When you consider the fact that crossover software have been built by the open source community like wine? why is that we are not building an OS like M$ Windows that is far superior to Windows, but offers a similar file system, thus making it friendly to M$ users. This would make us No. 1 in Desktop Operating Systems. Why I ask this question is because it appears to me that the Open Source Community has enough expertise in the windows environment considering the access to FAT32 file systems in linux and crossover products.

I'm really happy with Linux and the unix file system. But what about all the people that are just scared to shift out of windows to a new file system and file naming convention, in an environment that they do not know. That is what makes most M$ users stick to windows.

Is the windows file system or the way it works copyrighted?

Just a question really

You should think before you write.

why, for christ's sake, would we want a duplication of windows ? first - there is already a Lindows linux - i myself consider it a shame of the linux community. second - which part of linux is not intuitive? i mean, if u want a really install-and-go version, grab mandrake. it's flat straight forward, no hassle in most cases. the thing that makes M$ windows strong is the heavy bias of the operating system over the internet - look at how they are supported - internet explorer, ICQ, bla bla bla. yes tehre are alternatives, but if people's mind are set to someting, they are not easily convinced to switch over. get it?

Let me word the question better for your convenience kater, "Why was Unix used as the reference for Open Source Development and not DOS???"

I ask not because I think M$ is better. But out of curiosity as to why someone else has not built an OS based on DOS other than M$. I am sure that such an OS can be made much more secure and stable than M$ Windows. But M$ just does not want to for their own selfish purposes, or is just plain incompetent.

I am equally in fact more at home in Linux than Windows and extremely glad that I shifted. So please don't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

because DOS is / was an absolutely crippled joke. it could never ever compare to the inherent power of UNIX. have you actually tried using DOS seriosuly once you're used to the funcation AND ideological benefits of stream pipes and so forth. DOS is just an embarrasment, and was at the time of it's success too...

Actually, Windows XP has the NTFS file system out of the box, which is superior to the FAT32 fs. But, that's besides the point. The file system is not the reason why Windows users do not switch. Truth be told: Wiindows is, indeed, quite user friendly. Mind-numbingly so. And that's the key: "mind-numbing".

The more that users have to think, the more that users don't want to change. True, the latest Linux distros are more user friendly than in the past. There are still a bit behind what Windows offers, with respect to "point-and-click-and-done" functionality. And, of course, there are the proprietary .doc and .xls formats, which people have gotten close to figuring out, but not quite.

But, in the end, I wouldn't want to have another "mind-numbing" Windows-like operating system. I'd rather use my own brain once in a while, thank you very much.

Leave the Windows-like OS's for the people who'd rather use their Word and Excel and Outlook. Leave the UNIX-like OS's for the people who want to get real work done.

DOS is a very ugly and bad clone of Unix.

Yes Chris is right.....

I agree that stream pipes and the other benefits that unix provides are really fantastic...


I am also sorry for not wording the other part correctly. What I meant by file system was the method in which files are organized. People have become so used to having their files organized under c:, d: etc that the "/" makes them frightened.

Let's face it.. The average computer user wants just the basic functionality to check his mail and surf the net, and maybe make a few spreadsheets and documents. And when people get used to something, they don't want it to change ("Who moved my cheese??" .....Remember?) That was what I was asking. I am sure there are people amongst the novice users who do not want to use M$ and yet are forced to because the alternative seems scarier.

Again.. Just asking

What the hell is so fucking hard with /dev/hd[abc...]? Sorry, but this is a very dumb question.

My opinion is: Linux or any other Unixclone is _not_ for the normal, dumb Windows user. If an user wants to switch to a Unixclone, he has to use his brain.

I remember M$ had its own UNIX distro back in the 80's... It was called XENIX. What ever happened with that?

I know Dos 1.0 didn't even have the concept of directory. It was later stolen from UNIX and integrated in DOS 2.0!
Nice business strategy, huh?

hehe, i think MS was like Caldera nowadays - ever since they joined SCO now they're forgetting linux - totally :|

Why do we have to be so quick to react in such a non helpful, imature way. What was the name of this site again?

arun79, this idea has come to many people. Ever heard of lindows? It's a linux OS but it tries to imitate the look and feel of windows. They even have a "C:" icon on the desktop that opens the file browser in the root directory.
But really, as was pointed out earlyer, most linux users including me, have no desire to have our desktops look like windows.

c:\ d:\, etc are largely irrelevant and arbitrary - mappings are just an easy way of saying localdisk or \\server\apps or whatever. Once you become used to using servers, whether novell, ms or *nix, you tend to talk in terms of volumes - sys, apps, data, etc.

