Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg
2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

1. When you stay within the bounds of a distro's package management system, it's usually not a problem.
2. Don't talk to us, talk to Broadcom and TI. n0c's done several *nix wifi threads, so you might want to read those. Read this too. Use wpa_supplicant for roaming.
3. Hey, Steve! I didn't know you posted here.

Standard GUI? In order to use a computer properly, you must be taught certain concepts in abstract; yet few teach or learn them this way.

If a non-standard GUI ever becomes a primary reason for non-adoption of Linux, it's a damn silly excuse for the concrete to oppress the abstract.

 

[Shamrock]

guess what else...

Eiger....or Windows XP Starter edition....stops functioning if it detects an Athlon or Pentium 4. It detects it at bootup

http://news.com.com/Windows+for+India%2...+chips/2100-1016_3-5704942.html?tag=nl

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Shamrock
guess what else...

Eiger....or Windows XP Starter edition....stops functioning if it detects an Athlon or Pentium 4. It detects it at bootup

http://news.com.com/Windows+for+India%2...+chips/2100-1016_3-5704942.html?tag=nl

Why don't they just catch a clue and open it to a market that is more than willing to pay for their product instead of stealing it? I don't get it. They don't make any money from pirates right now, and they have a chance to offer a product they would probably pay for, but instead they slap their hand... I'm confused! What do they want?!

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg

Installation is a deeper issue than a series of dialogue boxes that make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Installing packaged apps is as easy on linux as on any operating system. Learning how packaging works may be a bit harder, but I can see someone who understands alot about a particular package system on linux get pissed off at a windows installation because it treats him/her like an idiot, not saying where libraries where put, what registry keys were written, if any services were installed... It's a two way street.

2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

I guess it's fair enough that someone wouldn't like OOo but I think it's good enough for the majority of people. I haven't touched MS Office for a long time (except at work, where it's mandatory).

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

Originally posted by: Spencer278
This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself and people like me?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Spencer278
This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself and people like me?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

This sort of thing is mostly a familarity issue.

How long have you been using Windows?
How do you know what a driver is?
How do you know what I mean when I say "C drive"?
How do you know the difference between a C and a A drive?
What happens when you right click on a desktop?
Were do you go to search for a file name?
Were do you go to search thru the CONTENTS of a bunch of text files?
How do you uninstall and reinstall TCP/IP?
How do you extract system files from a *.cab file?
What are *.cab files?
What are *.pwd files?
Why would you need a "boot floppy"?
What is a "boot floppy"?
How do you make a file executable?
What was the 8.3 naming rule?
Why was their a 8.3 naming rule?
Why would it matter if you double click on certain attatchments with certian names in outlook express?
What is outlook express?
Which of these extensions are executable?:
*.ade *.adp *.bas *.bat *.chm *.cmd *.com *.cpl *.crt *.eml *.exe *.hlp *.hta *.inf *.ins *.isp *.jse *.lnk *.mdb *.mde *.msc *.msi *.msp *.mst *.ocx *.pcd *.pif *.pot *.ppt *.reg *.scr *.sct *.shb *.shs *.sys *.url *.vb *.vbe *.vbs *.wsc *.wsf *.wsh *.xl*
What is the registry?
What does it do?
How do you modify the registry?
Can you find me were notepad.exe is at? Were is regedit?
What is a shortcut? How do you make a short cut? How do you modify a shortcut?

So if you know most of that stuff then your familar with Windows and fairly knowledgable. Most people I know would know almost nothing about most of that crap.

Windows is NOT easy. Windows is comfortable. Most people here have used windows for years and years and years. You've made mistakes and have had it crap out on your many times. Programs being installed caused problems. Programs being uninstalled caused problems. Various spyware has been installed and you've had to invest money into products to protect you from your OS's short commings. Anti-virus, firewalls, etc.

Do you realise they have to teach people how to use Windows in schools? That people pay hundreds of dollars just to know how to use their computer enough just to edit word files?

Go to any community college and you can find classes full of people struggling to learn how to use many different types of commercial software. Corporations spend millions and millions of dollars a year in the US to train people on how to use Windows and before they even get to the point were they can learn how to do their jobs. I've known people that have had to drop classes because Windows was to difficult for them to use and they couldn't keep up with the classwork, they just never used a computer much before.

A OS is a very complex peice of software. It does a lot of things. Windows has many pitfalls, flaws, and problems. And you've learned to work around it and live with it.

Now if you want to use Windows, that's fine. It's your choice and I don't think any less of you.

