Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Permalink for comment 380366
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Maybe a system file is a file that is required by the system and should not be deleted?

Oh you mean like any file outside the users own file space? Again, once you actually get to the point that you have to or want to screw around with system files it does not matter if it's called "System Files", "Windows" or "/etc" or "/bin".
People aren't idiots, they can figure this stuff out when they need to.

Browse to \Program Files\Program and there are your files.

Except the ones that goes in "Common Files", "c:\Windows" or one of it's many subfolders. This is of course only "documented" in the undocumented file format the particular installer system the application used, if at all.
Yes, I can see clearly now how that is much better than to actually have a built-in system for keeping track of what files goes where.

Your user files are either there or in \Documents and Settings\User\AppData on XP, and in \Users\User\AppData in Vista.

It's nice to see that Microsoft has learned from *nix to give each users his/hers own file space.
How is "Documents and Settings" and "User" any easier to understand than "/home"?

Reply Parent Score: 3