Additionally, the mapping convention is meaningless to *nix as we don't have a system even similar to Windows. Our swap is a partition not a file - do we give it a letter or mark it hidden? Isn't /home/user just as friendly (if not more friendly) than c:\documents and settings\user\my documents?

You say tomayto, I say tomato......

Look Kater... others. No reason to get nasty, they guy asked a question, he wants an anwer, not smart ass remarks.

With that said, I see what your gettting at. Most choose linux because it is different than windows. Making a gui easier for plain end users (and let's face it, they are a majoriy of the market) and they might look to switching.

Anything to give Microsoft competition.

As an IT professional myself, I personally like Windows 2000, and really like Active Directory. Until Linux, Sun....whatever, can compete with AD, and MS Exchange, and come up with the same features, it's futile to even use Linux for other than Database, Web, and Firewall/Proxy Servers, and possibly a NAS platform.

A new gui will help Linux reach the market Microsoft controls. As much as most Linux users want to consider them selves "above" the regular end-user, they have to realize they are the ones have teh largest part of the market, and give all of us IT pros. jobs.

You know, once we are talking about OS, I'm quite curious about one thing... I've used a Mac at Uni a long ago (yeah, Mac is nasty). Which OS is a bigger treat to M$? Linux or MacOS. Please, don't flame me . I have no idea how the market for Mac is, but at least in Sweden, is way easier to find Mac games (way tooooo expensive) then Linux games at stores + Everyone at the TV (Buffy, Mel Gibson...gheheh) always has to use a portable Apple one...
I'm really curious

Short answer: Because it has already been done. It's called Windows! If someone wanted to use windows, they have that choice. Why on Earth would anyone want Linux to degrade to Windows level? Lindows is a shameful POS...IMHO

Why should linux change from a logical file system setup to such a random-seeming one as Windows uses?

Try putting 4 primary partitions each on two hard drives and try to predict what is c, d, e, f, g, h, i and j and which one is on which physical drive.

Now do the same in Linux.

See the difference?

I have to agree with gbbenson up there, I think a LOT of Windows' current appeal is the "Duh" factor. Its hypnotic the way they fool you. You don't have to think...they make the choices FOR you and you live with them all in the pursuit of the quick and lazy.

The problem is that while it may be easy...when stuff goes wrong in windows you're SOL.

With Linux, what shocks a LOT of windows users and eventually chases off a few is that you HAVE to learn what's going on (ow! ow! ow! my brain! It's working! ow!). You HAVE to use your head and here's the best and scariest part:

You have to make CHOICES.

Its all about the freedom baby! You get to choose what you want to run, how you want to run it and how it works for you!

When you're in windows, you don't choose, M$ does, you don't think because M$ does it for you...just fork over your cash and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Arun79, the thing is, you have choices, there's no need to copy windows because the people who chose linux have already realized that windows is not the way to go for them. When you learn more (I apologize here, I'm making an assumption that you are still learning about linux) you'll see that linux is laid out quite logically and it makes sense...its not easy...but it makes sense. Its not perfect, but it does the job better...(in my opinion anyway).

This thread is most interesting... However the thing I like most is that everyone here is using the same arguments that were used ten years ago in the Microsoft and Apple debates over which OS was best.

Heck, many of them are almost word of word. What I don't understand is how people get so hateful over something they have nothing to do with. If you are using Linux, who cares what is happening in Windows Development, any innovations will get duplicated soon enough and the same goes for any Linux innovations or MacOS innovations. It all comes down to personal choice and there will be no way to sway those opinions. They may change over time but arguing over them won't help anyone get anything done.

Well for one Lindows is gettting sued over the name by microsoft according to time

Hehe, that's true, I remember using those arguments myself I didn't like Macs much back then. But back then, M$ wasn't into the ultimate power grab that they are now.

Well for one, a LOT of linux users are using linux because they object to Microsoft business/political practices. If you just ignore what they do while you let their marketting/lobbying machine steamroll, you'll find that linux will eventually either be outlawed or irrelevant. Thankfully, that is not happening and linux use is spreading

ok... the whole deal is... well as some may come to find out... im 15... and i have always been brought up with M$ soo thats why it comes so easy.. when you are brought up with a OS you natrually want to stick with it... and im learning linux because ive heard about its power and superiority... but i have to say.. it is confusing at first being used to the whole C: and D: stuff .... but i have to say that linux offers alot more for a lot less $$$$$ thats all i have to say =)

Personally, with the plethora of words that make up the various languages in this world, you think they could have come up with something more distinctive. They wanted to play off the Windows name and that is diluting trademark and they should be sued. But a bad decision on the part of one distributor really doesn't have anything to do with the overall OS situation right now.

