Actually, the filesystem is easy. If you don't take the time to learn about it, you won't know how to access anything, true, but a lot of Windows users don't know where the hell their B drives went and just learn A,C,D. The *number* of files and directories is annoying as hell, but the fact that the structure's different is no big deal. Compiling, itself, is easy. How many clicks does it take to install an app in Windows? One to download, one to execute the installer, one to agree TO THE EULA, another several for options and directories, etc, etc. Four commands in Linux if things go well. The only problem is dependencies, but that can happen in Windows, too, and isn't a problem with compiling as such. The part that struck me, though, was "Cammand line seems absolutely inferior to the average user." Well, that is kind of the essence of Linux. That's a problem with the average user, not Linux. My problem with Linux is that I spend so much time screwing with making hardware work and often still having it fail that I haven't yet had the time to really *get* to the command line, as such. My command line is 'chmod' this and mkdev' this and that sort of crap. When I want my command line to be 'grep' and 'sed' and 'sort' and 'uniq' with pipes and other redirection and so on. The good stuff. The one area where Linux is not just superior or a little better or a little worse, but *immeasurably* superior.

If I'm in accord with any earlier posts I made, cool. If I contradict myself "very well, then, I contradict myself. I am many; I contain multitudes." *g*

I grew up on RISK OS/2 Acorn machines; and used them until I was about 9, then switched to Windows. (I always believed the Acorns were superior, as their OS was built into the chip, and they never crashed.) For about 6 years, I used Windows, and by the end of those six years, I started to really hate it. With WinME, it would be a miracle if I ever finished writing a post at a forum without it crashing.

About 5 days ago, I switched to Debian Linux (which I've heard is supposed to be one of the trickier Distros to install), and I found it fairly easy. One thing, however, is that you have to *read*. Most windows users are used to putting in the disk, and then holding down return. Quite frankly, if you can't figure out how to set up Linux, you shouldn't be allowed access to a computer (and especially not the Internet, where you are free to voice your 'opinions' and are allowed to harass intelligent users).

Why would you want an OS like windows? Despite 6 years of windows using, it's only been 5 days and I've already got the hang of linux, and the concept of "devices as files".

Erm... Why? Give me one good reason why an OS should be sufficiently clear in usage to figure it out on the fly?

You mean the way a good install is supposed to run? Digiot tried counting keystrokes for a Windows and a Linux install. Here's an example of a well done windows app:
http://www.editpadpro.com/editpadlite.html
(Off-topic: They just released a linux version! Yay!!)

Anyway, you know how many keystrokes it took me to do a default install of EditPad? Two. No commands, no anything. Double-click on the file (okay, select and hit "Enter;" I used WinCommander), and then "Enter" twice more. That was it.

The problem with linux isn't the number of keystrokes or the supposed lack of intelligence of the user. Just because a PhD in physics doesn't know how to use a linux box doesn't make them less intelligent than you are. I can go on for a while naming geniuses who most likely never bothered learning linux. Since when is Linux the ultimate IQ test?

The problem with linux is the lack of obvious options in command-line mode and the rather terribly-done GUIs. Granted, the GUIs are getting better. Here's what one guy I spoke to said...

Because then it has no power? Anyone can figure cut-and-paste on the fly. Sed's a different issue. Anyone can figure Windows or Mac on the fly. "Make an operating system easy enough for a fool to use..."

Quote:

You mean the way a good install is supposed to run? Digiot tried counting keystrokes for a Windows and a Linux install. Here's an example of a well done windows app: http://www.editpadpro.com/editpadlite.html (Off-topic: They just released a linux version! Yay!!)

I was talking about average routine installs. You know how hard it was to install a billion dropline gnome packages? A click or two. That's not the point. My point was that typing four freaking one word commands ain't hard.

The last part you quote has a large element of truth to it, though. And don't get me wrong - I think Linux has some klutzy ugly spots in it and could improve. I don't think many things should be all that hard. But I really worry about people wanting *everything* - not just most things - to be *incredibly* easy - not just 'not too hard' - and I worry about people wanting *nothing but* dumbass GUIs and ignoring what it's really all about.

