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

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn And the concept of "drive letters", and the concept of using backslashes instead of forward slashes for pathnames, and the names of many commands used in the Windows shell... you get the idea.

Just two sides of a coin so what? Windows uses \ while *nix uses /, so what?

Originally Posted by soppy Well they're not going to reinvent the wheel...

Tell that to the devs at Fedora, *ducks*.

My ultimate point being: With Linux, you get new versions (of distros) every 6 months. Windows, in contrast, takes from 3-5 years to release a version ... because of its proprietary source model, it doesn't have as many developers, which in turn means that there's less code being contributed and therefore less innovation.

And then there's the issue of Microsoft always telling the end user what to do with his/her computers, forcing them to be slaves of mere wealth.

Hrmm well Debian can take a few years to come out with a new version, also no real time frame for other proper distros *cough* Slackware *ahem*, s'cuse me. I rather like my distro not having to meet a deadline that can at times cause issues, *cough* Ubuntu *cough* *cough*...

The time it takes for a proprietary or OSS project to churn out seems to be a rather superficial and irrelevant point, just like nitpicking how windows labels drives and structures directories vs how Linux does it. Arguing about aesthetics is rather pointless.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn the concept of "drive letters"

TBH, I don't see "drive letters" as necessarily being a bad thing. It can make it easier to make a connection between mount point and physical device. *nix devices can be mounted just about anywhere, and that may be confusing for some people.

The only main disadvantage I can see is that Windows also assigns different drive letters to partitions on the same disk, e.g. you have a HDD partitioned into two halves, and Windows sees that as two separate "drives", C: and D:. *nix at least attempts to make the distinction between partition and device in its /dev/[sh]d[a-z][0-9] device node naming scheme, where the first letter ([sh]) denotes the type of drive (SATA/IDE), and the third letter and number respectively represent the device and partition.

Originally Posted by MrCode TBH, I don't see "drive letters" as necessarily being a bad thing. It can make it easier to make a connection between mount point and physical device. *nix devices can be mounted just about anywhere, and that may be confusing for some people.

Yes, but Linux distros with a desktop environment (and file manager like Nautilius or Thunar) automatically mount devices in /media/<volume label>, so really, that's the standard for device mounting.

However, by being able to mount a device anywhere, you can help to fine-tune control over the devices being mounted. For example, would you be able to mount an external hard drive in /home to get an extra 500GB of disk space on a netbook if it weren't for the freedom to mount anywhere? No! Would you be able to install the boot loader on a dedicated partition if it weren't for the freedom to mount anywhere? No! It's this that I hate about drive letters: By automatically assigning a mount point that exists outside the file system, you prevent the user from doing things that could be helpful in the long run.

by being able to mount a device anywhere, you can help to fine-tune control over the devices being mounted. For example, would you be able to mount an external hard drive in /home to get an extra 500GB of disk space on a netbook if it weren't for the freedom to mount anywhere? No! Would you be able to install the boot loader on a dedicated partition if it weren't for the freedom to mount anywhere? No! It's this that I hate about drive letters: By automatically assigning a mount point that exists outside the file system, you prevent the user from doing things that could be helpful in the long run.

For the first example (i.e. the fact that you can mount anything to /home), you could just put all your personal stuff on a separate drive (even if it's really just a separate parition; the "partitions as drives" thing is what kinda annoys me). You don't have to use the "My Documents" or "Program Files" directories to store your personal data and install programs in. I actually do this on my main desktop (when it's booted into XP): I have most of my "non-system" programs/data on a separate external USB HDD (D:) and everything else (e.g. web browser [Firefox], the OS itself and its core utilities, etc.) is on the main disk (C:).

Another thing (which is related to the first) is that the way Windows organizes its system files is quite different from the way Unix-likes do. Windows keeps most of its system files in one dir, whereas *nixes spread them out (just look at /bin, /usr, /etc, etc.).

I'm starting to think Jeebizz has a point here...it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn My ultimate point being: With Linux, you get new versions (of distros) every 6 months. Windows, in contrast, takes from 3-5 years to release a version ... because of its proprietary source model, it doesn't have as many developers, which in turn means that there's less code being contributed and therefore less innovation.

Let me explain myself a bit. I started with Linux in '06. It worked perfectly. I loved it. The only reason I kept Windows was for the games I have. But with each new Linux upgrade, it got worse. Finally, with my last "upgrade" last Nov, configuration changes wouldn't work properly. I could check and see that the changes were "stored", but they didn't do what they were supposed to. 3 out of 5 times booting from Windows into Linux, I had no mouse and had to use ctl-alt-del to reboot again. 2 out of 5 times my clock was off by 5 hours, AND I had to enter my password not once, but AT LEAST twice just to change the time!!! And then there was the issue with my internet- sometimes it worked great, and sometimes not at all. Just seems to me that the devs are sacrificing perfomance and functionality for appearance.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn And then there's the issue of Microsoft always telling the end user what to do with his/her computers, forcing them to be slaves of mere wealth.

Unless you are trying to do something illegal, such as piracy, copyright infringement, etc, that's not an issue. At least I can install Windows and use it without any hassles.

