Does MS have a patent on usability ?

[Deadjasper]

Windows, for all it's faults, is a very intuitive OS. Any newbie can be up and running with a minimum of pain.

Linux, on the other hand, has no usability at all. It's cryptic and just finding how to do the simplest of things is a nightmare. things are never where you'd expect them to be. The lingo is also alien. talk Windows and anyone with a little common sense can follow along. Talk Linux and you might as well be talking Chinese.

Why is the no usability in Linux ? why does it have to be so damned unintuitive ?

 

[odoe]

Unless you are using LFS or a Stage 1 gentoo install, there is really no basis to your claim. You could even install slackware without any issue on most computers. Mandrake and Fedora are ridiculously easy to install and use from the get go.

Usability is not the issue with Linux. The days of command line editing of config files are no longer necessary on a basic install. I really don't see what you are trying to get at.

 

[GreNME]

Um, odoe, the install is nice and easy, but how about installing programs, replacing drivers, changing hardware, and other various sundry thing?

Sure once configured, it stays that way, and that's a plus. However, saying that the days of CLI editing of configs is over is not true and is somewhat disingenuous. There is still plenty of having to go into /etc/ and edit config files.

The *nix realm isn't lacking useability, but it is not equal to Windows or OS X with useability. Not yet.

Oh, and Deadjasper: if anyone would have the patent on useability, it would be Apple.

 

[Deadjasper]

Unless you are using LFS or a Stage 1 gentoo install, there is really no basis to your claim. You could even install slackware without any issue on most computers. Mandrake and Fedora are ridiculously easy to install and use from the get go.

Usability is not the issue with Linux. The days of command line editing of config files are no longer necessary on a basic install. I really don't see what you are trying to get at.

Take a computer novice and sit him/her down in front of a Windows box and give him/her a list of simple tasks to accomplish. Then sit them in front of a Linux box and ask them to do the same. The answer to your question will become apparent.

I once install Linux in a business inviroment because the boss wanted to see if a "free" OS was a viable alternative to MS. It lasted about half a day before both he and I cryed "Uncle" and put Windows back on. the lady who was trying it out was one of the most computer savy women I've ever met. She wasn't a novice by any means. Her only remark was "Now I know why it's free, that's exactly what it's worth."

Linux is great if you're a hacker or a geeky nerd but it totally sucks if you are just a common user.

 

[Met-AL]

Installing Linux is as easy as it gets......adding applications and programs now that's another story. Damn dependencies. Damn RPMs. Damn Compiling. How about a simple install program like windows .msi?

BTW....I am a Linux Newbie. Been working for hours on getting Fedora configured as a FileServer. Learning things the hard way, but I am getting it.

 

[odoe]

You're asking about usability and in that regard, no it's not perfect, but it's defeinitely not as bad as you make it out to be. You're talking about a basic desktp OS, and for that much Linux can do it fairly easily. Red Hat, Suse and Mandrake make these tasks pretty painless. Installing of MOST software is easy enough. Once you get to 3D drivers and the ever dreaded WIRELESS set ups, then yes, you'll need to brush up on some VIM or otehr editor of choice to get things done. But sit mom and pop down and tell them to browse the net, type up a paper, print it and I don't see much issue with it. Tell them to Update their vid card drivers to play some Quake 3 or even Tux Racing and god help me, even I would punch my linux install in the face sometimes. But that wasn't what you were asking.

Usability: Yes Linux is quite usable.
Windows Usability: No, and I don't think anyone can really argue that is just easier to do some things in Windows than it is in Linux. This is something the linux community has been working toward for years, but functionality comes before form in this case.

Linux isn't relegated for the 1ee7 or the hackers anymore. It's not perfect, but it's not the devils tool.

 

[m1abram]

Actually Windows too becomes VERY cryptic when you try to do advance tasks. Unlike with linux and other *nix most items follow a certian procedure and files are located in logical and somewhat standard areas. Granted many distro store files in different locations but all try to follow some standard.

Here is an example of a cryptic task to perform in windows.

At boot up before a user logs in, determine the IP address, compare it to a list of known subnets (work, home, etc) and setup share devices and default printers for the subnet. With windows this is not a simple script and involves finding tools not builtin to the OS. Also you have to find and modify the registry, which is not very well documented.

On linux it is a simple bash script, or perl script that is placed in local startup script. Very simple and straightforward. All of the files need to modify are very well documented.

