Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Why I just can't leave Windows
Sat, 01/10/2009 - 02:27 — krehator
God, I'd love to drop Windows but I can't. I can't because Linux can't make me totally happy. Why?
Drivers:
Many distro's, such as Ubunut do have good "out of the box" support but driver support still lags behind nevertheless. I do not want to spend time searching for drivers and then typing in tons of commands to get things up and running properly. Sure you can go buy specific hardware that is known to be Linux compatible but isn't that like having to live with a MAC??!??!!???!!
Packages:
Every distro has a package manager. However I cannot keep count of the number of times I have installed a package that does not work. Then when I go and search in the forums, I get answers telling me "download this" and "type these commands". Wait a minute! Shouldn't it just work without all the run around???? Does anyone realize how annoying and confusing that is for users? To them it looks like an easy way to install new software but then they get a nasty surprise. Folks the average user hates that.
Command Terminal:
Look it's 2009. The public doesn't want to type in commands. GUI's have been around for how long? It's obvious by the success of Windows that users want an easier experience. However in Linux you just can't get many things done without typing in commands. It's time consuming. Users want to use their software and do things, not spend time typing commands. Users need something easier and intuative. If you don't want to give up the need for a terminal fine but don't complain when the public still prefers Windows and it's easy gui that does nearly everything by point and click. If Windows is so bad why is it so popular? If what makes it so popular is something you do not want to offer then all the complaining and comparing is pointless. At that point you might as well just accept that you're never going to be more popular than Windows, shut your mouth, and play with your Linux quietly.
Support:
There are many forums. Some of them are good. Some of them are full of arrogant jerks that just hate Windows and turn off nearly every new Linux user they run into. Regardless, as a new Linux user you spend more time in a forum begging for help than you do actually enjoying Linux. PLUS! If you have a serious problem that keeps you from getting on the internet.....how do you get to the forums? Take a guess...using another system. Isn't it embarrassing to need to use a Windows system to go onto a forum to get Linux help? Doesn't that make a statement about Linux?
Software:
There are some great packages that shine. However the vast majority is of the same quality as shareware for Windows. I understand that it's free and I shouldn't complain but look it either fills a need or it doesn't. I'm not going to use something crappy just because it's free.
Linux fails miserably for 3D gaming. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again. If Linux could get a standardized 3D system like DirectX and attract gamerz, it's popularity would skyrocket. There are a few 3D games out there but most of them are hacked ports to Linux that are full of bugs, not to mention that the games are old news. Even if a user is not a big gamer, they still will play a game every once in awhile, and they want something that blows their mind. Linux doesn't offer that.
Standardization:
Microsoft has Linux beat hands down in this area. There are so many Linux distros and each of them are doing their own thing. Linux software is a hodgepodge of different packages that may or may not work with your distro. Windows users hate the fact that there are a handful of Windows versions that require different drivers. Do you honestly think that they're going to like something with even more variations? There is a point when too much freedom becomes chaos. Linux is chaos.
File System and Naming:
In DOS and Windows, file extensions indicate a purpose. In Linux anything goes. People need some kind of clearly defined order to lead them in the right direction. Furthermore it saves time to immediately recognize a file for what it is or how it's used.
Also some of the names given to software and commands are well.....nuts. It's looks like someone dropped scrabble blocks on the floor and randonly selected letters to name things. Overall we come back to the chaos issue.
Excuses:
I'm pretty fed up with the excuses. I'm often told stuff like "Linux isn't meant for that" or "Linux isn't trying to be Windows". Own up to the truth. Linux has serious problems. While it may not be trying to be 100% like Windows, to the eye, it has the same general appearance and there is an OBVIOUS reason for that - users want it. So stop covering up the problems and making excuses when theings fail. Linux wants to be better than Windows. It wants to be the more popular OS. It wants to offer all the features that Windows offers.
Until linux developers and supporters stop hating Windows enough to get inside the heads of Windows users, Linux will NEVER beat Windows. Consumers use what they like. OBVIOUSLY they like Windows more, no matter what excuses are offered. Why in the world would users turn down a free OS for a commercial one unless there are big things they don't like? Stop trying to tell consumers why they should hate Windows. Instead concentrate on making Linux something that consumers really want. Not what you think they should want.
