Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jan 2012 10:06 UTC
Windows And so the smartphonification of the general purpose computer continues. This time around, though, it might actually be for the better. Microsoft has detailed two new features in Windows 8: refreshing and resetting your computer. Reinstalls will be a thing of the past.
Thread beginning with comment 502538
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Clearly it doesn't "just work" if you had to list off a dozen third party apps required to keep your OS running. :p

Plus how are new users supposed to know all that? Usually that would end up being via the same methods which Linux users would navigate too when troubleshooting. So don't start spouting garbage about how Linux requires a learning curve to be a stable OS when you just listed of a page of prerequisites which Windows users need to know.

Any OS requires a degree of education. As hard as MS, Apple and Canonical try, computers are a complicated beast. It's akin to giving someone a car and expecting them to drive it without any lessons.

In fact, this problem i have with fanboys in any camp (be that Linux, Apple or Windows) as they assume their method is the best and no other OS works. Clearly that's not true otherwise Linux (for example) wouldn't be used on millions of desktops worldwide.

Now I think I've been more than fair because I've tried not to let my personal preference colour my comments on here. So please show me the same respect and don't fob me off with false pre-tenses.

Reply Parent Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Here try my little challenge and see my words are true! Take ANY distro from 3 years ago, install it, get all the drivers working. you may use CLI now as you are the builder not the consumer. Now that its working use whatever GUI method you prefer to upgrade it to surrent and see how much is broken. now go to the forum and ask for a GUI way to fix what went wrong...guess what? it most likely doesn't exist! When some poo pooed what I said i said "Okay here is the problem i'm having in wireless, now pretend i'm not a nerd, i'm Suzy the checkout girl who knows nothing about your OS, walk me through fixing it with the GUI because buttons i understand" they tried and they tried until finally one said "You can't do that in a GUI".

And THAT, that right there, is why Linux has lower than the margin for error. windows drivers almost never break, and if they do there is a handy 'roll back drivers' button that is "clicky clicky reboot".

Your failing is that you think people will sit down and read man pages and learn Bash and the fact is NOBODY wants to learn that mess, okay? NOBODY. they want GUI, they want simple, they want clicky clicky easy. you don't give them that they go somehwre else. they do NOT care about 'free as in freedom" they do NOT care about "the right to tinker" they do NOT care about "the power of CLI" they want simple and easy. Windows and OSX gives them that in spades, Linux don't. heck look at ANY "mainstream' distro and look at the apps, some do things the Windows way, some the mac way, some old school UNIX, no consistency at all anywhere. Oh and the latest numbers show Linux stalled at 1.3%, that's nearly lower than the margin for error. for an OS that has been out 20 years already? that's horrible numbers.

Me i'm having to scramble to find a Win 7 starter supplier because after all my tests not a SINGLE Linux survived my little three year test, which is less than half the length windows provides support BTW. that's just sad man, that's just sad. Oh and my little 'trick" is simply that, a trick I use to make sure i never have to mess with a machine again. the simple fact is I can slap an AV on a Windows box along with dragon or Firefox or anything other than IE and it'll be going a decade from now with NO tinkering. Can you say the same?

It has nothing to do with being a fanboy of anything, its about knowing the market which its obvious the Linux community doesn't or the numbers wouldn't be so lousy. If I were to sell Linux boxes i'd be out of business in a year because I would have to provide free lifetime support AND have spares for when the 6 month upgrade broke something that a "fix" isn't out for yet AND have to deal with customers getting burned because the only way to buy devices is to play hardware roulette when it comes to Linux because all the forums have device lists horribly out of date. Sorry but I'd like to not go out of business and the only ones that Linux "works" for is geeks who don't mind fiddling, since i don't sell to geeks no sale.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Simple and easy, Windows ? Hah !

You have to choose your side, sir. Either you invoke that Windows can work correctly when a knowledgeable person tunes it up, or you invoke that it can be easily used by non-knowledgeable persons. Because maintenance tasks are made anything but easy on this OS.

And before you feel threatened in your intrinsic argumentative superiority and start to spit kilometric paragraphs about how great Windows is with respect to Linux, I'm not saying that Linux is necessarily excellent. It's only less bad. What I'm saying, on the other hand, is that the only reason why you think that Windows is less quirky than Linux is that you are more familiar with its quirks.

You keep invoking the fact that Windows has a GUI, but this OS is pretty much the experimental proof that GUI tools can be made less discoverable and understandable for non-technical people than a CLI. From the point of view of support, I'm sorry to say that blindly running a few bash commands is much, much easier than blindly using MSconfig, the Registry editor, the Services manager, or most tools which are designed as a prettier frontend to those such as CCleaner.

