Linux Is Not A "Second String" Operating System

[Unknown-One]

That is a complete load of shit; maybe the OS by itself.
What programs are you running? IE and Wordpad?

It takes FAR longer to install 3rd party programs on any Windows OS than 15 minutes for everything.

Windows 8 installed on my desktop in about 7 minutes from a USB flash drive. It automatically pulled down drivers for all my hardware

I installed Steam, clicked "backup and restore games" and had it start restoring my collection from an external hard disk.

While that was working I signed into my live account and started up Microsoft Word... not the web app, full blown Microsoft Word 2013. The new installer streams resources as needed to get your first office application started in as little as 20 seconds, and continues installing the rest of office in the background.

Began typing of a paper for my English class while Steam restored my game library.

*ding* goes the timer. 15 minutes and the OS is installed, drivers are installed, I'm already being productive, and a good portion of my games are already ready to play.

You obviously don't know how to use Linux if you and those so called "tech enthusiasts" (LOL) were having that many issues with Fedora, for crying out loud.
Your ignorance is not a reason why Linux should not be used, it is just a reason why you should not use Linux.

Insulting people you've never even met. Classy...

You call me ignorant, you didn't bother to take the 10 seconds required to Google for issues between Fedora and VMWare Tools. I'm far from the only one having issues getting VMWare Tools working under Fedora 17.

 

[devil22]

If you are talking about the desktop Linux distros, not all of them are free.
RELD/RELS and SLED/SLES are not free, nor are many of their sub-branch distros, so wtf are you talking about?

Uh, you can run any Linux distro on a server, and unless you can post some evidence that most of the internet hosting linux boxes are running pay-for linux OSes, I'm going to conclude they are not. Come back with your trite insult, or whatever, because you are not going to come back with evidence.

If an application gets hacked, that isn't Linux' fault, it's the fault of developers who created the app.
Linux itself isn't getting hacked, unlike Windows itself which does get hacked, ALL of the time.

Yeah, it's very different than what happens to a "Windows box".
You're starting to defend the undefendable.

You do not support this argument (or any other you make) at all. Linux can be hacked through holes and there have been many privilege escalation vulnerabilities in linux, no different than Windows. It's absurd to say Windows gets hacked because of Windows, and linux gets hacked because of applications. You can say it, not let's see you support it with a URL to some kind of documented study of the matter.

Once again proving your ignorance of OSes outside of Windows.

I don't have to master every OS on the planet to talk about them, and security issues generally apply equally to every OS.

Oh yeah, UAC, huge change.
LOL!!!

Huge is subjective. But of course, everything you say is either subjective, wrong, or a combination thereof. There are many other security features besides UAC, but seperating user programs from admin programs and sandboxing code (UAC) is indeed big imo.

 

[Red Falcon]

Unknown-One, I stand correct about the setup time, my apologies.
devil22, you keep being the M$ tool you are.
heatlesssun, where have you been? You missed the show, and there was popcorn!

 

[devil22]

devil22, you keep being the M$ tool you are.

I stand corrected everyone, please find it within yourself to forgive my ignorance! /sarcasm.

 

[c3141hf]

Windows 8 installed on my desktop in about 7 minutes from a USB flash drive. It automatically pulled down drivers for all my hardware

I installed Steam, clicked "backup and restore games" and had it start restoring my collection from an external hard disk.

While that was working I signed into my live account and started up Microsoft Word... not the web app, full blown Microsoft Word 2013. The new installer streams resources as needed to get your first office application started in as little as 20 seconds, and continues installing the rest of office in the background.

Began typing of a paper for my English class while Steam restored my game library.

*ding* goes the timer. 15 minutes and the OS is installed, drivers are installed, I'm already being productive, and a good portion of my games are already ready to play.



Insulting people you've never even met. Classy...

You call me ignorant, you didn't bother to take the 10 seconds required to Google for issues between Fedora and VMWare Tools. I'm far from the only one having issues getting VMWare Tools working under Fedora 17.

So, what happens if Microsoft's servers go down?

I prefer my software to come as a product, not a service. Steve Ballmer's talk about Office 2013 as a "service" frankly scares me; what happens when Microsoft decides they no longer wish to provide "service" for Office 2013 because they want you to upgrade?

 

[Unknown-One]

So, what happens if Microsoft's servers go down?