The fact is that most computer users are novices. You must cater that crowd to be successful at overtaking Windows. There is no honor in being able to use a more complex operating system. Nobody is impressed. Nobody cares. An operating system should make things easier NOT harder. If Linux devs would face the truth and cater to the needs of the public they might be more successful.
Here's the killer for Linux and if devs and hardcore fans could wipe the hatred away fromt heir eyes long enough to see it, they would. At the current rate of development, Windows is better equipped to steal ideas from Linux and put it into an easy to use package. Linux, on the other hand cannot develop quickly enough. Unless devs band together, standardize, and get serious about winning over the public, Linux may never catch up.
I know some Linux fan is going to say something about how wrong I am but that type of response is at the heart of the problem. You can't tell a consumer how they should feel or how they should perceive a product. You must adapt to the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like what you have, then YOU are wrong and you will never convince them otherwise.
l8r..
I'm not going to say you're
I'm not going to say you're wrong, since you're entitled to your opinions, and they are true for you, even if not for others. You bring up good points, that package managers should just work and do all the heavy lifting, I totally agree. It's fairly easy to make a GUI frontend for a well documented program, but we don't want too many programs, so many are made to mix it all together. The command line is usually only for specific commands that weren't put into GUIs for the sake of keeping the screen uncluttered.
The main issue I have with your post is that you keep talking about needing to download drivers, and how embarrassing it is to use another computer connected to the internet to get help.
Well, if you've ever tried installing Windows from scratch, you'd know it may have more drivers for 32-bit PCs and motherboards (certainly not more drivers in general), but it has a lot less "plug-and-play, out-of-the-box" compatibility with systems than Linux does. The only drivers you need to install on a Linux system are wireless cards or video cards, and that's not even most of the time. With Windows, you have an array of devices that don't work, sometimes even your own ethernet port to plug into the internet.
On many occasions I've download XP drivers for my friends when they reinstalled XP while on my Linux computer. So don't pretend that any computer but a Mac (preconfigured to work out-of-the-box) or a Linux-made PC can just do everything out of the box. That's a fallacy.
Other than that, I agree that things could be better, and I think that it's good you're being honest. These are problems, and the less small annoyances we have, the better. That's why it's open source, and I'm sure we'll all have it our way in the coming decade. Thank you for the input, it's got me thinking more about what to demand from linux in the coming years.
Linux doesn't work for you
Linux doesn't work for you because the way you're looking at it. Every single negative you listed is a rabid generalization and is a Windows user whining because something better doesn't work the way they like it to. Lol, talk about arrogance. Linux doesn't work the way your Windows does because the Windows paradigm is crap and Linux chooses a different methodology. lol, you'd have to tell Google how much Linux sucked, because they dig it alot. So do all the people searching for stuff and expecting results.
If you don't like Linux, or you're too stupid or arrogant to actually use it -- then don't. Nobody cares.
Really.
Drivers. What about them? Try geting a manufacturer sucking the tit of Microsoft to release hardware documentation then you get your drivers. How is this a fault of Linux? Developers have to reverse-engineer them. Again - you're just ignorant spouting off. All the machines I configure for Linux work just fine. Drivers included. So, that makes you basically a liar.
Software? Please. Basically your software gripe is that Linux is not a gaming platform. More arrogant demands from an ignorant wannabe. Maybe you should be proactive.
Gaming? Please. You're just whining. If you knew anything at all you'd know why Linux gaming doesn't exist. It's not even a valid point to make. Linux sucks because it's not a gaming platform? Please. I've got Nexuiz, though. You can keep using Windows because it's a gaming platform. Me, I compute and play just fine, as do all the users I support. Some children just like you - demanding little imps.
Your file extension gripe is just stupid. Obviously you're just ignorant. That's fine - until you spout off, then you're an asshole. lol.
Standardization? It exists. LSB. Learn something. Otherwise, you're right - a distro is different from another -- but they are all Linux, and Linux users appreciate the differences. We don't whine about it, we enjoy it. Only ignorant Windows users whine about it. Learn a thing befire you "hate" it.
Linux is not for you. I don't like pin-stripe suits, but you don't hear me bitching about them either - commanding manufacturers make them to my specs.
lol, talk about arrogance.
