OSNews:

Replies to Linux comments.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:18:00 GMT

What is your measure of 'boot time' -- my boot time is to get to a console. Windows (of course) boots into a gooey. If your 'kernel' boot time is longer then your entire windows boot time, prehaps making your own kernel would be in order. To say 'Windows boots faster than Linux' is a terrible statement for a paragraph. Just because you and other people don't know how to trim kernel fat, doesn't mean that other people do not, so please don't take us down with you. If you have to STRETCH to make a title work, odds are, try a new one.

Windows file system is clearer than Linux... Have you ever looked at ./configure? You could put files wherever you want, why do you have to say that they file system is more confusing with Linux. As for 'Downloads and Music' for windows, mkdir ~/Downloads ; mkdir ~/Music

I'm not sure why we are dumbing down stuff for 'newbies' -- I was a newbie 5 years ago and ran Slackware 7.x -- why is it that your are trying to tell me, and the other experienced users that choosing a boot loader is too confusing for a new user? I'm sorry if there are a lot of people who try new things and God forbid, have to read! But thats the way life is, maybe a little reading, and understanding that wasen't given to you with an associated fancy picture is something we need. My g/f understood how to install Mandrake on her computer, by herself, and no, she doesn't know any more about a windows install then a Linux install.

This whole thing reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:20:00 GMT

Young idealist pro-Linux people become enraged when someone, probably a clueless Zio... er non Linux person dares to mention good things about MS products.

Re: This whole thing reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:24:00 GMT

I would like to say that the post above me about Isreali/Palestinian conflict is suffering from severe mental retardation. This has no parallel to that or another conflict where people are dying and that was just a dumb pointless post trying to draw parallels to something in the real world.

RE: This whole thing reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:26:00 GMT

No political stuff here please. They always start worse flamewars.

Viruses

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:27:00 GMT

Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn't that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true.

Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don't have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face.

opinions, free speech, etc.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:27:00 GMT

Hearing people's opinions, good or bad, is the risk you take when you publish your thoughts. You shouldn't have to post a second article to justify your first. When you tackle the issue of Windows & Linux, you are going to get people flaming back and forth. Even if you just wrote one sentence, "I love both Windows and Linux." You'll get flamed just for listing Windows first and Linux second.

Now to my own opinion of your first article, I think the reason people were outraged by it was because you claimed that you weren't taking sides, that you liked both operating systems, but the path you took was pointing out all the good parts of windows and the bad parts of Linux. This seems VERY biased, even if that wasn't your intention. From a quick skim of the article it seems that you are saying, "Windows is not as bad as you think it is, but Linux sucks."

One of the worst parts of it was where you claimed that Linux had a crappy way of installing programs. Well, Windows is no better. Sure, I can grab a self-installing program off the web and install it by double-clicking on its icon. That seems pretty easy. Or, I can do "apt-get install gimp" and install gimp.

Now, you did say that you hadn't played around with apt-get enough yet to form an opinion, so perhaps you shouldn't have even mentioned it. Instead of just saying that Linux's installation procedure is "crap," you should have given examples of why it is crap... such as being stuck in RPM hell or whatever your experience is that makes you dislike it.

I guess my main gripe with your original article is that it didn't seem to say anything useful. It seemed to be something of a ramble instead of a coherent discussion and unfortunately, very few people understood what you wre trying to do.

It's the opposite

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:27:00 GMT

It's more like all the MS fanboys flaming down poor innocent Linux users just because they are the minority.
Listen MS zealots, just because you are the majority DOES NOT make you better!

Civilization

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:29:00 GMT

Keep it civilized around here, or most comments will go down. Don't flame and don't write flamebaits.

This article is flame bait

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:00 GMT

It's a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.

It's almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn't Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn't on a redneck forum.

Of course you'd have to remember that Ford would have to be found guilty of anti trust abuse of a monopoly position and Dodge and Chevy both to have much less of a market share...

RE: Viruses

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:39:00 GMT

Good point .

But it's not like I dont have a virus scanner, it's just that I dont run one in the background or anything. I ocassionally scan my disks (once a month or something), and I never have found a thing.

I think I'm really playing with fate here though

irrellevant either way

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:43:00 GMT

As usual, it is not the author's place to tell me what OS I should like.

Flame Bait?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:49:00 GMT

It is only flame bait if you wish it to be so...
Personally, I like Linux more than Windows (for a lot of reasons) - but I was perfectly able to read the articles without being offended by them.

Maybe because I happen to agree with the author on certain points:
- Surely, Linux is great (especially if you take into consideration the quality/price factor). But it isn't perfect (or bliss, if you will). And how would you expect Linux to improve if people who critizise it are ignored, flamed and banished from the community by loud-mouthed zealots who seem to be blinded by the forementioned bliss?
- The UNIX way of organising it's files is quite confusing to newbies... Not because files belonging to a package are spread all over the system, but because of the meaningless (for newbies) names for the directories...
What's in /lib? What's the difference between /lib and /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib? (and the same goes for /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and so on). There's no reason to have all these different places for binaries any longer. There was a time when that was practical, but it simply doesn't apply to the average desktop system.

It's a hot hot topic that really depends on your viewpoint.
That's not an excuse for being rude. People should be able to counter his arguments without starting flame-wars, of which we have seen enough already.

Yours sincerely,
Simon

Windows High Prices

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:00 GMT

I would like to inform you that windows does NOT fall in the category of high-priced software (think Oracle).

The Consumer edition of windows sell for the price of 3 computer games, which is nothing to cry about.

If the main reason for choosing linux was the CD's price tag, it would be a bit silly.
I think you totally missed the point of the Open-source vs Microsoft debate.

In any large organisation, the price of software licenses is less than 10% of TCO. If some of them choose Linux instead, it's certainly not because of the per-unit license price.

The main reason some organisations reject Microsoft in favour of open-source is to get rid of the Microsoft lock-in and proprietary data file formats.
Other organisations reject it for political reasons (think City of Munich) and it's also OK. Why pay millions to a very arrogant foreign corporation when you can give them to locals with a competitive product and at the same time get rid of an annoying lock-in?

Please stop posting flame-bait articles on OSNews if you do not bring anything new to the table.

RE: Replies to Linux comments.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:00 GMT

I'm always a bit amazed at how pissy some posters get just because someone else didn't share their experiences and preferences. These are the zealots who make learning difficult because they spend more time nitpicking and trolling than actually sharing information. Thanks, guys.

I'm also very amazed at the idea that so many in the OSS camp want only distros that are labor-intensive. Sorry, but most of us just want to work with our computers...whether we're using Windows, Linux, a BSD, OSX, or anything else.

Looking at the comment from KryptoBSD above provides an excellent example. He's abviously upset that some Linux distros are, as he put it, "dumbing stuff down for 'newbies.'" He then goes on to explain that he started off with Slack. Well, good for him. I'm glad he did it, and I'm glad he learned a lot. Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me. There are good, ready reference guides to help me through any problems I might have, and those are few and far between. He can continue to work with Slack, Debian, or a BSD if he wants the lean stuff...it's not like the major distros have pushed those by the wayside. Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the "easier" distros are ruining all the fun.

Well, too bad. I'm going to get back to work now...writing, not configuring.

RE:dumbing down stuff for 'newbies'...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:00 GMT

I don't think that you can ever make the process of installing and configuring an OS "newbie friendly" to the casual Windows user, no matter how easy you make it. The *process* of messing with your computer and installing different OS's itself is so intimidating that most people won't try it. When you think of it, most people don't even install Windows, they purchase computers with Windows pre-installed. They don't re-install it for years, and if something goes wrong they pay a tech guy to fix it which usually involves the re-installation of Windows.

And herein lies the problem with trying to make the installation and configuration of Linux "newbie friendly" - it's pointless. only more technically inclined users will try something like installing a different OS. That was kinda of topic right?

Fine, I have this to say: the state of Linux config files is a mess - every program has a different syntax for it's config files in /etc, just to configure your system you need to learn three dozen different syntax rules. Hell the larger programs have a different syntax for every one of their config files (X comes to mind), and to make matters worse, many apps now have XML based config files (fontconfig, gnome, gtk+, xfce4) which is a terrible way to configure your system. That's the number one problem I think - a lack of consistency and that needs to be resolved if one expects widespread adoption of Linux.

If Linux (not likely though) grows virus will come

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:51:00 GMT

Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.

But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let's say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.

I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry.

The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.

@ KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:51:00 GMT

Can your girlfriend reconfigure and recompile her kernel to improve boot time?

File System & Installation

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:54:00 GMT

What makes a Windows file system clearer than Linux's? Habit or better design? Perhaps you should ask yourself that.
And as for the installation, apart from the partition bit - and most (I haven't tried all distros so I won't say all) distros have an automatic partition utility - I don't see any stumbling blocks with Linux installations. Besides, it is an oft repeated fact but important nevertheless, a typical Linux distro consists of far more software - from Office suites to advanced networking tools - than a Windows installation; how many reboots does Windows take before the same or similar amount of programmes are installed? Unless one's happy working with Word/Notepad I don't see a typical home Windows installation being functional without additional software being added.

Lose, not loose

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:55:00 GMT

oh come on...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:56:00 GMT

Who took down my comment about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it was the perfect analogy to the Linux/Windows religious wars, it was gold!! Gold I tell you, I got a very positive response about that from my mom too.

No OS is perfect...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:59:00 GMT

I agree with the author, every OS has its flaws. Now whether those flaws cause you not to use an OS for certain things is personal preference.

Every OS has flaws. Windows has them, Linux does, BSD does, MacOS does, OS/2 does, BeOS does, etc, etc...

There's always going to be issues with every operating system, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't use them. We should use what works best for us and the situation we want to use it in.

Like Windows... I know I don't agree with Microsoft business practices at all, I hate Microsoft, I dislike Gates as well, but I use Windows here.

I also use Linux and OS/2 on a daily basis. and I've played with quite a few other operating systems.

All of them have "issues" which drive me crazy sometimes. But that doesn't make them bad operating systems.

I take a neutral position when it comes to operating systems and platforms. It does do any good to argue about the subject.

I think the author was right... Windows isn't hell nor is Linux bliss.

Every OS I've used seems to be a combination of both hell and bliss.

There's always going to be "issues".

RE : If Linux (not likely though) grows virus will come

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:00 GMT

You are clearly incompetent on the matter and do not seem to understand the least how viruses work.

Your attack on "Zeals" making virus to attack windows users is silly, gratuitious, and unfounded.

I would also like to know how "Linux [...] will allways be 5 years behind". What is your evaluation procedure and how do you obtain a score in years?

Other unsubstantiated claims :

"To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy".
For a complete beginner, there is no difference. Being a competent windows administrator takes time, experience and documentation. So is it with Linux. Maybe a new windows users have a better illusion of control than linux users. This should be analysed in details before any claim can be made.

"Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry."
Maybe Joe Sixpack suffer from a lack of information from his software company.

"The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens."
The only obvious clue what to do when something goes wrong with windows is "Hit the reset button". It is a blessing that doing so solves over 50% of windows problems. But you usually do not have any clue how the solve the other 50% of problems until you go through a serious troubleshooting process. Linux problems are solved the same way, by troubleshooting them seriously.

THE DONKEY, THE MAN AND HIS SON

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:04:00 GMT

Have you heard of the story of the donkey, the man and his son? One day, a man, his son and their donkey were travelling to a city. They all set off one foot one early morning. After having walked several hours, they reached the first neighbouring town. 'The gods be praised.', the people of the town clamored. 'Where I are from you and where are you headed?', they asked invitingly. 'We are from the neighbouring town and we are heading four towns away from this.', they responded.

'What idiots!', the people of the town retorted. 'You have a donkey and you walked all the way here on foot?!?' 'Surely the gods have cursed you.' The man and son pondered upon their stupidity, and decided to board the donkey on the next journey to the next town. The next morning they travelled on the donkey to the next town.

As they crossed the next town, the inhabitants muttered, 'Poor donkey; these two heartless souls sitting on a poor donkey.' 'How mean of them.' The man and the son pondered over their cruelty and decided on the next journey only the man will ride the donkey, while the son walks. That'll be less cruel on the animal they thought.

In the next town they were met with similar contempt. 'What kind of father let's his son suffer while he lavishes in comfort on top of a donkey?', the towns people angrily retorted. The father thought of his selfishness and suggested the son ride the donkey to the next town.

The hostility didn't get any better. 'Disrespecful kid', the people of the next town wailed. 'Your father has seen many years than you have, has worn more rags than you have and has been kind enough to bring you to life, yet you treat him with disdain while you travel comfortably on the donkey'. 'May you be cursed', the angry inhabitants shouted.

The moral of the story, Linux can't please the whole world. Also be kind enough to read my response on your first article titled "THE MASSES CAN GO TO HELL" That about somes it up.