P.S. I have written the scripts for both OSes, the linux one was far simplier and less of a kludge job.

 

[odoe]

I have a main issue with linux as well, which is brought up and that is standardization.
each distro likes to do things a little differently and while it may seem they are all the same it is not always the case. Although it may seem that RedHat was doing this with RPM's for example, RPM's aren't perfect. APT and emerge work well on their respective distros, but it hasn't always worked for me and again, we are going back to CLI to do these tasks. Although there is an APT front end soemwhere, but it was kind of funky.

Sometimes, it's nice to have 101 different ways to accomplish the same tasks, but in regards to usability as you brought up, it would be even better if it was all done the same across distros.

 

[Fryguy8]

If anybody has the usability crown, it's Mac OSX (and previous versions).

Take a class on interface design, and you'll realize just how intuitive mac osx is (hint: putting that menu at the top instead of per window has been proven to be 5x faster)...

Linux is plenty usable too. Fedora Core 3 and Mandrake are extremely easy to install.

 

[GreySkyMan]

What I don't get is everyone who says, "boo hoo linux sucks because I cant get my intarweb working or any drivers working for that matter".

Don't blame Linux because your hardware manufacturer doesn't support it.

There should be no excuse for anyone who can't install Linux these days. If you can't install Linux, you should just give up on Linux altogether.

Yes, dependency/rpm hell is a bitch, and yes, windows > linux in usability, but dont hate on linux for retarded reasons.

 

[GreySkyMan]

If anybody has the usability crown, it's Mac OSX (and previous versions).

Take a class on interface design, and you'll realize just how intuitive mac osx is (hint: putting that menu at the top instead of per window has been proven to be 5x faster)...

Linux is plenty usable too. Fedora Core 3 and Mandrake are extremely easy to install.

You can bring the taskbar to the top in Windows.

 

[GreNME]

If anybody has the usability crown, it's Mac OSX (and previous versions).

Um... no. If useability includes performance, then OS 8 and 9 were complete and utter single-task-only shit.

Take a class on interface design, and you'll realize just how intuitive mac osx is (hint: putting that menu at the top instead of per window has been proven to be 5x faster)...

Oh, really? Where is this "proof" you speak of? If one has to take a class on UI design to realize something, just how is that different from having to understand at least a little programming to do more than basic tasks in Linux? I don't necessarily disagree that OS X is intuitive, but I think you're way overestimating things.

Linux is plenty usable too. Fedora Core 3 and Mandrake are extremely easy to install.

As I already said, it's easy to get the OS installed (it's even easy in slack). However, six months later when you decide you want to install some new software that has dependencies not necessarily packaged in the tarball for the software you want, you had better either know how to drop to CLI (which, if you truly have taken a class on UI, you should realize is counter-intuitive) for some updating or you had better already have those dependencies installed.

Sure, the easy way around is to do the "kitchen sink" install, but then I don't get it when people make a bunch of noise about Windows and "bloat."

 

[GreNME]

You can bring the taskbar to the top in Windows.

The taskbar does not have the "File | Edit | View | Tools | Help" and other option stuff in it. That is what the bar up top on Mac OS does. The app windows are just app windows, you do the options and other stuff on the bar up top.

Oh, and the Dock < Taskbar, despite the fancy look to it. That's more a gripe on a technical (under the hood) level, however.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Windows being more usable then Linux??

I would question this. recently a load of ppl have upgraded their home comps and have gone from Windows98 to XP.

I have been asked loads of things about how things are done and how to turn things off and they have had loads of configuration problems. One biggy is the MS for some dumb-ass reason changing the default network WORKGROUP from WORKGROUP to MSWORKOUP or summing like that why, why, there was no need!!!.

True configuring linux can be an arse (it is getting easier, but still with the ability to configure from teh command line - which sometimes is faster adn more convienient)

Anyway with a fully setup Windows and a fully setup Linux there is no user-interface problems.My wife is a Phamasist and is not very comuter literate. I anve OO under windows and linux as well as Firefox. She actually prefers Linux in doing he day-to-day things.

 

[GreySkyMan]

The taskbar does not have the "File | Edit | View | Tools | Help" and other option stuff in it. That is what the bar up top on Mac OS does. The app windows are just app windows, you do the options and other stuff on the bar up top.

Oh, and the Dock < Taskbar, despite the fancy look to it. That's more a gripe on a technical (under the hood) level, however.