Support -- mostly it comes from ignorant people like you. It's Human nature, not the fault of Linux. When people like you learn to keep their mouths shut and their fingers away from the keyboard we'll all be better off. I support Debian and 245 people are quite happy, thank you very much. None of them get tangled up in getting support from some knucklehead 14 year old Ubuntu user, either. But you go....
Your excuses rant is just stupid. I've got nothing to say to it....lol, just stupid.
We don't hate Windows because Microsoft makes it - we don't hate it. It's just crap, that's all. It's clearly for you, though. You're so sad Linux isn't what you want it to be so you bitch about it instead of doing something about it - or, lol, actually learning something about it. We loathe typical Windows users, though. Own up -- basically, as a group, they are arrogant and pretty dumb. Tough to swallow, I know, but limitations always start with the person in whose mind there exists said limitaion. You haven't figured that out yet, though.
The rest of what you said is just more of the same. You can contact me all you like and I'll set you straight, but you'll have to get over your arrogance first. There are useability issues in Linux, but you didn't name any of them. You simply named all the reasons Windows users are stuck with their garbage and the non-reasons they don't like Linux. Nothing you wrote was valid, everything you wrote was just whining at your own limitations.
When you're older and you wonder why you keep getting passed over for promotion just remember how you like to whine instead of being proactive and how you like to make assumptions and spout the party-line and all those things. It will be easy to understand why you're still pushing a broom. WOOT!!
are you retarded? most of
are you retarded? most of the complaints here are about the linux desktop usability, google uses linux as a business platform, of course they like it, it's free and they don't have to share their source code unless they distribute the software,
so you are in the happy 1% of computer users that can browse the web and edit some text files, and you are satisfied with linux, well , piss off , you don't have a clue what the purpose of a desktop OS is.
Maybe about 5 - 10%, MAX of
Maybe about 5 - 10%, MAX of complaints about Linux make some point. I do agree the vast majority is whining about how Windows Program X wont run, or how it simply doesn't behave EXACTLY like windows. Are poeple just berating the community while simultaneously demanding a free clone of Windows? The other thing that drives me nuts is the insistence that Linux cater for computer novices, and that Linux do everything to make itself fully usable by smoeone who doesn't want to learn how a computer works. However, truth be told, there are a myriad of articles from the LINUX community, about how they've been able to get their mum/grandma/aunt to use Linux.
Generally, if you don't care about the dynamics behind the relationship between software licences, business practices and computing freedom, Linux isn't targetted for you. If the idea that a command line terminal even merely exists turns you off, and you firmly believe that someone should be able to do everything a techie does with a computer, without learning ANYTHING, then linux isn't targetted for you.
But some people insist that Linux should be targetted for them, when clearly, everything they say screams, "I WANT WINDOWS".
I know you want to, but you
I know you want to, but you cant even install it.
just stop whining and stay with windows.
leave the fun to us
I agree with almost all of
I agree with almost all of the above, except this:
"If Windows is so bad why is it so popular? If what makes it so popular is something you do not want to offer then all the complaining and comparing is pointless."
Windows might be good. Windows might be better than Linux. It might be the best OS out there. It doesn't matter.
What makes Windows so popular is not how good it is. What makes it so popular is marketing. Microsoft has never done ANYTHING first and has very rarely done anything best. Look at Internet Explorer. Microsoft initially stole that code from Mozilla/Netscape, and almost 20 years later it's still the WORST browser available, bar none.
What Microsoft does is cater to a large number of consumers running a wide variety of different hardware configurations. Look at IE again. It's terrible, but you don't have to go looking for it. There it is, right there on your Windows system. That's why it's still the most popular browser, even though it's the worst.
Apple doesn't have the desire to cater to users like this, and the Linux community doesn't have the resources to do it. At least not as quickly as Microsoft can.
"Microsoft initially stole
"Microsoft initially stole that code from Mozilla/Netscape"
Check your facts, Microsoft created Ie from Spyglass, Inc. Mosaic, which they bought.
Most people sill stick wih
Most people sill stick wih the 'default' choice, even if there are better ones available. The 'default' is usually the ones that is there first (ie, Windows on PC, as its preinstalled, or IE as its always available) or the ones where marketers have beena ble to make the brand synonymous with the product. So with toothpaste, everyone knows Colgate, is it's the safest choice, purely because the name is will known. This is why people buy Dell PC's,e ven though you can get a better deal elsewhere. It's on TV. I dont know what fantasy la la land people live in, where "consumers" weight up ALL available otions and objectively pick the best product. Some bottled waters are far more popular than others, despite the fact they are all pretty much exactly the same.