Heck, Lycoris is a much better distribution than Lindows. It has a better Interface and it is run by ex-Microsoft employees. They aren't getting sued.

Think about it tho...remember when you were learning M$ at first? You did have to learn it. Linux is no different. I remember learning DOS and .bat files, then Windows 3.1, then 95 and 98...

I don't think linux is any HARDER to learn...but it is something ELSE to learn.

That is an important point. When dealing with linux, I often think "hell, what do I do? This is really unintuitive". I think why can't it be like windows and I know what i'm doing? However, I had to learn DOS/Windows commands, and like-wise I have to learn linux commands.

On a more serious note, unless a linux distro (haven't tried lindows or lycoris btw) can completely remove the command-line from the front-end of the OS, then it is NEVER going to be the No.1 OS. Frankly, haven't we moved on from tabbing commands at a screen in monocrome?

I know the UNIX command-line base has many, powerful, benefits, but for most users, that will never be needed.

I have more thoughts, but have to go................

But... in newer distros, you not really have to use the command line much, if at all. Nautilus replaces Windows Explorer, all printing tools, network configurations and packages installations can be done with graphical tool, even to unpack from tar/bz has graphical toolz. There's the compiling stuff, that's true, but you not really have to use it. There're rpm's for newbies which also has graphical tools for installing. Apt-get with synaptic and similar as Gentoo's emerge and others is something that windows is thousands of years behind... nothing can be easier then synaptic...

To finish, I really think Linux is already the number one. Perhaps not the most used, but definitely the number one and growing in all the areas. In fact, it's not the number one yet in Gaming... But it's coming right with Nvidia and ID Software giving some small pushes to it. The problem is that, M$ has thrown to much shite into the market as Visual Basic, which sucks and DirectX for games (I've playing with that for years now, it's the most bad designed thing ever) and companies are set with it...

Also, many things with windows ask also for command line... like, what version of Dll's for DirectX have you installed? if you don't run console and type dxdiag you won't know... And many other things too as msconfig to define start up programs and etc...
But many Windows users don't use it... because they like clicking and clicking the most ...

Sorry for the spelling...

Of course people like the duh factor. People want to site at home, surf the internet, read e-mail and play games. Maybe the curious ones want to download a firewall or something for thier PC. Who wants to sit there and mess with config files all night. People just want to install the software.

Look at it from the end-users perspective. I personally think Linux is more stable, quicker, and all around more secure (at least now, there has been at least a 65% increase in Linux virus writers here int he US the past year).

I have both at home, and two different computers. It depends what I am trying to do. I think Linux displays gifs and jpgs better. However when I want to blow up Nazi's in Medal of Honor, I obviuosly use windows. When I install comething, I just want to run a .exe and be done with it. That's most peoples mentality.

In the work enviornment, I think Linux is great for web/database/firewall work (altough BSD for firewalls is my first choice). however AD and Exchange are top notch, and will only improve come Windows 2005. Even the changes in 2003 are significant to 2000 as far as enterprise standards are concerned. AD is an awesome powerful tool. It has problems ( the database can't get bigger the 2 gigs), however it will be fixed when it will be run on a SQL platform (2005).


Each has their place. I like both. But please consider both ends. Microsoft is a big faceless and facist organization somtimes. But they can produce good products. And it can be cheap if you know the system (and I am not talking about pirating)

Because Unix was there 15 years before DOS
and we had an open software community before
Gates stopped crapping his nappies?

Of course it seems a logical step to hop out
of your four-wheel drive and start building
additions to a three-wheeled pushbike, like
a fox-tail on a stick ...

/me shakes his head in bewilderment...

Cheers,
Tink

I, personally, think that Windows XP and OS X are the best operating systems for the home user and they won't be replaced by linux any time soon. Why? Because most people want to spend their time using the software provided, not configure it.

Those who aren't programmers are not interested in spending time checking out what's under the hood. Maybe you do but I think that sofware should be intelligent enough to configure itself for a particular system. Linux certainly lacks this "intelligence". Obviously Windows isn't as customizable but I think it's something people agree to live with... home users, that is, not caffeine-filled programmers.

Now, I'm not saying that linux is bad, it's just not for most people out there. Linux is a server OS, Windows is a Desktop OS. There shouldn't be any conflict.