I prefer my software to come as a product, not a service. Steve Ballmer's talk about Office 2013 as a "service" frankly scares me; what happens when Microsoft decides they no longer wish to provide "service" for Office 2013 because they want you to upgrade?

Nothing happens if their serves go down...

it installs the desktop applications, fully, like it always has. The difference is you can actually USE office applications while office is still in the process of downloading / installing itself.

Once it's installed, it's the desktop program, just like Office 2010 was.

 

[Red Falcon]

So, what happens if Microsoft's servers go down?
Steve Ballmer's talk about Office 2013 as a "service" frankly scares me; what happens when Microsoft decides they no longer wish to provide "service" for Office 2013 because they want you to upgrade?

Well you should do as devil22 does and just submit like a M$ slave.

I prefer my software to come as a product, not a service.

I fully agree, and while it may take a bit longer to setup, at least it is a physical, tangible product that can be changed at one's choosing, not Microsoft's.
If Microsoft wants to do this, they should start using time-limited licenses and just be honest about it, rather than fucking their loyal users royally when the time comes to "upgrade".

It's like Microsoft just decided to take the most seedy/underhanded methods that Google and Apple use, and put them to their own uses.
Seriously, I used to have respect for you Microsoft, but now you are actually worse than Google and Apple, damn.

I stand corrected everyone, please find it within yourself to forgive my ignorance! /sarcasm.

Seriously devil22, how are you not an Apple fanatic?
You have the same mindset and blindness for it.

 

[Red Falcon]

Nothing happens if their serves go down...

it installs the desktop applications, fully, like it always has. The difference is you can actually USE office applications while office is still in the process of downloading / installing itself.

Once it's installed, it's the desktop program, just like Office 2010 was.

Actually, I remember quite a few times in the mid to late 2000's when Microsoft's servers went down, and it brought a lot of functions and services to a grinding halt.
This is why the "cloud" is not a very good idea imo.

 

[Unknown-One]

I fully agree, and while it may take a bit longer to setup, at least it is a physical, tangible product that can be changed at one's choosing, not Microsoft's.

I'm not sure how this came about from Office 2013, but that is one of the installation options...

It's not like streaming it to your PC is the only way to get it. You can buy the retail DVD or download the full-blown MSI installer and install it just like you installed Office 2010

 

[Unknown-One]

Actually, I remember quite a few times in the mid to late 2000's when Microsoft's servers went down, and it brought a lot of functions and services to a grinding halt.
This is why the "cloud" is not a very good idea imo.

And that has no bearing on Office 2013 after the installation wizard has finished... no bearing at all to the MSI / DVD based versions of the installers.

You guys are getting worked up because of an additional installation option. lol

 

[Red Falcon]

And that has no bearing on Office 2013 after the installation wizard has finished... no bearing at all to the MSI / DVD based versions of the installers.

No, it really wouldn't have any bearing on the DVD or MSI install variants.
It's just kind of a quirk, more so than a complaint.

 

[devil22]

Well you should do as devil22 does and just submit like a M$ slave.

Yea, me and a billion people are too stupid to realize we're slaves. Sure. Sounds like the babble of a mental patient.

Seriously devil22, how are you not an Apple fanatic?
You have the same mindset and blindness for it.

I'm going to assume you are seriously asking why I am not an apple user here in your own bizarro and unjustifiably petty way ..one, they charge too much for their hardware. Not a major problem for most people who can live with macbooks, but I like high end desktops with power sucking gpus, expensive as hell or not available on macs. Two, I like blu-rays and games, games that make those power sucking gpus and cpus sweat, also not available on macs in the way I require. If Macs ever match custom built hardware prices and have all the games I like to play and are blu-ray friendly I might consider switching, same with linux. It would depend on other factors I haven't bothered to research because right now only windows does the things I really need at this point.

 

[Red Falcon]

Yea, me and a billion people are too stupid to realize we're slaves.

Catch me later on that one.

I'm going to assume you are seriously asking why I am not an apple user here in your own bizarro and unjustifiably petty way ..

I was and am asking seriously, because the way you act is the same as an Apple fanatic.

one, they charge too much for their hardware. Not a major problem for most people who can live with macbooks, but I like high end desktops with power sucking gpus, expensive as hell or not available on macs. Two, I like blu-rays and games, games that make those power sucking gpus and cpus sweat, also not available on macs in the way I require. If Macs ever match custom built hardware prices and have all the games I like to play and are blu-ray friendly I might consider switching, same with linux.