Pharmaceutical companies will sell two IDENTICAL products under two brand names, IDENTICAL in everyway except packaging, yet people will stubbornly buy the more expensive brand, or the brand they know, even though you've explained to them its the EXACT same prdouct.
So whem someone says "most people use Windows", I just think of how McDonalds sells more crappy burgers than good burgers stores, how Britney sells more CD's than Bach or Mozart. "The Market" is incapable of reasoning and judgeing a product by its merits.
That's all true. But with
That's all true. But with Windows or Mac versus Linux, can you really blame them? Linux has made incredible strides in usability over the past few years, but it's still nowhere near as easy to use as the big two.
However, I think netbooks might do a lot for Linux in terms of market share. People are buying them largely because they're cheap, and Linux makes them cheaper... might get a lot of people interested in learning Linux. Hopefully Linux can continue to learn people at the same time.
I've worked doing IT support
I've worked doing IT support and Admin, hands on stuff, not over the phone, Bangalore call center stuff. Dealing face to face with real users, close to 100 of then who rarely use computers at home, but need to use MRP software, Office software here. You know, noobs.
If you ask me, there are a lot of people who make a living out of 'usability studies' and hence complicate the issue in order to secure their position. I read stuff on usability, I see what GNOME, KDE, Windows do and I just see them as way off the mark. You see, if someone who gets paid to make software usable says "look, thats pretty good, I reckon this programs interface is good enough", then they're redundant. Same with anyone who gets paid to solve a problem, they will never solve it completely. Their jobs is NOT to solve the problem, but to keep selling 'solutions'. Linux doesn't have to do this, yet it does because its what the industry does. Even though Windows 98 was easy enough to learn and use, MS just HAD to change the interface again and again, because, well, they have to sell something, and someone has to keep his job selling usability.
It's really not all that hard to make a usuable interface. I wrote software for use in the factory to test tablets, to be used by people who may not own computers at home, real blue collar factory workers. It's DOS based, and years after being implemented the QA Manager wanted me to update it to a Windows version, with dropdown menus, etc. I refused. The staff know how to use it, and they don't complain. That is what usable is. Something you've learned and know and works and does what you want it to do. Everything else doesn't matter.
My teenage sister was able to use KDE 3, with having limited computer knowledge. She never complained. Yet KDE 4 came out and I, I myself found it hard initially.
Usable is what people call something they've learned and know. Imagine if someone rearranged your kitchen to something they concluded was more logical. You'd be running around trying to find things. Eventually you learn the new set up. Then someone rearranged it again, because there is a new configuration they've found more logical. Again, you struggle. Is this arrangement of constantly changing things to make it 'easier' actually easier? Remember, it will NEVER end, it cant, because someone either gets paid to change it and can't lose their job, or has an itch to scratch and just wants to fiddle.
The KEY to usability is not changing something that people dont complain about en masse, and just fixing the problems that they do. But technophiles want 'progress' and change for changes sake. I've never met anyone who struggled with KDE 3 and welcomed the usabilty changes in KDE 4. I've never met anyone who found the buttons on MS Office hard, and found the ribbon UI so much easer.
I kind of agree, but I think
I kind of agree, but I think there are contentious points. I support what this forum is doing, but to some extent I think some criticisms are not warranted.
Drivers: I do agree with the Linux community that hardware vendors make this difficult. Well, its a bit of give and take. The Linux community needs to provide a stable and consistent platform to allow hardware vendors to supply one set of drivers that are easily installable and will work. On the other hand, you just don't get specs on hardware like you used to. I have some old DOS programming manuals, as well as a really old manual for an XT like PC system. The amount of detail the PC manual goes into is incredible and it would allow anyone to write software to control any aspect of the hardware. These days, its all hidden. Sound Blaster used to provide a programmers reference guide with their cards. Now hardware manufacturers don't supply this information, and I do agree with the Linux community they SHOULD. Anyone who buys computer hardware I believe, has a right to know how to utilise it.