Those who claim that you can have all the freedom you want should start using Assembly instead of C++ and Qt classes because, obviously, those classes do SOOO much for you and you don't have to know HOW they do certain things to be able to use them.

Freedom is great for as long as you have a choice to let OS make its own decisions. (Oh no, the war of the machines is near!)

Moved to the General forum again.

Oh and about DOS. As someone said, DOS is a HORRIBLY cripped version of Unix. Windows 9x was built on DOS and look where it is now - nearly abandoned and replaced by Win NT that's not built on DOS.

Thanks to MS's marketing talent, DOS was popular years ago but in reality it's one of the most horrible command-line OSs ever developed, and what's with backslashes? Geez!

Anyway, DOS is long gone so there's no need to defend it even. It's obsolete!

Well, the website is dedicated to actual problems
with Linux, not philosophical [I use the term sophia
very losely here, actually I think it's more like logorhea]
(and pointless, as it's in hindsight) questions...

The point would have been not to post flame-war
fodder ;) in the first place.

Have you ever seen the movie "Kentucky fried movies"?
The episode with that tiny pale nerd-guy who describes
his amazing hobby called danger-seeking?

He dresses up in football-gear, goes down to the
docks where a bunch of hunks of black guys are
tossing coins.
He steps amongst them and yells:
"Dam' niggers!!"

Cheers,
Tink

Screw them!

Too bad. They can always run to mommy if they are frightened. Jeez, the absurdity of a statement that someone is 'frightened' by a naming convention.

A stupid statement, followed by an even stupider analogy, used in a wrong context.

Again I ask this: Why do you people who don't find that Linux fullfils your needs feel the need to tell us (people who obviously think otherwise) how happy you are with windows and how you will always use it for x, y, z as you can't do that in Linux???

Just use your windows and be done with it, I personally couldn't give a damn what you use or not use.

These threads are stupid and a waste of time.

Uhh.. I use both Linux and Windows and I am happy with both. I'm just explaining WHY it will not be "OMG #1" operating system for quite some time.

People are surely "friendly" here. It's an open discussion. If you have nothing to add other than something or someone is stupid, don't add anything, Mr. Helpful.

I agree. I just converted my home computer to Linux over the weekend but am not a newcomer by any means having been using Unix based OSes since 1987. However if Vlad's attitude is the prevalent one here, I wasted my time signing up here and will be moving on.

nuadastorm, don't quit because of a thread!
Don't be offended... I guess Vlad_m started the day with the wrong foot...

Anyways, I don't see why Linux should try to copy Windows.
I think some people have narrowed your mind with this *wrong* tought: "Windows is the only way to go, Linux must copy it".
Why? 'Cuz they've used Windows for alot of time and don't see other ways of doing things then how Windows does them. They're afraid of changes...

Personnally I think it's not a good idea, if you like Windows go ahead use it, but I you prefer Linux, then perfect, use Linux.

You mustn't choose your OS because it's popular, and everyone thinks it's cool, but because YOU like it.

Concerning the *nix filesystems, 2 months of medium use were enough for me to prefer them over NTFS, or FAT.
Once you understand all the benifits of it, you'll never want to switch back.

Give Linux the time needed to conquer you!

Ummm ... wouldn't that be "Desktop", and "My Computer"
and "My Documents"?

Like in terms of little iconic folders?

I am almost certain that most people wouldn't
know the difference it makes for them to
type run -> cmd rather than run -> command
in Win2K or eXPeriment...

Your point being? My athlon at home hasn't undergone
software/configuration changes since my on-the-fly
upgrade from Slack 8 to 8.1 in December, and my
lady who's not a programmer happily uses Mozilla
and OpenOffice...

And as for "using the OS provided" ... I don't think
that XP as a basis for e-Mailing and browsing is justified.
That's what you get.

That's simply wrong, both ways ... I can satisfy
my desktop needs using Linux, and MS is pushing
hard to get a fat share of the server market, more or
less having pushed Novell out of the market, and with
their clustering solutions pushing into Middle-ware
regions...

My wild guess is that most programmers would have a
fair idea on how a class does what it does (the more
so with QT since you get the source, too) but don't see
a need to write the same thing a million times... and if
you just dislike QT use GTK or GTK and gtkmm if you
want C++ rather than C ;) ... but then a programming
paradigm has nothing to do with the OS rant, either...

What the heck are you on about? :)

/me doesn't want any of what Anacific was smoking...

Cheers,
Tink

I don't think it is ... however, it's quite
understandable for people to get upset
if a visitor enters their lounge and poops
on the carpet... ;)

Cheers,
Tink