It's understandable why you don't use Apple products and I don't blame you.
If Windows does what you want it to, then by all means use it.

It would depend on other factors I haven't bothered to research because right now only windows does the things I really need at this point

There is little point in using an OS when it doesn't do what you want it to.

If Macs ever match custom built hardware prices

They won't ever do this, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for them to not gouge individuals by making them pay $400 for an HD5770 GPU.

 

[devil22]

Catch me later on that one.


I was and am asking seriously, because the way you act is the same as an Apple fanatic.


It's understandable why you don't use Apple products and I don't blame you.
If Windows does what you want it to, then by all means use it.


There is little point in using an OS when it doesn't do what you want it to.


They won't ever do this, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for them to not gouge individuals by making them pay $400 for an HD5770 GPU.

I realize this, which is why I argue with mac users just as easily as with linux users. If you want my perspective, I think macs and linux are both nice, but they have some parts that are not conducive to my computing desires, I kinda see Windows as being the middle of the road between them, in the way a sedan is between a Volkswagen beetle and a hummer. You can argue all day about the fuel economy of the beetle, and the off road abilities and horse power of the hummer, at the end of the day I prefer the sedan above all that. Sorry for the corny car analogy, now I'm really going to get it I suppose.

 

[kac77]

Windows 8 installed on my desktop in about 7 minutes from a USB flash drive. It automatically pulled down drivers for all my hardware

I installed Steam, clicked "backup and restore games" and had it start restoring my collection from an external hard disk.

While that was working I signed into my live account and started up Microsoft Word... not the web app, full blown Microsoft Word 2013. The new installer streams resources as needed to get your first office application started in as little as 20 seconds, and continues installing the rest of office in the background.

Began typing of a paper for my English class while Steam restored my game library.

*ding* goes the timer. 15 minutes and the OS is installed, drivers are installed, I'm already being productive, and a good portion of my games are already ready to play.

If I didn't know any better it looks like you went googling and copied from an article......

http://www.winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta1/office-2013-public-preview-office-demand-143697

If you’re familiar with Windows 8, you know that one of the most incredible things about this new Windows is that it can install from scratch in as little as 15 minutes and can perform a full system reset in about 7 minutes. But what if told you that Office 2013 is even faster? That you can trigger a web-based install of Office 2013 and start using any one of the applications in under two minutes? It sounds incredible, I know. But it’s true.

Anyway, here's the problem with this exercise. It requires the perfect scenario. Meaning if any one of the pieces are missing there's goes the 15 minute install time and we aren't talking about statistically improbable possibilities here.

For example, yes Windows 8 can pull down drivers during install. But that only works if it has the driver already identified. If it doesn't there's goes the 15 minute install time and it doesn't always have it (Linux has problems with this as well obviously).

What if you don't use Office 13 / Office on Demand? Again 15 minutes out the window. You said "Windows 8 configured and running the programs I want," well what if I wanted to install Office 2007 would I experience the same 15 minute install time? NOPE Basically to simulate this experience you must purchase Windows 8 and you must also purchase specifically Office 13 or an Office on Demand application.

I'm willing to bet though that I could start typing a document in Linux before any Windows user. We can time it, but I assure you the average Linux user will beat the Windows user every time. Windows 8 doens't change this.

BTW compariing VM Tools with that of Office productivity is a little out there dontcha think? The problem you found with this one is because you chose Fedora. It's a bleeding edge distro and anyone who knows what Fedora is surely wouldn't pick it because of ease of use. Now if you picked Ubuntu then you would be able to install VM Tools directly from deb in seconds either from VMWare itself or from PPA. If you want maxiumum compatibility Ubuntu and other Debian offshoots is the way to go.

Now with this said Linux has it's issues to be sure and it's not hard to find them. It's not perfect by any stretch and there are things that Windows is awesome at.

Also with regards to file permissions Unix is the basis for all... even Windows. It was the first to even have ACLs. Even the more advanced file permissions existed with it first LOOOONG before Windows. Why anyone would compare file permission capability at all is odd because there's file permissions that Windows can perform that Linux can't, but there's also file permission settings that Linux can do that Windows doesn't have. So why argue about this?