I've found the linux file system to be more intuitive and better organised than Windows XP and it predecessors. The Reiser, ext3, XFS, JFS are all faster than NTFS and they hardly fragment like NTFS, FAT or FAT32 do.

My Gentoo Linux box boots up faster than my Windows XP machine. If you are so disgruntled about certain things in Linux the most productive and honorable way of going about it is to start a project to correct what you think are the defficiencies. Linux will never be windows or copy it. Linux will never be MacOS or copy it. To acknowledge that, is the to begin to understand the wisdom of Linux.

By the way, have you ever tried searching for binaries or executables in Windows? Are you telling me it's easier than searching /bin or /usr/bin? How about .dlls? Are you telling me it's easier than /lib or /usr/lib.

Friend, you need to come to terms with Linux. Bootup time, placement of files and filesystems hardly qualify as the problems facing Linux as it were today. In some instances, they are its merits.

Regards,

Mystilleef

Re: Brian

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:04:00 GMT

It's almost analogous of someone posting a why a Ford truck isn't Bliss or why a Dodge truck isn't on a redneck forum.

The implication that truck enthusiasts are all "rednecks" ?

viruses

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:06:00 GMT

Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven't we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?

Its probably because linux has more protection against such things. The system being naturally more secure probably has a bit to do. But the rest has to do with Linux having enough diversity that there will never be as many machines to be infected.

A single virus could wipe out all Windows installs, but a single virus wouldn't nescesarily effect Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, Gentoo, and Slack. In computing as with life, no genetic diversity is a bad thing.

To criticize Linux is a taboo.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:12:00 GMT

As in any religion. (sect?)

Re: Mystillef

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:15:00 GMT

Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.

And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.

On Virii

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:15:00 GMT

Can Virii be counted as Open-source software ?

Lack of reason is suffered by proponents of any operating system

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:15:00 GMT

The author writes...

" But for some (or a lot, I do not know) people, Linux has not been all that good. And to dismiss those people by saying "They should read a manual", "They will learn it, over time" and so on,..."

But this is almost exactly what many (not all) Windows enthusiasts say when one points out a Windows installation that boots slowly, or crashes often. It's always, "well, you installed it wrong" "your hardware is no good" "you have to know what you are doing".

This is why I claim that Window's alledged hardware compatibility and esse of installation are myths. Why is it the on the very same computer Windows chokes on configuring a video card, printer, scanner, dsl internet connection when Knoppix does not? Using the same logic as the author "...Well, if I find those things annoying, uneasy, or just plain stupid, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me..." if I find these problems with Windows, then sure as a rock there are people who agree with me.

The problem here is that the author takes generalities and drews conclusions from them (something that is done by many of all persuasions). From the author's second article...

"...I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here..."

That may be, but do your friends represent a random sample? Maybe they do, maybe they do not. I can show a group of people with little computer systems knowledge that have had nothing but trouble installing Windows XP and getting it to work properly. I can tell you that when the operating system is unable to configure your hardware (as Windows XP was for mine), the operating system that does do it without asking any questions (Knoppix) is far easier to install. But this is not enough to conclude that one is universally easy to install than the other.

This is not to suggest that Linux is better than Windows. Just that this author has stumbled into a disseration that exhibits the very problems that the author objects to. Just substitute lauding features of Windows (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced) instead of features of Linux (that are not universally appreaciated or experienced).

In attempting to display the faults in the evidence of superiority of Linux by its proponents, the author has provided the equivalent for an alternative operating system (although unintentionally). But maybe that was the point in the first place. Illustrate obsurdity by being obsurd.

Re: Brian

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:16:00 GMT

The implication that many rednecks are truck enthusiasts. Your logic skills need some fine tuning.

same is true

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:17:00 GMT

Please explain why linux users need to search for libs.

And applications make these handy entries in the Applications menu in Gnome.

To Captain Chris

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:20:00 GMT

"Me? I have a computer so I can be productive, not so I can be an administrator. Therefore, there are distros like SuSE and Mandrake for me."

I am an administrator, and desktop user. I used slackware for my desktop OS back when I started with Linux.

"Unfortunately, he (like so many others) takes a stance that I truly do not understand: that the "easier" distros are ruining all the fun."

Did I say anything about ruining 'fun' - I am talking about Linux. If you can't install Mandrake, read a manual. If you can't understand Slackware, read a manual. If you can't set your VCR clock, read a manual. But if we continue to remove the features which set Linux as LINUX and not Linux trying to be Windows, at what point does it even matter? It should matter, just like Mac OS isn't Linux, Mac OS isn't Windows, Windows isn't QNX... and so on goes the string. Please don't planet ideas that I didn't say. Making things easier, doesn't make it less fun.

Can Grandma use Linux?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:20:00 GMT

I don't think so. (Period).

RE: same is true

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:22:00 GMT

Wrong! Some applications make an entry in the Gnome menu, some make it in the KDE menu, some make it in both, and some make it in neither.

To DCMonkey

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:23:00 GMT

She doesn't complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical. Unlike the people who think that Linux HAS TO boot faster then Windows, to make it better then Windows... she accepts what she runs and doesn't bitch because she can't talk on AIM 5 seconds faster then Windows XP. For a NEWBIE article, why dwell on something like BOOT time, everyone knows its relative to what your hardware is, what your kernel is, what your system starting processes are, etc. Atleast the directory and other gripes were warrented to question.

Re: Best (Linux virii)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:27:00 GMT

Linux already has high market penetration in servers, so why haven't we seen a horde of viruses unleashed to attack servers running Apache?

I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you'd find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.

Re: same is true

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:28:00 GMT

Please excuse me, I only use Gnome applications, on my gnome desktop. KDE apps are added in thier own subfolders at the bottom of the applications menu in gnome, I have no idea what KDE does since I haven't used it in a while.

KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:30:00 GMT

She doesn't complain nearly as much as the writer of this artical[sic].

Well, I probably wouldn't complain much either if I had you around to show me what to do when shit doesn't work right.

Also, when you talk about 'dumbing down' the OS for newbies, you seem to have this mentality that "Well, since I had to do it this way, everyone else should too." That reminds me of somebody's grandpa saying "Yeah, when I was your age, I had to walk to school butt naked through 90 miles of snow."

Re: KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:32:00 GMT

The argument about boot time being different on different configs doesn't go; Of course I ment the diff's on a single config.

Do I have to spell everything out?

RE:RE:Mystilleef

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:35:00 GMT

Please explain why Windows users need to search for DLLs.

Good question, but I'm suprised you asked. There have been instances I've been plagued by 'Missing *.dll error' errors. Most users who have used Windows Long enough now what I'm talking about. When did you say you started using Windows again?

And applications make these handy shortcuts and entries on the start menu.

Yes, and if you've used Windows long enough, you most have experienced broken shortcut links both in the start menu and program files. In which case you begin a hunt to see if the executable is present at all in C:Progam FilesName of Filesearch a bunch or randomly ordered files.

I've never experienced broken links or missing libraries to begin with in Linux. But their instances when I'd love to launch a program both I errorneously use the programs wrong launch name. For example to launch xchat version 2, I can need to type xchat-2 and not xchat or xchat2. In such instance I find easier to search /usr/bin for the executable real name. Try that on windows, and tell me it isn't messier.

To Thom

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:00 GMT

To Darius

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:38:00 GMT

Yes, I had to show her around how to click the foot on GNOME and find the internet utilities category for GAIM. PHEW!

Too many errors

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:44:00 GMT

Forgive my typos, I was in a rush. It would be nice to have a preview button and some spell checker utility on osnews. :-) Don't you all agree?

Regards,

Mystilleef

Re: KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:53:00 GMT

Single configuration... of a Linux system... GOOD LUCK. If you are going to tell me that, then where are the system specs, your kernel config, and your init.d scripts, what your kernel has been patched with, on and on? How am I POSSIBLY suppose to make a fair judgement if your opinion isn't factually supported. I am sorry if you want to TELL ME that windows boots faster, SHOW ME it does. 'One onethousand.... two onethousand...'

If you were to compare a Linux distribution to Windows, you would pick one that is similar to Windows is usability, installation, and what have you. Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
I believe a fair pick would be Mandrake. And it certainly isn't booting as fast as Windows XP.
In fact, though you probably won't accept it as an argument, my Gentoo installation boots a little slower than my Windows XP installation (on the same machine). The Gentoo installation has everything optimized 110%, all sorts of performance-improving patches for the kernel (and X and so on), and it's still that little tad slower... (booting, not in operation) And no, of course I don't count in Apache and MySQL...

Of course, if you have the technical ability, you can make Linux work waay faster than any Windows installation... But few people have. As someone said earlier, not everyone bothers to take the time installing a Slackware, Debian (not the worst), Gentoo, [insert average geek distribution here]. Yes, if you can't figure out how to install Slackware, read a manual... But there is so much less manual-reading needed to install Mandrake, Red Hat, or Windows. Why? Because everything doesn't have to be configured. It is done automatically. Joe Sixpack doesn't like to tell his computer which kind of computer it is, he just wants it to do what he tells it to. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Simon

Argh!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:54:00 GMT

Thus, a distribution with a home-configured/-patched kernel, initscripts, etc.
Of course, I meant without... I'm in for the preview-button thing... ;-)

- Simon

RE:RE:Mystilleef

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:56:00 GMT

Mystileef, then we can agree to just have had different experiences. I have had the exact opposite experience you have (and since you asked, I have been using Windows since 3.1). I have never had any problems with DLLs with the exception of a single VB utility that did not come with a proper installer, and I have never had a game or application install broken menu entries with windows (although I have in Linux- Mandrake 8.2 had broken menus with the default install).

re: If Linux (not likely though) grows virus will come

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:02:00 GMT

There is some truth to the fact that if more systems exist, more will potentially be hacked. Viruses will never be the problem on Linux that it is on Windows since it has much stricter permissions to run programs. If you write an email virus you would need to get someone to execute the program by choice rather than active-x. Then it may work in kmail, but people are running evolution, pine, mutt, mozilla mail or any number of other programs to read their mail. It is possible to write a Linux virus but they will be more easily contained.

Also, if being more popular is the only reason for more viruses or hacks, then why is IIS hit more often than Apache?

RE: Viruses

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:03:00 GMT

By Vargasan (IP: ---.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) properly noted:

"Although I never experienced a single virus in my life (and I do not run a virus scanner, isn't that a miracle?), it is of course unquestionably true."

"Without a virus scanner, how do you know if you don't have a virus or not? Not all viruses are blatant and right in your face."

He doesn't know--as his offerings attest, he is a novice computer user.

Re: Simon

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:04:00 GMT

I don't disagree with you. I believe you Gentoo boots a little slower, I also belive my Debian boots a little faster, neither of us probably care that much. It's not wise to compare boot time between two operating systems period is the POINT I guess.

My take is that if people WANT a system that can boot faster, it can. If they don't care, like as in above whatever amount of posts, like my girlfriend, they live with it because it really doesn't matter. I just think it's a bad idea to CLAIM one thing, and not give proof, nor care to give any factually based information why you would say such a thing, or make a comparision like that in the first place, I still think he was stretching for a paragraph to write.

Who needs SCO; Bill's got better help.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:07:00 GMT

Bill Gates doesn't have to lift a finger to crush linux on the desktop, because so many people in the linux community are doing his job *for* him.

To think that we've got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling "RTFM" and "the problem is that people don't want to learn" and "linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD" and " 'Usability' is BS. Don't dumb down linux", and all the while we're concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it's impact on people adopting linux.

Windows - dislike, but respect

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:09:00 GMT

Well, I have been using Linux for a year now. I'm currently running Slack 9 and have tried just about every distro. Now I would like to bring forth my option about Linux and Window...

I'm gonna present my views as an experienced user because I don't believe in asking everyone to switch to Linux- its your choice and well, if you decide to try it, good luck with and hope you'll stay with the club!

1) Windows sux at multitasking- When you have some apps which consume a lot of resources or somthing that is heavily reading/writing files to your HD, the GUI responsiveness goes down to like 20 % Whereas in Linux, if you have a good kernel (I use the ck3 patch for 2.4.21), the GUI is about 90% responsive....low latency anyone?

2) Fun - to me, Linux is more fun because you get to play around and tweak stuff- its just my nature to mess with things and see how they work.

3) Feel Different- Hey, I can brag to my friends that I, unlike 85% of the masses, am using Linux :-D

4) Gotta love the console- do I need to say more? (with tab- autocompletion)

So, I don't hate Windows- I respect it for it makes some stuff easier, but my "Preference" is Linux...and I use Linux 99.9% of the time.

The author of the article has done a wonderful job and I would like to thank him for the same.

"I'm a die-hard Linux user" :-D

RE: Lorm

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:11:00 GMT

Lorm! Again you don't read!

Look at the posts! You'd notice I made a response already! God!

Is it really that hard to read? I'm not even gonna post it again for you-- You are making yourself completely ridiculous this way. Note that other's didn't comment on it anymore!

My God...

