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 502564
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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