Whatever mattvhd, whatever

I think of it this way (this will be my last post here before shoving off):

Linux is still pretty much following the "by geeks, for geeks" type philosophy, but it is gradually moving closer to being an OS (more like OS family) that someone with minimal computer experience can use. Just look at distros like Ubuntu and Fedora. In fact, I was attracted to Ubuntu when I first made the switch because it was similar to the Windows experience (e.g. boots to a GUI by default, comes with some basic productivity apps), but was different enough that it wasn't Windows. Of course, my attitude towards Linux has changed quite a bit since then.

Some people think this is a bad thing; that if Linux is moving towards the "average" user, then it will start becoming more and more like Windows. I look at it this way: there are distros for the "geeks", e.g. Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, etc., and there are the "average Joe" distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, and openSUSE(?). As long as that balance is maintained, I don't see any problem with having both kinds of distros coexist.

Okay I'm done now... *hopes not to get flamed*

If "moving toward windows" means that it becomes easier for the general public to use and has broader support from major software vendors (notably games) and hardware manufacturers, then I'm all for it. Well, kinda. I periodically see (mostly newbie) users who want to do everything as root, or campaign to get rid of sudo. My suspicion is that the general public would feel this way, as well.

Linux does not need to lower its security barriers to attract an even less literate user base. Perhaps some new ideas about this, such as having configuration programs and package managers automatically demand the password, or something even more inventive, would go a long way? I dunno. Maybe someone out there will come up with something that is secure but pleases everyone.

But, I don't see it "moving toward windows" APIs. That bridge has been irretrievable burned.

Umm, these distros are too advance for mattvhd. He should use the xandros desktop that was on the Eeepc -- the one with the Fisher-Price look.

Semi TRUE.[/QUOTE]

yes lack of drivers is a huge problem.

Something like a hardware compatibility list? That's a brilliant idea. We could call it the linux HCL. I bet Jeremy would put a link to it over there ---> and everything!

I have 4 computers, 1 was built with linux in mind although I got EXACTLY what I would have wanted anyway. One was built for Vista when it came out. One is a Celeron based Dell probably 10 years old built for XP, and the 4th is a Toshiba laptop, bought because it offered enough RAM and a decent processor for under $700 2 years ago. Every one of them has run every distro I've put on them without fail. It's a big range of hardware. The closest thing I have to problem is that on the laptop I had to set the the wireless rate manually and on the newest NVIDIA card I have to use the Proprietary driver to use X. I do that anyway. I'm not a guru or a genious. I've used linux for a total of 7 months. I've used variations of 5 different distros and still use 4 of them.

I'm typing this, while watching house on hulu, in hi res, over wireless. It's true that sometimes you have to do some configuration, play with a driver or something else that the average computer user might consider tricky. The same thing is true in windows and osx. The main difference in those 2 and linux is that linux is self installed. I had a sony vaio that came with xp that took a huge dump and I had to reinstall xp with an oem disk. Nothing worked until I hunted down drivers and installed them. I built a machine for Vista and ran a 64 bit version. I lacked drivers for "vista ready" hardware and those neat little apps to configure the video card and the sound card didn't never did work on 64 bits until 7 came along. I had to do it via the os's tools. It's exactly what happens with linux. The difference is that when the software is free, there is a good chance that someone has a patch, or I can find a work around. I can't code but I can type So I don't buy into the idea that windows just works. Or that it passes rigorous quality control or that hardware support in windows is some miracle of the modern age. I would argue that windows support is decent by hardware manufacturers while linux/oss developers support hardware manufacturers pretty well if not perfectly. I personally run slackware -current, with custom kernel rc's, with pre-release and beta software and drivers so I know there is at least THAT much testing going on. When there is a real problem with windows the user is pretty much screwed. When there is a real problem with linux/foss software the user generally has 10 ways to either do the same thing or fix that problem.

And as I've said before, I firmly believe that the relative lack of profit motive makes for a much more reliable, longer lasting OS when compared to a company that has incentives to never build a perfect mousetrap. How would they sell the inevitable upgrades?

Well mattdvh (the net. admin), it seems to me GNU/Linux is making inroads into that very domain which you claim it is not suited for. You've come to a GNU/Linux forum going on about flash and games playing and there not being the software you need to make music. If that's the best you can do as an example of why GNU/Linux cannot succeed as a desktop you're a poor advocate for the M$ cause. I did entertain the notion that you might be Steve Ballmer (surely you know who he is??), that soon faded when you displayed your lack knowledge regarding the history of computers.

Oh and you are a noob, you admitted it yourself in a thread on another forum..!!!

I have tried all of the versions of Windows, I have tried several Mac releases. Linux and the Open Source Community give me all of what I want and my machines are more stable, secure and flexible. If for you things are differnt then go use something else. No one here is forcing you to use Linux. I have no problem with you using what I precieve as absorbadently price BETA OSs on your own dime. From my experiance the only OS you have named that holds a candle to what Linux and Open Source does for me is Solaris. Which by the way, I wouldn't use on a desktop machine.