To Ilan Volow

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:13:00 GMT

Who said our community cares whether Bill Gates loses money or not? Our community just wants to use what we like. If others want to use Linux, go ahead. There are thousands of learning resources (incl. articls here) which help them. 'RTFM' isn't the nicest way to put it, but since when did reading the documenation associated with a product make you LESS intelligent?

I don't care if you run Windows or Linux. Please don't assume everyone on Linux even remembers the last time they used a Windows machine at home or work, because some of us do not. Why do you have to interject that we all want Bill Gates to see failure? I want him to use his power and fortune to release quality products and set standards which I can associate with. The new windows looks promising (longhorn I believe it is).

points 1,4,2 and three in that order

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:00 GMT

Your article could have been written without reference to windows at all, and would have cuased a lot less flame and might have generated some usefull commentary. You do not favor windows over Linux but have more issues with Linux than with windows. So write an article called "Timely Linux Questions for All Time" and detail therin all of your issues. Do so in a fashion that encourages suggestions. You are not the first with these issues, you will not be the last. I am ready for your third try.

Re: Who needs SCO; Bill's got better help.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:15:00 GMT

To think that we've got a bunch of folks who are internal to the linux community running around yelling "RTFM" and "the problem is that people don't want to learn" and "linux being hard-to-use is pure FUD" and " 'Usability' is BS. Don't dumb down linux", and all the while we're concerned about some silly external threat like SCO and it's impact on people adopting linux.

There are actually people in the Linux 'community' (and I use the word loosely) who don't want Linux to grow because they're afraid their exclusive tree-house club will become tainted by popularity.

The Original Article was a Troll?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:17:00 GMT

Here are some of the author's statements from the original article:

1. Linux would be all "bliss" if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times...

Only a user who constantly reboots or shuts down a machine would even comment on this. Maybe it is just me but I don't ever turn my computers off. And as noted by others, this statement does not apply to Gentoo.

2. ...if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let's say, Ati products

Try to install certain webcams, along with certain other pieces of hardware, in Windows XP and you have the same problem, so what does this statement prove, if anything?

3. ... if we forget the "geek" image of Linux

Which Linux has the "geek" image? Is it Xandros, Lindows, Mandrake, ELX or what? I better tell that to my friend who switched from AOL on Windows 95 to Mandrake 7.0 on Earthlink all those years ago. She will be quite surprised to learn she is a geek.

4. ...if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for

Oh you mean some Linux distros have to be paid for, just like Windows XP? Again, the point of this statement is what? What does it prove?

5. ...if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued

Oh you mean like how Windows 3.1 & 95 got discontinued?

6. ...if we forget the crappy way software is installed

Okay, first of all, configure, make & make install works on every distro I have ever used. Yeah I know that you may not have all dependencies installed, which means it won't always work, but that is what devel-rpms and devel-debs are for. But even if we ignore this information, tools such as apt-get and urpmi are far too useful to be called crappy.

Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.

Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader's expense.

"Viruses" not "Virii"

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:00 GMT

I suppose you mean "viruses". Virii means something totally different. This is a common mistake.

RE: Anonymous

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:22:00 GMT

Sorry, I'm not English. Viruses sounded kinda stupid. And since I had Latin in school I thought "Virii" sounded pretty smart

rebuttal o' mine

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:26:00 GMT

point 1:
Every windows system I've seen seems to load a bunch of stuff after one has logged in, including networking, plus all the other crap that goes in the system tray, while a *nix system tends to load (virtually) everything before login.

point 2:
You actually mean the file layout standards used, not the FSs themselves. In that case, one word: "PROGRA~1". They couldn't just call it "Programs"? it's even an 8-letter word! I agree that the traditional *nix way of installing can cause scattered-file-hell, but I would venture to say that the BeOS FS layout scheme reached just about perfection in clarity. Also, drive letters suck, and I've read they are finally going away (well, hidden) in Longhorn.

point 3:
Most users don't install the OS themselves. If a user is competent enough to install and OS himself, then he can probably figure out the fun GUI linux installers that come with most distros. Really, I'm no newb, and I've had a number of problems with Windows installs from 95 up to XP, from crashes to stalls.

Basically...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:26:00 GMT

...we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop. Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don't have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows. The original article was dead on, and this guy shouldn't have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one.

The vast majority of people using computers use it for a purpose. It helps them complete some task that would otherwise be much more difficult, i.e., spreadsheets, word processors, databases, etc. They neither "love" or "hate" Windows or Linux. For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people. If the underemployed geek sector of the economy wants to gnash their teeth about "dumbing down" Linux for newbies, they will simply be dumbing themselves out of future employment.

In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux.

Re: The Original Article was a Troll? (by OhPlease)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:39:00 GMT

Now these 6 statements were taken from the second paragraph of the orginal article. After reading that particular paragraph, I read no further and did not read the comments either, having seen the original article for what it was, a troll.

A troll? I think not! The author is simply explaining his opinions on different matters (which you may would have understood completely if you did read the whole article).

1. (already commented)
2. Compared to Windows, not nearly as many hardware devices are supported. This is, however, not Linux's fault, as a lot of drivers for Windows are developed by third party vendors (e.g. those who created the hardware in the first place). As Linux isn't quite as widely used, hardware vendors have not yet prioritized the development of Linux drivers very high... The will change, hopefully...
3. Using another OS than the one that was shipped with the computer is geekish, like it or not... In order to install a new operating system you need to have certain technical skills... Not to mention that (almost) only geeks would be unsatisfied with Windows.
4. I think it is the "suddenly" part that is the focus, not the "paid for" part... First it's free, then you have to pay for it, suddenly... That's not a healthy policy.
5. (no comment)
6. Agreed, software installation on some Linux distributions is 'crappy'... However, things like Portage (emerge), Debian's apt-get and Mandrake's urpmi are far superior to Windows' InstallShield thing, as they keep total control over every (every!) file installed in a central place, making maintaining installed software a breeze...

Now the author writes a second article, decrying the fact that he was flamed. He is either misinformed, or trolling a second time, at the reader's expense.
In fact, no one asked you to read the article... But since that's a lousy argument, I must say that I think it is justifiable to 'cry' about being flamed, as it is a very childish way of performing your opinions and shouldn't be exercised at all, especially not in supposedly mature boards like this one... (oh well)

- Simon

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.macmb101.mi.comcast.net)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:41:00 GMT

"we are seeing why Linux advocates will play very little part in the success of Linux on the desktop"

True. Linux will rise due to corporate use, then the workers will want to have it at home.

"Thankfully, the OSS coders working on the kernel and the mountain of apps available for Linux don't have the time to screech every time someone dares make a positive statement about Windows"

A positive statement about Windows !=FUD about Linux, which is what we are combatting here.

"and this guy shouldn't have felt it necessary to write a follow-up addressing the egos rumpled by the first one. "

Trolls always generate heavy responses.

"For Linux to have mass market success, it will have to be usable by these people."

I see, Linux is not yet usable by these people. Better tell that to Burlington since they have it on the desktop now, and lo and behold! It is already usable!

"In short, I think Linux advocates have far too much time on their hands. Time that could better be spent coding and improving Linux."

And the Windows trolls couldn't possibly have too much time on their hands, could they? And could their time be better spent plugging/finding security holes in Windows?

Say, are you related to the author of this article?

RE: XBe, I guess it's a matte rof perpective

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:42:00 GMT

//Obviously Windows is target for a lot of viruses. Since they more than 90% of the market and Linux not even 1% sure viruses is on Windows side. BEsides, many viruses are written by Zeals who just plain hate windows.//

This is a common misconception. Most people write viruses to take down servers not someone's home machine. There is no fun in that. Unix/Linux/BSD owns the server market, espicially webservers yet more windows machines get hacked and get infected with viruses. Windows is too careless in letting arbitrary code to run. This along with the tight integration between several programs (office, outlook, ie) and the kernel creates a perfect breeding ground for viruses.

//But if Linux (not very likely as it will allways be 5 years behind) ever see a market share of let's say 20%, viruses will become a lot more common. Just like viruses for MacOS has been a smallish problem, this is something that comes with market share.//

Linux is not 5 years behind, not even close to it. It is very much on the same level if not better. I believe that some of the easier distributions are just as easy to use and install as Windows. That's besides the point though. What is more advanced about the Windows kernel that the Linux kernel is 5 years behind?

//I think the point of installation which also people keep buggering about is sort of silly. To maintain a Linux system is simply hell, and Windows feels easy. Joe Sixpack doesn't care if things get left behind in registry.//

Do you have any experience with maintaining a Linux machine? I left windows because of the maintnence issues. Maybe your experience has been better but that doesn't make it fact. For me Windows has destroyed my computer several times. Many programs won't uninstall, dll's from other software break the system, and programs tend to always find a way into the system tray. Inexperienced users never delete any of the 50 million icons off of the desktop and they never remove items from the system tray. After a while the system becomes unusuable. I love trying out new programs but with windows it's not a good idea to install and uninstall programs over and over unless you plan on doing a reinstall of the entire OS. That has been my experience and the biggest reason for my switch.

//The good thing though about Virus for Windows is that it's quite obvious where you should go to solve the problem. WIth Linux, you don't have a damn clue whatsoever what to do. That wouldn't just concern viruses, that would concern pretty much whatever happens.//

Where do you go for viruses? If you have thrid party software that will help you, until your subscription expires. Most people never update their subscription. On the other hand there is always a place to go when you have a problem with Linux. It's called the internet. It works wonders when you have a problem. You can even get a hold of a real live guru on IRC if you need to.

With cars, choice is evident

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:46:00 GMT

If we compare Windows and Linux to cars, I think that the choice is evident.

The Windows car :

- Automatic (Wich reflect the ease of use).
- Sometimes stops without any reason.
- Goes at a correct speed.
- You can't do any internal modifications. (Good for ordinary people)
- Just a little bunch of models.

Price : about 300 $ (Add more cash for every ad-on)

The Linux car :

- Build on a better standard than the Windows one.
- Manual (I mean by that less facility of use at the begening).
- A choice of a lot of models.
- Goes at a correct speed.
- You can do any internal modification.

Price : Free !! (Add-on are free also)

So if you have the choice between two products that are comparable when we talk of quality but one of them is free, I think that the choice is evident.

to save you all time...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:46:00 GMT

..basically the author has nothing new or interesting to say; he just was irritated by the criticism meted out to his article when it ran. Eugenia, I love OSNews, but even on a slow news day this has no place on the site. It's just a catalog of poorly-thought-out critiques and whining that the posters here are linux snobs. I'm a strong advocate of the "linux != panacaea" point-of-view, but this guy's attempt to make his point embarasses all of us.

KOMPRESSOR

Great Article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:51:00 GMT

I wish I could have written an article like this one. Your are the second person in my life I've seen writing an article about windows and linux and being neutral. Good work and everything you says is true, absolutly true. I used so much distribution and this is the same details which makes me choose windows after all. Boot slow, lack in standards (interfaces), not intuivite, programs takes time to start (Like open office). I dream about the day you will buy a computer and you will hear "Windows Or Linux". This will be great. But, unfortunatly, the Linux community must answer a simple question : "Do you really want this ?". I think most pple use linux because it makes the ego feel well like ("I'm a better computer user, I use linux! With linux I have to configure everything myself which makes me a better computer user than windows user cause windows is "too eazy".) If the linux community REALLY wants to see linux as high as windows for desktop use, you'll to know that linux will have to be easy as windows or easier or a lot less expencive. Anyway, If I have some reply like "your are too much inexperienced, it will only show everything I said about the ego thing is true.

Good Work Thom "Slakje" Holwerda, I'll be glad to see other article like this one.

RE: Darius

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:00 GMT

// I would imagine that most people writing Windows virii/worms are actually using Windows desktops, so it makes more sense to program on platforms that you are familiar.
If you were to go back and look at all the hacking/cracking tutorials on the Internet in the early-to-mid 90s (back when the Internet was mostly the domain of Unix gurus and before hacking Windows became a professional sport), you'd find that almost every single one of them were for Unix.//

All 10 of them huh? Nothing like the thousands for Windows.

I'm quite sure this was mentioned here before...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:00 GMT

Windows XP does have a nice boot time... mind you this is for it's BOOT -- however, it continues loading things AFTER you're on the system. I've notice this and find it a great deal more annoying because my system pretty much stops responding for a few minutes after it has "booted" -- until all this stuff gets loaded, and while I can sit and stare at my desktop, it's unable to use until everything is fully loaded (at least use properly). What I would see as a very interesting project is the removal of INIT from Linux on a distro... WHAT YOU SAY!#%!#%!#$@^@$^!#$^ Yeah, why the hell not? Why not have your login manager as the first thing executed after you boot up? Then services can be started and stopped according to what user you choose or what environment. My kernel goes from load to init in maybe a few seconds... X takes all of a few more to start up, so I'd probably be seeing a login screen in about 6 or 7 seconds on my system if this were the case. Furthermore, Linux seems to load things post boot more efficiently than Windows -- and I don't tend to see any huge drop in desktop responsiveness -- thus, loading daemons and services that my specific user account is designed to load, I'd be able to not only config what gets loaded per user but I'd be able to begin using things immediately.