Secondly, there are so many different types of hardware all incompatible with each other, that making them ALL work is a monumental task. If you buy a digital camera which supports a STANDARD USB mass storage connection mode, you're in luck. Same with WinModems. Standard hardware modems will work, WinModems with all their quirks and differences are hard, it IS the problem of the hardware manufacturers in not conforming to standards. If you buy some obscure Korean, once off, cheapo camera with its own odd, hidden protocols, we'll, you're out of luck. I think the expectation that when you have a PC, you should be able to use ANY hardware, regardless of how badly designed it is, and how hidden its operation is, is a little optimistic.
Remember, its PC hardware, not Windows hardware. If you buy hardware which is only designed to work with one particular piece of software, you're being ripped off.
Packages: See Standardisation. It is possible, and has been for a while, to have just ONE package which you can install, and it makes the menu entries, etc. It's the lack of a commitment to conforming to standards, and to binary compatibility which makes the mess. But the idea of a repository and installing software that way sucks.
Command Terminal: Whether its 2009, or 2020, what difference does that make? The command terminal is actually really useful and efficient. People who think the GUI is the only way don't realise it. While I agree you should have to go to the terminal and do all sorts of fidgeting to get a program to run, complaining that its there is silly. I mean, imagine if you had to communicate and couldn't use your body to do so. You wouldn't ever be able to point to things, make gestures, etc. The CLI provides an alternate means of performing computing activities which would be difficult to do under the GUI (and vice versa). After all, it is a COMPUTER, not a gaming console or a TV/iPod. It's wierd that people want a computer, but then complain that it has the capacity to perform computer-like tasks.
If windows is so bad, why is it popular? Well, what commercial and well known alternatives are there? For PC architecture, pretty much none. Besides, more Britney and Pink albums have been sold in recent years than Bach or Wagner. Does this make Britney a better musician? McDonalds is the most popular restaurant chain, but is one honestly going to say this means they have the best food? There are far more Toyotas on the road than Rolls Royce's and Ferraris, but if you gave someone the choice between a free Toyota and a free Ferrari, which do you want to bet they'd pick? Beta was better than VHS by most informed peoples opinion, but VHS won out. and with a subject like OS's, where many who purchase a computer have NO idea, to suggest that their choice of OS is the result of careful contemplation, rationed reasoning and an informed choice as to which is the superior computing platform is laughable. You may as well go to a pre-school and ask them which red wine is the best to serve with porterhouse steak w/mushroom sauce. You may as well say that China is a better country to live in than the USA because it has more people living there. Market share means little in the end. Hey, 50 million smokers cant be wrong!
Support: The reason people with a Linux system having trouble would use Windows is because they are most likely to have a copy of Windows (and know how to use it). Windows users when having trouble usually don't have a Linux installation to fall back on. It's merely an artifact of the fact that Linux users are moving from Windows whereas Windows users are NOT moving from Linux.
Software: Software is independant of the OS. And so it should be. The OS itself should not be judged on software, but just how it performs as a platform. One might wish to avoid that platform due to lack of software, but its not necessarily a deficiency with the OS itself. Linux supporters make this mistake too. GIMP, XMMS are completely seperate programs and have nothing to do with 'Linux'.
File System and Naming: I used to think that too, but you find that after using Linux extensions don't matter that much. After all, in Windows, when you see all these systems files with extensions like .PRX, .NT, .DS, .XSL. .SPP, what do they mean? They are meaningless to most users, so what difference does it make if they are there or not? Information that doesn't convey any meaning is superfluous. Extensions are still used in Linux where they are needed, ie, for PDF,s JPG's, MP3's, fonts, text files, html files, etc but only where it conveys useful meaning.
"The fact is that most computer users are novices. You must cater that crowd to be successful at overtaking Windows"
Linux should NOT try to 'overtake' windows. It's a free product, why try to sell it? It should cater to the computer users who want more than windows, or want to get way from the 'MS' way of doing things. I think Linux sucks because it doesn't really do this properly. But to make it another windows? No.... Linux should NOT try to be all things to all people, but rather find its market. At the moment, its a schizophrenic community of people who reckon you're dumb because you can't debug a python program and deal with the workings of automake to get a solitaire program working, while all the time trying to cater to the laziest computer users who do not appreciate anything about computing or computers and just want to send e-mails and download MP3z. THAT is its failure. Their hatred for Windows is what makes Linux seem more and more each day like becoming another Windows. You can't be more Elvis than Elvis. You gotta find your own niche. Linux developers need to stop worring about their mum and their "Aunt Mavis" and whether "Aunt Mavis" can install GIMP with three clicks or two. Whether "Aunt Mavis" uses it or not is not going to make or break the OS.
