Right. Pretty much the same as what I said, except that my glass was half full ... :p (I was trying to be nice about it)

The poll is short on local documentation sources :(

What Windows does well is:

1) Backwards compatibility is very good. You can still run well designed DOS programs in Windows.

2) Provide one with a rich GUI that works on a variety of platforms.

3) Make it very simple to create managed systems (if done the MSFT way).

4) Provide okay man pages and simple wizards/templates.

I would not make the leap to say that windows' extensibility or capability suffers, as windows is very capable and extensible. The two areas where windows suffers is security and package management.

That is making a really large leap. Documentation is terse because many FOSS programmers do not want to dedicate the proper time necessary to document their programs. There is a process that all good software engineers are supposed to follow. Many linux programmers omit many parts of this process because it is mundane or they are lazy or arrogant.

If I am supposed to take "linux" seriously, then it needs to feel like more than a hobbiest os. Sucky docs are great for hobbiests. It make solving your problems more rewarding. It is not so great for sysadmins and devs. I am a developer. Time is money to me. I do not want to waste time going through outdated and misleading docs. When I write code, I document it. I also document the reasoning behind my decisions so that anyone else that is hired to maintain my code will understand it. Before unleashing the software out into the company I work for, it is tested and well documented. Proper software engineering demands this. If you are a dev and want your product to be treated as something more than a hobbiest program, then you need to make sure that you document and support your product.

I agree with your comment. Complex programs are harder to use, however, proper documentation will speed and simplify the learning process.

um, no, but if you did, I would not hold it against you. I don't see how trying to struggle with something that you can't "figure out" and that is free makes you "better". In my book that makes you a darn fool, or a masochist, or both. We were discussing linux and bad docs and then you got off on a tangent with bad analogies. Lets get back to the topic, shall we? Most people on this board purport that linux is somehow superior to Windows, hence the title "Why linux over Windows?", yet somehow their experiences are remarkably still similar to Windows users ... annoyance and frustration with cockamamy software. I said that these frustrations and annoyances could be reduced by better docs, while you are saying that the docs are good enough, that there is something wrong with the user (where have I heard this before). The fact is that many of these forums are filled with the same questions. Why just in the networking section, in one week, I counted 10 cases of people not setting the resolver correctly in /etc/resolv.conf. Now I could say that these people were boneheads that have no business operating a computer and to RTFM. I could even take it to your level and say that maybe they are not as "gifted" as I am because they can not understand a man page. That maybe they should keep reading the man page until until they gain the needed knowledge through some epiphany or to hit the forums. I prefer to believe that my fellow linux users are not slackers or boneheads, that they can not understand the docs because the docs are not clear.

I have a feeling that the poll will turn out that docs are okay.


The projects that made linux what it is today are the paid projects.

How so? An OS can't be defined by any software that runs on it. Since an OS is nothing more than software itself, you would essentially be defining software by other software. So while the Linux kernel remains open source and free of charge, then open source and free of charge projects are what makes Linux what it is today.

if developers and distributors can stop people from enjoying configuring x , networking , arrays of disks and things like that by the way of text files and exotic commands during and after booting ... then i think maybe they might have more time in writing good documentations ... anyway , probably theres nothing much left to be documented ...

for all common general senarios like after a successful installation of systems , all configurations should be done in gui and make sure they work right after people hit the ok or apply button ...

>> "The two areas where windows suffers is security and package management."

btw ... why you said windows "package management" suffers ... ??


.

I've already stated that man pages are *technical* documentation and should be viewed as such...as for 10 people posting concerning their /etc/resolv.conf being incorrect, did it occur to you that these 10 people could have performed a search of the forum prior to posting? Were the docs unclear there? No, it strikes me as the last 9 users (assuming that /etc/resolv.conf hasn't been documented yet on LQ.org until these 10 got here...which isn't likely) aren't putting forth a spit of effort to figure the problem out. That, IMHO, is the problem here...not the documentation!

I'm not saying everyone should be left on their own...I'd be exactly what you're accusing me of if I did...I have quite a bit of respect for someone who comes to the forums and says "I've got a problem I couldn't figure out...here are the steps I've taken so far trying to determine the cause..." as opposed to "URGENT! HELP MEEE PLZZZZZZ Why isn't my internet working?" and after a few questions it turns out that /etc/resolv.conf wasn't set. Call me what you will, but THAT is a bonehead mistake, especially considering that /etc/resolv.conf has been documented in man pages, howtos, distro docs, and by your admission 10 times in one week on this forum alone.

Call me whatever you want...it bothers me not...your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that many people benefit from reading man pages and many people don't want to expend an ounce of effort to learn to help themselves.

I guess you're rating Linux based on projects that are primarily GUI-based (99% of the projects I've heard of that are paid projects are ahem...GUI projects), which oddly enough are the user-friendly types that are swelling Ubuntu's numbers...

I realize your opinion of me ("ignorant elitist" or whatever) is probably cemented in place...so let me toss caution to the wind and state this:

Linux isn't what it is today because of a *frontend* to the underlying system. What is Linux? Stable, reliable, dependable? Did the GUI do that? Get real. Linux is reliable and dependable because of hard work from non-paid projects. The user-friendly garbage that projects like Ubuntu are cranking out ride on top of a solid core provided by non-paid projects...right down to the kernel. Oh, but the GUI makes Linux more accessible to the masses? I'll give you that...but that has nothing to do with "what Linux is today".

Umm, you do realize that GUI programs are actually in fact just *more code* to document? It is my opinion that the reverse is true...if developers dropped the idea that they should just keep writing more "overhead" code on top of what's there, *then* perhaps they can write up "hold my hand while we configure X" documentation. But Linux (the concept, not the kernel) isn't some centrally controlled project...if you want to work on GUI projects to make a newbie's life easier, then by all means do so...and write up a damn doc that The_Dude would be proud of while you're at it...

You guys are really making me feel weird...is this honestly the route that Linux is taking? Sigh.

>> "But Linux (the concept, not the kernel) isn't some centrally controlled project."

probably its time to break this off into two(but no more) ...


//actually dont have to wait for hardwares vendors , maybe they will come to you and not the other way round ...


.

Yes, Windows package management does suffer. Think of how you update your typical linux machine or to install software on it. You go to one facility, either yum, apt-get, up2date (or the gui front ends for these apps) and either install new software, update the current software you have, or delete unwanted software. You don't have to go searching the internet for updates or software unless your distribution does not include the apps you are interested in. When you do find stuff not in your distribution, many times the vendor will have a repo that you can add to your package manager. No such simple update/install facility exists in Windows. To install new software you depend on the vendor to provide you with an installer for the software. To delete the app, you go to add/remove program applet, and run the un-install. Many times the un-installer does not perform a proper clean up so that you are left with entries in the registery and files littering your file system. If you need to update an app, you can't just go to add/remove applet, you must go the vendor's site and download and install any updates. While Microsoft does provide you with auto-updates to the os and msft office, no such facility exists for the rest of their software. This is a really weak way to manage your software. Linux community got it right when they created the current crop package management systems.

probably linux package management systems dont know(or dont want to know) what exactly the user who are performing the task want or dont want ... probably it is a kind of package management that is easy to provide and easy to left out some ...

in most of the cases , i think people have the common-sense not to upgrade too ferociously after an already frequent upgradings ...


.