 

[Unknown-One]

I never claimed ALL users would be able to duplicate my experience...

Red Falcon said "It takes FAR longer to install 3rd party programs on any Windows OS than 15 minutes for everything."

Which makes it sound like it's impossible to get up and running and be productive on ANY machine with ANY version of Windows. That simply isn't true, and I posted my example to the contrary.

That's all.

 

[Unknown-One]

Grr, no edit... That was supposed to read:

"Which makes it sound like it's impossible to get up and running and be productive on ANY machine with ANY version of Windows in under 15 minutes"

 

[Red Falcon]

I never claimed ALL users would be able to duplicate my experience...

Red Falcon said "It takes FAR longer to install 3rd party programs on any Windows OS than 15 minutes for everything."

Which makes it sound like it's impossible to get up and running and be productive on ANY machine with ANY version of Windows. That simply isn't true, and I posted my example to the contrary.

That's all.

It's not bad for a first-time setup, but I think I'll stick with images though.

 

[BBA]

Did you guys figure this shit out yet?

What I saw on the last performance comparison was not a comparison unless machine specs are given and equal between OS's.

The big problem linux has...the average person can load windows and drivers work. This hardly ever happens with any flavor of linux...it usually involves getting to a chat room to figure out the problem, and if you are an early adopter of any 'new' hardware, forget about it working for at least 3-6 months.

The reason MS is better? New hardware mostly. It always works with Windows if it works at all. MAC versions come much later and Linux...well, it is an afterthought.

There...now it is settled, the truth is said.

 

[Red Falcon]

Well well well, here's yet ANOTHER reason why Windows 8 and "secure UEFI" is a complete load of shit:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1709431

devil22, you can keep it.
I'll stick with Linux and BSD distros, k thnx bye.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well well well, here's yet ANOTHER reason why Windows 8 and "secure UEFI" is a complete load of shit:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1709431

devil22, you can keep it.
I'll stick with Linux and BSD distros, k thnx bye.

People are buying these machines with Windows on them, not Linux. Linux has tried and failed a zillion times on the desktop, doesn't mean that Linux should stop trying, but don't take it out on Windows. It has different concerns than Windows. Linux is free, no one is trying to pirate it or sell it for profit. Would you rather retire on the money that's illegally generated on false Linux licenses or false Windows licenses each year?

 

[Red Falcon]

People are buying these machines with Windows on them, not Linux. Linux has tried and failed a zillion times on the desktop, doesn't mean that Linux should stop trying, but don't take it out on Windows. It has different concerns than Windows. Linux is free, no one is trying to pirate it or sell it for profit.

To quote myself from earlier in the thread:

Windows is the top dog on the desktop, not anywhere else.
However, you just stated why Linux won't ever be big outside of an enterprise environment, and I would have to agree with you on that one.

and

Even if Linux will never exist in the mainstream OS market, it certainly has its place in HPC, supercomputer, enterprise, and performance-systems markets.

and from another thread:

I do have to agree that Linux distros may never be dominant on the desktop.
Linux is just too difficult for the average user to use, and when these same individuals have been using Windows and/or OS X for 10-20+ years, switching to a new/different OS is always difficult.

However, Linux and UNIX will always remain strong in enterprise, HPC, super-computing, embedded systems, and high-performance clusters, workstations, and server markets.
Windows is an absolute failure in all of those areas, save for some of the workstations.

Microsoft is starting to take the same route that Apple did around the late 00's and appears to be slowly getting out of the enterprise market place.
They are still obviously there, but give it another five years and they may just disappear from that scene all together, just like Apple did with OS X Server and their XServe systems.

Try reading the thread before making statements like that one, captain obvious.

Would you rather retire on the money that's illegally generated on false Linux licenses or false Windows licenses each year?

If every license that is hacked pisses you off that much more, then more power to them.

 

[Red Falcon]

Would you rather retire on the money that's illegally generated on false Linux licenses or false Windows licenses each year?

Oh, and just so you know, every copy of Windows I have ever owned was paid and bought legally.
So before you start making claims about me being a hacker or a Microsoft-terrorist or whatever lamebrain name you would give it, you can stuff it!