You all can think or say what you want, but I can't help thinking that you know I'm right. Look around your own forum at all the problems people are having with some of the simplest shit that should just work, and count all the abandoned threads where the problems were never solved. Shame on YOU for pushing such a lame POS on the unsuspecting. For all the years I've used MS OSes (from DOS v2.11 - Windows XP), I've only had to contact them twice to solve a problem... and they were solved quite promptly, as well as in a friendly, appreciative manner, I might add.

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble Let me explain myself a bit. I started with Linux in '06. It worked perfectly. I loved it. The only reason I kept Windows was for the games I have. But with each new Linux upgrade, it got worse. Finally, with my last "upgrade" last Nov, configuration changes wouldn't work properly. I could check and see that the changes were "stored", but they didn't do what they were supposed to. 3 out of 5 times booting from Windows into Linux, I had no mouse and had to use ctl-alt-del to reboot again. 2 out of 5 times my clock was off by 5 hours, AND I had to enter my password not once, but AT LEAST twice just to change the time!!! And then there was the issue with my internet- sometimes it worked great, and sometimes not at all. Just seems to me that the devs are sacrificing perfomance and functionality for appearance.

What distro was it? As for your clock issues, are you sure it wasn't a problem with your bios/CMOS?

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble You all can think or say what you want, but I can't help thinking that you know I'm right.

How would I know you're right? I can't read minds. Your experiences with Linux doesn't necessarily translate the same to others.

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble Look around your own forum at all the problems people are having with some of the simplest shit that should just work, and count all the abandoned threads where the problems were never solved. Shame on YOU for pushing such a lame POS on the unsuspecting. For all the years I've used MS OSes (from DOS v2.11 - Windows XP), I've only had to contact them twice to solve a problem... and they were solved quite promptly, as well as in a friendly, appreciative manner, I might add.

Please point to specific examples to where someone here was being condescending, and not helpful towards those who were having issues. The only person I see here is you coming to this forum complaining.

Do you have any real purposes other than to complain? Everyone at LQ is willing to help with whatever issues you have, but you seem only to have joined for the sheer purpose to paint Linux as some sort of failure, and that your experiences/mishaps with Linux somehow automatically means that this applies to anyone else that uses it. A bit presumptuous don't you think?

Ok Barney Rubble or is it Fife? if you want to go back to M$ nobody is stopping you. But before you do how about opening a thread on what issues you are experiencing, maybe you might get some resolved or maybe they may help someone else.Come to think of it, It was Fred Flinstone with the big mouth!

Originally Posted by Jeebizz Please point to specific examples to where someone here was being condescending, and not helpful towards those who were having issues. The only person I see here is you coming to this forum complaining.

You're doing it now. And like I said, look around your own forums. It's all over the place.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz Do you have any real purposes other than to complain? Everyone at LQ is willing to help with whatever issues you have, but you seem only to have joined for the sheer purpose to paint Linux as some sort of failure, and that your experiences/mishaps with Linux somehow automatically means that this applies to anyone else that uses it. A bit presumptuous don't you think?

Not at all. One more time, look around your own forums. BTW, this IS a Windows vs Linux thread, isn't it? Surely it isn't just for Linux users to bash Windows.

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble Let me explain myself a bit. I started with Linux in '06. It worked perfectly. I loved it. The only reason I kept Windows was for the games I have. But with each new Linux upgrade, it got worse. Finally, with my last "upgrade" last Nov, configuration changes wouldn't work properly. I could check and see that the changes were "stored", but they didn't do what they were supposed to. 3 out of 5 times booting from Windows into Linux, I had no mouse and had to use ctl-alt-del to reboot again. 2 out of 5 times my clock was off by 5 hours, AND I had to enter my password not once, but AT LEAST twice just to change the time!!! And then there was the issue with my internet- sometimes it worked great, and sometimes not at all. Just seems to me that the devs are sacrificing perfomance and functionality for appearance.

Well, the best thing to do is a clean install, not an upgrade. That's where you went wrong.

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble Unless you are trying to do something illegal, such as piracy, copyright infringement, etc, that's not an issue. At least I can install Windows and use it without any hassles.

Really? Think again. It says in Microsoft's license agreement that Microsoft has every right to search and seize a system that *it thinks* may be pirated, even if all you really did was change around some hardware in your system (motherboard, CPU, graphics card, etc.), edit your registry (which Microsoft now has plans to remotely spy on), or merely install the system more than once on the same computer (If you have to type your product key more than one time, the system will report that the key is already taken). All this is evidence of software Nazism that is only there to make end users slaves to Microsoft's empire, which in turn is all about making money (as Theodore Roosevelt said, "the tyranny of mere wealth" which seems to fit Microsoft perfectly).

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble You all can think or say what you want, but I can't help thinking that you know I'm right. Look around your own forum at all the problems people are having with some of the simplest shit that should just work, and count all the abandoned threads where the problems were never solved. Shame on YOU for pushing such a lame POS on the unsuspecting. For all the years I've used MS OSes (from DOS v2.11 - Windows XP), I've only had to contact them twice to solve a problem... and they were solved quite promptly, as well as in a friendly, appreciative manner, I might add.

