Will Linux ever be as popular as Windows?

Status
Not open for further replies.
feld said:
What is an idle OS? You're retarded. Sorry. Has to be said.

An operating system's job isn't to waste your resources. Every operating system idles. Unfortunately, while Vista idles, it likes to waste CPU cycles and cache junk in memory.

Now dont get me wrong, caching things in memory is sometimes a very important job for an OS to do. Vista just does it wrong.
Click to expand...

Lucky for me there's a few hundred people that'll call you something other than n00b right about now, so no worries.

If you're not clear on how Vista works and why, that's fine, but don't go making off-the-cuff remarks, especially when you have no clue about the history of Vista discussions around here, which is dreadfully apparent at this point.

Keep the personal attacks to a minimum lest the mighty Mods lay the smackdown on ya...

feld said:
"Unfortunately, while Vista idles, it likes to waste CPU cycles and cache junk in memory."
Click to expand...

Man that's classic, and so funny I simply had to repeat it and even add em-faaaaaa-sis. I should add that to my sig. :D
 
as tempting as it is to say something, i wont lol. some of these comments still amaze me.
 
feld said:
BLah Blah blah
Click to expand...

3 Posts, 3 uneducated MS bashes... right.

I think one of Linux's biggest problems right now lies in the fact that there are literally dozens of distributions. If some or most of these separate projects could consolidate their efforts I think they'd have a much better chance.

I've tried Ubunto, Suse, Redhat and FreeBSD (not technically linux?) at various times and each time there was something (such as a sound card, wireless nic, file transfer, etc) that I couldn't get to work even after hours of research and tinkering. I'm not talking about small inconveniences but rather fundamental aspects of my computer that I used on a daily basis.

I don't think Linux will be able to legitimately compete with windows until the majority of computer users are able to pop a Linux disk into their computer and install the OS and their necessary programs without having to dig through pages of FAQs or blindly peck in command line parameters that they don't understand or care to understand.

Granted, the majority of computer users buy systems with the OS preinstalled, but given the difficult time most un-tach savvy people have with windows machines (I'm sure half the people reading this have had to explain the location of the "any" key to someone at some time in their life:p ) I doubt they will feel comfortable with a system that requires as much tinkering and technical interaction as Linux now does.

I think a lot of MS's success is a result of the easy, "hand-holding" UI found in windows. Are you having trouble finding those photos from your vacation? Ask the friendly talking cartoon dog to search for them for you.:p It is very possible for someone to use a windows computer for years and never even hear terms such as "command line", "permission", etc.

my $0.02
 
Linux itself comes from a MINIX history fork, as many Linux historical FAQs will attest to. FreeBSD is off some BSD fork that was an offshoot of the original UNIX stuff after the AT&T fallout, as I understand it. Tons of wiki pages and sites to explain all that history.

To quote one of the main Wikipedia entries:

"In 1991, work on the Linux kernel began by Linus Torvalds while attending the University of Helsinki.[8] Torvalds originally created the Linux kernel as a replacement for the non-free Minix kernel. Although dependent on the Minix userspace at first, work from both Linux kernel developers and the GNU project allowed Linux to work with GNU components. Thus Linux filled the last major gap in running a complete, fully functional operating system built from free software."

But I agree about the "too many distros" thing and I said as much in an earlier post that Linux simply is "too all over the place" in terms of distros. There's just too many of them, and even with the absolutely astonishing progress for spreading Linux that Ubuntu has shown over the past few years, it's simply not enough to make any Linux distro the one Joe Average would choose over any version of Windows to install on his PC.
 
feld said:
What is an idle OS? You're retarded. Sorry. Has to be said.

An operating system's job isn't to waste your resources. Every operating system idles. Unfortunately, while Vista idles, it likes to waste CPU cycles and cache junk in memory.

Now dont get me wrong, caching things in memory is sometimes a very important job for an OS to do. Vista just does it wrong.
Click to expand...

If resources are idle they are being wasted. Vista doesn't do it wrong. In fact it's the only OS I know of to do it right.
 
feld said:
What is an idle OS? You're retarded. Sorry. Has to be said.