All a matter of preference I guess.

What I like about the Mac OS is that cool F9 thing that shows all the windows. I could play with that all day.

 

[XOR != OR]

Take a computer novice and sit him/her down in front of a Windows box and give him/her a list of simple tasks to accomplish. Then sit them in front of a Linux box and ask them to do the same. The answer to your question will become apparent.

Agreed.

I once install Linux in a business inviroment because the boss wanted to see if a "free" OS was a viable alternative to MS. It lasted about half a day before both he and I cryed "Uncle" and put Windows back on. the lady who was trying it out was one of the most computer savy women I've ever met. She wasn't a novice by any means. Her only remark was "Now I know why it's free, that's exactly what it's worth."

2 problems with this: 1) Someone had thier mind made up about it, and believed windows was the end all be all of interface design. 2) Your data was aquired incorrectly.

Let's go back to my mother. Recently ( last year sometime ) her mac os 8 system died ( finally. 640x480 screen...*shudder* ). Me being me, and having to support her system, I loaded her up with linux on a tiny shoe box computer. Fedora core 1.

Now, you have to understand something about my mother; She is like most users out there, in that she doesn't care how it works, just so long as it works. She also doesn't like learning a new way to do things, but let's face it, she'd have to regardless of what system she went with at that point. So, she grudgingly went with linux. The first week took some work, I'm not going to lie to you. Finding programs in the fedora ( ala windows ) menu was a change she wasn't used to. Once she got that down, and learned how to work cut and paste, she was gravy. Now, she loves her little system. And if any problems crop up, I simply vpn into her machine ( installed openvpn on it ) and fix them ( last time I had to do that...back in april? And then only to upgrade her to 2.6 ).

So, my mother, an almost complete computer novice, made the trasnision to linux just as easy, if not easier, than windowsXP. Which she uses at school now, and hates ( even tho the styles are similar, they are enough differences to annoy her ).

re: installing programs. Now, maybe I'm just blind, but I am having a hard time understanding how selecting an application from a gui to install is difficult. Suse 9.1. Most of what your average user would need is in Yast, and it literally is as simple as clicking on the app you want and installing.

You don't even need to reboot the system.

I would say in pure hassle factor, Suse has a much better interface than windows xp in virtually every area. Note: If you want to shut me up, talk about linux and sound. You'd have me there. It sucks. Oh, and wireless support.

Linux is great if you're a hacker or a geeky nerd but it totally sucks if you are just a common user.

Wrong, pure and simple/

 

[GreySkyMan]

re: installing programs. Now, maybe I'm just blind, but I am having a hard time understanding how selecting an application from a gui to install is difficult. Suse 9.1. Most of what your average user would need is in Yast, and it literally is as simple as clicking on the app you want and installing.

You don't even need to reboot the system.

I would say in pure hassle factor, Suse has a much better interface than windows xp in virtually every area. Note: If you want to shut me up, talk about linux and sound. You'd have me there. It sucks. Oh, and wireless support.

Wrong, pure and simple/

How does Yast work? Is it another shitty RPM based manager with outdated software? I'm totally unfamiliar with Yast so enlighten me. Or is it like Debian where you have to EDIT the sources.lst file, just to get an unstable version of something? Hassle free for the common user? I don't think so.

 

[XOR != OR]

How does Yast work? Is it another shitty RPM based manager with outdated software? I'm totally unfamiliar with Yast so enlighten me. Or is it like Debian where you have to EDIT the sources.lst file, just to get an unstable version of something? Hassle free for the common user? I don't think so.

Ah, I do love you ignorant users. It makes my job incredibly easy.

I fear GreNME's response, for example.

Do yourself a favor, and go install suse and play with YaST. Then come back and apologize for your ignorance.

 

[GreySkyMan]

Ah, I do love you ignorant users. It makes my job incredibly easy.

I fear GreNME's response, for example.

Do yourself a favor, and go install suse and play with YaST. Then come back and apologize for your ignorance.

I'm asking you about Yast.

Do you not know much about it yourself to reply?

 

[odoe]

Your question was full of flamebait.
In essence, YaST manages the applications for your install.
It's a pretty simple interface and user friendly. I have never once had to edit a config file to use YaST and it really is something the SuSE folks have worked on to make it work like it should.