Programming in Windows is plain torture, because it tries to hide it's inner workings from you.

And in Vista, it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to even see the directory structure!!! At least they made it a bit better in 7.

And all those useless options that come up when you plug in something, ALL I WANT IS TO OPEN IT IN A FILE MANAGER!

The funny thing is that Windows 7 introduced these ultra-confusing "libraries" that let you manage multiple folders as one. Not only that, but they FORCE you to use them by integrating them into the Documents/Pictures/etc. system.

And I'm pretty sure you would be better off organizing your data in the first place, or maybe using links if you really need to.

That's actually one of the reasons I like Linux. Software is designed by and for the people who use it, not for technophobes who never saw a computer before.

I really find that using software designed this way is much more pleasant to use and is more productive.

The Arch Linux way:

Type this in a terminal:
Wait and you're done.

The Windows way:

1. Go to a creepy website.
2. Download a file.
3. Run it.
4. Agree to a security warning.
5. Click Next.
6. Click Next.
7. Click Next.
8. Agree to a security warning.
9. Click Next.
10. Click Next.
11. Click Next.
12. Click Finish.
13. Choose the program from the start menu.
14. Agree to a security warning.
15. Enjoy your crappy new crippleware.

Also, compare this to Windows Update:

When you feel like it, just issue this command:
Simply wait, and EVERY program you have (not just the OS) will be updated.

Even is some of the things require a restart to take effect (which are very few, i.e. the Kernel itself), it will not threaten you every 5 minutes. It won't even tell you!

I kinda agree, but eventually everything gets solved.

Flash sucks!

It's glitchy, it's annoying, and it's one of the major things between us and the abitity to enjoy the Internet without any proprietary software.

Hopefully HTML5 will put a huge dent in it.

Yes, but it's not Linux's fault. If someone makes it, Linux will handle it just fine.

I still like GIMP, at least it completely blows away Corel Paint Shop Pro X (which I used in Windows).

MS office formats destroy your rights.

Just get different hardware, then.

Personally, I find open-source software to work much better for me. Not because it works flawlessly, but because of the attitude.

I find the Linux culture much more pleasant than dealing with a corporation. Maybe because I am a programmer and I even feel like I'm sligtly becoming part of the Linux culture.

1. That's what makes Linux so powerful!

2. What's potentially more helpful: A detailed debugging message, or:

This program stopped responding and had to close, we're sorry for the inconvenience.

Even if you don't understand the debugging message, googling part of it often solves the problem, or you can post it on LQ and someone will figure it out.

This is rather odd, some of my replies have been deleted... damn linux servers!

Its not the servers fault.

I disagree.
You should be writing portable code, not linux or windows specific.

First of all, I do not consider Ubuntu (and in some degree Fedora) distributions worthy to be called Linux-es. Ubuntu has around 11000 unresolved errors dating several years back. As I heard, they are now adding untested beta software to their repositories by default, so you do not have any saying, you are bound to use beta software.

Fedora got speed on all that bugs business, but Red Hat employed additional developers to triage and solve a ton of bugs (dating back to FC6 after witch Red Hat released control to community), so RHEL 6 can be released in the end of the year (hopefully).

Any Mint's and other forks of Ubuntu are in the same boat. There is no rational explanation to leave bugs but force development of the rest of the code as fast as possible.

I chose CentOS (RHEL) since it is stable and functional distro, and is backed by biggest Linux oriented company today. I did went to great pains to select good applications, non-free codec's, etc. from third party repositories and create my own public repository with those selected packages and one (soon broken to several) virtual package that depends on that selected software.
This made it very nice, but above all reliable and trouble-free Desktop solution with NTFS, MP3, flash and etc. support and every application I ever needed and I was able to recompile (old gss, udev, ....).

I also installed that enhanced version of CentOS to several PC's used by beginners and so far no one complained. Only in one case I have problems with audio card, but this would be resolved if I had time to visit and they had usable internet connection to update.

My point is: You can not judge quality of Linux in general based on "most popular" distro's.

@ mattvhd

if you feel this way about linux as a desktop then why continue using it?

Just delete or format the linux partition to ntfs -- and BINGO No more linux worries!

That's what I did with windows. I deleted the windows partition and that was it. The only difference is that I didn't go around forums to complain and compare windows and linux as a desktops.

I have nothing against anybody using windows. If I did, I would have to hate my family and friends who are windows users. I'm the only one in my household that uses linux.

It's a matter of choice...

I'm not saying the code does not work, I am saying it's a pain to compile stuff, figure out where libs are, etc.

In Linux I just install a lib with the package manager (and Linux's system is much easier to understand, too) and use gcc.

EDIT: you were saying before that you cannot write an OS using gcc, but www.osdever.net (which you actually gave to me) actually recommends you use GCC.