Really? See above. Microsoft is only friendly because if not they would lose money ... that's again all about making money, billions upon billions, that goes nowhere but in Steve Ballmer's greedy pocket. And it's that money that gives Microsoft power, which Microsoft seems to use to exploit end users the same way those robber-barons of the 1800's exploited organized labor. And Microsoft seems to dearly enjoy this exploitation, being the Nero who is partying while Rome is burning.

Here on LQ, sure, there are *some* threads that may have no replies, and I do find them. It's me who usually would be one of the first ones to reply (if it is a simple problem that I know about, that is, especially if the problem is related to open source equivalents of proprietary software or common commands in the terminal that can be used to solve certain problems -- this is a perfect example), and I really feel that if someone here on LQ sees a problem they need to be punctual. It's a real shame no one else feels this way, but this is how FOSS should work: the LQ members should see a problem and respond. Even if they try and fail, it's the tried that counts. But if someone needs technical support, they need it *now*, not later.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Well, the best thing to do is a clean install, not an upgrade. That's where you went wrong.

That's just it... it was a clean install. I tried "upgrading" once, and unlike Windows, it didn't work. The system wouldn't even boot!

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Really? Think again. It says in Microsoft's license agreement that Microsoft has every right to search and seize a system that *it thinks* may be pirated, even if all you really did was change around some hardware in your system (motherboard, CPU, graphics card, etc.), edit your registry (which Microsoft now has plans to remotely spy on), or merely install the system more than once on the same computer (If you have to type your product key more than one time, the system will report that the key is already taken). All this is evidence of software Nazism that is only there to make end users slaves to Microsoft's empire, which in turn is all about making money (as Theodore Roosevelt said, "the tyranny of mere wealth" which seems to fit Microsoft perfectly).

Hmmm... Never really read the EULA, but I've upgraded my hardware and reinstalled Windows from the same CD quite a few times, now. Still haven't been blocked or denied a registration.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Really? See above. Microsoft is only friendly because if not they would lose money ... that's again all about making money, billions upon billions, that goes nowhere but in Steve Ballmer's greedy pocket. And it's that money that gives Microsoft power, which Microsoft seems to use to exploit end users the same way those robber-barons of the 1800's exploited organized labor. And Microsoft seems to dearly enjoy this exploitation, being the Nero who is partying while Rome is burning.

Hehehe... I remember hating MS myself back in the early days. Took them 10 years and 800% the system resources to match the capabilities of the Commodore 64, lol. And I'm well aware that they regulate the advancement of hardware technology for the purpose of having their OS upgrade ready when it's released. That's exactly why I hoped Linux would be better, and maybe in the future I'll try it again.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Here on LQ, sure, there are *some* threads that may have no replies, and I do find them. It's me who usually would be one of the first ones to reply (if it is a simple problem that I know about, that is, especially if the problem is related to open source equivalents of proprietary software or common commands in the terminal that can be used to solve certain problems -- this is a perfect example), and I really feel that if someone here on LQ sees a problem they need to be punctual. It's a real shame no one else feels this way, but this is how FOSS should work: the LQ members should see a problem and respond. Even if they try and fail, it's the tried that counts. But if someone needs technical support, they need it *now*, not later.

I'm not knocking the LQ members who try to help others. Quite the contrary, in fact- I commend them for their time and effort. My issue is that I've searched around for solutions and found threads that were eventually abandoned because the problem couldn't be solved, or was bumped off the zero reply list with a simple, "You should try (x distro) instead", or worse yet, several replies concerning the thread title and nothing related to the problem. I certainly wouldn't ask a question in that environment. So for now, at least for me, Windows and Microsoft support is still superior.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn It's this that I hate about drive letters: By automatically assigning a mount point that exists outside the file system, you prevent the user from doing things that could be helpful in the long run.

May I ask why you spread such false pretenses? From Windows XP up to 7 you are able to mount a partition to any empty folder you want. This pretenses, and your commentaries about the NT kernel, let me think that you don't know what you are talking about, sorry that I have to say that.

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble 2 out of 5 times my clock was off by 5 hours

Windows sets the system clock to local time, Linux sets it to Greenwich time. Both OSes are probably set up to synchronize the system clock from the internet, and each one makes it wrong for the other.

It's possible to make Linux use local time for the system clock, but I don't know how because I only have Linux on my computer so it's not an issue.

Originally Posted by MTK358 Windows sets the system clock to local time, Linux sets it to Greenwich time. Both OSes are probably set up to synchronize the system clock from the internet, and each one makes it wrong for the other. It's possible to make Linux use local time for the system clock, but I don't know how because I only have Linux on my computer so it's not an issue.

Well, distros like Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora make that easy: From the graphical installer, you have the option to select *your* time zone from a "time globe". There. You've just selected *your* time zone.

I think the problem with Barney Rubble is that he chose Slackware or Arch as a newbie instead of an easier distro.