Furthermore, as I said you could have environments -- login managers could easily add some sort of profile for various environments: IE: server, desktop, development station etc... all services being loaded when the user logs on, and killed when the user logs off, thus, if server environment is choses, the argument that boot time doesn't matter because of infiinite uptime truly starts to make sense. -- then again, I don't run a server with X anyway, but some people do, and this would make perfect sense.

Here's my opinion

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:03:00 GMT

What's wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows.

1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!

2) Then why don't you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You're not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don't like that you are free to use anything else.

3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven't tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year.

Please don't be offended by this; but it would be better for all of us if you could think through your articles properly. Please see Kuro5hin for a good example on how to write article that catches people's interest. I understand you are very young and it is exciting to read your stuff "in print" but you will get much better response if you write more throughly.

3 points, Linux viiring and others

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:30:00 GMT

The points against linux I disagree with. Not that I'm a zealot, I just beleive you haven't looked at everything that's available.
1. -Windows boots faster than Linux-
If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn't come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don't take this one out though, it's very usefull], portmap, so on) you'll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast.

2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux'-
I'm not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that's true, but I prefer the Linux version. There's something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It's comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It's just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other.

3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux'-
Lwindows. It's so much simpler to install then windows, it's not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray.

Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you're running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That's why it's good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use.

I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that).
An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a 'RTFM'. Most people aren't used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus).
So in the future when you see a person ask you, 'Where is MS office in linux' just answer kindly, and move along.

games...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:30:00 GMT

My experience is that Linux can be tweaked to load and to run desktop apps faster than Windows XP. (hdparm, kernel recompiling, etc.) Actually, the only reason why I haven't formatted Windows from my hd is that most of the computer games I have bought only run under Windows.

On the other hand, tweaking Linux and finding out which distros, desktop environments, window managers, or applications you like best can be the most fascinating computer game ever invented. I think that many people love to play the problem solving game called Linux and this may also be why Linux advocates tend to be so passionate about their OS.

Re: Here's my opinion

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:35:00 GMT

Quote (Jonas B.):

"What's wrong with your article is that you say Linux, which is a kernel, and compare it to Windows."

People always bring up this argument in Linux VS Windows debates. When people refer to 'Linux' and compare it to Windows, it is understood that what is being referred to is Linux as an operating system; the common collection of software thrown together by distributors.

"1) My Linux boots faster than any Windows box. The kernel is up in a split second. I agree with your observation that most distributions have chosen a traditional unix-like startup which takes quite some time. It is not difficult, however, to use another init-script which boots exactly as fast as you want. Try doing that with a MS Windows distribution!"

Ok, I'll agree with you that the _kernel_ boots quickly, but how do you know the Windows _kernel_ doesn't boot just as quickly? Secondly, I'd like to see how some default init scripts could be custom-tailored to match the loading speed of Windows _while_ retaining a reasonable amount of functionality for desktop usage. (I'm not saying this is impossible - I'd be interested if someone who did it could show me.) Also, the point is that Linux systems generally boot slower out of the box than Windows systems. No modification should be necessary to have Linux boot faster. If it indeed is capable of booting faster while maintaining its current functionality, why haven't I see it yet?

"2) Then why don't you use GNU Stow or any similar packing system which arranges files that way? The Red Hat way is a feature! You're not supposed to access the application files directly through the file system utilities but with the rpm (or dpkg for Debian) utility. If you don't like that you are free to use anything else."

If you organize files in a different format from the Linux norm, chances are you'll run into problems sooner or later when a program tries to install itself into the default locations. Then you'll have inconsistency with some of your packages installed one way and some installed the other way. Also, suppose your package manager somehow failed to install a package, or you have some commercial software which uses its own custom installer (and doesn't have an uninstaller). Now it will take more work to identify and delete each individual file of the package, because it is scattered throughout the file system. Compare this to just deleting a package's directory. This is the advantage.

"3) I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution. I suspect you haven't tried this on your friends at all, at least not during the last year."

You are only somewhat correct. There are tons Linux distributions whose installers require much more user knowledge/input than an install of Microsoft's latest offering, XP. Admittedly, some installers (LindowsOS, Xandros come to mind here) require even less technical know-how than XP's installer, but those types of distributions are far fewer in number.

Verry Pissed

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:45:00 GMT

Warning: Today I'm pissed so I may get in you face

I didn't bother reading the bloody coments (exept the first) but hers mine.

I HATE Windows and Linux ( if you care why, it's explained here http://madalien.com/archive/000038.html ) but personal view aside i still find increadible how some people defend their "side", there isn't a single OS in the world that ALL people will like, and that's what the author is trying to say (if not the stupid me).
If works for you it works for you, that doesn't say jack about everybody else some people will always more of the good other will see more of the bad becouse all OS's have them.

And for the Linux worshipers: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T NEED TO BE ROCKET CIENTISTS TO HAVE A GOOD TIME USING A COMPUTER did i make my self clear? so no more talking about those dam kernel recompile, config file messing or whatever you pour bastard think everybody should know how to do.

PS: And if all you gona do is say my speeling is bad don't even botter.

RE: Verry Pissed

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:52:00 GMT

Computers aren't toasters. They do 1000x more things. Don't expect them to be as easy.

Yeah, everyone knows how to use a TV, but can they fix it? Most likely not. You can easily teach someone to use any operating system, but if theres a problem,thats when they have to have some knowledge.

Re: 3 points, Linux viiring and others

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:07:00 GMT

Quote (T'Eval):

"If you take most of the services out of Linux, ones that Windows doesn't come with (like apache, sendmail, chron [don't take this one out though, it's very usefull], portmap, so on)"

Windows XP by default also has some default startup services that are not strictly necessary for a desktop system. Also, I would not say that /most/ of the Linux services are unnecessary, as I've tried removing unnecessary services before, but the resulting boot time still does not match Windows. In addition, desktop-oriented Linux distributions should already have such non-desktop services removed from boot, although I find that even desktop Linux distributions are slower than Windows in boot.

" you'll see Linux booting up very quickly. Also if you change KDE to something very lightweight, or even the console, it will be lightning fast."

Sure, you could say that swapping KDE with something like Fluxbox or simply the console would make it lightning fast, but you could also describe it as "doesn't have many features." A typical response to this is that much of the functionality is unnecessary and creates bloat - while this may be true for a good portion of KDE, there are features that are convenient to have, some that are aesthetically pleasing, and others that genuinely contribute to greater productivity.

"2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux'-
I'm not very sure about that. It took a while to get used to, that's true, but I prefer the Linux version. There's something to be said for apropos, and infoman. And having everything in 1 folder makes finding things much faster then in windows, you only have to search though 1 folder-worth of files to find what you need. Not all of Program Files.
It's comparable to people who are new to Windows having to get used to clicking Start to shut the computer down. It's just a different way of doing things, and a person can prefer one or the other."

There are aspects that give one way advantages over another, above a simple user preference. Consider the manual uninstallation dilemma I touched on in my prior comment - this exploits a nice trait of the "put all package files in one directory" approach - you do not have to know each individual file of the package to manually remove it - just the package directory.

"3. -Windows installation is easier than Linux'-
Lwindows. It's so much simpler to install then windows, it's not funny. (literally 3 clicks to install it) Even the programs are much simpler to install using their click and run (never used it.. just from reviews). Windows installation is generally a horrible and grusome process for me personally. I have my own company building computers, and many windows installations, especially upgrades go astray."

Many Linux distributions also go astray. This is especially true of the desktop audience, where a broad range of exotic hardware is present, and Linux does not always contain the necessary drivers or workarounds for them. (Sometimes Linux even can't cope with them; my friend has had Linux lock up on him, it choked upon recognizing his hard drive).

Also, not all Linux distributions are as simple as LindowsOS to install. (I do agree that LindowsOS is much simpler than Windows to install, however.)

"Linux viruses will never be as potent as windows ones. Unless you're running root, which is really not recommended, they will only affect files the user in question has access to. That's why it's good to make an acct. with very few priviledges for regular use."

For basic desktop usage, there is only one user anyway. It would not be too difficult to write a virus to delete all files in the user's home directory. While this may not harm the actual system in any form, for a desktop user it is just as bad. In addition, judging by the many users who are click-happy and willing to run any kind of random program, if the software cannot do any harm without root privileges, they will request it and the naive ones will grant access. Bam - system destroyed When it comes down to the core, security is about trust.

"I think the main problem with Linux is a lack of easy program installation (except for Lwindows, but you need to pay $4 something monthly for that)."

Yes, dependency hell is a problem. Although Debian seemingly solves this problem elegantly with apt-get, the stable and testing branches are horribly outdated, and the unstable branch is, well... unstable (yes, I have used Debian Unstable for quite awhile before I got sick of random breakages and constant package maintainance problems). Gentoo is not much better; there appears to be almost no QA testing at all, and compiling big packages and their dependencies takes ages.

"An even bigger problem are zealots. That refuse to answer questions, and present people with a 'RTFM'. Most people aren't used to that, and we where all Linux newbies at one time (well.. except for Linus). So in the future when you see a person ask you, 'Where is MS office in linux' just answer kindly, and move along."

I couldn't agree more.

RE: DragonSoull

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:12:00 GMT

//i've used windows (xp currentelly) for 5 years, and linux for a couple of days, with windows i found things of all kinds to hate him, with linux i just dislike the way it's done (but i do like the consept, so linux groupies calm down, ok )//

What concepts do you like? What don't you like about how it is implemented? I think you're just a troll tyring to give your stance more credibility by your semi-positive remarks. After all you claim to only have used Linux for a couple of days while you have used Windows for 5 years. Who the hell would trust anything you say about Linux?

//And for the Linux worshipers: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T NEED TO BE ROCKET CIENTISTS TO HAVE A GOOD TIME USING A COMPUTER did i make my self clear?//

Fine, then don't use it. Most Linux users seem to have plenty of fun with their operating systems and most are not rocket scientists (that's spelled with and S my friend). As it is apparent from your spelling you are definitely NOT a rocket scientist. It is also apparent that you prefer to get your panties in a bunch because someone has defended Linux. Oh no! You used Linux for a couple of days once, you better set them straight.

The standard RTFM response and other issues

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:29:00 GMT

//Gentoo is not much better; there appears to be almost no QA testing at all, and compiling big packages and their dependencies takes ages.//

While I'd have to agree that gentoo unstable can easily break a machine if you don't know what you are doing, the stable branch works quite well and I never have a problem with it. Dependecies suck but gentoo and debian do a very good job at satisfying them. How is it different from dll hell anyway? Yes it does take a long time to compile but it is a SOURCE distro. It's not a big surprise.

As for the standard RTFM response:

1) Try Gentoo! The forums are very friendly and helpful

2) Sometimes it is a valid response. There are a lot of people out there who just pick a Linux distro and don't read a god damn thing but want all the answers from somone. After years of answering the same questions many of the distros have manuals or FAQs of some sort. They are there for a reason. Some newbies just have absolutely no patience and refuse to look around for answers themselves. Then they want to complain that no one is helping them when they are told that there is an FAQ or manual that explains the answer already. It's quite understandable to be a little irritated if you have to answer the same question 100 times a day even though it is clearly explained in what should have already been read. With that said, I do believe some people could be a little nicer about telling people to RTFM.

RE: DragonSoull abraxas

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:32:00 GMT

What i like about linux: it's OSS, it's made of pieces like lego you imagenation is the limit.
What i hate about linux: it was not made with desktop in mind X11 seems to been pasted onto it, it's made of pieces like lego so you can kiss standarts goodbye

I don't defend any side, or atack it, i just dislike comments like "problems? just recompile the kernel" some people just want to use the dam thing, they don't care to learn how it works "inside" and nobody should force them to.

Has always some one comented my speeling, ok so i'm a lousy writer, so i wasen't born in a country that speeks english, what does that say about me, my comment and the topic?

RE: Great Article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:00 GMT

"I think most pple use linux because it makes the ego feel well like ("I'm a better computer user, I use linux! With linux I have to configure everything myself which makes me a better computer user than windows user cause windows is "too eazy".)"

This is not true in all cases.
I never had a home computer for most of my life. I finally purchased one from Best Buy 4.5 years ago. Of course it came with Windows 98. For the next year and a half, I could not surf for more than 15 minutes at a time. Internet Explorer would crash every 15 minutes, and bring the whole system down with it. Yes, I kept 98 updated completely, checking for updates once a week. Yes, all of my hardware was correctly installed and configured.

After a year and a half in Windows, I only wanted two things:

1. I wanted to know why people were paying for Windows, especially businesses. I knew I would never pay for it again if that was how it performed.

