Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:08 UTC
Windows ITWire: "Linux users can, at times, be the worst kind of ingrates, whining and complaining about what they perceive as missing features in a free operating system. My advice to all such whingers: spend 10 days using the latest version of Windows and you'll realise that you are living in a world of relative bliss."
Thread beginning with comment 249888
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

That's a lot of bullshit.

I've heard quite a few Microserfs like you complaining about inconsistency and so on. But none of you have ever been the slightest bit capable of delivering examples of these claimed flaws.

Fact is that font rendering is superior to anything on Windows (in regard to anti-aliasing, kerning and hinting - not necessarily font brightness where ClearType is the better solution).

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop. And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 5

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Fact is that font rendering is superior to anything on Windows

That is not a fact. Don't try to play it off like one.

Reply Parent Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually it is a fact.

Font Rendering on Linux is equal in quality to Mac OS X font rendering and is arguably much better in terms of kerning, hinting and antialiasing than ClearType and Windows Standard Font Rendering (with and without antialiasing).

The only level where Windows excels is in terms of brightness. The contrast between Black and White is fantastic with ClearType. Unfortunately hinting and kerning is crappy for smaller font sizes with fonts not specifically designed for ClearType (which most fonts are not).

For the average user this is probably a moot point, but if you need true WYSIWYG, ClearType ceases to be an option. It is just not a good renderer.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by grat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 13:30 in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find.

You're right. Between KDE 1.1 and KDE 3.4, the improvements seem to be widgets and fonts. ;)

I exaggerate somewhat, but KDE 2 and KDE 3.5 are obviously related, more obviously than say, Win95 and Vista.

And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

"The Look" is highly subjective, and I note that in the last year, there's been a sudden push of usability and aesthetics improvements to both Gnome and KDE-- Perhaps you use Windowmaker? Enlightenment?

I just named 4 UI environments that "look" completely different.

Personally, I use a fairly custom KDE desktop. I look forward to KDE 4, but everything I've seen of KDE 4 looks like a substantial departure from previous versions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes of course the DE's and WM's are different, but it doesn't matter which one you use. You'll get a consistent interface none the less. Blend Gnome2/GTK2-apps with KDE3/QT3 (and especially QT4)-apps and you'll see how close they resemble each other in behaviour. And the look can be configured to be identical. When that is done it's difficult to see and feel the difference between a Gnomish and a KDE-ish application. Much more consistent than IE7 and WMP10 (or IE6 and WinAMP).

Font Rendering has become much better, though it depends on the configuration. I still cry on occasion when running into one of the patent-limited distributions. Hurts my eyes ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

TownDrunk Member since:
2005-11-28

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find.

Except for OS X of course.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's very debatable. I don't consider OS X to be particular consistent. Especially not in the looks department. OTOH, it can be argued to be just as consistent as blending Gnome with KDE apps and vice versa (which actually results in a very consistent system - Gnome/GTK and KDE/QT-apps are almost identical in behaviour - and the look can be configured to be identical).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by stare on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:40 in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop.

You mean it's finally posible to remove entries from gnome menu by right-clicking it and choosing "remove" in this super-consistent UI? Or it's finally possible to change the window titlebar size without messing with gtkrc files? </sarcasm>

And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/Vi...
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=790&slide=2...

Yeah, really light years ahead </sarcasm>

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by jaylaa on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:54 in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

You mean it's finally posible to remove entries from gnome menu by right-clicking it and choosing "remove" in this super-consistent UI?

How would being able to remove menu entries by right-clicking on them make Gnome more consistent? Sure, I'd like that feature, but not having it doesn't make it inconsistent. There is a GUI for doing this BTW.

Or it's finally possible to change the window titlebar size without messing with gtkrc files?

Yes, yes there is. How does one do this in Windows?

And as for those screen shots (neither of them attractive); at least the Gnome desktop look can be changed easily. What do you have to buy (or hack) to theme Vista?

Reply Parent Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Right-clicking on a menu item to remove has nothing to do with consistency. It would be nice to be able to do that, but of some obscure reason we can't. Just like we cannot easily change the visual appearance in Windows besides a few pre-defined (by Microsoft) options.