It's that attitude, that of making your grandma or Aunt Mavis use it that is the ultimate masturbatory, self indulgent aspect of Linux advocates. The LAST thing I wanted from Linux is an OS catered to these people. The people that will want to use Linux, DONT want that stuff. They dont want the people behind the OS holding their hand, telling them how to use their computer and babying it down for them.
The people that DO want that stuff, don't give a crap about Linux or open source or the GPL and only want to use this or that program. Competing in this manner, Linux will always be second best, and Windows preferred. Why have the substitute when you can have the real thing? To save a few dollars?
"Whether its 2009, or 2020,
"Whether its 2009, or 2020, what difference does that make? The command terminal is actually really useful and efficient. People who think the GUI is the only way don't realise it."
Yes and no. I don't think anyone would argue that Linux should get rid of the terminal altogether. If you want to use it because you speak Linux and you can type faster than you can navigate the GUI, fine.
The point is that, if Linux wants market share, it has to be user-friendly. I don't give a damn how useful it is to experienced Linux users, the terminal is NOT useful to me--I have to resort to it when I find that I absolutely can't do something graphically, and when I get to that point, I have to find a forum post or web tutorial somewhere to copy and paste a string of commands into it. And that string of commands means next to nothing to me. To the majority of computer users--the people the Linux community wants to win over--that string of commands means even less than next to nothing.
This is not a defect in Linux, necessarily. But it's an obstacle to Linux having broad appeal.
Yeah command line is very
Yeah command line is very useful in some situation. Particularly if your application freeze, all you need to do is to open a command line and issue a pkill command. This method is shorter and straight to the point. Rather than digging into the menu and look for the process manager and kill the unresponding process from there.
I agree with this except for
I agree with this except for two things. Firstly, I think OpenGL for 3D graphics kicks DirectX anyday (though you need Direct X for games these days), and secondly the "Look this is 2009" comment is irrelevant regarding command line interfaces. Fact is, there are things which command line interfaces can do which GUI's can't, for example, create a text file containing filenames in a directory easily, or process data, etc. One point windows users keep making which shows ignorance, is that the command line is 'dead'. It isn't, it's a different way of interfacing with the system. For instance, sometimes it's easier to TELL someone what to do, then show them. A good OS has both a good command line and GUI and I think Windows users don't appreciate how much more Linux's command line can do for them than they realise.
I'll agree you shouldn't need the command line to install graphical software, or configure basic things (which is what you end up doing in Linux a lot,like setting up a FAT32 drive to use in Linux), but it definately does have its place for complicated tasks where the GUI becomes to cumbersome.
You're still not getting it.
You're still not getting it. It's not that Windows users don't know or appreciate what command line can do. It's that they/we don't care. I just had a very frustrating experience with Ubuntu. And frankly going back to Vista from Ubuntu was like coming home from a war zone. As the OP said, Linux is chaos. Many people have never used commands to get anything done on a computer. I understand some people don't want to lose the capability. Fine. Keep the capability. But there needs to be an easy way to get basic stuff done without bothering with that.
I was lured in by the allure of a free OS that had (on the surface) the familiar look and feel of Windows. But once you get in there, you realize it's very different in ways that are totally unexpected. People hate nasty surprises. And also, like the OP said, the people on the Linux "help" forums are about as friendly as a bunch of angry rattlesnakes. Amazing, considering they're probably the same people who run around telling every clueless Windows user they come across how great and wonderful and transcendent Linux is and how stupid they are for using Windows.
Yeah. OK. Most Windows users probably aren't so bright. But that was the whole idea of the computer revolution. To make technology work for everyone. Microsoft is charging people $300 a pop just for the software that makes the computer work. I think that's disgusting and even though I think Windows is a decent OS, it's clearly a ripoff. When I first heard about Linux, I thought someone actually understood. The world needs an OS that is comparable to Windows that's either free or at least affordable. Not everyone wants to learn how to build a car in order to get from point A to point B.
There are better ways of
There are better ways of finding information about Linux than support forums. Granted, the typical end user doesn't want to have to go any farther than a help file, but when you get into open source stuff you can't expect great documentation.