2. I wanted to know what could I use other than Windows, that might not be so crashy.

Luckily, I found out about Linux on the internet and even more luckily, found a business near where I lived that would help with Linux installs and hardware configuration, one night a week.

I took the plunge. The people at the business helped me do the install and off I went. Linux left me absolutely amazed. You see these articles all the time now about how Linux is not ready for the desktop, but imagine how it was 3 years ago. Yet, I could connect to the internet and surf for extended periods of time, with no problems at all. Everything just worked. I didn't have to reboot just to install new software or load a driver.
There were a thousand little things about Linux that just made the entire experience more pleasant. It literally took me 6 months before I realised, I never needed to turn the computer off again. I just thought turning it off at night was normal and necessary before Linux.

Now it wasn't the easiest ride to get into, as I knew nothing about computers. And I am grateful I had help. But the system was like a Rubik's cube that I had to wrap my mind around to learn. I had no clue for the longest time it was "unix-like." But over time. it began to make more and more sense. One day, it all finally clicked and came together - the file system - the permissions - the services - they all clicked. And the design of it all left me absolutely astounded and still does. It was only then, that I understood WHY it performed so much better than Windows 98. The design of the system, from the ground up, is ingenious, and still is.

Now there are those who will say, oh if windows 98 was crashing it must be a hardware issue. That may well be true, but all I know is, that same hardware issue did not exist, nor reoccur in Linux, EVER. Then there are those who say, well you need to try Win XP, as all of those 98 issues are now dead issues in Win XP. I have installed Win XP 4 times in the last two years. I just can't get with it, even though I have tried. It makes no sense and I have no control over the system. What you have to do to lock it down alone is more than I am willing to do. Why would I spend time trying to lock down XP, when I can build Linux from the ground up, with ONLY the services I need enabled? It is so much easier to start with nothing and ADD what is needed, than to go find the huge list of what I don't need and is dangerous to have enabled, and to then remove them. And quite frankly, Microsoft lost all of my trust, due to the instability of Windows 98. I don't see them ever having me as a customer again. So XP has never stayed on my system for more than 10 days. I remove it and go with what "just works" EVERY time, no matter what distro I am using at the time.

So please, don't automatically assume everyone who uses Linux thinks it makes them a better or superior person. I will never buy another Chrylser for ever similar reasons.
I found a better mousetrap FOR ME, and beat the path to the door.

@KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:41:00 GMT

You have misunderstood what I wrote. I don't believe you read it very carefully, which you should do if you're going to respond. My point is that there are myriad distros, and just because one distro is made simpler does not mean another one is. Sorcerer, Gentoo, and Debian are no more simplified now than they were five years ago. If that's what you want, fine. Have a good time, and I wish you all the best. But don't whine about those of us who want a system that requires less maintainance from us. I am not a sysadmin, and I do not have the interest or the time to become one just for my computer.

Face it, folks: other than the kernal, Linux is no longer a single entity. It has branched off into avenues that satisfy a broader number of people, and that is why it is succeeding.

Re: Who needs SCO; Bill's got better help.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:49:00 GMT

There are actually people in the Linux 'community' (and I use the word loosely) who don't want Linux to grow because they're afraid their exclusive tree-house club will become tainted by popularity.

Wow, Centinel, I couldn't have said this better myself...and I love Linux.

By the way, I would also like to echo some previous sentiments: this was, in my estimation, a well written article. Good job.

Re: The standard RTFM response and other issues

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:57:00 GMT

Quote (abraxas):

"Dependecies suck but gentoo and debian do a very good job at satisfying them."

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, both Debian and Gentoo have their own handful of problems that can render them unacceptable for desktop usage, as I was trying to point out earlier.

"How is it different from dll hell anyway?"

Short answer: DLL hell is less of a problem than Linux's dependency hell.

Notice how the supposedly problematic "DLL hell" is not nearly as ubiquous as Linux's "dependency hell." Why? Well, much of Windows software distributes the necessary DLL's along with the application (the software maintainer is responsible for tracking and including dependencies) Since this is not a commonplace practice among Linux software developers, this solution is impractical (it would be hard to persuade all Linux software developers to distribute their respective packages with its dependencies). Debian and Gentoo carry out a slightly modified solution to "dependency hell": instead of making every software developer distribute dependencies with their app, the burden of tracking and including appropriate dependencies falls on the distribution maintainers. If the responsibility of tracking and including package dependencies is delegated to nobody, then you have dependency hell.

"Yes it does take a long time to compile but it is a SOURCE distro. It's not a big surprise."

Which is why Gentoo is not a proper solution for your newbie Linux desktop user (the point I was trying to make originally).

Gentoo isn't 5 years old.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:58:00 GMT

One thing I do hope would change in Linux

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:16:00 GMT

Is the case sensitivity of the file system. Maybe there are technical reason for it being so, but I think it is not necessary, especially with long file name support. All that is required is to reorganize directories to make sure you do not have the same names of apps or files.

Secondly, I once suggested that there be 'executable folders' on some other forum. These would be folders which allow executable apps in them to run, with restrictions of course. These folders could then be given some extra restrictions themselves. No executables would be allowed to run from elsewhere. This could mean extra security.

Thirdly, hidden files. All that is needed is a hidden file attribute to be added to the file system spec. This .files are hidden makes it difficult to work with them. I would like to be able to hide files I do not need to see with ease, without having to update references to them to include the dots.

Some of this is just a sleepy me ranting off before I go to bed. Before I am flamed, these are just suggestions. You do not have to take me seriously.

RE: rebuttal o' mine

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:39:00 GMT

Are you JOKING me? When was the last time that you've seen progra~1? I can tell you the answer: not since DOS and Windows 3.1! Files had to have eight-character names. In Windows 95 and on (or maybe it was Windows 98 and on, in any case, five years ago) it's fixed. When I saw "progra~1" I had almost forgot what it meant. Unless you really HAVEN'T seen Windows since 3.1/95, this is most definitely a flamebait.

Re: Null and Maynard

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:48:00 GMT

@Null: Linux simply cannot use the same system as Windows. Its development model is entirely unsuited to it. In the Linux world, there is no central authority to impose standards on application developers. Whether there should be is debatable, but the simple fact is that such an authority would be unfeasible. As a result, software exists as a collection of independent projects, which are weaved together by distro makers. From my experience with advanced package management systems like Portage, Apt/DPKG, and Apt/RPM, the model seems to be working very well. In my years of using Linux, the only time I ever had problems with dependency hell was (early on) when I tried to treat Linux like Windows and download and install RPMs manually.

@Maynard: From a programmer's point of view, the first two ideas are terrible. Very unorthogonal and hackish. While something like this may be easy for the user, it cannot be the *right* solution. The *right* solution is obviously correct both from a developer's standpoint and a user's.
1) The underlying system should be precise. Ignoring case is imprecise. If case-ignoring properties are desired, they should be implemented higher up, perhaps in the file manager. New users point-and-click anyway, so file paths are pretty much irrelevent.
2) The user should be abstracted from the filesystem representation of how programs are installed. Programs should just be little links in a menu, nothing more. Executable folders become irrelevent at that point.
3) Great. Except, filesystems should have arbitrary metadata rather than a single-purpose hidden bit, and the file manager should be configurable to filter files based on arbitrary metadata.

Maybe I like Windows?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:37:00 GMT

"although I do not state that your OS is as important as your girl"

Keep in mind that some posting comments might have an "Operating System" INSTEAD of a girlfriend.

"...I know for sure that if I would ask some of my computer-illiterate friends to install both Windows and Linux, they would say that Windows was easier to install. So I am talking about the newbie here..."

I am the IT department for a company with about 100 desktops, 200 users, 5 servers, 3 "servers", and a WAN that covers about 75 miles at four locations. I also do computer work and consulting on the side working for myself. I live in a small community and don't accept new customers more than ten miles away.

When I read the comment above I suddenly realized how much my side work has increased since Windows XP came out. Before XP I had about a dozen customers. Since XP I have about four dozen.

Except for two using OS X (they bought Macs at my recommendation and I don't get much business from them anymore) nearly all these customers are running XP.

I have one customer who has installed it himself. Others have tried, but then found me in the yellow pages.

The customer who installed it himself has a machine which is in need of a reformat and reinstall due to a massive klez virus infection. He wants me to install XP for him this time because of how much trouble he had doing it last time.

Hmm... I think I would decide to LIKE Windows XP if it didn't take time away from spending it with my girlfriend.

Now I'm convinced

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:07:00 GMT

Sorry, but when I read your first article I thought ... Now I'm convinced.

P.D. Don't take me wrong, go out, you have a life, enjoy yourself, relax. True I'm not trying to annoy you. You like Windows, great! use it. You don't, use Linux. You'd like Linux to be different. Hey! you are in luck! change it! OGL allows you. Smile, be happy.

Unlike your first article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:34:00 GMT

This one is not pure flamebait. If you start out an article slandering the users of an OS you will not get anywhere.

This article is a lot better.

Operating systems or DEs

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:46:00 GMT

Linux is all about choice. Multiple Windows Managers, DEs, platforms, development tools, shells, apps and anything else you can think of.

Along with this freedom of choice is the possibility of making (only?) poor choices and ending up having a very bad time. ;-) (Please don't write an article comparing linux to windows if this is your experience!)

Another thing to keep in mind - using distro X(your fav) doesn't make you a linux expert. It just means you've been exposed to a pre-selected collection of apps/services/pkg management / functionality etc. Linux can be designed run on only one floppy, pendrive, installed from multiple CDs, networks ...........etc

Stating the obvious: Tomsrtbt isn't like windows nor is DamnSmall Linux or Knoppix.(and the list goes on and on)

Most troubling of all: these linux/windows comparisions are really comparing Desktop Environments and not the Operating systems.

Lastly a troll . I don't use windows and my only exposure to it are people asking me to look at their windows PCs that are broken or unstable. That also makes it hard to read these articles and take it seriously!

regards
rob

Re: Rayiner Hashem

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:55:00 GMT

Quote (Rayiner Hashem):

"@Null: Linux simply cannot use the same system as Windows. Its development model is entirely unsuited to it. In the Linux world, there is no central authority to impose standards on application developers. Whether there should be is debatable, but the simple fact is that such an authority would be unfeasible."

If you had read my entire comment, you would see that I already acknowledged the fact that imposing new measures on the entire Linux community is near impossible. Instead, I was trying to explain why DLL "hell" is usually not, and compare it with the alternative used by Debian and Gentoo to resolve dependency problems.

"As a result, software exists as a collection of independent projects, which are weaved together by distro makers. From my experience with advanced package management systems like Portage, Apt/DPKG, and Apt/RPM, the model seems to be working very well."

Again, I had already acknowledged that Portage and apt-get were able to resolve dependencies well, but they introduce other issues which would probably be unsuited to a newbie Linux desktop user. Portage is based on compiling source, a tediously slow process. Debian's Apt/DPKG repositories are triple-divided into three branches, none of which are quite suitable - stable & testing are outdated, and unstable really is unstable (and they always seem to be doing major package transitions in unstable). Apt/RPM noticably slower than its Debian counterpart, and the Apt/RPM repositories provide far less packages for selection.

re: Gentoo isn't 5 years old.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:26:00 GMT

I don't really think you can complain about Gentoo not being easier to use than it was five years ago... Gentoo isn't exactly that old... Now Slackware on the other hand...

(Slack has made a lot of progress, what with checkinstall and Dropline)

Okay, you got me on Gentoo, but you know what I mean. And yes, I'm aware of what Slack has done. But I was certainly not "complaining," I was pointing out that these distros (and others, such as Sorcerer--is that still being developed?) are still very hands-on and, in some respects, labor-intensive, while others have simplified things by providing auto-detection, graphic tools, etc. I suppose the best word for the former is "manual," while the best description for the latter is "semi-auto." At any rate, the reason both types are still around is that there is a market for each, and modifications in one branch have basically no practical effect on the other (except, maybe, marketshare, but techies who use the "manual" distros tend not to care about that anyway).

boot time

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:37:00 GMT

I guess that boot time may be different on different machines,on mine Linux is faster - in this order: Slackware 9 (15 sec from POST to KDE),Mandrake 9.1 (23) and W2K Pro(about 35 sec,but some services are still starting).

It's all in the title...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:55:00 GMT

Umm.. If the author is wondering why people took offense to his last article...well, did he look at his title again?

"Why Windows Isn't Hell Or Why Linux Isn't Bliss"

Both sides of the conjunction basically state the same thing, or this is the impression it would give most people at first glance:

Windows == (good) OS;

restated:

Linux < Windows;

You rankled a large user base right from the start no matter what your intentions. Probably not the way to approach the start of an essay, whatever its final conclusion be.

I took one look at the title and immediatly felt myself getting annoyed. And I use both Linux and Windows XP.