But at least in Linux I dont' have to worry about memorizing 30 or so different file extensions to make sure I dont' accidently install a virus on my computer by trying to look at a file.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Spencer278
This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself and people like me?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

I can use linux just fine. That doesn't change the fact that linux developers write How-to's to fix problem because they are to lazy, or stupidto fix the problem. As for powerfull let say we both just installed linux. You have your 5 how-to's I have my magic button that makes it so fonts don't look like ass. You can be powerfull for the next hour fixxing what I did in three mouse clicks. I will spend that hour doing real work.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Spencer278
This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself and people like me?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

I can use linux just fine. That doesn't change the fact that linux developers write How-to's to fix problem because they are to lazy, or stupidto fix the problem. As for powerfull let say we both just installed linux. You have your 5 how-to's I have my magic button that makes it so fonts don't look like ass. You can be powerfull for the next hour fixxing what I did in three mouse clicks. I will spend that hour doing real work.

Now if you head here, you can see how easy Nvidia makes installer a new driver. " sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7174-pkg1.run
" A one line command to install a driver. Perhaps only done easier through Apt-Get or portage. The main difference is when people who have no clue about OS functions or updates, Linux or Windows, there is a larger crowd of Windows resources to turn to. Familiarity is possibly the number one reason people stick with Microsoft, it's not ease of use. Both products tend to do roughly the same as an experienced computer user. I can install both, update drivers, install programs, play games on each platform. The only thing that slows me down on Linux is the underlying mechanisms that I have no idea how they work and require time to relearn the Linux equilivent of what I do on Windows. I didn't log into a windows machine the first time and know everything I do today. It's been years working on the platform and working with real Windows experts.

I still know people that have calls from relatives constantly bombarding them with issues that are simplistic for a computer savvy person. It's not ease of use, it the fact you can practically ask anyone in the IT field and they have some sort of Windows knowledge(or so some claim ). Joe Sixpacks don't really care about anything more than the "It just works features" that on the most part Windows tries to setup for the user. Linux has come a long way in accomplishing that for end users.

A large portion of the Windows vs Linux arguement stems from the inability to accomplish certain functions, which really doesn't hold water as far as the OS is concerned. They can do practically everything the other can do, the major difference lies in the application support arena. When developers do not write software for Linux, people typically turn around and say I can do that on Windows. While that is a perfectly true statement, it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the core OS.


Also we all know once you are using the GUI in linux, you aren't doing real work to begin with.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Indeed, that is the problem. The learning curve of Linux is a tad long, and understanding their file system usually requires:
a.- lots of reading
b- someone like n0ocmonkery to explian (if he can stand not calling you "fucktard", "retard", "stupid" or something before he is half way the explanation.)

Come on Aensleiusahfkljnfljsdjlhuigfasdjd, I'm not always the evil one. You can get over it one of these days.

The *nix filesystem actually makes sense.

And I wrote up a doc on that, so I wouldn't be tempted to call someone names.

 

[Kroeger]

I am all for someone taking the time and effort to read up on how their particular OS choice is organised etc, but with something as basic as Fonts and how they affect your enjoyment in using your computer, I do not understand why they do not come set up perfect out of the box so to speak!!!!

I am not evangelising XP but my fonts always display without problems, if Linux could get this sorted then I believe I would make the switch.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I am all for someone taking the time and effort to read up on how their particular OS choice is organised etc, but with something as basic as Fonts and how they affect your enjoyment in using your computer, I do not understand why they do not come set up perfect out of the box so to speak!!!!

I am not evangelising XP but my fonts always display without problems, if Linux could get this sorted then I believe I would make the switch.

Whatever font you want you make a .font directory in your home folder and copy whatever true type fonts you want to it.

Or if you want system wide fonts you can copy them to /usr/share/fonts or /usr/local/share/fonts directory. Then any true type font you stick in their becomes instantly aviable to your apps.

You have to understand that there is significant legal and licensing issues to fonts. It may not seem a big deal to you, but it is a big deal and the publishing industry spends millions of dollars on developing and licensing fonts. Apple and Microsoft pay significant amounts of money to get decent fonts..

Beleive me, I spent a a few hours of classwork in a couple semesters learning about fonts and typesetting (godawful boring stuff)

Then in Gnome you can go thru your start menu and into desktop preferences. In their you can find the font selector and pick different rendering methods. In KDE it's accesable thru your desktop control stuff.

You can find MS core fonts and howto extract them at http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
Don't worry about xfs or mkfontdir or anything like that. That's the old way.. for *.ttf files all you have to do is copy them to your homes ~/.fonts or /usr/share/fonts or /usr/local/share/fonts as described in /etc/fonts/font.conf file.