 

[GreySkyMan]

Your question was full of flamebait.
In essence, YaST manages the applications for your install.
It's a pretty simple interface and user friendly. I have never once had to edit a config file to use YaST and it really is something the SuSE folks have worked on to make it work like it should.

How easy would it be to update, say, Firefox, without running into dependency hell?

 

[GreNME]

Ah, I do love you ignorant users. It makes my job incredibly easy.

I fear GreNME's response, for example.

Do yourself a favor, and go install suse and play with YaST. Then come back and apologize for your ignorance.

Meh, no need to fear my response. I think that in cases where you got typical end users to make the transition, there are some key factors that don't come into play in your case that would with the vast majority of others:

1. Install problems—if your mother had problems with, say, installing new software that happens to not be on yast (or Open Carpet, which I happen to like), then she's screwed unless she comes to you (or uses something else). Not a big hassle, and it does come up occasionally in the NT/9x world of incompatibilities (a few 9x proggies won't run in XP), but the idea of an installer instead of just a package manager would be a great boon to the *nix world (and there are package managers out there that do a good job as installers). In the end, your mom can call you, but I doubt everyone else will always have some geek a phone call away (not without support fees). Now, if Dell or HP began offering phone support for such issues, this could likely be mitigated... eventually.
2. Upgrades—as mentioned in another thread, adding new devices or doing upgrades on the computer would be fine in some cases, a nightmare in others. Even with the more sophisticated distros' device management front ends, they still don't compare to the ease of use in XP/2K's device manager. It isn't the end of the world, as plug-n-play does work in *nix and there are tons of generic drivers already in most distros, but there are enough that aren't or that take a slight bit of fiddling that it is just inconvenient to make it annoying to anyone who doesn't want to have to learn all the extra steps.

Ugh. You know, I said to myself that I wasn't going to get too in-depth, but it's kinda unavoidable. So I'll stop at two and shut up.

To be honest, once you have a *nix install all set up, it does "just work." And if the box just sits there and all the person touches on it are the on/off switch and the CDROM, it usually won't have much problem. Throw in a pen drive or multi-card reader, and while a few extra steps are necessary, it's no headache (automount works well). Vid cards are still a hassle. Sounds cards depend on what type of card you use. Same with cameras. If you can walk a person through the process for printing/scanning then they won't have a problem, but if you don't already know sane or cups, then expect trouble (and USB scanners can sometimes be wonky).

It's not the horror story it was five to seven years ago, though. Plenty more people could do the transition thing, if they wanted. Still, many more can't for reasons other than under-the-hood contention.

How easy would it be to update, say, Firefox, without running into dependency hell?

Are you just looking for something to point at and say "aha!" to? No, Firefox has no dependency issues, unless running X and having the basic GUI libraries is an "issue" for you. Stop being silly, it makes real contention look bad.

 

[GreySkyMan]

Meh, no need to fear my response. I think that in cases where you got typical end users to make the transition, there are some key factors that don't come into play in your case that would with the vast majority of others:

1. Install problems—if your mother had problems with, say, installing new software that happens to not be on yast (or Open Carpet, which I happen to like), then she's screwed unless she comes to you (or uses something else). Not a big hassle, and it does come up occasionally in the NT/9x world of incompatibilities (a few 9x proggies won't run in XP), but the idea of an installer instead of just a package manager would be a great boon to the *nix world (and there are package managers out there that do a good job as installers). In the end, your mom can call you, but I doubt everyone else will always have some geek a phone call away (not without support fees). Now, if Dell or HP began offering phone support for such issues, this could likely be mitigated... eventually.
2. Upgrades—as mentioned in another thread, adding new devices or doing upgrades on the computer would be fine in some cases, a nightmare in others. Even with the more sophisticated distros' device management front ends, they still don't compare to the ease of use in XP/2K's device manager. It isn't the end of the world, as plug-n-play does work in *nix and there are tons of generic drivers already in most distros, but there are enough that aren't or that take a slight bit of fiddling that it is just inconvenient to make it annoying to anyone who doesn't want to have to learn all the extra steps.

Ugh. You know, I said to myself that I wasn't going to get too in-depth, but it's kinda unavoidable. So I'll stop at two and shut up.