In a sense, I prefer what Apple did in OS X : when an OS designer can't figure out how to design an advanced GUI, it's best to leave the job to command-line tools. Their simpler nature makes them harder to mess up.

Edited 2012-01-09 06:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Here try my little challenge and see my words are true! Take ANY distro from 3 years ago, install it, get all the drivers working. you may use CLI now as you are the builder not the consumer. Now that its working use whatever GUI method you prefer to upgrade it to surrent and see how much is broken. now go to the forum and ask for a GUI way to fix what went wrong...guess what? it most likely doesn't exist! When some poo pooed what I said i said "Okay here is the problem i'm having in wireless, now pretend i'm not a nerd, i'm Suzy the checkout girl who knows nothing about your OS, walk me through fixing it with the GUI because buttons i understand" they tried and they tried until finally one said "You can't do that in a GUI".

I've been using Linux for the past 10 years and I can say that for at least 5 of those years everything could be done via a GUI.
Most of the time when users drop down to the CLI, it's to edit a config file or delete system files. Guess what, that can be done via Kwrite, Gedit or any number of other text editors and files can be deleted via any file manager. Granted you'd need to run your app as root (which, again, can be done via the GUI) but that's no different to running regedit as administrator on Windows. Further more, editing config files are no more complicated that editing the registry (in fact, arguably less so).

If you want to know the real reason users get directed to the CLI - it's not because the GUI in Linux doesn't work, it's because:
a/ different users will have different GUI's they're familiar with - and thus directing them around can be a complete nightmare
b/ CLI commands can be copied and pasted from a forum / wiki and will almost always work proving the user can copy / paste (which is far less demanding to n00bs than asking them to learn the fundamentals of regedit and msconfig).

Granted Linux might be shooting itself in the back by giving CLI solutions to problems as it gives the illusion of greater complication, but these people give up their free time to help support n00bs so it's hardly their fault if they choose the easy solution (from a support perspective) rather than trying to talk someone through a graphical user interface that the n00b is unfamiliar with (have you ever tried to do this? I have and it's a bloody painful affair!!)


And THAT, that right there, is why Linux has lower than the margin for error.

Bullshit - by your logic PowerShell would be proof that Windows 7 has a lower margin for error than XP.

What you're doing taking two personal opinions and trying to correlate an unrelated argument from it;
the CLI vs GUI debate has absolutely nothing to do with an OS's reliance from fucking up


windows drivers almost never break, and if they do there is a handy 'roll back drivers' button that is "clicky clicky reboot".

There are Linux equivalents. To assume there aren't is just ignorant.


Your failing is that you think people will sit down and read man pages and learn Bash and the fact is NOBODY wants to learn that mess, okay?

Cut the crap. I never once suggested people would want to or even need to learn bash. Far from it in fact.
If you are going to falsify my arguments then this discussion is pointless.

NOBODY. they want GUI, they want simple, they want clicky clicky easy. you don't give them that they go somehwre else.

I take it you've never used KDE nor GNOME then :p

they do NOT care about 'free as in freedom" they do NOT care about "the right to tinker" they do NOT care about "the power of CLI" they want simple and easy.

You're the one raising these points, not me. If you really thought I felt that was the case then why are you the one raising those points when I've kept quiet about it?



Windows and OSX gives them that in spades, Linux don't.

"Doesn't"

Grammar aside, you're still wrong. Linux does have "clicky clicky easy" interfaces. I will grant you that many Linux apps are less pretty than Windows apps though. But that tide is turning with many desktop environments dragging the GUI into the 21st Century.


heck look at ANY "mainstream' distro and look at the apps, some do things the Windows way, some the mac way, some old school UNIX, no consistency at all anywhere.

True, but where is the consistency in Windows? Even Microsoft break their own usability and toolkit guidelines (each new version of Office is significantly different in graphical design from the rest of the OS). I hear people (and rightly so) arguing against the consistency in Linux, but maintaining such consistency is pretty much impossible for a major OS. Even OS is starting to lose that fight and Apple are the strictest for UI consistency.

This argument is just another example of how Windows fanboys can't look past their own bias to see the problems on in their own back yard.



Oh and the latest numbers show Linux stalled at 1.3%, that's nearly lower than the margin for error. for an OS that has been out 20 years already? that's horrible numbers.

Oh that old argument: "Few people use it bso it must be shit".

Let me educate you a little about basic mathmatics: 1.3% is a relative figure. Given the vast numbers of computers in the world (we're talking billions), 1.3% is a monumentally high number of Linux installs.