Oh... and comparisons of boot times is really a strange thing to do. It really has no bearing on how good or bad an OS is. I didn't read all the posts so that's probably been said already several times.

why we reacted

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:56:00 GMT

Very simple. I didn't have to read far to realize that your statements were subjective and opinionated, as opposed to being grounded in fact. If you want to make claims, please post some hard numbers for boot times, etc.

My computer takes 20 seconds to boot Slackware 9 into a gui - the same computer takes 50 seconds to boot win98 to the gui. Do you see what I mean about the facts, Jack?

Most linux users looks VERY limited....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:41:00 GMT

Always the same sh1t from most of linux user, always... They dont have much words to say except "windows sux" and some god damn statistic about linux. I've read all reply and you guys piss me off. Can't you open your god damn eyes ? Stop saying the same shit about linux and stop comparing it to Windows. Window's a desktop and Linux is a geek tool which makes the geek feel more powerfull in computer stuff. 5 Years ago, only using linux (any distro) and you were a geek, now you must use a much harder distro to be one. What's the point ? I think I know it. Linux users DONT REALLY WANT to see linux on common desktop. Why ? Because if everyone use it, he's no more "special", nobody will be impress when he'll say "I use linux". That's the point so stop telling a sh1tload of retarded things about linux and windows. You don't want simplicity ? Right! It's up to you ! ,use your god damn linux and shut your mouth about it.

Fawking pointelss debate... always the same thing.

P.S. I dont hate linux, I don't hate windows. I use both and I like both.

some thoughts

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 07:09:00 GMT

/*
but how do you know the Windows _kernel_ doesn't boot just as quickly?
*/
ntloader is loading the kernel when you see the black screen with the white progress bar. Once the screen goes to color the kernel has loaded.

/*
I simply do not believe that Windows installation is simpler than a modern Linux distribution.
*/
couldn't agree more. when I install win2k on my system I have to install drivers for my modem, video card, sound card, burning software, and an office sweet. with mandrake 9 this is all taken care of in one step and with a much nicer installer (though XP did improve on 2000 here).

all in all though I find that I am moving away from Linux towards FreeBSD. For a few reasons really. one being how Linux has become so trendy (everyone just has to use it) another being that I just love the ports concept. Finally I prefer the BSD liscence to the GPL (personal preference)

All in all I have found myself hating windows the more I *nix, but that's just for my personal use. I'm perfectly fine with the masses using windows or mac os (though I guess this is a *nix now too).

I guess I don't really have a point so I'll just quit typing.

Jared.

RE: Why Windows Isn't Hell ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:11:00 GMT

2. -Windows file system is clearer than Linux'-
To me (and to a newbie) I think it is more logical to have all the files of a certain program in one directory (eg. ~/Program Files/Program X/).

To have config and executable in the same directory is a backup nightmare for me. How do you wanna easy backup your configurations so you can use it after you re-installed Windows? Sure, most Windows newbies don't even know there are config files ... but the should ... would make their (re-installing-)live much easier.

I'm not thrilled by our article I have to admit. I not sure what you want to say with it, it's just another attempt to compare to 'things' not comparable. But if you feel better when sharing your thoughts with the Internet, go on

I really don't see what these (or other Linux comp. Windows) article are use for? Who thinks that a newbie will read this and that she/he will decide to install or not install Linux based on an article like this.
Either she/he is 'brave' enough to install Linux (after some reading) or she/he is just happy with her/his actual OS and won't touch anything as long as she/he has not to.

As always: Just my humble opinion

Cheers Thomas

File locations

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:56:00 GMT

Then I have something to say about file locations too.
What does it matter where the files are placed? Because we have these cases:
- LFS user: this kind of user will probably know where the files are.
- debian/whatever TUI (=console) user: this user knows where the files are, or if they don't, it is not a problem, as there are TUI configuration tools, and there is the PATH variabele, so you can just type the name of the program to start it, and you can use rpm or apt to install software, and you do not need to know where it is installed to.
- GUI user: install -> nextnextnextfinish. Afther that you want the program to appear in the menu.

Both Linux and Windows satisfy these needs, so in most cases the FS layout does not matter anything, well, maybe you can backup config files more easily in Linux, but who makes backups anyway ;-)

And about GUI consistency, have you ever heard anyone complaining that it is a hell to play computer games because they all have a different UI? It seems that if the elements (scrollbars, buttons, edit boxes) behave *roughly* the same, it is good enough. On the application front, you can see this too: who complains that Mozilla uses it's own toolkit?

This means that I see no problem in using Mozilla/OpenOffice/Gnome/KDE applications at the same time, as all the controls in these applications work about the same way. However, this *does* mean that xaw applications *are* a problem, because anyone who has used Windows/KDE/Gnome or such, will probably not know how to scroll upwards in XaW, for example. No, this isn't fictional, when I first used a XaW application, xman, when I needed to browse upwards in a manpage, I quitted the manpage and reloaded it!

And no, I am not stupid, I have never had any problems with the UI of Windows, KDE, Gnome, games, QBasic, Turbo Pascal, the Norton Commander...

slow boot~! again?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:43:00 GMT

First if you knew there will be lots and looooooooooooots of comments, then why ohh why another.
As for the slow boot: try oooooh try installing linux, any distro you choose on an 133mhz based PC then only compare the results. and please dont write a third:]

Linux is not Windows

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:59:00 GMT

Linux was first designed as an Unix-like operating system, not as an Windows-like one. No matter how many distros try to hide this fundamental design decision, no matter how they try to market Linux, it (hopefully) won't go away: Linux won't ever be like Windows, nor it should. Its fundamental goal from day one has been to empower its users, even if this doesn't result in a system that's simpler to use. So, I must say I feel your comparison is fundamentally flawed, since you're comparing apples to oranges here.

boot time...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:00 GMT

I am not an advocate of either Windows or Linux but boot time depends a lot upon the survey and measurements. If you have had your windows distribution for longer and have had the time to tweek it. Then most certainly it will boot fast than a quick un thoughtful install of any distribution of Linux that has not been on your machine for 72 hours or so.

Example, I have a Windows 2000 server machine at work that takes almost 7 minutes to boot to a point that a person can login. It is a senereo that I am working on and need to get fixed but it is a case and point.

The only OS that falls out this trend is BeOS.

On boot speed and GUI consistency

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:17:00 GMT

Quote (jared):

"ntloader is loading the kernel when you see the black screen with the white progress bar. Once the screen goes to color the kernel has loaded."

In this case, the Windows kernel boots faster, then. I have Windows and Linux both installed on the same machine, and I see the white progress bar for a split second (sometimes I don't even see it - it proceeds straight to the color spash screen). In Linux, the kernel is initializing for slightly longer before you see the init scripts do their thing.

Quote (Daan):

"And about GUI consistency, have you ever heard anyone complaining that it is a hell to play computer games because they all have a different UI? It seems that if the elements (scrollbars, buttons, edit boxes) behave *roughly* the same, it is good enough. On the application front, you can see this too: who complains that Mozilla uses it's own toolkit?"

Most serious computer games typically fill the entire screen. On a desktop with multiple windows open, having multiple widget styles decreases the uniform look and makes the system look less pleasant. Plus, having multiple toolkits loaded in memory at the same time is not exactly efficient.

Booting Tricks

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:39:00 GMT

I must say that Windows does NOT boot faster than Linux, it's just that Windows use some clever tricks, as Bill Gates himself said on the subject of performace "appearance is 50% of reality".

If you boot Windows and try to use it the instant the GUI is up and running you will find that it is still slogging away for a few minutes. After a while you can actually use the machine. This makes it appear faster.

Linux on the other hand (at least Gnome and KDE) wait until everything is loaded until they let you use the OS (as, if you're going to crash and overload the system you'll do it in those minutes its still loading).

So its all just clever trickery with Windows I'm afraid.

I'm really tired about this never-ending sterile discussion

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:54:00 GMT

As this is my first contribution to Linux discussion, there are several points that I really need to get out of my mind. Sorry if it is something confusing.

Most of people can discern the pros and cons between different OSs, from clearness of the file system organisation to simplicity of the GUI. I must agree on several points from author?s view but I?m a some tired of measuring the ?correctness? of a OS based on simplistic points of view. For most of author?s concerns there are their equivalents on Windows. From file organization (oh my, I don?t know which OS is most complicated, but I just know that both are a total mess) to easiness of GUI (Windows GUI rocks but KDE/Gnome are showing amazing improvements at every release). The only point I agree totally is booting time. I know, you can twist your Linux installation in order to have faster boot-up times and better overall performance (I have done that for my x86 and for an Alpha). But from my experience, the booting time of Linux is far way longer than XP when the simple installation of a distribution of Linux is used .This applied for Mandrake 9 and Redhat 8 for two PCs, one from Dell (2 GHZ, 512 Mb) and one self-assembled ( 3 GHz, 2 Gb), and for me booting-time means the time length between turning-on the computer and having the desktop loaded and ready to work. I know there are people with the opposite situation and I give them credit, I?m only asking to the ?inquisition? guys of Linux to give the same credit to other people who have the misfortune of not having the right HW configuration to enjoy from the beginning the power of Linux.

But, do you know what? I don?t care about if Linux takes longer to boot-up, as I don?t care if the Os organization force users to decipher the /registry to do any special task (I think that 10% of my tasks are ?special?), and I don?t care any other complication provoked ONLY by the difference of the solution adopted by Linux or Windows or whatever. The OSs are products made by humans, with all the benefits and complications provoked by that. But, oh my, I still use Windows and that is due only for a simple reason: productivity. I?m most a ?scientific? user rather than business or home user. That means that I use my PC mostly to do research work to get my Ph. D: a lot of C/C++, some assembler, a lot of Matlab, word processing and spreadsheet. Even if I hate MS because their baseness vision, I really like the fact that ONLY A FEW LINES of code (C++, or VBA, or Matlab) are need to put all my applications to work together. While I?m writing this, an Excel/VBA macro is executing where a quite complex simulation is being prepared. The Excel spreadsheet contains all simulation data, the VBA macro will generate the input for a C++/C/aseembler/vectorized program that would export data to Matlab . At end, a Matlab program will process data and results will be shown in a Word doc. All the communications between programs are made using the COM protocol. As you can read, it is not about ?free?, neither ?amount of software?, neither complexity, it is about how an OS, 3rd party apps and user apps can be powered together by the OS subsystems. In this area, Windows does not have rival, and maybe it is the only honest reason that provokes that most developers still prefer MS technologies.

I don?t want an exact replacement of every aspect of Windows to do my work. I?m only waiting for more mature OS/apps before switching definitely to Linux. OpenOffice is doing a wonderful work on BASIC, they are on their way but I?m still a little sceptic because BASIC it is just a direct and simplistic replacement of VBA without a real integration to the OS.

But maybe I?m waiting for a real miracle from Linux community; the miracle will be the moment where Linux developers stop of pushing their contradictory solutions. I?ll always love to have several options to do my work, but my feeling is that inflated egos of some important efforts in Linux are hurting the end user. Oh yes, I?m thinking in Gnome and KDE. I have tried 3 times both, and it has been an extremely frustrating experience; yupi , I have five different ways to do the same thing and most of them are really difficult to understand how it should works. And of course, there is my most unpleasant feeling about Linux: ?taboo, taboo? a lot of apps hangs my PC (most of cases only recompilation solves the problem), ?but Linux never hangs your PC?, please, stop hypocrisy, how do you want that masses use Linux if every time you have to recompile?.

Or maybe I?m just old. I started using ?unix-likes? in 90?s :HP-UX, Aix , NextStep and, my still preferred, Solaris. Oh my, I should be the only guy that still prefers Solaris? GUI from 90?s as ?unix-like? GUI; their dbxtool was just great, years before VisualStudio their tool had a GUI to test your code. My main concern is that Linux is still missing something important: consistence and some of honesty.

If I?m some critic about Linux it is because I really believe in it, I want that OpenSource becomes the model of software. All this is about democracy of knowledge.

RE: @ KryptoBSD

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:28:00 GMT

"Can your girlfriend reconfigure and recompile her kernel to improve boot time?"

DCMonkey: Actually, she can, and is better at it then me, I might add. =)

I know that wasn't your point, but still, I found it funny.

re: File locations

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:33:00 GMT

"And about GUI consistency, have you ever heard anyone complaining that it is a hell to play computer games because they all have a different UI?"

Computer games != Productivity apps

When I'm playing a game that's all I'm doing, it has my full concentration so it's easy enough to remember it's controls. When I'm working on a project I'm constantly switching between different apps and have multiple apps open on screen. Having to remember different keyboard shortcuts, menu implementations and all the other little differences slows me down by destroying any muscle memory I might have built up. If you're just using a single app 99% of the time then consistency probably isn't important, but I find it makes a big difference to my productivity.

"It seems that if the elements (scrollbars, buttons, edit boxes) behave *roughly* the same, it is good enough. On the application front, you can see this too: who complains that Mozilla uses it's own toolkit?"

