Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 31st Mar 2009 06:30 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Many have gotten antsy the past months about the Conficker worm, and all with good reason. Though the worm hasn't done much of anything (yet) except spread like the plague, it's infectious if one doesn't have his or her Windows operating system up-to-date with the most recent security updates. The worm is supposed to execute on April 1st, and the computer world is holding its breath to see if a disaster comparable to the hyped-up supposed Y2K doomsday will ensue or if it's just someone's idea of a sick April Fool's Day joke.
Thread beginning with comment 356066
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Yet another reason....
by shadoweva09 on Tue 31st Mar 2009 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another reason...."
shadoweva09
Member since:
2008-03-10

Except all those arguments fall apart horribly when compared to the actual situation. Ubuntu only maintains a small baseline of packages, the package the user wants is often out of date and they need to hunt down the latest while hoping it provides the right package format. Cleaning dependencies often means running a special command instead of it taking care of itself.

Saying windows had problems with dependencies is a little more than ridiculous, the good programs that need things like directx updates check for their prescence themselves and send the user to the download site if not found. The vast majority of applications ship with everything they're dependent on so it's never a problem. The add/remove programs feature is practically flawless and does get rid of anything that's not configuration files in user folders last time I checked. It's very doubtful you've used Windows recently. And like I said, a little wasted disk space just isn't that important. Any problems from dlls are really from bad programmers, and the latest ext4 fiasco proves there are a lot more of those on Linux if that could slip by so many people.

Linux isn't getting anywhere because of people like you who won't admit flaws and take objective viewpoints of the actual situation. Go ask the 98% of people who don't like Linux why, and you'll find all their reasons stem from dependencies.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Except all those arguments fall apart horribly when compared to the actual situation. Ubuntu only maintains a small baseline of packages, the package the user wants is often out of date and they need to hunt down the latest while hoping it provides the right package format.

False. One of the things that I really, really, like about Ubuntu is the 26684 packages in the Main, Universe, Multiverse reposity triumvirate which comes installed by default.

Sure, distros like Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS can seem rather limiting, even with Extras, EPEL, RPMForge, etc. But in those rare instances in which I can't just apt-get what I want, I'm always a bit startled.

Go ask the 98% of people who don't like Linux why, and you'll find all their reasons stem from dependencies.

For it to have any value, you are going to need to back that unsupported assertion up with some actual evidence.

Reply Parent Score: 4

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10


For it to have any value, you are going to need to back that unsupported assertion up with some actual evidence.


Go ask them. Of course you'll have to find ones that have used Linux, but you'll find the defection rate is incredibly high. It's literally information you can get by going around and asking people, so stop being lazy.

Edited 2009-03-31 17:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Yet another reason....
by phoenix on Wed 1st Apr 2009 06:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another reason...."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Except all those arguments fall apart horribly when compared to the actual situation. Ubuntu only maintains a small baseline of packages, the package the user wants is often out of date and they need to hunt down the latest while hoping it provides the right package format.

False. One of the things that I really, really, like about Ubuntu is the 26684 packages in the Main, Universe, Multiverse reposity triumvirate which comes installed by default.
"

Note: that's 26,000+ packages, and not 26,000+ programs or applications. Many of those packages are meta-packages (linux-image*, for example), or library packages, or programs split into multiple sub-packages (all the kde packages, for example). So while it looks cool to say "Ubuntu has over 26,000 packages available", it's nowhere near the same as saying "Ubuntu has over 26,000 applications available".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Yet another reason....
by Laurence on Tue 31st Mar 2009 18:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another reason...."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Except all those arguments fall apart horribly when compared to the actual situation.

I'm talking about the actual situation.
I'm talking about actual real life experiences from not just myself but other Ubuntu users I have spoken to.
I'm not hypothesising here - I am talking about the real actual situation.

Ubuntu only maintains a small baseline of packages, the package the user wants is often out of date and they need to hunt down the latest while hoping it provides the right package format.

Rubbish. Everything I've ever needed to install has been available from Ubuntu repositories. And those few specific applications that aren't can easily be found by adding additional repositories to apt-get's source's file (again, all can be done via a GUI).

Cleaning dependencies often means running a special command instead of it taking care of itself.

Yeah, but the command does take care of it.
Windows doesn't even have a command.

Saying windows had problems with dependencies is a little more than ridiculous,

Pot calling the kettle black

the good programs that need things like directx updates check for their prescence themselves and send the user to the download site if not found.

But then it has to be manually installed.
Linux manages that for you.


The add/remove programs feature is practically flawless and does get rid of anything that's not configuration files in user folders last time I checked.

That's only 1 aspect of a much larger picture though.
It doesn't manage dependancies or shared DLLs.
It doesn't download application updates or windows hot-fixs / service packs.
It doesn't manage installing new applications.

It's very doubtful you've used Windows recently.

Actually I do use it often. Sure Windows is getting better, but it's still got a long way to go.

But while we're making assumptions: it's doubtful you've used Linux recently ;)


And like I said, a little wasted disk space just isn't that important.

It is when it starts to slow you're system up because of the excessively large system directory and registry keys due to lack of package management tools.

Any problems from dlls are really from bad programmers,

Actually, having shared DLLs is a good programming practice, not bad.
The problem is Windows isn't good for logging which applications use which shares so you end up keeping dozens of DLLs just in case removing them breaks other applications.


Linux isn't getting anywhere because of people like you who won't admit flaws and take objective viewpoints of the actual situation.

I'm very objective. I just think you're talking BS.
The very reason I use Linux is because of the package managers. If it wasn't for that, then I'd be using FreeBSD on my laptop.



Go ask the 98% of people who don't like Linux why, and you'll find all their reasons stem from dependencies.