An operating system's job isn't to waste your resources. Every operating system idles. Unfortunately, while Vista idles, it likes to waste CPU cycles and cache junk in memory.

Now dont get me wrong, caching things in memory is sometimes a very important job for an OS to do. Vista just does it wrong.
Click to expand...
I call BS. If Vista does it wrong, so does Ubuntu - with only a few programs open, Ubuntu was using about 4 GB of my 4 GB according to top. I posted screenshots in another thread, if you want I can go find them.

Both Ubuntu and Vista use ridiculous amounts of RAM on my system, and both respond quickly and snappily.
 
admittedly, a lot of this might be my own laziness, but until they make installing something as simple to the end user as a setup.exe in Windows, Linux will be at a distinct disadvantage. I shouldn't have to spend hours researching how to install a program in Linux when it takes all of 5 seconds in Windows.


Also, WPA support natively should be there (which is one of the main reasons I'm not using Ubuntu natively, but rather through VMWare)
 
Catweazle said:
I don't need to. That discussion is already in this thread. Go back and read through it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, kitty, you don't get a pass on this one. Show us exactly where it's irrelevant, please. This habit of yours is eroding your credibility.
 
Archer75 said:
Sorry but linux does look very amateurish. But as has been said, it's a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

Seriously, have you ever seen SuSE's KDE desktop? It's very pretty. Try it - you can probably even run as a live CD over Vista. :D
 
Archer75 said:
None of this true. Nothing more than FUD that linux !!!!!!s love to spread without a shred of truth to it.
Click to expand...

What was untrue? Be specific, pls. if you're going to infiltrate this thread and try and crap it up.
 
Archer75 said:
^ But then i'm not using Linux apps. I'd be using windows apps. If i'm going to use windows apps then i'll just use windows!

In my experience running apps in WINE results in a performance hit of various degrees. And sometimes those apps will also end up being a little bit buggy. Not worth it.
Click to expand...

Proof, pls.?

WINE is not emulation. Where exactly does the performance hit come from?
 
As I Lay Dying said:
I was just saying a few people have, and yes I agree, and I think the only people who are switching now are people who were curious to try it, this was just a reason for them to try. But anyone who cant run vista is not gonna try to run linux for the most part.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those. I'd rather not use Vista, for reasons I've gone into already.
 
There is no performance hit using wine. You can take the same hardware, one running windows, and one running linux using wine, and the linux machine will run the program faster. Test it even with something simple like how responsive a browser is.
This is even easier to tell using dated hardware. It simply runs better on the same hardware than windows does.
It's funny how someone can talk trash on linux when they don't know anythig about it.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
I call BS. If Vista does it wrong, so does Ubuntu - with only a few programs open, Ubuntu was using about 4 GB of my 4 GB according to top. I posted screenshots in another thread, if you want I can go find them.

Both Ubuntu and Vista use ridiculous amounts of RAM on my system, and both respond quickly and snappily.
Click to expand...

umm darling thats not just ubuntu, thats the linux kernel that does that.
 
Linux will never be as popular for windows until its as easy to use as Windows. I would be running Linux right now if you could get all the cool games on it.
 
Replicant1911 said:
Linux will never be as popular for windows until its as easy to use as Windows. I would be running Linux right now if you could get all the cool games on it.
Click to expand...

There's an inherent flaw in that entire line of thinking. Anyone see it?

If not, it's the "easy to use" part that conflicts with the "all the cool games" part. Ease of use has nothing to do with gaming, so saying the first part as an implied reason for not running Linux then giving an entirely different one as the "actual" reason is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Ubuntu is easy to use for Joe Average, it really is. The problem is: Joe Average typically doesn't know what the hell to do with a computer but the aforementioned email/surfing/music/videos stuff sooo...

As for gaming, it's not Linux's fault no one seems to care about it enough to write games for it.

Oh, wait... some people do, like id Software who's always been there supporting it. And who else? Hrmm... guess I'll have to do research on that one since that's the biggest one I'm aware of - besides, I'm a Quake man, always have been so even on Linux distros I can get my Quaking fix. :D
 
Sorry to bump this, but I just now came across a comment that's worth repeating, because whether you agree with it or not it's funny.