Actually the aesthetic differences are the most minor problem, I could happily live with apps that just look a bit different, even in Windows and Mac OS consistency isn't perfect. But not having consistent keyboard shortcuts and not being able to cut/copy/paste between apps is a serious usability issue for me.

I do quite a lot of DTP, even if Linux apps were as good as Windows equivalents, they'd still have inferior usability while I can't build up a document using copy and paste. To me this is a really basic feature, even the Apple Lisa let you copy part of an image and paste it into a different app. I'm amazed that this hasn't been fixed long ago, surely it can't be that hard to implement one consistent clipboard for all apps?

Re: Booting Tricks

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:41:00 GMT

Quote (Peter Moss):

"If you boot Windows and try to use it the instant the GUI is up and running you will find that it is still slogging away for a few minutes. After a while you can actually use the machine. This makes it appear faster."

This is what counts, though - the user is presented with a desktop sooner.

"Linux on the other hand (at least Gnome and KDE) wait until everything is loaded until they let you use the OS (as, if you're going to crash and overload the system you'll do it in those minutes its still loading)."

And therefore, the user must wait longer to begin interfacing with the system.

An improved method would be to lower the priority of the start-after-boot processes in Windows, so that the sluggishness (which is present the first few moments after boot) is greatly reduced.

boot time

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:17:00 GMT

My slackware 9 gets from lilo to gdm in about 18 seconds. It then takes about 4 or 5 seconds to get from gdm to gnome. Of course usually the computer is on, so users only encounter about 4 or 5 seconds.

RE: XBe, I guess it's a matte rof perpective

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:45:00 GMT

"Linux is not 5 years behind, not even close to it. It is very much on the same level if not better. I believe that some of the easier distributions are just as easy to use and install as Windows."

That depends on your hardware and what you need to configure, there are still some Linux features that are far behind Windows. To be honest it's amazing how easy to install some Linux distributions have become, most things were configured out of the box by Mandrake 9.1. But unfortunately there are still a lot of features that don't have nice graphical configuration and don't work out of the box.

Windows has a built in Hibernation option so I can start my computer with my apps running and documents open. That saves a lot more of my time than faster boot speed and to me is an essential feature. In Linux the only equivalent I've found is a hack called SWSUSP, which is very difficult to get working and dangerous to the system IME. I killed my current Linux installation trying to get SWUSP to work, despite spending days studying the documentation and carefully checking all my configuration.

Then there's graphics card configuration and dual headed display support. I've got an Nvidia graphics card which is meant to be the best for Linux. After a lot of work I managed to get very slow 3D acceleration, but I couldn't get a resolution higher than 1024x768, not very pleasant on a 21" monitor. Dual headed display support is simply garbage in Linux, Xinerama is a joke compared with Windows or Mac OS. In theory Nvidia's Twinview is much better and doesn't disable 3D acceleration, but I spent days researching it and editing config files without doing anything except crashing X a few dozen times. In Windows the Nvidia drivers add an extra tab to the display control panel and the display can be set up with a couple of mouse clicks.

Windows has it's faults too, but I can't think of anything in Windows that's wasted as much of my time as trying to get these features working in Linux. Surely even the most hardcore Linux zealot can't argue that Linux is as easy as Windows when it comes to these features?

"Do you have any experience with maintaining a Linux machine? I left windows because of the maintnence issues. Maybe your experience has been better but that doesn't make it fact. For me Windows has destroyed my computer several times. Many programs won't uninstall, dll's from other software break the system, and programs tend to always find a way into the system tray. Inexperienced users never delete any of the 50 million icons off of the desktop and they never remove items from the system tray. After a while the system becomes unusuable. I love trying out new programs but with windows it's not a good idea to install and uninstall programs over and over unless you plan on doing a reinstall of the entire OS. That has been my experience and the biggest reason for my switch."

It's ironic, the main reason why I'm deleting my Linux partition is that I find it almost impossible to maintain. I've installed masses of junk on some of my Windows systems, sometimes I've had problems with uninstalling software using the built in uninstaller and it does damage Windows performance. 3rd party uninstallers can fix many problems but sometimes it is necessary to reinstall the OS to fix everything. Windows certainly has it's problems, but for me Linux has been infinitely worse.

Linux is a very stable OS, but that doesn't mean it never crashes. I sometimes have powercuts that last longer than my UPS' battery and I don't have another Linux box to be able to ssh in and fix problems when the system has become unresponsive. In Windows a crash is usually a minor annoyance, I've never had a crash in Windows 95,98,2K or XP damage the system, other than the loss of the date I'm working on. While in Linux almost every fatal crash I've had has caused serious damage to the system. This latest time a single crash caused by SWSUSP wiped out a large number of apps, including the graphical login and Mandrake control centre. Even some apps that still seemed to work have problems, for example KWord crashes when I try to use the spellchecker, XFCE loads but contextual menus are gone, some other apps load then crash after a few seconds. Even if I knew all the packages I needed to reinstall to get it all working again, it would probably be faster to reinstall from scratch and there's nothing to stop this happening the next time there's a crash. This isn't just an isolated incident, I've had things stop working after a crash multiple times when I used Mandrake 7 and 8. The main reason I gave up on Linux then is that one crash damaged it so badly it wouldn't even boot.

I'd rather have an OS that eventually requires the OS to be reinstalled, than an OS where half the installed software fails because of a crash.

RE: OHPlease

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:35:00 GMT

"And the Windows trolls couldn't possibly have too much time on their hands, could they? And could their time be better spent plugging/finding security holes in Windows?"

Yes, yes, of course they also have too much time on their hands! That doesn't mean Linux people also have to waste it in the same way! Does EVERYTHING have to be about Windows vs. Linux? What an incredible waste of time! How many of these advocates are actually employed? The only difference I see is that a large proportion of Windows users are blissfully unaware of the "Win vs. Lin" debating, perhaps to their benefit. Now before another advocate starts jumping up and down saying "but, but, there are also LINUX USERS who are also blissfully unaware!! Nya nya!", I am not saying this is a benefit of Windows - only a characteristic of its userbase.

In the end, computers are designed to make our lives easier. I use Linux and XP in their areas of respective strength. I don't force myself to use Linux for a problem when XP has an easier solution (e.g., symbolic math software). Nor do I blow large sums of cash on proprietary XP office bloatware when an OSS Linux solution does the job (I prefer OO in Linux to XP). Horses for courses. I am far too busy doing my job to have any emotional investment in an operating system, Linux or XP. I do wish Linux (and FreeBSD!) a lot of success, because competition is good, and it will probably make Linux and MS future offerings better.

No, I'm not related to the OP. I just thought he got a bit of a bad rap in the comments on his article. Even if he was a Windows troll - which I highly doubt - aren't the people replying wasting just as much time as he would be trolling?

Cheers!

Kinda Impartial

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:42:00 GMT

I don't claim to be a Linux or Windows guru, but I can get on with both reasonably well. I takes time to get to grips with both, and yes both have there flaws and benefits.

As a few people have stated, the biggest gripe for me about linux was the file system. It has some nice features, but like someone said, why have a million differnet places for binaries, config files etc. I personally like Apple's approach. Each application has it's own folder in which i keeps its config files etc. Why not have /apps/ for this, and then have say /lib for libraries etc.

Before people jump down my throat, about how I'm simplfying things to much... yes I am. I don't know the in's and out's of the linux file system. Just because it's complicated doesn't make it the right, and good approach.

On another issue, Linux could do with some standardisation, more than it has so far... that was the only benefit of windows. If a programs is for the windows platform it works (generally) where as for linux you have so many differnet distributions, etc that things become a pain... not necessarily hard, just more work than it should have to be.

RE: All the above

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:23:00 GMT

Well.

It's me again. I read through the posts posted when I was asleep and at work, ready to respond to some issues that seemed to dominate the posts.

1.-Comparing Windows To Linux Is Like Comparing Apples To Oranges (Although I Think Using "Apple" Isn't Very Wise Here -

If you've read my article carefully, you would've surley noticed the disclaimer. Read it, and you'll know why I used a short comparison. Again, is "not reading carefully" an infectious disease that hasn't reached The Netherlands yet?

2.-Booting Issue

I know it's a very difficult issue, but it's just my experiences. I have used several distro's (as stated in the article) on several different configs, and my experiences are that Linux boots slower.
And about Windows booting services after starting the GUI, I thought that was a problem in the '95 product line (for clarity, this also includes '98 and follow-ups)? I have used XP for a while, and I never had that problem (and it's not like I have a dream config (AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512sdram, and a geforce2 mx400 w/64 (exchanged later on for a wondefully good performing Ati 9000 w/ 128 ddr). Right now I'm using Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, this may also explain why I have better experiences with Windows (people tend to remember recent memories easier, surprised?;). 2003 is really a step forward, I think it's quite suitable if you're a bit more experienced.
Also I have heard a lot of people saying "You don't need to reboot Linux" (which is true of course). Well, since I'm multibooting multiple OS's on one machine, I háve to reboot.

3.-A little GUI inconsistency don't matter-

Really? Would you buy a car with a red left door and a white right door?

Linux isn't perfect...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:50:00 GMT

I too am certainly not a guru, but I know my way around a few OSs (Windows and Mac). I love the idea of Linux, I've even got a PowerBook that's exclusively devoted to YDL. It is, in fact, the entire reason I purchased the laptop in the first place.

However, that said, Linux isn't a system ready for the masses and most of the swaking from people seems more about maintaining the "in-the-know" clique of Linux more than anything else.

The Linux file system is confusing (so, for that matter is OSX's and Windows at times) to most/many people. It's probably the single biggest hinderance next to avaiable applications and ease of installing applications.

I'd really like to see a distribution that cleans up the file system (or a community wide initiative to do so) and make application packages that at least SEEM a little more like what we've come to expect (discrete packages that install with a click).

I have not doubt that there are advantages to the current methodologies behind both the file system and application packages, but I think people would be kidding themselves if they argued that it was the BEST way of doing it. Much of it continues on as is simply because it is how it's ALWAYS been done. It's a lot easier to go with the flow than to swim against it and make "radical" changes.

I want to make it clear that I believe that Linux is important. Very important. It's our opportunity as the masses to collectively determin how we wish to meet our computing needs. But long term, broad based acceptance (why is this perceived as being "bad"?) requires that people want to adopt Linux and there are clear barriers to that.

I don't think most people care what OS they use (Many people who say they want Windows are really just saying that because it's what their friends/co-workers say...). I would argue that the most successful operating systems will ultimately be the MOST TRANSPARENT AND THAT WHICH BEST REPRESENTS THE CULTURE OF THE GIVEN USER.

RE: Linux isn't perfect (bill_blix)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:56:00 GMT

I couldn't agree with you more.

The Article's Purpose

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:31:00 GMT

It seems to me that this article wasn't about which OS was better or worse. The fact is, that's a subjective decision and it depends on the needs of each user--or, from the marketing perspective, each type of user.

Which brings me to what I felt the real purpose of the article was. He pointed out some problems with Linux. Of these, hardware support is probably the most universal. He mentioned that most people (rightly) believe that once Linux becomes popular, these problems will begin to go away.

Well, we seem to have different ideas about software popularity. Who do you think represents the largest computer-user demographic? So sorry, but there simply aren't enough power-users--even users that are simply computer-literate--to justify Linux's popularity. It seems highly likely that THERE NEVER WILL BE.

This is one of the reasons that Apple is still alive--that they didn't get smote by Microsoft like so many other computer companies. Many people still think that Apple is simply the easiest thing to use out there.

That's why we're talking about computer "newbies." Not in the sense that they've yet to learn how do use mkdir at a command prompt, but in the sense that they just found out they need a computer at home to surf the internet. They simply don't care about a command prompt and never will. Those are the facts.

Having said that, I feel the article was attempting to suggest ideas to make Linux more popular AMONGST THE MASSES, so that some of the more troublesome problems can be addressed by our CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

Anyway, I just felt that this commentary, by and large, was taking the wrong point of view. Forgive me if the article is actually trying to say "Windows is not as bad as you think it is, but Linux sucks," as one commenter suggested.

-Mark

P.S.: I specifically didn't mention my OS preference because I really don't think that was the intended issue here. But, it's definetly Windows. I'm definetly what you could call a power-user, and while Windows isn't as tweak-friendly as Linux (I have used Linux and UNIX extensively, at my university), Windows also isn't as crash-prone as the Linux community accuses it of being. Well, at least not 2K and XP.

RE:The Article's Purpose

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:21:00 GMT

Absolutely!

There are many paths Linux can follow. It can continue on as a 'cult' operating system for techies, developers and servers,

or

it can evolve into a operating system that functions at a root level allowing the masses (and really we're just talking about people--regular ol' folks like Mark points out) to compute. most people just want to PARTICIPATE not tweak code. and by participate i mean involve themselves in this medium of communication and information exchange ("They just want to surf the internet." Most of them will never even need an app like OpenOffice, etc.)

but evolution requires change and change is hard. it requires that WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT than what we've done before and that can be SCARY (or annoying, or whatever).

and the thing is, there are always going to be those who DO want to tweak code...they beauty is, they can do that and at the same time bring millions (if not billions) of people along with them.

