
And Diode, this paragraph is for you as well as your followers. I personally don't care what you see linux as. And I equally don't care what you think it should be. My interest with the Linux OS is purely from a business standpoint. I believe that linux is a cost-effective solution to companies. I complain about how linux isn't user friendly because it isn't. I complain because I want linux to be more than what it is. I am not the only one that see linux one day being user friendly. Look at these different distros. Why make gui programs to manipulate scripts? Why?! Because they are also trying to make it more user friendly? Why is that? Hmm..... Well my guess would be because they invision the same future for our beloved OS as I do. And you expect the general population to search out how to get thier OS to work? How bout it just working for those less technically minded people. Despite what you think, not everyone needs to learn computing. As long as we all have different professions, this world will continue to function how it should. You can shout conspiracy theory all you want, but it show your lack of how the business world works. Not every giant corporation is involved in some sort of conspiracy. I don't believe that the actions of Microsoft are moraly right, but they are in a sense genious. Linux didn't take off like it was crack. Windows did. Perhaps you are the one afraid of change.... God forbid people like me take your little secret and manipulate it so more people can enjoy it. And it may be your little secret in your little world, but linux is widely used as a platform for servers throughout the world. Its no longer yours... its ours... So deal with it, or be another midget in the world of giants.
Originally posted by Rico16135 Linux didn't take off like it was crack. Windows did.
I'm not addressing the overall issue and not trying to argue about your point one way or the other but, on that line, I gotta say:
Windows 1 & 2 pretty much bombed and this was coming off a captive market of DOS users. Even Windows 3 wasn't all that. Windows didn't 'take off' until Windows 4, *10 years* after Windows was introduced. Linus started public work on the Linux kernel 12 years ago, going against this post-Windows crack world (in other words, no captive market) and the various GUIs are at *least* as, er, "advanced", I guess, as Windows 4.00.950. And one could make a good case that the main reason Windows took off is because MS didn't give you a choice - where Windows 1-3 rode on top of a separately sold DOS and you didn't *need* to buy any GUI, Windows 4 and DOS 7x were only available as a unit and you *couldn't* buy any CLI.
I don't see why having a captive audience means anything. I understand you do, but does it really mean anything other than, windows played the market perfectly? Why exactly would windows, from a business standpoint, give you a choice? Linux has been around roughly 12 years, and they have been successful in the server arena, but has virtually left the desktop market untouched. I know there are alot of linux users. But not to the degree of MS. Nowhere close. That is exactly my whole point. To understand why that is, you have to analyze why users prefer not to switch. And by that I'm speaking generally. The only reason I can come up with is because of the user friendliness. Or lack thereof. I'm here learning, (and arguing apparently) because I want more from linux. And who can argue with that?
Well, not exactly. As I say, if it was a user-friendliness argument, why isn't the whole world using Macs? DOS was not exactly the most user-friendly system in the world but was successful. Windows, initially, wasn't. Apple still isn't, relatively.
The reasons I come up with is: habit, lack of initiative, a marketplace rigged to preserve MS's monopoly. As I say, DOS was not user friendly but it was what came on most computers most people could afford. So they made do - they learned how to use it. Eventually, the could accomplish their objectives with it. Along came Windows. *yawn* Real work was done in DOS - Windows was for playing Solitaire. So Microsoft pushed and pushed and eventually forced. So, okay, folks are using Windows now. It probably doesn't occur to many that there's even an alternative. If it does, it's unfamiliar and their schools and businesses require Windows and IE and some of their apps won't run on Linux, anyway. So many don't switch. Many who try give up. Many who succeed still complain. *g* I'm not denying things could be easier and, in certain regards, they should be. But if an X-less Linux had come preinstalled on IBM PCs people would have just learned it and gotten along as best they could. And then would have thought KDE was silly.
But check with me next time a string of crap goes wrong and I get pissed and I'll be yelling about more user friendliness, too.
well that doesn't really go against what I said. Windows didn't have to be everything that all the other competitors where. But they did successfully market their product. Linux doesn't have that luxury. It has to be better, to have its shot as a true competitor, in the desktop OS arena. It has to do more than windows ever had to. Believe me when I say that I hate what microsoft has become. But you have to marvel, at their marketing strategies. (sigh) I guess I'll wait here for all the flaming to come my way...
Well, there's a certain kind of trolling that deserves a nice roasting but I'm sometimes kind of dismayed by a sort of ideological 'pc about pc's' that sometimes goes with Linux. Like complaining about Linux or noting something good about an MS OS means you're a traitor rather than just somebody with an opinion. So no flames here even if it's an odd-numbered Wednesday so that I'm disagreeing with you.