A bloke on a Gamer forum said:
Linux is just the ugly sister of Windows. Unless you feel like going on a sympathy date then don't bother installing it.
Click to expand...

It was said to a young fella who was thinking Linux would be the answer to his incompetences. :D
 
bbz_Ghost said:
snip
Oh, wait... some people do, like id Software who's always been there supporting it. And who else? Hrmm... guess I'll have to do research on that one since that's the biggest one I'm aware of - besides, I'm a Quake man, always have been so even on Linux distros I can get my Quaking fix. :D
Click to expand...

Unreal Tournament 2004 works pretty well too, supposedly. FYI.
 
Catweazle said:
Sorry to bump this, but I just now came across a comment that's worth repeating, because whether you agree with it or not it's funny.

It was said to a young fella who was thinking Linux would be the answer to his incompetences. :D
Click to expand...

In order for satire to be funny, there has to be an element of truth.

An example would be the oxymoron "Microsoft Security". Stated facetiously, it's amusing because of MS's well-known and pathetic track record at keeping our boxen safe from on-line threats.

There isn't a truth element here, so your attempt at humor fails for most of us actually using Linux. The humor only works for the ignorant.
 
kunsunoke said:
In order for satire to be funny, there has to be an element of truth.

An example would be the oxymoron "Microsoft Security". Stated facetiously, it's amusing because of MS's well-known and pathetic track record at keeping our boxen safe from on-line threats.

There isn't a truth element here, so your attempt at humor fails for most of us actually using Linux. The humor only works for the ignorant.
Click to expand...
The comment wasn't posted as a satire of Linux, and the comments accompanying the comment clearly indicated so. What's with the personal abuse which seems to follow my appearance in threads? I'm not seeing it come from others here.
 
Catweazle said:
The comment wasn't posted as a satire of Linux, and the comments accompanying the comment clearly indicated so. What's with the personal abuse which seems to follow my appearance in threads? I'm not seeing it come from others here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did understand your intent. I merely informed you that your post failed to amuse because it lacked elements of truth.

This is no more personal abuse than your posting of anti-Linux material in a pro-Linux thread. It is healthy debate. It's discussion we should be having.

Catweazle, I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable here when it comes to trouble-shooting Microsoft's new (though largely pointless) operating system. I think other Linux users appreciate that fact as well.

This place is a lot more tame than it used to be. You should have been here seven or eight years ago, when [H] was much more loosely regulated.
 
How about we keep the thread on topic and stop with cat fights.
 
I believe that the biggest downfall in Linux is just the automated things such as Linux automatically installing drivers for all of your hardware. I've really only used Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 so maybe there are distros that automatically do that for you.

One thing I would suggest to Ubuntu devs would be to make the installation more customizable. Why not ask me to pick programs out of a list that I want installed along with the OS? Do I want something like XGL, Compiz or Beryl?

Linux is great right now for what it is, I love it. As for being more popular than Windows, I hope it never does. I say all the poor fools using Windows as a primary OS can keep the popularity . . . and the viruses, bloatware, BSODs and other bad things that come along with it. :D
 
I think if it ever did go mailstream, some big company like ms would f with it, and ruin it for everyone else.
But, I can see the time when they could be relasing M.S. Linux.
 
kunsunoke said:
An example would be the oxymoron "Microsoft Security". Stated facetiously, it's amusing because of MS's well-known and pathetic track record at keeping our boxen safe from on-line threats.
Click to expand...

See, that's another point of contention that I'll bring up here about the so-called "security" issues with Windows.

Look at it from this perspective:

Microsoft writes an OS. In the lab, they spent all their time focusing on getting the product to work, not tearing it to shreds looking for conceivable exploits, hacks, etc. They release it confident they've done a good job and created a fine product.

Once the product is out, a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their time decide, "You know what, fuck Microsoft. I hate 'em, and I'm going to do everything in my power, I'm going to focus my razor sharp hacking skills and look for things in this OS that I can use against them, even stuff they'd never dream up in their wildest nightmares."