 

[achensherd]

My take on Linux (specifically Ubuntu and Mint) as a complete Linux newb:

Everything works post-install and I can get online =

Something (like a driver... especially a driver) borks or can't be found =

Thing that borked can be fixed without having to open the CLI =

Thing that borked can only be fixed by inputting things I find on Google (whatever they are) into the CLI =

Something I input into the CLI fixes the thing that borked =

None of the things I input into the CLI seem to do anything related to fixing the thing that borked =

Something I input into the CLI did something, but I don't know what =

Etc, etc.

 

[Red Falcon]

^ Why Linux will never be on the mainstream desktop.
The users actually have to know what they are doing to a certain extent; Linux = learning curve.

This is why mindless OSes like Win 8 and OS X 10.7 and 10.8 exist, so individuals don't have to think about anything.
Great for them, sucky for anyone who actually wants to do something and is damn near locked out without jumping through eighty different hoops just to change a minor detail.

 

[krogen]

^ Why Linux will never be on the mainstream desktop.
The users actually have to know what they are doing to a certain extent; Linux = learning curve.

This is why mindless OSes like Win 8 and OS X 10.7 and 10.8 exist, so individuals don't have to think about anything.
Great for them, sucky for anyone who actually wants to do something and is damn near locked out without jumping through eighty different hoops just to change a minor detail.

Well, OSX, since it's a *nix operating system, has the same user interface problems as Linux distros. Except in OSX, everything is done "right". Well, actually, not everything, really. When playing around with a Hackintosh, I had to use the shell in order to make Steam work. You can't run away from shell when using a *nix system.

If OSX got to a more-or-less user friendly state, so can Linux distros.

 

[Red Falcon]

Well, OSX, since it's a *nix operating system, has the same user interface problems as Linux distros. Except in OSX, everything is done "right". Well, actually, not everything, really. When playing around with a Hackintosh, I had to use the shell in order to make Steam work. You can't run away from shell when using a *nix system.

If OSX got to a more-or-less user friendly state, so can Linux distros.

OS X is a hell of a lot more rigid that any Linux distro could ever be though.
While most of everything is done right in OS X, the reason this will most likely not happen in Linux is due to its many divisions and distro-independence.

Linux is just too divided to really have an impact like OS X has over the years, at least in the consumer desktop market.
In the enterprise market, however, Linux is king.

 

[Monkey God]

^ Why Linux will never be on the mainstream desktop.
The users actually have to know what they are doing to a certain extent; Linux = learning curve.

This is why mindless OSes like Win 8 and OS X 10.7 and 10.8 exist, so individuals don't have to think about anything.
Great for them, sucky for anyone who actually wants to do something and is damn near locked out without jumping through eighty different hoops just to change a minor detail.

For some people computing is just a commodity or a tool to be used. Most people can't work on their cars, they just drive them around, so they can accomplish other tasks. You don't look down on them, do you?

 

[daglesj]

This is why mindless OSes like Win 8 and OS X 10.7 and 10.8 exist, so individuals don't have to think about anything.

I guess you have a car with a crank handle and still requires double de-clutching, after all why would you want a starter motor, autobox and power steering, thats mindless.



Some of us just want to get on with things such as work and making a living.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I just don't understand the fear of the CLI. I just consider it part of computing.

But then again, I grew up with Commodore Basic and later DOS and much later Linux.


Maybe a CLI is more daunting if you are of the younger generations who have only ever used GUI's.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I guess you have a car with a crank handle and still requires double de-clutching, after all why would you want a starter motor, autobox and power steering, thats mindless.



Some of us just want to get on with things such as work and making a living.

I'm not sure I like this analogy.

I don't see how editing a plain text file, is anymore difficult than navigating Window's myriad of settings in GUI form.

In fact, many Windows settings people just use command line tools for, because it's easier than trying to find that setting you need buried somewhere in the GUI.

 

[Dan_D]

Linux's biggest problem is that it is open source. I know that will strike many people as odd. The issue is that there are far too many distributions of Linux and they are all different. It brings division to the Linux community and confuses the masses. I noticed this back in the Slackware / Redhat days. Slackware was for elitist Linux snobs who thought they were smarter than everyone else. They were the cream of the crop, the smartest. They regarded Redhat as something for slack jawed inbred morons who bang their relatives and chew tobacco while getting drunk on domestic beers all day. Other people looked at Slackware users like the snobs they were, and deemed their distro to be superior because it didn't take 4 engineering degrees and a special decoder to figure out.