Here are some nice fonts:
http://www.dustismo.com/

Most distros include some nice fonts by default nowadays..

 

[nweaver]

one thing i HATE about windows is the inabliity to mount a filesystem where I want. If I have 2 hard drives, I have to mount them as drive letters. In linux, if I want to mount it in my home directory, or in the middle of my web server, I can. Want to use network share space easily? easy, mount it where the app wants it, and you have it.

Oh, and that one hour you get clicking fonts is really one hour each install...ask N0c how long is BSD boxes have been up some time. Don't give me the "I have never reinstalled" line, as MOST people here probably reinstall their main rig at least once a year.

Oh, and it's 2 hours, one to figure it out, one to perfect a shell/perl/java script to do it next time.

As far as installations, get a package manager and use it. emerge resolves all the dependencies for you, and apt-get (I think) is even better, as it's a bit more stable/consistant.

Linux is feature rich...Windows FINALLY includes zip files. Now it just needs to get rar, gzip, bz2 and a few others embedded...

And the number one reason I like linux more: Open Source Software. There is sooo much out there that doesn't run on windows, and is just awsome for what I do. My current favorites are Ntop, MRTG, Nagios, and Nessus (although there is a nessus port now).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: nweaver
one thing i HATE about windows is the inabliity to mount a filesystem where I want. If I have 2 hard drives, I have to mount them as drive letters. In linux, if I want to mount it in my home directory, or in the middle of my web server, I can. Want to use network share space easily? easy, mount it where the app wants it, and you have it.

I thought the ability to do this was a recent addition to Windows... I could be way off though.

Oh, and that one hour you get clicking fonts is really one hour each install...ask N0c how long is BSD boxes have been up some time. Don't give me the "I have never reinstalled" line, as MOST people here probably reinstall their main rig at least once a year.

My systems at home get rebooted every couple of months. I follow development snapshots when I can.

Solaris systems stay up forever and a day though. A couple of years isn't anything exciting.

 

[nweaver]

sorry, didn't mean uptime as much as I meant time between reinstalls. I know that actual time spent taking my laptop from Gentoo 2004.1 to 2005 and kernel 2.4. to 2.6 was about 20 minutes of my time. More box time, but only because I wanted to recompile stuff to support ntpl. It took almost 18 hours to recompile everything.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: nweaver
sorry, didn't mean uptime as much as I meant time between reinstalls. I know that actual time spent taking my laptop from Gentoo 2004.1 to 2005 and kernel 2.4. to 2.6 was about 20 minutes of my time. More box time, but only because I wanted to recompile stuff to support ntpl. It took almost 18 hours to recompile everything.

If I compile an update, it's ~12 hours for a 36mhz sparcstation.

30-40 minutes to upgrade through snapshots because I have a large drive and they all need to be fscked before upgrades.

 

[Loop2kil]

I can get from point A to point B on the bus or in my car.
the bus is free but it takes me a lot longer to get there.
therefore in my mind at this point the expense of buying a car makes more sense because I go out the door jump in the car and in 10 minutes I am at my destination.

If I take the bus I may have to wait a half hour to catch it, go to 10 stops I didn't want to visit, and get dropped off 6 blocks from where I am trying to go.


So far all linux has made me do is appreciate windows more> Will that change over the next year as I play with linux???> maybe, I am trying to reserve judgement until I give it a fair shake as I realize part of the problem is me because I need a better understanding of the OS, which is not going to happen overnight.

Very good analogy, although i would like to give linux a serious effort again...i've tried a couple and managed to get online with them but never kept an install long enough to say i've tried hard enough to learn it.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg
2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

Guess what, Eiger won't run office or many other applications:
http://office.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000940043352/

My comments were more aimed at Linux as an end user system, rather than the specific case of Eiger. I'm not exactly familiar with the market they're going for with Eiger.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg
2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

1. When you stay within the bounds of a distro's package management system, it's usually not a problem.
2. Don't talk to us, talk to Broadcom and TI. n0c's done several *nix wifi threads, so you might want to read those. Read this too. Use wpa_supplicant for roaming.
3. Hey, Steve! I didn't know you posted here.

Standard GUI? In order to use a computer properly, you must be taught certain concepts in abstract; yet few teach or learn them this way.

If a non-standard GUI ever becomes a primary reason for non-adoption of Linux, it's a damn silly excuse for the concrete to oppress the abstract.

People enjoy and often demand stability of their UI when using a computer. They want to learn one thing and not have to learn another way to accomplish the same thing. Linux has a very wide variety of ways to accomplish any given simple task. The average computer user (read mom, pop, grandma) wants a single, simple way to accomplish a task. Essentially, they want a computer to function like an appliance (and no, this is not a slow, limited in functionality device like webTV).