And so it happens. Someone spends all of their time and effort doing everything they can to exploit "holes" in the OS that Microsoft releases just because it's Microsoft - or it could be any company really.

The point here is this: Microsoft's job is not to protect us, that's is an absolute impossibility.

Why is AV software typically useless? Because the software is designed to look for viruses primarily based on "signatures" that are created when a virus is noted, dissected, and then categorized and cataloged by the company that makes the AV software designed to prevent or "protect" you from such viruses.

You can't really stop a threat till you can identify the threat, and even then you may not be able to stop, prevent, or circumvent such an incident until it's already happened and the damage is done. It's like saying Cops exist to protect us, which is wholly inaccurate. The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not protect us.

Is it Microsoft's fault that someone spends all their time just looking for a way to bring them down? No.

Is it Microsoft's fault that someone does everything in their power to not only look for possible things to exploit but might create them literally out of thin air where none existed before? No.

Linux is what it is today because of the fact that it's based on the concept of the UNIX-style platform of data management and security. UNIX is older than most of us - even me - and has been hard tested in the bowels of most every research facility ever created, and it's the original backbone of the Internet for the most part.

And please, don't turn this into a semantics/history battle, what I just said was accurate enough for this discussion, please. We don't need "a battle of wiki articles" right now over all this. UNIX gave many people ideas, some of them worked on and created MINIX which inspired Linus Torvalds to create Linux in the first place.

Is Linux more secure? It depends.

More secure than what?

Windows?

It depends on what you're talking about, context is very important here.

But the standard "bash" from a UNIX or Linux user, especially the hardcore ones, is to lay the blame for exploits, hacks, attacks, viruses, etc. all squarely at the feet of Microsoft because "they're not doing enough to protect me, Joe Average, consumer that happens to own a computer, from the dastardly and wily skills of the latchkey kids next door that think it's cool to make my browser spam me with kiddie porn when I'm trying to send an email to my 99 year old Grandma wishing her happy birthday and congrats on making it to 100."

It the lamest argument of all in the Linux vs Windows debate. Windows is king of the hill, it gets more press, it gets more hate, it gets more hacks, more attacks, more theoretical-to-reality exploits because it's got 95% of the market, and we hear about it almost every time it happens.

Linux has a smaller share of the market, and yet it still has it's own share of security issues, even though it's based on the UNIX model, go figure.

It ain't a perfect world, and there ain't no perfect software that can save you from the most dangerous person alive... the one with nothing to lose. Most of the lamers, idiots, jerkoffs, dumbasses, and plain old no-life losers that spend all their time doing whatever they can to bring Windows down really should get outta the basement more often.

No matter what happens, people will always complain about the King on the hill and try to find chinks in his armor. If chinks don't exist, they'll do everything they can to create 'em, it's as simple as that. And no matter how much you bash or hate Microsoft, even they don't have the resources to stop such people from their chosen tasks.
 
It the lamest argument of all in the Linux vs Windows debate. Windows is king of the hill, it gets more press, it gets more hate, it gets more hacks, more attacks, more theoretical-to-reality exploits because it's got 95% of the market, and we hear about it almost every time it happens.

Linux has a smaller share of the market, and yet it still has it's own share of security issues, even though it's based on the UNIX model, go figure.
Click to expand...
Windows market share has been eroded a bit recently. It was sitting at about 97.46% in 2002, but nowadays it's down to about 93.3%.

Linux has picked up a bit. From the 0.26% market share it held in 2002 it's now up to around 0.35%. Mac has picked up most of the small erosion Windows has suffered, with handheld devices and TV web access picking up the remainder. Figures in accordance with net access assessment, of course.

That all doesn't mean that there are now less people using Windows. There are more people doing that then ever before. It does, though, indicate that Linux on the desktop really isn't going anywhere, and it does illustrate quite well the silliness of comparing Linux with Windows in terms of malicious exploits. If some dill wants to make his nonsensical 'statement' amidst a million people who is he likely to target it at? The 3500? Or the 996,500?