Linux will never be able to take hold in the desktop / laptop world the way Windows has until they have a unified interface, objectives and they overcome the problems inherent with all Linux platforms. They need standardized software installation like Windows and the Mac have. Unless something has changed on that front in the last couple of years that I am unaware of, Linux software installation and compatibility with so called Linux applications is poor. Apps designed for one distro don't necessarily work on another. And really until I can double click on something, click next a couple times and be done, it won't be ready for the mainstream. I need to be able to uninstall just as quickly. 95% or more of what the OS can do needs to be configurable in the GUI environment. Not the command line. I like command line stuff, but the masses don't. In fact there are people in their 20's today that have never run a dos command, batch file or anything of the sort. They've had Windows all their lives.

And while Linux makes strides here and there, I can't help but feel like they can't quite master the basics of the interface. It's rarely intuitive and it isn't always easy to find what you need. Program emulation for older software and being able to run Windows applications natively is often touted as being the main problem with Linux. It isn't. That is a problem, but not the main problem. You can use Linux for most everything you'd use Windows or a Mac for, excluding gaming.

Now the applications themselves are often as bad as the distros are in terms of reliability, ease of use, etc. But if there were a common flavor of the OS without all the variances, and there was money to be made with it, applications would follow. Companies would take the time to develop applications for it and eventually we'd see apps developed for both Windows and Linux, and the two would have to fight it out much like Apple and Microsoft did in the 1980's. We'd have applications with dual versions in the box. Eventually one would supplant the other for one reason or another. It would be Beta vs. VHS again and HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but Linux would at least have a shot. Right now Linux has too many variants and isn't user friendly enough for someone to walk an 80 year old grandmother through over the phone. Until it is, it will NEVER become relevant to the average user on desktop or laptop machines.

It's quite strong on the server side, but still suffers some of the same issues that the desktop side has. It also works well on mobile devices. You can see how common standards have allowed for Android applications to flourish. Tha's what Linux on the desktop needs.

Open source is often viewed as being some kind of morally superior way of doing things. The fact is all you get is way too many cooks in the kitchen doing their own thing and little to nothing gets done as a result.

 

[nOrVow]

I just don't understand the fear of the CLI. I just consider it part of computing.

But then again, I grew up with Commodore Basic and later DOS and much later Linux.


Maybe a CLI is more daunting if you are of the younger generations who have only ever used GUI's.

It's called Windows conditioning. It's sort of akin to driving a car with an automatic transmission for years (even from the time they learn to drive), then feeling completely irate and lost with a manual transmission during their first encounter. Their mind goes apeshit because they can't utilize usual windows procedures with a completely different OS, then bash the OS when something doesn't work.

In fact, GUIs are a lot less faster and simpler than the CLI, it's just that the initial learning curve is steeper. It's hands-on, and it requires active thought. That's not to say you can't avoid it most of the time though - there's plenty of heavily GUI automated distros there.

I used to be sooooooooo biased towards windows, hating Linux back in high school throughout my last 2 years in my microcomputer tech major. Mostly because of ignorance, and a lack of real introduction. Our teacher basically threw us in the fucking sharks with nothing but the web. lol

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Linux's biggest problem is that it is open source. I know that will strike many people as odd. The issue is that there are far too many distributions of Linux and they are all different. It brings division to the Linux community and confuses the masses. I noticed this back in the Slackware / Redhat days. Slackware was for elitist Linux snobs who thought they were smarter than everyone else. They were the cream of the crop, the smartest. They regarded Redhat as something for slack jawed inbred morons who bang their relatives and chew tobacco while getting drunk on domestic beers all day. Other people looked at Slackware users like the snobs they were, and deemed their distro to be superior because it didn't take 4 engineering degrees and a special decoder to figure out.

Linux will never be able to take hold in the desktop / laptop world the way Windows has until they have a unified interface, objectives and they overcome the problems inherent with all Linux platforms. They need standardized software installation like Windows and the Mac have. Unless something has changed on that front in the last couple of years that I am unaware of, Linux software installation and compatibility with so called Linux applications is poor. Apps designed for one distro don't necessarily work on another. And really until I can double click on something, click next a couple times and be done, it won't be ready for the mainstream. I need to be able to uninstall just as quickly. 95% or more of what the OS can do needs to be configurable in the GUI environment. Not the command line. I like command line stuff, but the masses don't. In fact there are people in their 20's today that have never run a dos command, batch file or anything of the sort. They've had Windows all their lives.