Y'know, you should really stop presenting a range of options as a binary choice. It's not either incredibly hard and powerful or incredibly easy and useless. I can start coming up with examples of easy-to-use, incredibly good and useful apps any time you ask me to. That quote above is absolute and utter bullshit, and I've always thought that. Look at it this way: What're you going to use if Linux distros do, in fact, become user-friendly? Are you going to say "this sucks ass" and never upgrade again just because now you can do things by clicking rather than twenty obscure commands?



I was talking about average routine installs. You know how hard it was to install a billion dropline gnome packages? A click or two. That's not the point. My point was that typing four freaking one word commands ain't hard.

Having tried to do a routine install of gnome no more than three weeks ago, I and my system put the lie in your words. In fact, I still have to get gnome working the way I like, but I've no time to sleep, much less waste on figuring out config files and dependencies.


The last part you quote has a large element of truth to it, though. And don't get me wrong - I think Linux has some klutzy ugly spots in it and could improve. I don't think many things should be all that hard. But I really worry about people wanting *everything* - not just most things - to be *incredibly* easy - not just 'not too hard' - and I worry about people wanting *nothing but* dumbass GUIs and ignoring what it's really all about.

Now you're just plain misquoting. I never suggested the elimination of the command line. Command line is a powerful tool. Just like a hydraulic crane is a powerful tool. You aren't suggesting that everyone in the city get themselves one and drive around in it, are you?

The low-demand, non-developer user can be perfectly happy with the GUI. They don't need to concern themselves with the command line. However, even in WinXP the command line is still there, DOS though it may be. In Panther, the command line is there, and that's BSD. Also, you seem to be of the opinion that GUI == less powerful

Look again at Windows. It does pretty much everything through point 'n click, yet any number of apps have ludicrous amounts of power and usefulness. Granted, M$ design guidelines aren't worth much and apps that use them tend to be usability lessons in what *not* to do, but still, this is just an example of how powerful a GUI can be.

I never said "let's eliminate the command line." I just want an alternative to an utterly black-boxed system, which is what, for the most part, linux software is, especially during install.

here is my 2 cents on linux vs windows.

let me make the assumption that a majority of us sit at our computers an obscenely long time giving us the opportunity to learn, play, and get better at linux

what about users who don't have that opportunity?

i konw lots of people who don't konw jack about windows only for the fact that they don't have the time to sit there and play with it. or maybe they just don't have the mindset for it. not everyone can be instantly "tech savy" you know.

i don't know how those people could ever switch to linux, or would want to when windows works fine for them, comes with their computer, and 99% of the programs they want to use are avaible for them on it.

That's exactly what I was *not* doing. I explicitly said

"some klutzy ugly spots"

"don't think many things should be all that hard"

"But I really worry about people wanting *everything* - not just most things - to be *incredibly* easy - not just 'not too hard' - and I worry about people wanting *nothing but* dumbass GUIs and ignoring what it's really all about."

That whole thing is about it *not* being binary. I don't think we're arguing with each other so much as I'm arguing with CLI-phobic point-and-clickers and you're arguing with hardcore it-should-be-coded-from-bare-metal guys. I just heard something that sounded completely dismissive of the command line as such ("and Cammand line seems absolutely inferior to the average user") and had to disagree with that. But if that's "average users" view and not yours, then cool.

But, again, on that last thing, that's not how GUIs usually work. I would say it sucked ass if I could do 20 things by cli and could only do 18 of them or 5 of them by clicking. And that's what GUIs usually do. They get 'close enough' and leave it at that. And the stuff behind the scenes gets weirder and weirder until you have point-and-click and binary registries. And that *totally* sucks ass. I already see this:

in GConf in this damn dropline gnome thing. WTF is that?

Well, I don't see how you and your system put the lie to my words. Me and my system are running quite nicely.

How could I be misquoting when there was no quote *at all*? I was freaking *agreeing* with you and expressing my "worries" about "people". I didn't say you suggested eliminating the command line. Where'd that come from? But, to play with the metaphor, a hydraulic crane is a specific tool for a specific purpose. In computer terms, the command line can do virtually anything. It's more analogous to muscles and bones. And, yeah, I do think everybody's better off with those.