RE:The Article's Purpose

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:24:00 GMT

Let me just add this...

not everyone can be, or wants to be an engineer, but that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't be able to drive a car or use a computer or fly in a plane.

no?

I favour Windows

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:50:00 GMT

I favour Windows.

I have 11 years of programming experience, about half of it in x86 assembly and UNIX device drivers and other half in windows programming. UNIXes/programming tools are nowhere close to Windows on usability.

My question to the author is this: You have been forced to repeat "I do not favour windows over Linux" umpteen times in your article. This is a pointer to the nature of open source community: Hate microsoft without reason.

Yup

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:00:00 GMT

That's exactly the metaphor I was trying to think of. I think that one of the greatest social benifits of the open-source movement is that it has great potential for inspiring competition that ultimately benifits the average joe. That's what the computing renaissance has been all about.

But it's a fact that large companies--Microsoft--won't be interested in competing with a product unless it poses a threat to them from a financial perspective. The only way Linux will ever be that threat is if it becomes popular amongst the entire computing community.

Something that just ocurred to me, however--and this is the reason for my new post--is that perhaps there is a better goal than making Linux popular: perhaps we need to focus on making the open-source movement itself more main-stream. It's happening on Macs now with OSX, and I even see the beginnings of it on Windows. I think we need to face the reality that an OS war would ultimately be detrimental for the computing industry at large. One of the reasons the software industry is growing so fast is that, for the most part, companies only have to develop for one platform. This means that they can focus on making it work for that platform, instead of devoting time to producing the same code for multiple OSs and ultimately hurting the quality of the title.

I think a common misconseption of computer users is that all software companies are large. Actually, most software companies have 20 or fewer employees, and this applies game studios as well. Such companies simply do not have the resources for multi-platform development.

However, when we take it at a lower level--say that of word processing, CAD/CAM, or any area where there is currently existing competetion, I can see open-source really boosting the software industry. Even small companies can benifit from swapping each-other's code.

----It might even inspire people to write cleaner code (or at least comment it once in a while) :-P!

Actually, I think I may have one practical idea as to how we can bring about this kind of change. I think that copywrighting code is the wrong idea--we should patent it. Think about it: the original idea of having patents expire in 10 years was to both encourage innovation and cut down on the chances of monopoly. To my knowledge, the idea of patents hasn't hurt anybody detrimentally. Also, I think that open source is, in effect, a software patent that expires immediately.

I think another reality we just have to accept is that (and I keep mentioning this) our capitalist society will never embrace the concept entirely. This is why I think patents would be an excellent middle ground. I also think that the open source movement is gaining enough steam and notice that the industry could see it as a viable option.

Open source isn't perfect, either. In the end, software companies have to pay their programmers, artists, receptionists, whathaveyou their salaries so they can go home, watch some DVDs on their nice TV that their college education let them buy. Companies have to pay rent on their buildings and buy software and new hardware. We need people to pay for software, and smaller companies simply can't rely on donations. Software is just another route to the American dream (on a global scale), and I think we need to foster that.

I do see a couple of issues: namely, that a ten-year patent on software is the equivalent of a 1000 year patent on the steam engine. By the time the patent expires, the patented material is obsolete. This seems to imply that we need a different set of laws governing software patents--at least a different life-span (I would suggest 2 years).

Secondly, what about international companies? Once source code is published, anyone (and I mean ANYONE) can take advantage of it. This means that companies in say, the Netherlands (:-P) or Canada could use American source code but American's couldn't use theirs. I can see that being a major problem.

Another issue: do we need to regulate the quality (readability) of published code. I can easily see a company publishing purposely obfuscated code in order to minimize the chance that people could use it (or even bother trying). In fact, there are already code obfuscators on the market (what happens to these guys? do they just die out?) for .NET--probably one of the, if not THE, easiest language do dissasemble out there.

I think that this is something that could really change things (at least here in the States), and that maybe we, as a community (and I'm not just talking Linux here) should try putting our support to it.

In short, I don't think that open-source is a good end for the software industry. There is too much commercial infustructore rooted in the current system that would be irreperably (sp?) damaged. Literally millions of people would loose their jobs, from CEOs to software engineers to programmers to receptionists. I think we need to find a compromise between greed and thinking only of the consumer.

OK, sorry for the long rant, it was kind of stream of conscious.

-Mark

More on Software Patents

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:03:00 GMT

I think I'm going to try do so some more work on developing the patent idea, so I'm going to post my email address in case anybody has suggestions or wants to help.

It's

m a r k b i d d l e c o m @ h o t m a i l . c o m

(Sorry for the formatting, I'm trying to avoid spam-bots.)

-Mark

Why People Really Buy Windows

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:04:00 GMT

Yep, normally, you only pay a price if you think it's worth. But here Micro$oft controls the market and so many people buy Windows because they have no choice.

Nearly every PC a not very advanced user can buy here (Germany) has Windows and some Office crap (mostly Works - nobody, really nobody buys this program in free choice!) installed on it. It is paid. So why ADDITIONALLY by another OS? Because you cannot run your applications (the applications you know and perhaps have to work with jobwise) on it? Because you have to learn a new one (you know the one you already have; or do you buy an alternative product without knowing the one you already have paid?)...

Linux based Systems have many flaws, but these alone aren't responsible for the market situation of 95% of the people using Windooze. I would like a fair competition. I won't like Windows not to be there. If it would really compete with other Systems, it also would get better in many ways (most flaws of Windows are indeed flaws Micro$oft knows the user just must live with!).

cu
Ford Prefect

Missing the point...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:40:00 GMT

What is it with all you people flaming this article?

The guy expressed OPINIONS, which are correct by very definition, and he backed them up with verifiable information. If such a well-written and forthright article raises ire in your blood, the problem isn't with the author.

Good Grief!

Good Grief

Good article

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:47:00 GMT

Hey, if the author ever reads down this far through the flaming, I'd like to say it's a good article, and more power to ya. It takes a lot of balls to walk into an OSS friendly community and have a go at Linux.

Oh, and I love Linux. I want it to succeed. I've got Slack 9 on my main box at home, after having tried Suse, Mandrake, RH and Deb over the past few years. But whilst I am eager to learn, I got fed up with having to trawl my directories for different libs etc every time I changed distro and wanted to compile software.

Instead I use Win98 - so the Linux zealots hate me, Mac facists hate me, and Gates hates me (for not paying my XP tax). Win98 is extremely functional and, on my machine, stable, and the UI is faster than X. No, really. Most importantly, I can play the games I like rather than going through the balls-ache of trying to get Quake II running under Linux and playing only that. Oh, and I can choose my animated cursors. Very important, that.

Everyone should learn Linux, because it gives them an appreciation of a file structure, how the software fits together, how to use a command line, and so forth. Once they've put the effort in, they can choose what they damn well like. My choice is based on the free time I have. Forgive me if I would rather be riding my bike, training, writing, cooking, cleaning the house or spending quality time with my other half than configuring my PC...

best
Smiorgan

-----------
Use OSS apps on windows: GNU Win II (http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/)

RE: Yup

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:36:00 GMT

You know, it occured to me yesterday that I had a huge blind spot in my thinking...I said there were two ways Linux could go A)Obsurity or B)Populist software.

When considering option B my mind was set on a grassroots movement. I could not figure out, however, how to get someone to make code for say my mom. Up to now what's driven Linux is people who write code for themselves to meet their needs (and it's great and they love what they've produced--populist software that meet the needs of the culture that generated it...)

But they're not particularly interested in making software for my mom (or anyone else who's not in their group).

Then it dawned on me...and this is the kicker. It's likely the big guys who will end up getting it right. For the masses to get the code you need to pay programmers to write it...but you can't (or it's difficult) to charge for the software...so you don't charge for the software, you make a product and run the software on it.

For example, a Dodge Caravan that has antilock brakes. It probably uses iTron to run the controller...so does your mobile phone, or washing machine. The software is transparent. It just is. (and does.)

The key is participation. It's not the software but the activity.

Find a need (Grandma wants to see pictures of grandchild who lives 500 miles away).

Create a product(s) that meet the need. (Digital camera that can be hooked up to an ethernet connection and knows to automatically deposit pictures onto Grandma's TiVo [itself another product].)

Product development companies will adopt the open source software and use it because if it allows THEM to meet the needs/desires of the people...

Linux as is, meets the needs of developers and administrators. You want to make a buck. Meet the needs of my mom and you'll find yourself on Chistmas Wishlists and on the shelves at Target.

OSS and distributed democracy

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:56:00 GMT

How can this be considered flamebait?

Too many of you have forgotten what it was to be a newbie. To these a computer, like a plane, a mobile phone or a refrigerator is just a tool. They don't care - and shouldn't care - about how it works, that's what engineers and programmers are for and, if they do their jobs properly, the newbie can get on with using their tool to improve their lives. That is functional abstraction at work. It is why our society can advance by implementing new technologies and its working depends on techies listening to the average user's needs.

And to Mystilleef, before you say that we shouldn't change Linux for the average user, let me just say that, as a computer user who doesn't toggle boot switches to get your OS paper tape read, you are a direct beneficiary of this principle.

Now, almost none of us fit into the category of average user. Disagree? The fact that you are reading these pages indicates otherwise. So almost none of us can credibly counter concerns of Linux's or Windows' ease of use with "sure it's easy, you just do -insert jargon here-" (and to suggest rebuilding your kernel to improve boot time, okay, but just don't expect Linux to advance beyond a clique of experts this way).

While Thom is not the average user, he is clearly trying to relay some of the concerns such a person may have, and what do people do when he says "I find this confusing" or "I think this could be improved upon"? Worse than his being dismissed as misrepresentative, biased, flamed, labelled a windows propagandist etc., his point is ignored, when this feedback is precisely what made Linux what it is today and will make it better tomorrow.

And so exists a problem for Linux user friendliness. The feedback of average users is a crucial force in the survival of any CSS desktop OS, but Linux has no such dependancy, so little imperitive exists for it to become user friendly. Its feedback is derived from the techie and so an OS for techies it will remain - until they start listening to everyone else.
That is why so many have said it isn't yet ready for the desktop and that's where comments such as Thom's comes in.

You all need to remember that people giving feedback is what makes Linux what it is today. It never got to this point in its development, and will never get any better, through people arguing about how good it is and congratulating each other on how well they flamed that MS sympathiser.

Linux is a vibrant and powerful democratic expression of the collective will of programmers but it is constructive criticism and the hard work of some clever and talented individuals that made it this way.

Thom has offered an opinion (and has had to vigilantly restate it), based on his experiences and how many of you counter it with "well I havn't found that..." Well good for you then! You have nothing constructive to add, but maybe his comments will end up going towards improving some distro - and YOU may benefit from it, so SHUT UP! Let the man speak. Don't criticise him but take it onboard.

Nothing's perfect, but dogmatism will only ensure it stays that way.

Danke well, hor
Marc.

RE: OSS and distributed democracy

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:07:00 GMT

Nice post

And it's "dank je wel, hoor". But dont't worry Dutch is the third most difficult language to learn (After Swahili and Finnish).

Thanks!

Dutch

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:37:00 GMT

Actually, I'm half Dutch. Mum is from Amstelveen.

While I can understand a little, I definitely can't write it! I would have thought an English speaker would find just about anything harder than Dutch, they are so similar!

But anyway, nice article Thom. Thanks,
Marc.

Hardware Support & Installation

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:38:00 GMT

Just wondering if someone can clarify this hardware support thing for me. Earlier today I had to re-setup my sisters computer with Win 98 and Mandrake 9.1. Currently she has a fully working Mandrake 9.1 desktop running at a nice screen resolution with sound, network, and DVD all working fine.

Win 98? 640x480 16 colors, no sound support, no network support, no office programs, no DVD .....

Which one has best hardware support? In this case Linux, which one has easiest installation? again Linux. (should have mentioned that 98 needed to reboot 4 times before I could login, Mandrake needed 1 reboot)

Tim

I'd use Linux if.....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:20:00 GMT

it had install for games and apps like windows.
RPM's are good if they are packaged correctly, more often than not they fail.
I don't wish to recompile or whatever to get a program to work because my distro is different than the intended distro! Try explaining that to a windows user, it just doesn't make sense!
Linux needs to be more user friendly, most of us wouldn't know what iostream would mean in c++, so why would we be able to figure out how to install etc from a command line?
Windows is the most readily accessable OS in the world, apart from MAc OS, and the new AMigaOS4.
Tell you the truth, if I was to dump windows, it would be for AmigaOS4, now THAT , is a decent OS.
Linux? I like it, but it isn't quite ready for primetime
:-)