Conincidently 98% of all statistics are made up on the spot ;)

But if we must play the "lets make up statistics" game, then here's my input:
98% of people don't like Linux because it's not Windows and doesn't run Windows programs (Photoshop, MS Office, etc)

Reply Parent Score: 4

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

Most of your argument falls in on itself. Like windows doesn't have a command line for uninstalling software. That would mean you blame windows for being designed to be graphical instead of based on a command line. And wow, manually installing up to 3 programs that you qualify as dependencies in the lifetime of the machine is a problem how? Are you sure it doesn't manage shared dlls, or are you looking at the Microsoft shared dlls that came with the system? I'm sure it has more to do with bad programmers again.

and here's a good stats site: http://www.atinternet-institute.com/en-us/internet-users-equipment/...

Also, why don't you try PCBSD, I here it manages the problem well in theory.

Reply Parent Score: 1

spinnekopje Member since:
2008-11-29

Go ask the 98% of people who don't like Linux why, and you'll find all their reasons stem from dependencies.


I'm sure you're wrong, I have 3 reasons:
1: I can't open my documents (all in the latest MS Office format)
2: I can't use my favorite windows-only program and I don't want to look for a good (or better) alternative.
3: My hardware doesn't work out of the box

Not even 1 person said something about dependencies if I only count people I talked to in real life.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Yet another reason....
by pixel8r on Wed 1st Apr 2009 04:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another reason...."
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

"Go ask the 98% of people who don't like Linux why, and you'll find all their reasons stem from dependencies.


I'm sure you're wrong, I have 3 reasons:
1: I can't open my documents (all in the latest MS Office format)
2: I can't use my favorite windows-only program and I don't want to look for a good (or better) alternative.
3: My hardware doesn't work out of the box

Not even 1 person said something about dependencies if I only count people I talked to in real life.
"

This is true. However...

1. You would first need the latest MS office in order to save documents in that format (you claimed they were YOUR documents). since MS Office 2007 doesn't run on linux, this problem is moot. Earlier versions of office (up to 2003) will run perfectly under wine. Works for me. If you must open MS Office 2007 documents, the best solution is still ms office on windows. There are converters for OpenOffice but I've yet to see one that works 100%.

2. fair enough - however I have this trouble when trying to run linux-only programs on windows. its a real pain.

3. I'm finding this hard to believe. What you may have meant is that your hardware does not have ALL of its features supported 100% on linux. This isn't a problem for most pc users. As long as they have a desktop and can surf the net and use email they're fine - and linux does this superbly.

I am a home user and I've used linux for 7+ years now. Yes sometimes it is a pain in the neck, but I switched because I thought the same of windows. I'm not suggesting linux is perfect, but I do believe it is technically better than all other mainstream OS's. For myself, I prefer using it for the customizability and freedom it gives me. I hardly use any office software - mostly I do software development(qt) and use the internet, email and watch tv. incidently my tv card doesn't work on windows, no matter how hard i try.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Yet another reason....
by Dave_K on Wed 1st Apr 2009 10:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another reason...."
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I'm sure you're wrong, I have 3 reasons: 1: I can't open my documents (all in the latest MS Office format) 2: I can't use my favorite windows-only program and I don't want to look for a good (or better) alternative. 3: My hardware doesn't work out of the box


I agree, if you include the lack of games in reason 2 then that covers the most common reasons (by far) that I hear for not using Linux. Those 3 certainly cover 95% of why I stick with Windows.

I do still hit software installation and upgrade issues in Linux now and then, but things have improved massively in this area. I wouldn't say that the dependency issues I've experienced in modern Linux distributions are any more annoying than the unnecessary restarts when installing software in Windows.

I sometimes work from home, so being able to open documents from other people is essential. There's no point in using OpenOffice at all when most of the documents I'm working with have to be in Microsoft's formats. Booting into Windows to open a form someone's sent me, or trying to run MS Office under Linux, are a waste of my time.

Then there's the quality of the available software, and the hassle learning to uses a different app. I'm not saying that GIMP, for example, isn't a decent product, but I have several years of experience with Photoshop, I already own a copy of it, have loads of images saved in its format, and the thought of switching to something else isn't appealing when there's no reason to do so.

I also use my PC for ripping audio CDs and playing music, and the tools available for Linux just aren't on a par with the equivalent Windows software. No Linux ripping software compares with Exact Audio Copy for features and automation, and Foobar2000 is more mature and feature rich than any Linux audio player. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to downgrade to the software available for Linux, but it would outweigh any advantages that Linux offers.

Hardware compatibility is a bit less of an issue these days, but I'd still have to replace my E-mu USB soundcard and a couple of other components if I was to switch. That would erase any cost advantage when comparing Windows to Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Yet another reason....
by darknexus on Tue 31st Mar 2009 22:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another reason...."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The add/remove programs feature is practically flawless and does get rid of anything that's not configuration files in user folders last time I checked.

Ok, on this one I'm calling bs. The Windows add/remove tool does one thing and one thing only: it stores information on currently installed programs and among that information is a path to their uninstaller. Their uninstaller. Windows itself has nothing to do with the removal process, other than to fire up the uninstaller. Some of these uninstallers are coded badly, and leave, not only registry keys, but files all over the place. Anyone try and remove Norton Antivirus lately? How about Microsoft Office 2003? Windows does absolutely nothing when it comes to uninstalling programs, just like it has nothing to do with installing and managing them, and when you've got an incomplete uninstaller, it is you, the user, who pays the price for that.
And yes, I have personal experience on this matter, not only have I dealt with badly coded removal programs, but I've also created a fair number of installers and uninstallers myself and know exactly what the add/remove feature in Windows does and does not do as a result. Before you say things such as your above comment, please look into the matter more thoroughly (i.e. do your research).

Reply Parent Score: 3