To be honest, once you have a *nix install all set up, it does "just work." And if the box just sits there and all the person touches on it are the on/off switch and the CDROM, it usually won't have much problem. Throw in a pen drive or multi-card reader, and while a few extra steps are necessary, it's no headache (automount works well). Vid cards are still a hassle. Sounds cards depend on what type of card you use. Same with cameras. If you can walk a person through the process for printing/scanning then they won't have a problem, but if you don't already know sane or cups, then expect trouble (and USB scanners can sometimes be wonky).

It's not the horror story it was five to seven years ago, though. Plenty more people could do the transition thing, if they wanted. Still, many more can't for reasons other than under-the-hood contention.


Are you just looking for something to point at and say "aha!" to? No, Firefox has no dependency issues, unless running X and having the basic GUI libraries is an "issue" for you. Stop being silly, it makes real contention look bad.

No, I'm not, I'm deciding whether or not to give SuSE a chance. And yes, that is an issue with me.

 

[GreNME]

No, I'm not, I'm deciding whether or not to give SuSE a chance. And yes, that is an issue with me.

Are you saying you won't be installing xwindows? That's the only way it's going to be an "issue" for you.

 

[GreySkyMan]

Are you saying you won't be installing xwindows? That's the only way it's going to be an "issue" for you.

No, I've just had issues updating Firefox and xwindows.

 

[GreNME]

No, I've just had issues updating Firefox and xwindows.

apt get update

Or

yum update

Sounds like you're either looking for excuses to complain or you are intentionally doing something wrong in the process.

 

[Mauli]

Maybe I don't really have a right to post here, looking at my title, but I guess I do in anyways, as i constantly get into arguements with friends about this.

Windows used to be crap, there is nothing one can say against that, i am talking WIndow 98 and ME here. When it came to Windows 2000 i acutally started to like what the development showed me, especially when it comes to compatibility, which then, windows XP, completed. Now i must say, I dont mind using Windows at all, in fact, some days, i just like putting in a cd, click the install button, and then start doing some extreme gaming. And although there is a new graphics driver out, its no tourble becuase i also simply click on it, and there we go.
There are, however, certain things about windows that - and ill say this as nicely has possible - piss me off. I do not like the fact that winodws tries to take control of everything. When, and i think someone mentioned this earlier as well, one tries do something more advanced, windows is a pain. As much as Linux? Ill get to that later. I also strongly dislike the fact that windows is not compatible with any other operating systems, which of course if part of their success and "evil plan".
Before i get people too lost, and i tend to do that, I want to conlcude that windows is a nice operating system, in fact, thus far, the better operating system, because it is something for everyone. Linux, is catching up though.

Linux, i do admit, i didnt use it much, becuase after a while, i just oculnt be bothered anymore, is complicated. I was hoping to learn some new stuff, and i was really excited in doing so, but ther was just too much. I think of myslef as one that can handle computers, which is the very reason to why i chose to try linux, but i didnt know enough, and i cant sit and read for hours and hours abouts omething. No matter how interesting it may be. Also i have to say, i dont have much use for yet, becuase as much as windows is nto compatible with linux, well maybe not as much, but the other way around are troubles as well. I jsut wish that all programs could be used on both operating systems which would make it so much easier to handle,. I bet, if that was the case, more people would be using linux, actually. Linux is fine, as long as you dont try to do something new. When it comes to advanced stuff in linux, im sorry, i dont get it. I cant do it, in fact i have troubles installing new programs on it, sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt. I tried using both, slack and mandrake, but i just couldnt do it. I feel dumb.

Anyways, the point of all of this is, that windows is still better than linux, as an alround talent, but i am hoping that one day, linux reaches the point when it can acutally compete with windows in every single way. Except for blue screens.

 

[GreySkyMan]

apt get update

Or

yum update

Sounds like you're either looking for excuses to complain or you are intentionally doing something wrong in the process.

I'm very aware of how to update with apt. Thanks though. And apt-get update doesn't update programs. Sorry.

 

[GreNME]

I'm very aware of how to update with apt. Thanks though. And apt-get update doesn't update programs. Sorry.

You're out of your mind. It updates packages, and apt-get upgrade will upgrade packages.

 

[Mandane]

I am pretty sure I shouldn't be posting this, but okay.

I don't know why some people say that Linux is hard. Yes, there are some Distros that are a little difficult, but most of them provide a lot of good documentation. I made that transition from Windows 2000 to Fedora Core very easy, even when I'm still a novice computer user.

Also, some people are just really lazy when trying to install new hardware. There are usually very good documents out there, and if you would just be willing to spend 5 minutes reading them, and not complaining on forums, then you would get it easily.

