GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
And I still wonder where he got this "Linux users intentionally do things 10X more complicated than it has to be to impress (themselves|other people)" thing.
It might be because watching someone use a terminal looks complicated and impressive.
But the reason we still use terminals is because some tasks are easier in terminals. For example, in a minute or so you can create a big pipeline of commands, scripts, and filters that can automatically do stuff that no GUI app can dream of!
It looks complicated and requires a lot of knowledge to do, but often it's easier to throw together some commands you know than repetitively fumble around with doing a complex repetitive action with GUI apps.
I think you missed the comparison. I wasn't comparing xwindow/x11 to the Windows GUI, I was comparing KDE & GNOME which clearly have copied many features that windows users would be accustomed to so the switch is easier (I suppose). Again another prime example of a user who choses to argue the user (by troll labeling and personal attacks) rather than providing solid counter points.
I still haven't seen any distros mentioned that would give me a more robust user experience than XP.
It has very common hardware, so it should work with just about any OS.
And I basically just let the installers do the work and keep the settings at their defaults after the installations. Distros I've installed for a few months at a time and seriously tried out: suse, redhat, arch, gentoo, puppy, ubuntu (ugh), all of the 'studio' /music production related distros (which were all crap), fedora, mandriva, debian, slackware, centos, and freebsd. My favorite was definitely debian because of the apt-get/aptitude app which was very cool. Freebsd was also very nice.
I got in to debian for about 4-5months and tried to use it as my main OS, but I kept getting annoyed with the apps failing on me or not installing properly, so I went back to trusty old xp.
In all honesty, OS X is probably the best OS in the world for end users, but you have to bend over to pay their huge price tags on hardware I can now buy at half the price. And I can setup a hackintosh now so there's really no point in buying a mac.
No, you missed the point. The GUI is 'X'. If you want to compare environments then KDE, XFCE do surpass anything that M$ throws out. Simple multiple desktops is a tizzy for M$. Other major OS utilize 'X' for a reason, simplicity.
Another poor attempt to dispel a superior OS by stating mimicry. BTW, there's no way you are smart enough nor capable of setting up hachintosh on anything. That is unless you are given a cookbook like 'hachintosh for Dummies'.
KDE has copied most of WinBloze's features. GNOME, especially the Shell, hasn't. Even so, M$ does not have multiple workspaces, do they? KDE and GNOME do. And even M$ copied Apple to create the WinBloze GUI in every respect. And Apple copied Xerox. Matt, do some research before you post.
And I still wonder where he got this "Linux users intentionally do things 10X more complicated than it has to be to impress (themselves|other people)" thing.
Since mattvdh has no clue on using linux, he uses linux haplessly which makes him worked harder like 10x, whereas the experience linux user, any complication is little to null.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn
KDE has copied most of WinBloze's features. GNOME, especially the Shell, hasn't. Even so, M$ does not have multiple workspaces, do they? KDE and GNOME do. And even M$ copied Apple to create the WinBloze GUI in every respect. And Apple copied Xerox. Matt, do some research before you post.
And M$ tried to copy compiz fusion visiuals. I think M$ wanted it's users to see the infamous Blue Screen, Red Screen, Black Screen. Yes/No Popups in eye catching 3D.
No, you missed the point. The GUI is 'X'. If you want to compare environments then KDE, XFCE do surpass anything that M$ throws out. Simple multiple desktops is a tizzy for M$. Other major OS utilize 'X' for a reason, simplicity.
Another poor attempt to dispel a superior OS by stating mimicry. BTW, there's no way you are smart enough nor capable of setting up hachintosh on anything. That is unless you are given a cookbook like 'hachintosh for Dummies'.
How am I the 'troll'? You are spewing hatred/disrespecting me for no apparent reason. I'm trying to have a civil discussion so please stick the topic and compose yourself. I don't know you, you don't know me. The subject is where you are to place your arguments.
And I still wonder where he got this "Linux users intentionally do things 10X more complicated than it has to be to impress (themselves|other people)" thing.
It might be because watching someone use a terminal looks complicated and impressive.
But the reason we still use terminals is because some tasks are easier in terminals. For example, in a minute or so you can create a big pipeline of commands, scripts, and filters that can automatically do stuff that no GUI app can dream of!
It looks complicated and requires a lot of knowledge to do, but often it's easier to throw together some commands you know than repetitively fumble around with doing a complex repetitive action with GUI apps.
No, I disagree. Typing commands is much more laborious compared to clicking. How can you even argue this?! Like I said try setting up a DHCP server on Windows 03/08 and compare vs a Linux box. If you were to time it; Windows is much more time-effective or efficient. And for such a redundant task you can use '03 on just about any 500mhz+ machine with 256mb ram which is dirt cheap these days, people are throwing out machines this slow. So the argument that Windows is bloated is obsurd.
You're right that commands are more precise, but for most people, myself included are generally nested in the browser environment (another reason why I support Googles new OS). So I don't have any practical uses for the command line.
On the Windows platform, the command line is essentially useless because everything can be accomplished in the GUI.
Linux users seem to pride themselves in their ability/freedom to configure every little detail about their software/hardware, but I do not care for such things--I respect that genius-engineers at various billion dollar corporations probably know a lot more about drivers and configurations and software design than 99% of the population. These are details that are to be taken care of in the initial design process, and I see most Linux distros as unfinished betas in comparison to XP/OSX/7. Not attractive.
Lets say Linux had a distro that was built for supercomputing, I think that would spark some attention from the market. But it needs to be practical, intuitive and useful. If there was a OS designed for gaming for instance, that would spark A LOT of attention.
Look at it this way, you two use the same distro, are 1000 posts apart and have the same post count
I assume you mean 'thanks' count.
1. damgar is much more knowledgeable than I am.
2. post count was introduced only last year(?). If it had been introduced in 2005 when I registered, I would have 107 'thanks' instead of 106
3. who cares?
No, I disagree. Typing commands is much more laborious compared to clicking. How can you even argue this?!
Click away and tell me how many lines of code you have
in all your source files combined. Or words in Office
documents since there's a good chance that you don't
have any source at all ....
Or your DHCP/DNS subnet gets moved. Change the IPs of
956 computers. I'll run a sed command, takes me 15 sec
to type, 0.1s to run.
No, I disagree. Typing commands is much more laborious compared to clicking.
Only for those incapable of decent typing. For those of us who type reasonably fast - I just tested 65 wpm and I don't even type 'properly' - the CLI is much faster when we know what we need to do. If we're not sure, then a GUI can be helpful.
Quote:
How can you even argue this?! Like I said try setting up a DHCP server on Windows 03/08 and compare vs a Linux box.
I'm never gonna do set up DHCP on Windows, but direct me to a website with instructions on how it's done and I'll be able to judge well enough from that.
And anyway, homes and small businesses usually just use an off-the-shelf router. So your example is of limited relevance to anything but big organisations.
Quote:
On the Windows platform, the command line is essentially useless because everything can be accomplished in the GUI.
Even Microsoft disagrees with you on this point. If they didn't think people WANT a capable command line, they wouldn't have made Windows Powershell, or even retained the basic cmd.exe.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