I've found that for what I need to know about Ubuntu, a carefully crafted Google search will usually turn up a forum thread that's already run its course or--and these are better--a blog post by someone who genuinely cares about Linux and wants other people to like it too. The fact is that someone before you has almost certainly had the exact same question you have.
But again, that's more effort than the typical user wants to expend, and justifiably so. I'll be sticking with Windows as my main OS for some time to come, but if the time comes when switching is a viable option for me (it isn't yet), I'll be there. I feel like my understanding of Linux right now is a little better than my understanding of Windows 95 was when I started using it. Not entirely comfortable, but willing to keep going.
Keep saying it. Keep saying
Keep saying it. Keep saying it. Keep saying it. Maybe it will finally sink in.
Windows sucks, but Desktop Linux sucks even more.
Hey, Linux boneheads:
STOP GIVING ADVICE IN THE FORM OF COMMAND LINES. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS TO USE THE COMMAND LINE FOR ANYTHING. IT'S CONFUSING, FRUSTRATING, UNNECESSARY, AND DANGEROUS.
Fair enough. Just remember
Fair enough. Just remember that some Windows users bag Linux simply because it has a command line, but I do agree that one shouldn't have to use it for common tasks. Even with Windows 3.1 (which was running on top of DOS) you didn't have to. I agree there, but I think the comments stating that the command line is 'outdated' or 'obsolete' come from people who don't really understand what computers and OS's like Linux are actually capable of doing.
The second thing that I got from your post, was that like many others, you seemed to think that Linux would be like Windows but better. When I first started using it in 2000, it was still kind of aimed at 'power users', or those wanting more flexibility and not be constrained by the limitations windows places in order to be 'user friendly'. I think the BIG mistake the Linux community is making, is trying to make Linux usable by "Grandma" and "Aunt Mavis", as sell it as a better Windows. So while you still have to edit source code to get some apps to work from developers who think the user should know how to edit makefiles, you've also got 'automatic' installations, and developers trying to dumb it down unbelievably.
I think a desire to 'beat' Windows at its own game is largely at fault here and it can only end with Linux losing, as Windows will always be the better Windows. The Linux community should focus more on an OS for those who DONT want Windows, rather than those who DO want windows.
Thats the crux of the problem I think. People who are HAPPY with Windows shouldn't concern the Linux community. Screw software "freedom" and the desire to get rid of proprietary OS's. Linux should be an escape that don't want the "MS Way" of computing and provide a workable alternative.
Otherwise, it's just doomed to try and be like windows, but without the compatibility.
If you ask me, the computer revolution was a mistake, and Bill Gates vision of a computer in the hands of every citizen is a nightmare. It was far better when they were rarer, simpler and not just glorified entertainment machines. Because of the desire for corporate profit, the computer was turned into something it shouldn't have been, and peoples expectations have become completely unrealistic and unsustainable.
If you ask me, its not Linux or Windows which in the end suck, its the whole computing world in general which sucks.
So you would like that
So you would like that computer world is only for geeks and all else should live in caves. Really, take your medicine. Its as mad as, i must be mechanic to drive a car.
Considering that people did
Considering that people did just fine before computers became common in every household, your argument doesn't make sense. We didn't live in caves prior to the 1990's, do you remember that far back? Linux is an OS best catered for the more proficient, technical user, and naturally would have a niche for the more technically minded who prefer greater control over their computing environment. It also is not a consumer OS or a commercial one and as such, follows different paradigms. If you're not that kind of user, I argue Windows is more suited for you. No ones saying you can't have your toy, but I get mighty tired of computer users who feel they are entitled to use EVERYTHING they can lay their hands on.
Doesn't work that way. Yes Linux does have its flaws, largely to do with community attitudes and personally I think it falls short of providing a base platform to anyone, but even if these were still all fixed up, it STILL might not be suitable for Grandma and Aunt Mavis simply because Grandma and Aunt Mavis don't have need for the extra power.
i agree with you on some of
i agree with you on some of the points you made,
i've tried many different distros over the years but i keep going back to windows...
Drivers:
i understand that it's hard to write drivers without the hardware specs,
Packages:
Linux needs a simple software install wizard, aka windows style,
the package managers are ok, but the software i use is usually not there or it is outdated, and no, i don't want to compile the freaking thing..