And while Linux makes strides here and there, I can't help but feel like they can't quite master the basics of the interface. It's rarely intuitive and it isn't always easy to find what you need. Program emulation for older software and being able to run Windows applications natively is often touted as being the main problem with Linux. It isn't. That is a problem, but not the main problem. You can use Linux for most everything you'd use Windows or a Mac for, excluding gaming.

Now the applications themselves are often as bad as the distros are in terms of reliability, ease of use, etc. But if there were a common flavor of the OS without all the variances, and there was money to be made with it, applications would follow. Companies would take the time to develop applications for it and eventually we'd see apps developed for both Windows and Linux, and the two would have to fight it out much like Apple and Microsoft did in the 1980's. We'd have applications with dual versions in the box. Eventually one would supplant the other for one reason or another. It would be Beta vs. VHS again and HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but Linux would at least have a shot. Right now Linux has too many variants and isn't user friendly enough for someone to walk an 80 year old grandmother through over the phone. Until it is, it will NEVER become relevant to the average user on desktop or laptop machines.

It's quite strong on the server side, but still suffers some of the same issues that the desktop side has. It also works well on mobile devices. You can see how common standards have allowed for Android applications to flourish. Tha's what Linux on the desktop needs.

Open source is often viewed as being some kind of morally superior way of doing things. The fact is all you get is way too many cooks in the kitchen doing their own thing and little to nothing gets done as a result.

I haven't found this to be a problem at all as of late.

I haven't used Red Hat (or Fedora) in a really long time, but in Debian APT based distributions there are many GUI tools available for installing software. Synaptic is probably the most popular, but there are many more.

When you go to install software, it manages all the dependencies, and there are rarely (never?) compatibility issues. In many ways, this is easier than Windows, not harder.

One place where your criticism is valid is when installing software not found in the distributions maintained repository. Most software you'd want is in the repository, but every now and then you'd need or want something that isn't, and this is far from standardized, and something better could be done here.

Installation is also a breeze. Drivers are automatically detected and installed. If anything modern Linux distributions are easier to install than Windows. Again, the same exception applies here though. If you have some unusual hardware that isn't just automatically detected, like most stuff is, it can require some specialized knowledge to get it working.

If you ask me, open source is one of Linux strengths, not its weaknesses. In windows, if you don't like the window manager (metro, anyone?) you are stuck with it. Don't like Gnome in Linux? Well, you can choose from many others, KDE, cinnamon, mate, XFCE, etc. and while they look different, they all can use eachothers underlying libraries, making every window manager compatible with every piece of gui software.

Linux has come a long way since Slack vs. Red Hat.

If you haven't for a while, I'd recommend downloading the latest Ubuntu or Linux Mint (and probably Fedora, I just don't have any personal experience) distributions, and I think you'll be surprised at how far they've come.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I just don't understand the fear of the CLI. I just consider it part of computing.

But then again, I grew up with Commodore Basic and later DOS and much later Linux.


Maybe a CLI is more daunting if you are of the younger generations who have only ever used GUI's.

I think that is it. I remember when we got our first computer with windows 98. I got into DOS once by accident, and it went full screen. Scared the crap out of me and I hit the power button before my parents see that I "screwed up the computer". Kinda funny now that I look back especially considering I could have hit alt+enter or typed exit to get out of it.

 

[MavericK]

Maybe a CLI is more daunting if you are of the younger generations who have only ever used GUI's.

Well, yeah. If you see a black screen with nothing but a flashing cursor, and you have no idea what any commands are or maybe even what it is, I think that's a reasonable response.

 

[soulesschild]

I haven't found this to be a problem at all as of late.

I haven't used Red Hat (or Fedora) in a really long time, but in Debian APT based distributions there are many GUI tools available for installing software. Synaptic is probably the most popular, but there are many more.

When you go to install software, it manages all the dependencies, and there are rarely (never?) compatibility issues. In many ways, this is easier than Windows, not harder.

One place where your criticism is valid is when installing software not found in the distributions maintained repository. Most software you'd want is in the repository, but every now and then you'd need or want something that isn't, and this is far from standardized, and something better could be done here.