I still think Linux *does* do more - far more - than Windows, though. It just doesn't do it in the same way. And as far as specifically being 'more on the desktop', others have made the point many times: 'Linux' has the job of being a kernel. A desktop has the job of being a desktop. An installer has the job of being an installer. It's different from a centralized top-down MS structure. MS is *a* company producing *a* product. I can't say Linux's install sucks. I can say (to me, now, not trying to open other flame fronts) that Debian's install sucks and Mandrake's is easy and Slack's suits me. And with the desktops - I use flux so I can't really complain about KDE and if I had to pick an IDE I'd take dropline gnome, probably. So, really, you might be more accurately saying 'My desktop sucks and needs to be better.' And since a desktop's job is to provide easy GUI stuff, I think it *is* falling down on the job if it's not making its users happy. But this isn't really the goal or problem for 'Linux', as such.
I'm currently dwindling with an OpenBSD install, and I can say, Debian, although it's installer truly sucks, is an angel compared to this thing...
User-friendliness is in the eye(s) if the beholder. I find it easier to use split keyboards than the straight ones. Does that mean that a split keyboard is easier to use? Nope, unless you ask me.
Linux, in the form of a distro, is user friendly. To me. It's amazingly user friendly, especially on any one of the mickey mouse distros and twice on those geared towards both Server/Desktop and hardware compatibility (RedHat/Mandrake)...
Extremely Off Topic:
Ever notice that the Mickey Mouse distro's initials are the same as our beloved Gnu Maintainer's?
Back on topic:
Where was I... Damn, I get lost sometimes too easily. Anyway, yeah, the idea of Linux not being user friendly only goes as far as a windoze drone can run with it. Toss up an un-exposed person into identical desktops running Mandrake and XP, and it'll be just as confusing in both cases for the N00b. Now give them 6 months with Mandrake and toss XP at em, XP will confuse them to the point of frustration. It's just what you are 'used' to, not what is TRULY user friendly.
Originally posted by Rico16135 Windows didn't have to be everything that all the other competitors where. But they did successfully market their product. Linux doesn't have that luxury. It has to be better, to have its shot as a true competitor, in the desktop OS arena. It has to do more than windows ever had to. Believe me when I say that I hate what microsoft has become. But you have to marvel, at their marketing strategies. (sigh) I guess I'll wait here for all the flaming to come my way...
i agree completely!!!
i think it's a shame that all the most astute comments seem to end with this "i'll just wait for the flames now", it shows that the more vocal linux bods have intimidated a lot of people, intentionally or otherwise, into toeing the line*. linux is about choice in a way that no other OS ever has been before (except maybe 386BSD) and i think this should be freedom of speech as well. i tend to agree with stallman on the freedom of speech thing although i think he's one of the people who sometimes stifles discussion simply by his attitude and his devotion to one particular opinion.
anyway, i agree with what you are saying, even though it's a fairly sad fact, but it is a fact, and one which the major vendors of linux will have to take seriously for the linux users to benefit in the long run.
* i just reread and it sounds like i mean on this site in particular, but i simply mean in general, out there in the world
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1 , XP Pro, Knoppix on CD (for those "moments")
I've tried to read as many of the posts as possible, however, there are lots...
I'm gonna take the Bill Hicks devils advocate route on this due to my inexperience with Linux (so a voicce to be persuaded perhaps??)
1. I'm new to Linux.
2. Win XP gives me alot in terms of functionality (forget the hiding stuff in my hard drive and cash outlay) I know that when I turn my box on "it is there" what ever I need to do, and I have still to get Linux to "run" on my machine.... the way I would like it to...
3. Talking of money, if Linux is the way forward, why do software developers create packages that will predominantly run in Windows. Even M$ is sproducing stufff for MAC, but I've yet to hear of M$ do something for the free market, ie Linux.
I work for an ISP (Blueyonder) and to be honest Linux is a VooDoo artform to most of the guys I work with... Is this how Linux should be seen by the world over M$????
naive .... linux is used throughout the world as server platforms. (as well as in my apartment) So just because its a voodoo artform in your circle, doesn't mean its not more to others elswhere. Microsoft won't promote software for linux because they deam linux as a "real" threat.
The main reasons of using Linux for me and my friends are
1) the instability of windows (for example, my ICQ client crashed 2 times for last hour)...
2) the control over the system! (much better than the situation when system has control over you...i mean M$ market monopoly stuff (i'm a geek gamer so i know that not too many games(serious commercial products) are developed for Linux or ported to it))
3) Software and Hardware preferences are subjective... but another important component of IT is damn BRAINWARE, and Linux really helps us to develop it !!!
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1 , XP Pro, Knoppix on CD (for those "moments")
Rico... thankyou for pointing out the server issue... but let's face it, the "debates" that have been in the posts don't exactly promote Linux to the masses, just to the corporate world that want a cheap "alternative" working platform.....
Again, a devils advocate question, if linux is that great... then why do most user side pc's have a M$ based OS installed on them??
Glad to hear your apartment is rigged with something stable!