The argument about whether or not one is more accessible than the other pales into insignificance against the reality that one is a more relevent target than the other.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
See, that's another point of contention that I'll bring up here about the so-called "security" issues with Windows.

Look at it from this perspective:

Microsoft writes an OS. In the lab, they spent all their time focusing on getting the product to work, not tearing it to shreds looking for conceivable exploits, hacks, etc. They release it confident they've done a good job and created a fine product.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then we would not need AV suites.

Once the product is out, a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their time decide, "You know what, fuck Microsoft. I hate 'em, and I'm going to do everything in my power, I'm going to focus my razor sharp hacking skills and look for things in this OS that I can use against them, even stuff they'd never dream up in their wildest nightmares."

And so it happens. Someone spends all of their time and effort doing everything they can to exploit "holes" in the OS that Microsoft releases just because it's Microsoft - or it could be any company really.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has to at least be responsible for the secure design architecture of its operating systems. They are charging us a lot of money for those operating systems, and if they're gonna advertise that they have secure OS offerings they'd better back it up. Their history is not a good one. My satirical comment is a reflection of reality, as sad as that reality may be.

The point here is this: Microsoft's job is not to protect us, that's is an absolute impossibility.
Click to expand...

Then why are they making it their job, and why is one of the selling points of this new OS based on security? If MS now has a secure product, why do they try to compete against the McAfees, the Symantecs, etc. thru OneCare?

SNIP

Is it Microsoft's fault that someone spends all their time just looking for a way to bring them down? No.

Is it Microsoft's fault that someone does everything in their power to not only look for possible things to exploit but might create them literally out of thin air where none existed before? No.
Click to expand...

Such exploits would be less likely if backdoors and weaknesses were not part of the code. Unfortunately, they were. Microsoft responded to the threats by breaking our third party software (XP SP1). We as consumers deserved better than what we got as a supposed "fix".

SNIP

It the lamest argument of all in the Linux vs Windows debate. Windows is king of the hill, it gets more press, it gets more hate, it gets more hacks, more attacks, more theoretical-to-reality exploits because it's got 95% of the market, and we hear about it almost every time it happens.
Click to expand...

The attacks and hacks are reprehensible. Nobody condones them here, because they hurt and diminish everyone.

When it comes to the hate and to the bad press, MS has nobody to blame but itself. It's engaged in market tampering, monopolistic practices, and extortion of its OEM customers in order to dominate. Most other companies try to dominate through superior product engineering. MS simply kneecapped its competitors by denying them fair access to the same markets.

My point - if you're going to be king of the hill, you'd better be able to stand up on top. If you can't stand up, then you'll eventually get knocked over. If you can't stand under your own power, then you shouldn't be on top in the first place.

SNIP

No matter what happens, people will always complain about the King on the hill and try to find chinks in his armor. If chinks don't exist, they'll do everything they can to create 'em, it's as simple as that. And no matter how much you bash or hate Microsoft, even they don't have the resources to stop such people from their chosen tasks.
Click to expand...

Thanks in part to its unethical, illegal business practices, Microsoft is now one of the world's wealthiest companies. It should therefore have ample resources to ensure security. So why aren't we more secure?

The answer to that question has more to do with overall business philosophy of the company in question than with the nature of those launching the attacks.

But again, this thread is about what Linux has to do to attain Windows-like popularity, and we're way off target.
 
Linux and Macs have a greater share of the market now because the market has grown and more people own computers, not because Windows has "lost ground."

93.3% eh... I could go to 100 houses at random here in Las Vegas and I bet I won't find a Mac in more than 2, and Linux? Forget it. So much for statistics.

Macs don't even belong in this discussion since their OS is tied to the hardware; it's not a standalone product so it's not comparable. Microsoft is not in competition with Apple - now if someone could please explain that to Steve Jobs maybe we'd stop seeing those stupid ass commercials that play on Joe Average's gullibility and ignorance. And here I was thinking Jobs knew something about marketing.

