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

Has Orwellian Doublespeak been implemented on thios forum?

Windows doesn't break? Windows is faster than Ubuntu? Windows requires LESS maintenance than Linux?

LOL! Stop! Youse are killing me!

I've been using Ubuntu 10.04 for 8 months now (my first venture away from Windows and into Linux) and in that time, I have spent virtually ZERO time maintaining it. It has never crashed. I no longer need to be careful about visiting unknown websites or opening unknown attachments. No defragging...no registry to perpetually clean. It hasn't degraded over time (in fact, it seems to work better as time goes on); it boots up fast and closes down fast. No "system restores" necessary......

Linuc has taken a lot of the frustration out of computing.

And to say that learning Linux eats more time than maintaining Windows is just the height of absurdity! I'm a high-school drop-out and have never had any formal computer training...never even used a computer until 1999 at age 37- and I found Linux very intuitive and easy to use. If you can use Windows...you can use Linux. You needn't know everything there is to know...you learn as you go. If have a problem or need to accomplish some task that you can't figure out...just Google and you find the answer- and it is never as complex or egregious as doing many tasks on Windows.

All the time spent maintaining Windows was one of the big reasons I wanted to get away from Windows.

The last time I booted up Vista (months ago) I was utterly disgusted with how long it took to boot and how slow it was. If I were forced to go back to Vista, the first thing I'd have to do is some serious maintenance or re-install.....as it is over 2 years old on this machine, and even though regularly and scrupulously maintainted....has succumbed to the inevitable Windows Rot.

"Windows" and "rot" seem to go together very well in a sentence.

I'm going full Debian very soon, and wiping this abomination of an operating system known as Windows off my hard-drive!

Crappy OS be gone!

good luck my friend! patience be with you

yes it is. i'll make some videos tomorrow (right now it's 1 and a quarter and im not in the mood)

i'll be testing the snappiness of the same program. just. hang on.
i'll post the links tomorrow as soon as they upload

I must agree with Sumguy as Windoze was gladly and forcefully removed from our home about a year ago when I found Mint 9 Isadora. Since then my wife's laptop has NOT had any issues including the times when I get into upgrading /updating it. Yes it did take a little bit of time to set up just the way she wanted but I have had no reason to tweak it since. Mine however is a work horse I distrohop quite frequently and bork it consistently. I love the fact that even though I am running a similar OS they are like night and day. After learning XP on an IBM Thinkpad M21 in 2007 that I purchased indirectly from AirCanada through one of the resellers in Toronto.I graduated to Microslop's blunder (vistuh)on an Acer followed by an eMachines E625 and that was all she wrote when my HDD packed it in. From this experience I searched the web for something better than shelling out the kind of money M$ wanted for a new OS...And Here I am in the wonderful world of Linux/Unix. using LMDE on A Dell Inspiron 1525 I have also branched out and am working on a very interesting project a Hackintosh,Just to see what all the hype is about on the same Dell.

Originally Posted by Sumguy Windows is faster than Ubuntu?

Yes, no question about this. Ubuntu is definitely slower than WinXP. It also boots slower. Even slackware gets to desktop slower.

Originally Posted by Sumguy Windows requires LESS maintenance than Linux?

Yes, for me there is absolutely no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by Sumguy I've been using Ubuntu 10.04 for 8 months now (my first venture away from Windows and into Linux) and in that time, I have spent virtually ZERO time maintaining it.

Install it for a clueless user and see what happens. "Why doesn't my game run?" "Why can't I install this thing?" "why can't I install aquarium screensaver?" "Where is word/excel?" "I got an exe-based ebook (unimplemented wine functionality) and I can't see text, help?". "I accidentally assigned opera as default application for avi/music files (5th time), what do I do now?" Grr.... 50x times attention required compared to windows machine. At least, with windows machine I get bothered two times per month instead of 2 times per day.

Originally Posted by Sumguy I no longer need to be careful about visiting unknown websites or opening unknown attachments.

Never needed this on windows either.

Originally Posted by Sumguy No defragging...

Also never needed on windows.

Originally Posted by Sumguy It hasn't degraded over time (in fact, it seems to work better as time goes on); it boots up fast and closes down fast.

On ubuntu 9 ubuntu guys managed to break language switching taskbar applet at least twice during updates (ubuntu 9), so this distribution gets zero respect from me. It also had a very nice habit of not deleting older kernel versions (ate up disk on machine with limited hdd space, and you know that linux distro doesn't work well with zero hdd space). Not to mention package manager voodoo required to install old version of wine (to make some older game run). Overall, experience with ubuntu system was mostly negative - slow, can't be easily tweaked as slackware and gentoo (is not suitable for me), isn't stable enough and can't be easily maintained by a newbie (not suitable for non-geeks, no matter what ubuntu maintainers say).

Originally Posted by Sumguy It has never crashed.

