Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux "If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 550086
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Even the most minor of updates to Windows are far more painful than a complete re-install of my desktop Linux distribution and all associated applications that I use.


Since when? Windows 7 just installs updates. It does this at shutdown/boot time. I has *yet* to get in the way of my using my system. But reinstalling the entire OS and packages (which seem to be what you're implying you do - forgive me if I've misinterpreted) sounds like a heck of a lot more work to me. Do absolutely nothing (including having to download anything manually) vs download a live CD, vet it, decide if an upgrade is warranted, format/wipe root, reinstall (which even with the fastest DVD drive is still going to take at least 10 minutes.) Yes, absolutely simple to use your method - if you are insane or Lemur2, not for a regular user.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by uucppc on Thu 24th Jan 2013 17:15 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
uucppc Member since:
2013-01-24

And there is the problem: At shutdown. While it has been years since I have used Windows (other than to help someone with their computer) I seem to remember that any major update requires a reboot to actually be installed. I also seem to remember that when many programs are installed they also require a reboot. That's just lousy (and not necessary).

And as for upgrading the OS versus wiping clean. Well, yeah - you CAN do it by booting off some medium but you most certainly do not have to. For example - while Fedora recommends you do that the reason is simple: that's what they test (which makes sense because they want it to be as fine as possible for NEW installs). That really is the only reason they do not "support" live upgrades. But the fact it does work and if the user knows enough then they will be able to fix problems that show up, anyway. That is in regards to new releases of the entire distribution and not just software updates (see below).

What is also somewhat amusing is you talk about updates to programs/kernel/whatever as it is the same as the entire OS. Sure, your updates to Windows 7 at shutdown don't need to be put on an external media. Mean while with Linux you not only don't have to do that you don't have to reboot (even if it's a program that is loaded it generally works fine). The way you word it sounds like the updates are along the lines of 'Windows 7' to 'Windows 8' (or whatever). That would be more like the releases of Linux distributions (as I mentioned in previous paragraph) but as I said above you don't have to boot off a dvd/cd either. Of course the other part is that (iirc) Windows actually has some of the tasks to do during shutting down (instead of when the user could be working on something and simply reboot after).

But actually none of that really matters. You should use what works for you. As others have said if Linux is too difficult for the average user (which I would agree it is) then there is no point in them using it. I think Dennis Ritchie himself worded it nicely (it's about Unix but what would Linux be without Unix?). I'm not sure of the exact quote but it is something along the lines of "Unix is basically a simple operating system but you need to be a genius to understand its simplicity." Obviously genius is loosely defined. Another similar one is that Unix is user friendly but it's particular about who it is friendly with. Bottom line: there is no "better" software, programming language, ..., especially if one is not something that the user can use.

And fwiw: why would I even bother writing all of that when I then say it does not matter as everyone should use what works for [whatever they need]? I just wanted to clear up the fact that it is not necessarily replacing the OS and normal updates are not the same as what the other person was referring to (the new releases). I may be wrong about some of the Windows stuff (it changed or I remember wrong, etc.) and while I realize it is a common thing for people to not accept they are wrong, I actually am willing to (no one is perfect and if I thought for any amount of time that I could never be wrong then I would never learn anything new and I would never better myself either). Maybe some here think similar.

Regardless, have a good day (or afternoon, evening, night ...).

Reply Parent Score: 2