What I'm saying is that a standardized GUI is what they prefer, rather than having to learn the multiple different ways different distros and desktop environments get things done.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Spencer278
This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself and people like me?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

This sort of thing is mostly a familarity issue.

How long have you been using Windows?
How do you know what a driver is?
How do you know what I mean when I say "C drive"?
How do you know the difference between a C and a A drive?
What happens when you right click on a desktop?
Were do you go to search for a file name?
Were do you go to search thru the CONTENTS of a bunch of text files?
How do you uninstall and reinstall TCP/IP?
How do you extract system files from a *.cab file?
What are *.cab files?
What are *.pwd files?
Why would you need a "boot floppy"?
What is a "boot floppy"?
How do you make a file executable?
What was the 8.3 naming rule?
Why was their a 8.3 naming rule?
Why would it matter if you double click on certain attatchments with certian names in outlook express?
What is outlook express?
Which of these extensions are executable?:
*.ade *.adp *.bas *.bat *.chm *.cmd *.com *.cpl *.crt *.eml *.exe *.hlp *.hta *.inf *.ins *.isp *.jse *.lnk *.mdb *.mde *.msc *.msi *.msp *.mst *.ocx *.pcd *.pif *.pot *.ppt *.reg *.scr *.sct *.shb *.shs *.sys *.url *.vb *.vbe *.vbs *.wsc *.wsf *.wsh *.xl*
What is the registry?
What does it do?
How do you modify the registry?
Can you find me were notepad.exe is at? Were is regedit?
What is a shortcut? How do you make a short cut? How do you modify a shortcut?

So if you know most of that stuff then your familar with Windows and fairly knowledgable. Most people I know would know almost nothing about most of that crap.

Windows is NOT easy. Windows is comfortable. Most people here have used windows for years and years and years. You've made mistakes and have had it crap out on your many times. Programs being installed caused problems. Programs being uninstalled caused problems. Various spyware has been installed and you've had to invest money into products to protect you from your OS's short commings. Anti-virus, firewalls, etc.

Do you realise they have to teach people how to use Windows in schools? That people pay hundreds of dollars just to know how to use their computer enough just to edit word files?

Go to any community college and you can find classes full of people struggling to learn how to use many different types of commercial software. Corporations spend millions and millions of dollars a year in the US to train people on how to use Windows and before they even get to the point were they can learn how to do their jobs. I've known people that have had to drop classes because Windows was to difficult for them to use and they couldn't keep up with the classwork, they just never used a computer much before.

A OS is a very complex peice of software. It does a lot of things. Windows has many pitfalls, flaws, and problems. And you've learned to work around it and live with it.

Now if you want to use Windows, that's fine. It's your choice and I don't think any less of you.

But at least in Linux I dont' have to worry about memorizing 30 or so different file extensions to make sure I dont' accidently install a virus on my computer by trying to look at a file.

No, I wouldn't call Windows 'easy' but rather, in its current implementation in XP, 'easier' than Linux. Viruses and spyware are a huge issue at the moment, and do significantly dig into the overall OS experience with Windows. Part of it is design, part is security by obscurity (or lack thereof).

I'm not flaming Linux by any means, but I can't help but get the feeling from many Linux fans that they think the OS is fine to be deployed to your average, fairly computer illiterate user. I just don't see it in this role yet.

Anyways, as far as OSes go, my current preference is OSX. I find it to do many things quite well, and have switched to it as my primary OS (although I use Windows on my gaming box and laptop and have tried linux on my laptop).

One thing that would be interesting to see more research and development put into would be the metaphor of the GUI. We're currently using the page metaphor, and I'm not so sure that the printed word is the most ideal thing to use as a model for an electronic medium that does so much more than text (and hypertext is one hell of an advancement over regular text also).

 

[nweaver]

There are multiple ways to do things in Windows. I manage most windows stuff through CLI, as that is my preferred method. Moving from distro to distro is about the same as the move from 9X to 2K to XP. I don't really think that the truely computer illirate would find Linux (with a gui) any harder then windows. It would be a toss up.

 

[cleverhandle]

/rant on

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'm not flaming Linux by any means, but I can't help but get the feeling from many Linux fans that they think the OS is fine to be deployed to your average, fairly computer illiterate user.

Sure it's ready to be deployed. But that's very different than being ready to be administered.