Installation is also a breeze. Drivers are automatically detected and installed. If anything modern Linux distributions are easier to install than Windows. Again, the same exception applies here though. If you have some unusual hardware that isn't just automatically detected, like most stuff is, it can require some specialized knowledge to get it working.

If you ask me, open source is one of Linux strengths, not its weaknesses. In windows, if you don't like the window manager (metro, anyone?) you are stuck with it. Don't like Gnome in Linux? Well, you can choose from many others, KDE, cinnamon, mate, XFCE, etc. and while they look different, they all can use eachothers underlying libraries, making every window manager compatible with every piece of gui software.

Linux has come a long way since Slack vs. Red Hat.

If you haven't for a while, I'd recommend downloading the latest Ubuntu or Linux Mint (and probably Fedora, I just don't have any personal experience) distributions, and I think you'll be surprised at how far they've come.

One of the big problems here though, for example Mint.

There's a few versions of Mint that are bundled with different GUIs,

KDE, Cinnamon, XCFE to name a few. Now, us at [H] can probably figure out how to easily swap between KDE, GNOME, etc but will your average user be able to? Or are they going to see the 5-6 different versions of Mint and get overwhelmed? I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Unknown-One]

One of the big problems here though, for example Mint.

There's a few versions of Mint that are bundled with different GUIs,

KDE, Cinnamon, XCFE to name a few. Now, us at [H] can probably figure out how to easily swap between KDE, GNOME, etc but will your average user be able to? Or are they going to see the 5-6 different versions of Mint and get overwhelmed? I'm guessing the latter.

Yeah, and each DVD ISO is only about 800mb...

Why don't they just put them all on the disc? There's more than enough room left over on a 4.7GB DVD. let the user select which UI they want during installation.

 

[pelo]

One of the big problems here though, for example Mint.

There's a few versions of Mint that are bundled with different GUIs,

KDE, Cinnamon, XCFE to name a few. Now, us at [H] can probably figure out how to easily swap between KDE, GNOME, etc but will your average user be able to? Or are they going to see the 5-6 different versions of Mint and get overwhelmed? I'm guessing the latter.

That's Mint, Ubuntu doesn't have that issue. 64bit or 32bit, just like Windows, actually ;P

Standardization should be revolved around Ubuntu. It's the most popular platform, built on Debian and quite nooby friendly. Unless you run into an issue (which isn't unheard of but it's rare), you can avoid the terminal completely and go through your GUI for everything.

 

[Disposed]

There are an awful lot of people in this thread that need to stop acting like they know linux because they checked it out 8 years ago. The last 3 years alone have been massive for linux.

That whole wall of text from Dan can be summed up with just that. The whole "linux is not user friendly" nonsense is from people like Dan that have no real current experience with linux and keep going on outdated information and assumptions. Explain to me how linux is any less user friendly than windows. Unity is easy as shit to use, KDE is so similar to the windows 7 layout its ridiculously easy for anyone to pickup etc. I cant help but look at the mess windows 8 is turning out to be and wonder how people can still go on about linux being less user friendly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltE_ekc8kE8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=ltE_ekc8kE8&v=v4boTbv9_nU

How the hell is windows 8 more user friendly? The old man figures out ubuntu slowly but surely and completely gives up trying to figure out windows 8.

Apps are unreliable and shitty??? What apps are you referring to? Web browsers work the same (Technically better since no worry about malware) VLC is VLC, music players are far better than shitty old windows media player. The gimp may not stack up to photoshop for professional use but considering the monstrous price difference its damn hard to fault gimp.

The statement that "if there was a market someone would be doing it" is so incredibly ignorant and shortsighted i cant believe who its coming from. The same could have been said about every single underrated market before someone changed it. People where saying the same ignorant shit about the tablet market before the ipad. Also given that very argument the fact that devs ARE starting to look at linux seriously should prove that statement false. Valve is not stupid, they see what so many refuse to see, they have seen the humble bundle results and realize there is money to be made there.

Just look at the humble bundle results yourself and it should be plainly obvious. There was quite a bit of money made from linux and how many of those windows sales would be linux sales if people could actually rely on linux as a gaming OS? You hear it all the time in the community "If i could play my games on linux i would be linux 100%".