At the risk of having you wig on me again I'll try to agree with you again. I think OS installation often sucks and getting devices to work often does. Depending on the system, app installation can be better or worse. But, yeah, I absolutely agree that pain in the ass installs like Debian's are just dumb. Debian may be a great system but I'm having a hell of a time *getting to it* and I can't use *any* part of it, GUI or CLI, if it doesn't run in the first place. I've been yelling about this recently. I want to be figuring out grep and sed, not chmod and mkdev.

Anyway - like I say, I think we're actually mostly in agreement - Linux installations should be easier without dumbing down the system. CLI folks and GUI folks should be happy at the same time. We're just coming at it from different biases. I lean to CLI in principle and you lean to GUI. That's cool.

Try DTC ! Good luck !

Sheeesh you guys are LOL

Total equivalent to winxp===elx linux. incredibly easy install, 1 ea of "best of breed" apps, coupled with crossover office. 100.00% GUI if that is all you want or need, all pre-configured, and all of the power of linux "IF" you want to use it.

my 2c is simply this
im 15, and pretty much every computer i have used has windows on it. i started on win95, so i never learned dos, 3.1, ect ect, ..in school, th ey use windows, but back in elementry school (good ol' 90's...) we used dos on appleII's. well i say its dos, because everything ran off disks. donno what to really call it. then middle school we had windows 2000, in my last year, and before that, windows 3.1, or old old apples (think 5in. b/w screen) the windows 3.1 was only used for cadd and touch typing learning, and there was nothing too hard about it, just double click the program in the lil window of hte program manager. in highschool, we have windows 2k on all the windows computers, but the digital arts bits use g4's, and various other apples. personally, i just started using linux this year, and i haven't the slightest idea how to do a lot of stuff. to me installing is just ./configure, make, make install, no fancy options or hand configuring programs, and i just use them and hope they work. windows is, as someone (sorry but i forgot) said mind numbing. and it is, in windows xp. my computer came with xp, and i've used it, and it annoyed me. mainly with all the 'wizards', and no way of configuring things by hand. its wizard or nothing, unlike in the 9x windows, which i like. i still have my pc dual booted, because windows' compatability is very very nice, and linux is very useful for anything else, and just for being different. i've found many useful tools in linux, such as gaim, which i have installed in windows too, because its just really quite cool. and apples....well they're fun, i'd like one to play around with, but not to do any actual work, or gaming.
just figured i'd share and all that

Well, I really see where the poster is coming from. Being a newbie user myself, Linux is daunting, no question about it.

Yes, there are Windows-like Linux distributions that attempt to make linux easy to use. I myself don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to use a Linux that looks and feels like Linux.

To be reaslitic, it is highly unlikely that Linux is going to become like windows. It's a completely different system. Yes, it is becoming more user friendly, but it is truely Naiive to believe that Linux will replace Windows. The vast majority of users are mediocre computer people. They start windows, double click on IE and surf the web. They want to install something, they double click on the package. These users won't spend a minute in hell trying to understand what a kernel is, why they have to compile something or dependencies.

They way I see it, Linux is still going to remain in the shadow of windows, at least from a global perspective. Yes, I do agree that Linux users are smarter than Windows users, but you cannot expect everyone else to suddenly develop enough technical know how to dump windows.

By that logic, everybody should be Mac users. DOS vs. Mac was the Linux vs. Windows of its day and I understand Windows has consistently had the inferior GUI, even with Windows. But Windows runs on cheap PCs instead of Macs. And Linux runs on cheaper PCs instead of Windows OEM. I personally don't care if Linux displaces MS as long as Linux becomes significant enough to force it through manufacturers thick heads that their equipment and drivers should be Linux-compatible. And weakens MS enough that MS can't play dirty pool as effectively. But the battle is simply on the OEM front. Most people are going to buy a computer and expect it to have an OS and use whatever OS happens to be installed on it. And if everybody from IBM to HP to WalMart start cleaning up with cheap Linux desktop PCs while Linux cleans MS's clock on the server market and businesses see it as a better investment and train their workforces to use Linux and Linux is just as familiar and commonplace as Windows... well, hell, yeah it could displace Windows. Not saying it *will* or, again, that I even want it to, but it's doable.

-- Before anybody gets picky I use Mac and Apple and anything else interchangeably. Lisa, Apple IIe, Mac, whatever.