One of MS's greatest successes has to be in convincing the populace that everyone should administer their own computer, a proposition that is fundamentally at odds with people's expectation that computers should be adaptable and capable of accomplishing every new task someone dreams up. How many people work on their own cars anymore? Not many. Yet everyone thinks that they should be able to install a new device that was only a concept when their PC was built or create a secure wireless network in their home between 3 PC's, the XBox, and the toaster. Most people don't have the time or desire to learn how to administer a computer well, whether it's MS or Linux. It's just that Linux is more honest about it. And OSX conveniently skirts the issue by limiting the hardware and software selection so that there are fewer possiblities to account for. Not dissing OSX - I know that's not the only reason it's easy to use, but it is a fundamental part of it. Maybe it was all OK when PC's ran 3 or 4 programs from a DOS prompt, but comparing today's PC's to that is like comparing an `05 Honda Accord to a `57 Chevy.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I am all for someone taking the time and effort to read up on how their particular OS choice is organised etc, but with something as basic as Fonts and how they affect your enjoyment in using your computer, I do not understand why they do not come set up perfect out of the box so to speak!!!!

I am not evangelising XP but my fonts always display without problems, if Linux could get this sorted then I believe I would make the switch.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post (not trying to flame you though ). People assume that just because Linux has the capabilities of displaying these fonts that it should naturally also provide for a no-brainer, one-click solution. The people that develop the core functionality don't want the one-click solution, it simply wouldn't help them.

The people that package the core functionality into something that a new user can handle probably would like to design the one-click solution but there's only so much they can do. There's a tonne of work to do to build that final packaging and it's definitely the less exciting half of the whole job. So the reason it doesn't come set up perfect out of the box is that it's just something that no one has deemed important enough to do yet. Stuff like this just doesn't get done unless there's somebody motivated enough to do it. If that bothers you then feel free to move along or fix it yourself.

As for the argument comparing writing documentation on how to fix fonts vs. actually fixing them: the documentation will go out of date almost immediately and will probably only apply to a few distros in the first place. But, even it it is a little bit off, it will still serve to give people a bump in the right direction in the future so the effort is not wasted. The code for a one-click fix would also go out of date almost immediately and would actually be wasted effort unless someone constantly maintained it, far more effort. I'd rather have fairly helpful documentation that leaves me wiser after having figured out where it was defficient than broken, undocumented code that doesn't fix my problem.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle
/rant on

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
I'm not flaming Linux by any means, but I can't help but get the feeling from many Linux fans that they think the OS is fine to be deployed to your average, fairly computer illiterate user.

Sure it's ready to be deployed. But that's very different than being ready to be administered.

One of MS's greatest successes has to be in convincing the populace that everyone should administer their own computer, a proposition that is fundamentally at odds with people's expectation that computers should be adaptable and capable of accomplishing every new task someone dreams up. How many people work on their own cars anymore? Not many. Yet everyone thinks that they should be able to install a new device that was only a concept when their PC was built or create a secure wireless network in their home between 3 PC's, the XBox, and the toaster. Most people don't have the time or desire to learn how to administer a computer well, whether it's MS or Linux. It's just that Linux is more honest about it. And OSX conveniently skirts the issue by limiting the hardware and software selection so that there are fewer possiblities to account for. Not dissing OSX - I know that's not the only reason it's easy to use, but it is a fundamental part of it. Maybe it was all OK when PC's ran 3 or 4 programs from a DOS prompt, but comparing today's PC's to that is like comparing an `05 Honda Accord to a `57 Chevy.

OK, I had a very long and very beautiful (and very buzzwordy) post which is now lost to the world after I closed the wrong tab. And to think I'm going to be late to class in the morning for nothing! :disgust: I'll rewrite it again if anybody wants to hear it. What other post might ever combine MS, Linux, consoles, DRM/TCPA, and outsourcing, all in the same line of thought? I could have hit the jackpot on that post!

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: nweaver
There are multiple ways to do things in Windows. I manage most windows stuff through CLI, as that is my preferred method. Moving from distro to distro is about the same as the move from 9X to 2K to XP. I don't really think that the truely computer illirate would find Linux (with a gui) any harder then windows. It would be a toss up.

Things I found pretty simple to do in Windows required much more process to do in Linux than windows. Sure you can figure it out, but it just seems easier in Windows. That's just the overall impression I got.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Things I found pretty simple to do in Windows required much more process to do in Linux than windows. Sure you can figure it out, but it just seems easier in Windows. That's just the overall impression I got.

You have how many years of Microsoft experience? You have how many years of Linux experience?

 

[nweaver]

I am going to say it again....

If you sit down a non biased computer novice (i.e. no windows/linux/unix/mac experience), I don't think they would find linux any harder then windows. They might find BSD even easier, as it has better documentation.