Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Thread beginning with comment 380361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Keep it simpler
by dragossh on Mon 24th Aug 2009 18:51 UTC in reply to "Keep it simpler"
dragossh
Member since:
2008-12-16

The other point: Linux is a freedom of choice for all software. I won't grant this freedom for anyone else. If I don't need anything I really don't need it to be installed with my OS. It's a Windows way. I had pre-installed Vista on my Toshiba laptop with 1 GiB of ram, and by default Vista used 850MiB and Toshiba utilities used over 100 MiB. So I had 50MiB for user apps and great swapping therefore. After all tweaks Vista eats 800 MiB and I'm trusted there are unneeded features by I have no chance to disable them.


This is what happens when you don't know about SuperFetch. Vista didn't eat 800MiB, it cached parts of your most used apps to load them faster. When a new application requires memory, Vista gives it up.

Granted, Vista trashe[d/s] your HDD like there's no tomorrow, but that should be due to the Indexing service.

Reply Parent Score: 1