One of the most hilarious bugs I ever got on computer happened on linux.
If you managed to configure pen tabled for the linux system, then touching tablet's surface will crash X-server instantly, if tablet wasn't plugged in before X-server started (slackware 12, g-pen 450, wizardpen 0.9). Mozilla firefox on both slackware/ubuntu systems was extremely prone to hangups (resulted in "screen painting") and frequently needed to be killed manually. Maybe this problem has been fixed since then, but I'm not in the mood to check.

Originally Posted by Sumguy And to say that learning Linux eats more time than maintaining Windows is just the height of absurdity!

It is a reality. In a past, I honestly thought that ubuntu might be a good choice for a normal human, tried two linux versions (installed onto parent's machine). After 8 months of experiment I concluded that ubuntu(especially ubuntu) is not suitable for daily usage(because it combines worst from linux and windows words), and it should be definitely removed from existence. Windows is not perfect, but it definitely did the job better. Slackware, compared to ubuntu worked better, but slackware upgrade procedure is horrible, so I ditched it. As a result of experiment I concluded that a normal user can use linux system (any system, in fact), as long as there is at least one sysadmin doomed to maintain it till the end of times. Also, now I hate computers.

Originally Posted by Sumguy I'm a high-school drop-out and have never had any formal computer training...

Not a good example. Learning linux/computer was interesting for you (which makes you a "geek"), so you picked up skills. Unlike you, "normal" computer user doesn't want to learn *anything* about computer. They want to get things done ("where is the button to do everything I want at once?")

Originally Posted by Sumguy If have a problem or need to accomplish some task that you can't figure out...just Google and you find the answer-

Works for gentoo/slackware (but only if you have specific common problem - it doesn't work always), doesn't work well with ubuntu - you might end up on ubuntuforums in a thread without answer.

Originally Posted by Sumguy and it is never as complex or egregious as doing many tasks on Windows.

Also incorrect. Have you ever configured USB scanner on linux (SANE)? How about graphic tablets? Or a webcam?

Originally Posted by Sumguy I'm going full Debian very soon, and wiping this abomination of an operating system known as Windows off my hard-drive!

YOur choice, but if it works for you, don't start claiming that it is some kind of "silver bullet". Linux doesn't work for everyone. If linux was significantly superior, it would be widely used, which is not the case. Linux is not complete as an operating system, but windows is. In case of linux a "bill gates" is needed that would make one decent distro suitable for novice users and business purposes (why do you think major titles aren't ported to linux?) and push it to the market. And currently I don't see this happening - at best distribution is a construction kit, or a toy, or something to spend a lot of time tinkering with. God damn it guys, if you like linux, why don't you already make another evil corp, turn linux into a GOOD product, push it onto the market and replace windows with it? It looks like there was plenty of time to do that.

Anyway, looks like it is a waste of time, as it always was.

I kind of agree about Linux requiring more maintenance and more computer skills.

If drivers don't work or you want to do more that surf the web or write a document, you have to learn at least a little about how computers and Linux works, which for some reason many "normal users" refuse to do.

Originally Posted by MTK358 which for some reason many "normal users" refuse to do.

Because they shouldn't HAVE to learn how computers work in order to use them - this is an OS problem that indicates unfinished product. There should be no "drivers don't work" situations. When somebody fixes this linux problem, linux will get more users.

Compare linux experience with using TV, cellphone, car, or videogame console - in all those cases if you have to tinker with products internals in order to make it work, you have a faulty product. You do have to learn menus, etc, but that's it. In a cellphone, for example, you do have an option of writing more applications, tweaking, installing custom firmware and so on, but you don't have to do this in order to use the phone. You can finetune the car, if you wish, but you don't have to. On linux, however, you frequently have to learn internals. Which is the problem.

SigTerm

I will disagree with your basic premise. Most windows users have YEARS worth of training that have gotten them used to doing things the windows way. It is not that there is more to learn in Linux but that it is different. Most people just do not want to take the time to learn anything they do not absolutely have to. My easiest example to this is my former next door neighbor. I introduced here to Linux(FC4 had just been released) as her first computer experience. She was 70 at the time and had not even graduated from high school. When it came to FC5 I spent an hour helping her make the change over, followed by occasional hiccups that she needed assistance with. When FC6 was released she had it installed and running before I got over to do the install. She also installed a scanner without any assistance from me. While I have moved from Fedora to Centos, she has continued to use Fedora (F14 currently). Because she did not have all the baggage from having run windows, she had a relatively short adjustment time for learning to "think" Linux.

I also think you are vastly overstating the amount of tinkering one has to do in order to get a typical install to run. In 95% of the installs I have done, things just work out of the box. Wireless is one of the areas that still needs a great deal of work, but even that works quite well in most installs. Now as you get into less frequently used hardware, one does run into issues. These issues have dropped dramatically over just the last five years.