Your screenshots prove nothing. You took standard look of Ubuntu and compared with Vista. You can easily find themes for Gnome or KDE utilizing Compiz that beats the Vista look.

Just like Clearlooks beats the kIdZ-hAd-FuN look of XP.

Tell me how to use my own visual styles with XP without violating the MS EULA. Oops.. one can't. Boohoo.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by karl on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:55 in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

dylanmrjones,

Why, oh why, do you need to so overstate things ?

Fonts under Linux are *not* unequivocally better than under Windows-even though I far prefer Linux font rendering in terms of legibility. The font situation under Linux has improved radically since freetype/fontconfig became standard. Yet I know of know Linux distribution which renders fonts as *consistently* as under Windows. This is not simply an issue with regards to how freetype is compiled(with or without bytecode).

I have used almost of all of the major Linux distros, and Gentoo is what I regularly use-yet I invariably find inconsistencies in regard to font rendering- whether it be spacing, or characters being vertically squished/stretched etc. As I said I personally prefer Linux font rendering-my eyes tire very quickly when I use Windows, far quicker than is the case when I use Linux.

Yet it is erroneous to imply that Linux font rendering is perfect. I have 13 tabs in firefox open right now and on two of the tabs, text from mailing lists is on certain lines distorted-something I have *never* experienced with windows. Now whether this is caused by pango, cairo, or some other part of Firefox is not clear.I venture to say that most people who use Linux have encountered such. But my pointing out of slight occasional rendering bugs does not justify others saying "Linux font suxxorz"- bugs are bugs-and in Linux land things just keep getting better.

As far as consistency goes- I too disagree with people who keep going on about how horribly inconsistent Linux is. I use GNOME as my desktop, and I use some KDE applications. GNOME has made tremendous progress in the last years in terms of consistency. I find GNOME to be exceedingly intuitive- far more so than windows.

For some perverse reason software developers of apps for windows have gone off the deep end over the last years -each having to reinvent the windows UI. Windows with 3rd party apps has become as inconsistent as Linux used to be. I am really looking forward to KDE4-although KDE is self-consistent UI-wise, I find it to be often quite counter-intuitive, requiring a far greater amount of attention and configuration than should be necessary-KDE4 promises to remedy this situation.

Windows usability is simply baffling too me nowadays. Microsoft works so damned hard to hold the users hands that it creates more problems in so doing than it actually solves. If I had a dollar for everytime someone saved a file (whether they created it, downloaded, or copied it) and was then unable to find it- I would be a rich man. Microsoft usability cripples their users-it works to actively prevent users from truly understanding what they are doing. On the one side Microsoft always seems to have 5 different ways for doing the same thing-yet users frequently cannot grasp why doing things one way works and another way fails.

My criticism of windows usability is the same as for KDE- as a system administer I watched clueless users constantly baffled and needing help because the clicked somewhere and something changed- they don't know where they clicked, what it did, but they were faced with something which wasn't *right*-so they would ask me to *fix* it. When I moved the systems to GNOME requests for help dropped dramatically-lots of options and widgets are great for power users, but a source of endless frustration for those who struggling to grasp the relationship between pointing and clicking, as cause, and the results thereof, as effect.

Please when praising Linux don`t overstate things. Linux is great, I love it-but it does have it's quirks and bugs.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by dlevi on Mon 25th Jun 2007 03:06 in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
dlevi Member since:
2006-11-14

--"The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop. And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista."

Flower power belongs to OSX. Window management in MS products has long been consistent. In terms of Vista, no matter what program I am using (assuming it works at all), and no matter what emulation I am running it under, it appears in the same window style (minus java). I have never had a Linux disto on any of my machines for which I can say the same. As far as Linux UI being light years ahead of Vista, I am afraid you *really* need to qualify that by stating which window manager/desktop package you are using before that holds any weight (lightstep, gnome, kde, etc).

This is just a very strange statement to me, and I actually don't care for vista all that much.

Reply Parent Score: 1