In my mind, Windows has just made some people REALLY lazy. Everything is just point & click for the most part. You don't want anything to be hard or even moderately difficult.

And in many cases, if that is your thing, Linux can offer that as well.

Also, about this dependency issues, Windows Programs have that too, but as long as you keep your system updated, then everything is okay.

Oh, wait, if you keep your Linux system updated, you normally don't have that kind of issue as well. You will see it more than Windows though.

Also, about this RPM thing.... Even I hate RPM's. That's why I just compile all of my programs. Ohhh.... The whole compile thing. On mostly every single program I've compiled, it's usually just this:

./configure
make
make install

Wow, that's just 3 commands. Phew... that's difficult. That can even be condensed to this:

./configure && make && make install

or if you're not root, which you shouldn't be:

./configure && su -c "make && make install"

It's not really hard. And about the whole Config files, once again, it is usually very easy to do because there is a lot of good documentation out there to help you. Hell, the Hardforum is a good place to go. I mean, you're already there.

I'm sorry, like I said, I'm still a newb, but I needed to get in a few words.

Mandane

 

[RancidWAnnaRIot]

why the hell do you cats think you shoudn't be posting?!?!? LOL.. you're a member of hardforum now.. Post post post post post..

as for my experience with linux..

Dual booted it on my Laptop and desktop... i got rid of it on my desktop cause i just did..

i spent hours and hours reading and trying tings to get my wireless working.. no good..

i'll give linux anotehr whirl when i have time.. i just can't spend soo many damn hours reading and reading reading reading.

if it's one thing i've noticed.. you gotta have a shit load of time to get shit going on linux..

i remember i had it just how i wanted it.. but hen i wanted to change something (don't remember what).. anyway.. another millinos of hours to get that done.. yo just need a shit load of time man.. and you gotta sign on to forums and such.. as questions.. etc...

personally. it just took too much time..

 

[RancidWAnnaRIot]

In my mind, Windows has just made some people REALLY lazy. Everything is just point & click for the most part. You don't want anything to be hard or even moderately difficult.

that's the thing though.. why does it have to be hard??? lol... why can't it be very very easy??


i'm not trying to bash linux as i plan to play with it again someday.. but i mean.. that's the one thing i never understood. a lot of people in the linux community want linux to stay more difficult than windows (from linux forums i visited).. i guess it makes them feel good that they know stuff about something that isn't mainstream and takes alittle more knowledge about computers to do.. i don't know..

as i said before.. i just didn't and don't have the time to dive into linux deep.. sure i can install and work it pretty easy.. but after that.. it's annoying.. especially if you install and hardware isn't being recognized correctly...

 

[GreNME]

In my mind, Windows has just made some people REALLY lazy. Everything is just point & click for the most part. You don't want anything to be hard or even moderately difficult.

That's the point of sophistication of technology. You've never heard the quote that sufficiently advanced technology should be indiscernable from magic?

Has GM, Chrystler, and other car companies ruined the auto industry by adding more capabilities in an easier to use package? (easy, fellas, I know car analogies are subject to flame) Have the fact that electric sockets have a ground and are wired into switches instead of clunky fuses now ruined electrical engineering? Would you prefer to use a programmable VHS recorder from 1986 or a TiVo DVR from this year to record your favorite television show? Do you prefer building your own fire and lighting it with two sticks to having a stove in the kitchen where you just turn a knob and you have flame (or heat, depending on your stove)?

Engineering history is rife with examples of technically viable (and some superior) solutions that, for reasons of convenience, compatibility, and manufacturer/consumer preference, have faded away to the land of trivia questions or forgotten realms.

 

[RancidWAnnaRIot]

I'd just like to add... in my opinion some of the people i've encountered on linux forums are just straight up dicks that think they know everything and you're just some stupid dip shit..

personally.. i think people want to keep it complex to fuel there shitty egos...

sorry... this isn't directed towards anyone.. just stating this out of experience.. people have been complete assholes to me sometimes.. and i would think they were very valid questions i asked after doing a shit load of research on stuff


sorry to be a bit off topic...

 

[m1abram]

I'm very aware of how to update with apt. Thanks though. And apt-get update doesn't update programs. Sorry.

You are joking right? I do not even use apt-get, cause I use gentoo. But I do know that apt-get update will update ANY programs you installed using apt-get. Now it will not update programs that were installed via other means, how could it, it does not know about them.