I dont see why people who are using linux and argue it should be more user friendly should use linux at all. Windows xp is stable enough for things to run efficiently. Why dont you people just stay with windows and leave linux alone? Is it because you want to learn something new? If so, this is new AND different. What kind of acomplishment is it to learn a new system, and then find out that you didn't learn anything at all. I BELIEVE I've had more trouble with linux in the past 3 years <3 years ago I got my first copy> than any of the "point-n-click" people on this thread. I've had countless kernel crashes, server failures, "permission's denied" messages <primarily from nfs>, and I believe that I've grow much smarter from the failures. On all the issues I couldn't figure out, I asked the people on here. I was very disapointed that noone in my area would teach me linux <for free>, but with the help on here, I have learned how to do countless configurations on linux. By just goofing around, I have learned more about windows by using linux. If newbies use GNU/Linux with the idea that they dont need it to work, they may find that with a little help from linuxquestions.org and a linux bible, thay will learn much, and be able to replace windows on there computer's as the primary operating system. Ok, I've rambled on enough and hopefully you people wont know what proper grammer is after reading this post. Have fun, don't stress!!

EDIT: by the way, does anyone know how to make windows flash the "caps lock", and "scroll lock" lights whenever it crashes? I think that would be cool. I already know how to make my computer crash with regedit and ctrl+alt+scroll lock. Now if I can just get lights to flash, people might think there computer's "broke"

this seems to have become the ultimate "win vs lin" thread, so i guess i will post accordingly.

To the "pro windows" people:

1) If you choose to venture into the linux world, you must leave certain assumptions at the door.

2) Linux programs are not designed to be user friendly. Linux is not, and never will be windows.

3) If you bitch and complain about the unfriendlyness of linux, and how linux has lost you as a user, in the vast majority of places, people will just write you off as a moron. for the most part, linux is made for linux users, who dont really care how easy it is for a windows user to use. now, there are very large exceptions to this rule (this site is one) but for the most part, you have to get over this idea of "the community exists to bring people like you in'. its just not true, the community exists to strengthen itself, if you apply yourself, you can join it, but you dont have some god given place in it that you are being denied.

4) Linux has a steep learning curve that you will find hard. Once you are past it, you will find it easier to use then any other os out there. using windows now drves me insane, because i am so used to be able to do certain things in certain ways that are just impossible in a user friendly OS.

5) Stop demanding. this isnt microsoft, you arnt the "consumer/god". you are an entry level member in a unique community driven computer world, and have no right to any arrogence. be humble, ask for explinations on why things are the way they are. (see #6) with this attitude, you will get people overjoyed to help you out. if you demand answers, using your problems as a reason linux sucks, people will ignore you, or insult you. remember, the people you ask for help are the same people who make this OS possible. by saying the OS sucks, you are insulting each and every member of the community, and they will respond accordingly.

6) Linux is what it becomes. Standing there with a critical look in your eye and saying "this will never become mainstream" is an attitude that doesnt make much sense. Linux has no central focus, it is, and will become, whatever people want it to be. currently, it is a dominant player in the IT sector. who knows, maybe tomorrow it will be in the scientific area, maybe the small business area, maybe the governament area, maybe the pc desktop market. If linux were made with a focus to become a OS for the average user, it has failed horribly. but it isnt, it doesnt have that kind of focus. Instead, how bout take the attitude "wow, those guys at kde have done a bang-up job making a friendly UI." Windows has a focus on making user interfaces. Linux tends towards stability, performance, security. UI comes last. that makes it apples and oranges, if the linux UI ever gets to that of microsofts, microsoft will go belly up, as their only strength is in the interface.so please, stop making this comparison, each person that does only shows they have little to no understanding of the way linux evolves.