Now let me educate you a little about how these figures are compiled: nearly every laptop and pre-build PC sold counts as a Windows sale. even my laptop (which doesn't run Windows) counts as a Windows sale because MS have managed to tie their OS with nearly every pre-install. In fact trying to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed is a fucking nightmare (trust me, I've tried). Furthermore, many PCs dual boot which, again, would register as a Windows install rather than Linux or both. So we simply don't know how many Linux users the really is. There's no accurate way we could possible know this (and this is proved by all the wildly contradicting estimates you see).

Now let me educate you on public trends: Having a large market share does not prove a product is any good. Here, in the UK, BT have a massive lead for supplying telecomes solutions, yet they're one of the least reliable IT corporations around. However many people buy from BT because they either don't know better or simple do not have any choice (eg when BT have a literal monopoly in their area). Lynx (the deodorant) is the biggest selling deodorant in Britain, yet it's one of the worst smelling and rubbish as an antiperspirant. And finally many people like the worst music for no reason other than it's constantly hammered on TV and the radio so they end up liking it through repetition. If the best quality product always prevailed, then BT would have gone bust, Lynx wouldn't sell and pop music would be creative independent artists. However sometimes people just buy what their familiar with as it's more preferable to trying something new.

Now lets take your example and shift it to the mobile market: Windows has about 2% market on smart phones and even less on tablets. Where as Linux is enjoying ~40% on smart phones alone. Therefore, using your logic, Windows has a lower margin for error the moment your hardware becomes portable.

Now clearly I'm not suggesting this to be the case - however it does prove how retarded your original argument was.


Me i'm having to scramble to find a Win 7 starter supplier because after all my tests not a SINGLE Linux survived my little three year test, which is less than half the length windows provides support BTW. that's just sad man, that's just sad.

Once again, you're not comparing like for like:
With Linux, many distros don't see OS upgrades (eg going from version 1 to version 2) as a new OS but more like a "Windows service pack" for Linux. With Windows, OS upgrades are, in essence, a whole new OS. Thus MS have no option but to keep their support alive

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

....continued....


Oh and my little 'trick" is simply that, a trick I use to make sure i never have to mess with a machine again. the simple fact is I can slap an AV on a Windows box along with dragon or Firefox or anything other than IE and it'll be going a decade from now with NO tinkering. Can you say the same?

Yup, indeed you can. However the OS wouldn't be up to date, but then neither would your Windows box if you did what you were suggesting.


It has nothing to do with being a fanboy of anything,

So why the unbalanced opinion? At least I've admitted the negative aspects of Linux, you seem completely blind to the negative aspects of Windows.

its about knowing the market which its obvious the Linux community doesn't

And which market specifically is that which the "Linux community" (which please bare in mind is so massive that there's different facets for different niches) does not understand?

Your comment is such a sweeping generalisation that I could be here all day debunking such nonsense.

If I were to sell Linux boxes i'd be out of business in a year because I would have to provide free lifetime support AND have spares for when the 6 month upgrade broke something that a "fix" isn't out for yet AND have to deal with customers getting burned because the only way to buy devices is to play hardware roulette when it comes to Linux because all the forums have device lists horribly out of date. Sorry but I'd like to not go out of business and the only ones that Linux "works" for is geeks who don't mind fiddling, since i don't sell to geeks no sale.

All of my hardware works out of the box and I never check for Linux compatibility. I will admit that my first laptop had issues with it's graphics chip and wireless chipset (largely because ASUS, in their infinite wisdom, re-branded the chipsets so the generic drivers -which should have worked- didn't recognise the hardware. In fact Windows wouldn't recognise the same hardware out of the box either. But that's neither here nor there as the end result was the same). That's the only hardware I've ever struggled with in 10 years of Linux.

In all honesty, I have genuinely had just as much hardware go undetected in Windows as I have in Linux: Graphics chips that go undetected; soundcards and so on (just have a read through nerd forums and see the number of "Windows is not detecting xyz" thread to see my point). Windows is far from perfect on the driver front.

In fact, while we're talking about the n00bs, installing drivers can be a complete nightmare for them (particularly if they lose the driver CD supplied with their hardware). At least with Linux, virtually everything is detected and installed out of the box (bar closed binaries, but many of the n00b-focussed distros include simple GUI tools for switching between propitiatory and open drivers - tools which include downloading the drivers for you for added simplicity).

Again, I'm not trying to boast that Linux has better / easier to manage hardware support than Windows does. They both just work differently so I acknowledge the differences and the pros and cons they bring. Where as people like yourself can't see past the Windows ecosystem and thus assume that MS has developed the only working solution (which, quite frankly, is a narrow-minded attitude to have).

Expanding my point a little, many of the problems I've seen with Windows users condemning Linux is the complete ignorance towards it. They want Linux to behave like Windows and then complain when it doesn't. It's akin to buying an Android handset and demanding it function like Win Phone 7 or buying a PS3 and expecting it to play Xbox games.

Reply Parent Score: 2