However pretty much EVERY program that is somewhat even close to a mainstream program has been made into an apt package.

 

[XOR != OR]

I'd just like to add... in my opinion some of the people i've encountered on linux forums are just straight up dicks that think they know everything and you're just some stupid dip shit..

personally.. i think people want to keep it complex to fuel there shitty egos...

sorry... this isn't directed towards anyone.. just stating this out of experience.. people have been complete assholes to me sometimes.. and i would think they were very valid questions i asked after doing a shit load of research on stuff


sorry to be a bit off topic...

Heh, I will take this attitude ( although, yes, I wish it'd just go away. It does no one any good, and hinders linux more than it helps. ) over a windows zealot's attitude that there can be nothing better out there. MS nailed it, the rest ought to pack up and go home.

The sad thing is, I run into this in everyday life. People who, for whatever reason, can't be bothered to look beyond MS, working in high level IT positions. And when you even suggest that their email server is spewing out tons of spam/virii and crap, they get extremely offended. Then, when they find out you run a linux mail server, it's obviously your problem from then on.

Yes, I had to deal with this on friday. It's not the first time, in fact, it's so mundane I wouldn't have remembered it except for this thread.

So yeah, I wish the attitude would just go away as well, but it's hardly something particular to OSS or linux in general. Every "religoun<sp>" is going to have it's dicks. It's just what you have to deal with.

 

[GreySkyMan]

You are joking right? I do not even use apt-get, cause I use gentoo. But I do know that apt-get update will update ANY programs you installed using apt-get. Now it will not update programs that were installed via other means, how could it, it does not know about them.

However pretty much EVERY program that is somewhat even close to a mainstream program has been made into an apt package.

Wow, you are sad.

We've been talking about a single program, Firefox specifically. If I wanted to upgrade a SINGLE program, apt-get install

 

[Fryguy8]

In response to me providing proof for why the Mac OSX is more usable (notably the menubar), just do a search anywhere for fitts law. Almost every site that has a definition/discussion about it brings up the OSX/Windows menubar comparison.
Long story short: you have an infinite "hit-space" in the vertical direction, meaning that you only have to aim your mouse on the horizontal access to choose what you want. This ends up being orders of magnitude faster than having to aim along both horizontal and vertical axes.

Um... no. If useability includes performance, then OS 8 and 9 were complete and utter single-task-only shit.


Oh, really? Where is this "proof" you speak of? If one has to take a class on UI design to realize something, just how is that different from having to understand at least a little programming to do more than basic tasks in Linux? I don't necessarily disagree that OS X is intuitive, but I think you're way overestimating things.


As I already said, it's easy to get the OS installed (it's even easy in slack). However, six months later when you decide you want to install some new software that has dependencies not necessarily packaged in the tarball for the software you want, you had better either know how to drop to CLI (which, if you truly have taken a class on UI, you should realize is counter-intuitive) for some updating or you had better already have those dependencies installed.

Sure, the easy way around is to do the "kitchen sink" install, but then I don't get it when people make a bunch of noise about Windows and "bloat."

 

[m1abram]

Wow, you are sad.

We've been talking about a single program, Firefox specifically. If I wanted to upgrade a SINGLE program, apt-get install

Why am I sad? If you wanted to update just firefox I am sure apt-get update firefox should work. Or something like that.

 

[Mandane]

that's the thing though.. why does it have to be hard??? lol... why can't it be very very easy??


i'm not trying to bash linux as i plan to play with it again someday.. but i mean.. that's the one thing i never understood. a lot of people in the linux community want linux to stay more difficult than windows (from linux forums i visited).. i guess it makes them feel good that they know stuff about something that isn't mainstream and takes alittle more knowledge about computers to do.. i don't know..

as i said before.. i just didn't and don't have the time to dive into linux deep.. sure i can install and work it pretty easy.. but after that.. it's annoying.. especially if you install and hardware isn't being recognized correctly...

That's what I was trying to imply. Linux, at least in my mind, is not a difficult OS to learn. It's just like someone who has never used a computer before using Windows. It's different, so it seems somewhat difficult at first. That's how it is with Linux if you've never used it. It's different.

Yes, there are some aspects of Linux that can be difficult, but when it comes down to general usage, Linux is just as easy an OS to use Windows when everything is setup.

Mandane