Talk about relevance, geez...

kunsunoke said:
If that were true, then we would not need AV suites.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, there are AV suites for Linux too.

kunsunoke said:
If MS now has a secure product, why do they try to compete against the McAfees, the Symantecs, etc. thru OneCare?
Click to expand...

It's called "Holy shit, look at how much revenue they're making playing on people's fears... we gotta get some of that ourselves..." </sarcasm>

kunsunoke said:
Such exploits would be less likely if backdoors and weaknesses were not part of the code. Unfortunately, they were. Microsoft responded to the threats by breaking our third party software (XP SP1). We as consumers deserved better than what we got as a supposed "fix".
Click to expand...

As expected, you missed the point entirely. SNIP, indeed.

kunsunoke said:
<blank>
Click to expand...

I left that one blank to sortakinda make note that all I seem to get from anything you've said in this entire thread is "I hate Microsoft. They're big, they're mean, and I just don't like them." I might be reading it wrong, lord knows it's easy to do on the Internet with so many people that simply can't make their points clearly, but all I see is Microsoft bashing left and right.

kunsunoke said:
But again, this thread is about what Linux has to do to attain Windows-like popularity, and we're way off target.
Click to expand...

Always nice to see someone find their way again...
 
six_storm said:
I believe that the biggest downfall in Linux is just the automated things such as Linux automatically installing drivers for all of your hardware. I've really only used Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 so maybe there are distros that automatically do that for you.

One thing I would suggest to Ubuntu devs would be to make the installation more customizable. Why not ask me to pick programs out of a list that I want installed along with the OS? Do I want something like XGL, Compiz or Beryl?

Linux is great right now for what it is, I love it. As for being more popular than Windows, I hope it never does. I say all the poor fools using Windows as a primary OS can keep the popularity . . . and the viruses, bloatware, BSODs and other bad things that come along with it. :D
Click to expand...

I don't quite get you? are you after Linux to auto-load drivers (because it does!! Windows cant!). I have FC6 installed on an external 80gig HD and I plug it into 3 completly different PC's at work (one a laptop, one a Core2 desktop SATA, PCIe... and another a oldish P4) and everything just works

As long as the kernel is configured with lots-o-modules (even if not used) then they all will auto-load the correct drivers (even Gentoo).

As to Ubuntu and program choosing, I am afraid that is what Ubuntu was created for. One big learning curve with Linux (in some cases more so then the command-line) is what program does what, while FC/Suse/Mandrake... provide you with a list of of lots of different progs that do effectivly the same thing, Ubuntu simply went

"you want the web.. FF, you want piccies, Gimp, you want text edit, gEdit"
That way you have a fully functional desktop with no "what program does what", then you add what you want
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Last time I checked, there are AV suites for Linux too.
Click to expand...

Yes there are, quite a few. But those AV suites arn't to protect Linux form Linux-based viruses (none atm), they are their to protect windows when Linux is acting as a server with windows clients (one of the main uses is a linux as an email server)
 
eeyrjmr said:
are you after Linux to auto-load drivers (because it does!! Windows cant!).
Click to expand...

If that were true, no one would be able to install Windows at all and since it's on roughly 95% of the personal computers on the face of the earth, your statement there is patently false. It might not be as easily transportable as Linux is if and that's a big if actually IF a person needs to just yank out a hard drive and drop it in a totally new box.

But really: how often would Joe Average need to do such a thing?
 
Max Mike said:
Not on the desktop… Linux if anything in the last couple of years has lost ground as far as a desktop OS.
Click to expand...

Funny because I use it on my server, my desktop and even my cell phone. In my world Linux already won the battle.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
If that were true, no one would be able to install Windows at all and since it's on roughly 95% of the personal computers on the face of the earth, your statement there is patently false. It might not be as easily transportable as Linux is if and that's a big if actually IF a person needs to just yank out a hard drive and drop it in a totally new box.

But really: how often would Joe Average need to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

joe average.. depends.
and I wasn't really talking abt install (and even then windows only loads VESA drivers, std SATA,PATA drivers and that is it since that is all it knows). For a already installed Windows, pull out the HD and drop it into a different machine and be prepared to see a BSoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top