The other thing that often gets skipped is that doing fresh installs of windows on a bare machine is can also be difficult. Tracking down the correct drivers (again less frequently used hardware) is also a PITA. Becuase windows comes preinstalled on 99% of the computers sold this is not often seen(manufacture has already done the work). Another thing that gets skipped is that MS does not write most of these drivers, the hardware manufacture does. Which gets one into the chicken and egg situation that Linux is in. "Nobody" uses Linux becuase the hardware manufactures do not write the drivers (the cummunity writes most), but the hardware manufactures do not write the drivers becuase "nobody" using their hardware runs Linux. Despite this paradox more people move to Linux every year.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Compare linux experience with using TV, cellphone, car, or videogame console - in all those cases if you have to tinker with products internals in order to make it work, you have a faulty product. You do have to learn menus, etc, but that's it. In a cellphone, for example, you do have an option of writing more applications, tweaking, installing custom firmware and so on, but you don't have to do this in order to use the phone. You can finetune the car, if you wish, but you don't have to. On linux, however, you frequently have to learn internals. Which is the problem.

Nicely put and as I said earlier, I agree with it.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Because they shouldn't HAVE to learn how computers work in order to use them - this is an OS problem that indicates unfinished product. There should be no "drivers don't work" situations. When somebody fixes this linux problem, linux will get more users. Compare linux experience with using TV, cellphone, car, or videogame console - in all those cases if you have to tinker with products internals in order to make it work, you have a faulty product. You do have to learn menus, etc, but that's it. In a cellphone, for example, you do have an option of writing more applications, tweaking, installing custom firmware and so on, but you don't have to do this in order to use the phone. You can finetune the car, if you wish, but you don't have to. On linux, however, you frequently have to learn internals. Which is the problem.

You are talking about different things here. 99% of normal windows users have never had to install Windows. They bought a computer with their OS preinstalled (drivers, basic programs) All the configuration needed to operate the system was done by the manufacturer. Imagine what would happen if they had to install Windows themselves and configure it afterwards. They would be equally clueless as they are when it comes to linux. They'd have to learn it or call some techie have it done for them.

Now then, 99% of normal users experience linux having had to install it from scratch.

See the difference? Therefore, your comparison is completely unfair.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Compare linux experience with using TV, cellphone, car, or videogame console - in all those cases if you have to tinker with products internals in order to make it work, you have a faulty product. You do have to learn menus, etc, but that's it. In a cellphone, for example, you do have an option of writing more applications, tweaking, installing custom firmware and so on, but you don't have to do this in order to use the phone. You can finetune the car, if you wish, but you don't have to. On linux, however, you frequently have to learn internals. Which is the problem.

Maybe, but at the same time your comparison is a but unfair. The software on a TV, cell phone, or game console is written specifically for that hardware in mind and is not intended to work on anything else. This means that there cannot be any missing driver problems. But Linux, on the other hand, is designed to run on as many different kinds of computers as possible.

Also, the devices you mentioned are single-purpose. But a desktop computer has to be able to do many kinds of things, plus it should have a way of installing, removing, and managing installed software packages. But a TV, for example, just has its built-in firmware that's not meant to ever be changed, and the average user can't touch it.

i have to agree with SigTerm.

while my 3 months full of and only ubuntu i had a lot of frustration ( sometimes grub got killed, sometimes my pc wouldn't come back from standby, leaving me with a blank screen (did i mention i lost 10 pages of homework just because of ubuntu??? )

and while windows has a stripped down command line who needs it man ( i refere to home users) windows has a COMPLETE set of GUI applications for every need.

man, i now started a windows 7 virtual machine. hell even windows 7 is faster than ubuntu ( if you are going to say that win xp is a 10 yr old windows and that ubuntu 10.10 is new

even windows 7

sometimes grub got killed

It usually happens when you mess with MBR

(did i mention i lost 10 pages of homework just because of ubuntu???

99% of data loss is caused by a user's mistake or hardware fault. Nothing to do with an OS (regardless whether it's linux or Windows)
Don't blame ubuntu for your own mistakes

windows has a COMPLETE set of GUI applications for every need.

That's new to me. Windows comes with such a poor set of GUI applications that it's not usable at all. All the additional applications that you
refer to you have to either buy or get in some illegal ways.

Originally Posted by silvyus_06 and while windows has a stripped down command line who needs it man ( i refere to home users) windows has a COMPLETE set of GUI applications for every need.

New users may find it intimidating, but I would not want to have Linux without a command line.

EDIT: This made me think, it seems to me that for Linux to be good for average users, it has to have GUI config for everything, easy package management that never fails or requires you to know about how compilation or linking works, and no missing or hard to find/install drivers.

And about Ubuntu being slow, that's because of all the fancy, useless eye-candy and services it runs in the background. I have a laptop that was hopelessly slow with Windows XP and Fedora, but it's comfortably fast with Arch (I used it to practice installing Arch before doing it on my main desktop).

You want to see fast, try Fluxbox, or some other tiny GUI, on a rig like in my sig. I mostly use KDE here but have Fluxbox installed to use while updating KDE. Fluxbox is seriously fast on this rig. It was fast on my old rig too tho.

I still find it funny that people think windows is so easy to run. If it is so easy to maintain, why are there so many computer places and websites that advertise they fix windows? With Linux, you set it up and it just runs. The setup may take a bit but so does windows when you install it too. No difference that I can see.