Command Terminal:
totally agree here, i should be able to get everything(or at least most of everything) configured without even opening the terminal,
i don't want to be searching for and editing text files for everything i want to configure, that's what the control panel is for, and all the configs should have a GUI counterpart there... without that, Linux will always be a joke
Support:
well, it's free too
Software:
mostly sucks balls,
i think openGl is the counterpart standard to directX,
the reason 3d gaming sucks on Linux is because the only two video card makers( that matter) ati and nvidia never bothered to make good linux drivers, and never released the hardware specs or the code for the drivers...
Standardization:
also mostly sucks balls, standardization between distros will probably never happen,
what bothers me, is that there is no standardization within the distros, they change shit around like it's a freaking Rubiks cube when going from one release to another...
File System and Naming:
agree on the file extensions, definitely helpful and needed
personally, i can't stand the terminal,
i don't see how linux can compete for the desktop when it lacks gui for most basic system configs,
and when essential things don't work out of the box, like setting up a static ip, it's just a shame...
I strongly disagree that
I strongly disagree that OpenGL can compete with latest releases of DirectX. Face it, when Microsoft develop DirectX, they first go to game developers, and listen to what the latter have to say. And they listen carefully, and oblige. Then MS would go to hardware developers, and discuss what is to come.
OpenGL is developed with no concern of what the game industry actually wants and needs. As a result, game developers simply stopped bothering with OpenGL. It evolves slowly, falls behind hardware, and on top of it - evolves in a wrong direction.
And don't tell me OpenGL is focused on professional graphics. DirectX is quite capable of handling this as well. Autocad has a software graphics engine, and one based on DirectX.
i'm don't know much about
i'm don't know much about openGL, but John Carmack didn't seem to have a problem making games on it
You obviously don't. Doom
You obviously don't. Doom 3's engine, Id Tech 4, is built on DirectX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4
You see, OpenGL was ok some years ago. Unfortunately, not anymore.
Let's not forget, DirectX is
Let's not forget, DirectX is a complete development kit. The references made in the comments only apply to Direct3d (and maybe D2d, depending on the CAD software and Windows 7 D2d API.)
The DirectX package also includes audio and input devices (it used to also handle net connections, but I think they dropped DirectPlay quite a while ago.)
I agree with the article though. Windows has spoiled many users in the world. It's not a bad thing, and they're (Microsoft) definitely doing what most of the people want. Ease of accessibility when using a computer. I personally hate Windows but I hate it for the wrong reason. I don't hate Windows because it sucks, I hate Windows because the software is way overpriced and everything you pay to have in Windows is a joke (Microsoft Office...?) But We use Exchange at work, and there's no real open source alternative to Outlook with fantastic and Native Exchange support.
OpenOffice has come a long way though, and I have no problem using that over MS Office components, all except like I mentioned above---Outlook.
I think people don't give Linux and its developers enough credit. Seriously. It's come a long way since I first saw a Linux box running RH 5.0. The driver issue isn't a fault of linux, that's due to the vendors of the hardware. There is a huge issue in regards to "This hardware is linux compatible!" ..That's fine, but do I get all the same functionality out of the Linux drivers as I would with Windows drivers? I suspect not, going off of my SB X-fi card. If vendors saw the linux community as a potential market, I'm sure they'd oblige to help create drivers.
It goes back to, make Linux more friendly and you'll win over some people. When Linux wins over some people, it may receive more respect from vendors and their driver developers.
I think it is silly to have to spend 15 minutes making a dual monitor setup in Linux when it's a 15 second process in Windows (and even less in Vista!) Why edit the X86 config? I'd like the GUI to do that for me. Don't take the console completely out of the mix, but definitely try to make Linux less dependant on it. Especially when editing the config file can take a lot more time than that if you mis type something, or tell it to use a driver it doesn't like...good lord, you'll be opening a huge can of worms.
Linux support isn't all bad, it's just learning to avoid the Linaholics and their righteous/elitist zealotism..."WTF BBQ YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT??? GO BACK TO M$ WINDOZE."...Thanks for the help.
The thing is, this is nothing new that hasn't been said about Linux. Most of the time, it feels like the general Linux community feeling is: "Sh** or get off the pot." As in, if you want it that much, why don't you implement it? Well, I simply don't have the programming experience to do that.