7) Dont be afraid to read. this is why i am where i am with linux. read, read, then read some more. then try it, with printouts in front of you. if it didnt work, guess what you do? reinstall? no. go researching, and find more stuff to read. the most important part of learning linux is understanding the internal logic. if i were to ask "what goes in /usr/local? what is /etc/fstab? what is /etc/X11/XF86Config?" and you were unable to answer, yet use linux on a semi regular basis, that means you are relying soley on a GUI to solve your problems, and are not trying to understand how things work. that attitude will make linux continue to be a frustrating mystery. when i decided i was going to make linux my primary OS, I deleted windows, and installed slackware, and didnt reinstall for a month. my level of knowledge went up ten fold in that time. this is the best advice anyone will ever give you, understand your problems, understand the solutions. if you ask for help, then follow step by step instructions to fix it, the whole thing is still a mystery. if you understand why there was a problem, it was worth the trouble it caused you. if you understand the solution, you are one step closer to being a "guru". your understanding of the OS has gone up, and you will be able to fix similar problems in the future.

8) If i can do it, so can you. i have used linux for just over a year now, and it is now my primary OS. My timeframe for solving problems has gone from weeks, to days, to hours. I am more efficent. I buy software that i wish to support, not software i hate but need. Overall, i have zero regrets in reducing windows to the OS i boot into each time i want to play some warcraft III. just apply yourself, dont get discouraged, ask for help, and be willing to change your way of looking at your computer, and you can accomplish this too.


To "pro linux" people:

1) Windows users are not idiots. They are used to a way of thinking, and a certain arrogence that comes from paying 400$ for an OS, and expecting it to work. In their minds, they are still consumers, they pay mandrake 80$, and expect the same consumer rights they would buying any other piece of software. It is just this misunderstanding many people have. Mandrake has little to no control over KDE, Gnome, or Open Office. A windows user is used to buying a product, in this case they are buying a package. Now that doesnt make them idiots, even tho it may appear so at first glance. not to say they arnt either (dont want to defend or make excuses for stupidity). There are many idiots who use windows, but not all windows users are idiots.
2) Linux is hard. as someone who has recently passed the threshold where it isnt difficult anymore, i can remember the times where i couldnt install anything, no hardware worked, and linux was frustration after frustration. it is hard.

3) Be more patient. I have recently been coaching a few people in linux, and they go through phases. being patient, explaining things several times, and being able to see where they are coming from has helped much more then "RTM" or "STFU". the biggest thing is to show them what it can do for them, show them that there is an OS that people love using, instead of the standard "I hate windows, but its the only option."

4) Point people in the right direction. Its the teach a man to fish argument, often showing them how to find help is the most helpful thing you can do. now maybe, if they are asking how to open internet explorer in kde on the kernel developement mailing list, they diserve a STFU, but and least tell them why they are being stupid.

5) Linux users have a reputation of being a secular, geeky, unhelpful group, a reputation i have never seen manifested in my direction, but i have seen where it comes from. We have noobs all over the place, asking questions in the wrong newsgroups, forums, and irc channels. When this happens, let everyone else flame the shit out of them, but you send them a message saying "The reason everyone is reacting this way, is because this is a very technical forum where we discuss <insert guru topic here>. Where you want to ask this is <insert n00b central here>."

6) Personally, i find windows frustrating as a user. I find microsoft business practices repulsive as a human being with a level of decency. But honestly, talk to someone who switched from UNIX to linux, instead of windows to linux. they just dont care. they sort of consider windows users like windows users consider mac users. they dont hate them, they find it a bit confusing that anyone would use anything that simplistic, but other then that its sort of a live and let live attitude. linux is not for everyone, if you acknowledge this, then considering everyone who doesnt use it a mindless idiot says more about you then it does about them. windows has another 2000 security holes? fine. how does this effect you? in a discussion, explain why linux is more secure. if they choose to bring up that windows is better, then its no holds barred, and they asked for it. but other then that, there is no reason to go around windows bashing. explain how linux works, explain the concepts in the cathedral and the bazaar, they have used windows, they will draw their own conclusions. when you start listing everything that is garbage about windows, they will get defensive. if you explain whats good about linux, they wont.

7) There is no reason for someone to be a freeloader. at the least, buy your distros. (i purchased SuSE recently, not that i use it, but i want to support what they are doing for linux. I already owned Mandrake, and Slackware.). one step up, share what you have learned with newbies. a step up from that, contribute to projects, in documentation, support, contribs, or developement. a step up, start your own project. There is no reason, no matter how new you are to linux, not to contribute in some way. linux is the ultimate in computer communities, it is the group that makes the product for the group to use. people who take and dont give back in any way dont hold us back, but they dont push us forward either.