Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
The REAL reason linux sucks. A little thing called "product quality"
Wed, 05/13/2009 - 23:35 — kurkosdr
Everyone has his little pet peeves, and so do I. Mine are the "switch to Linux because it's so much perfect" kind of people and unfortunately, they populate the forums quite a lot lately.
Never mind Compiz is buggy, and freezes on some ATI video cards. Never mind that OpenOffice has a truckload of compatibility issues when opening Office documents. That there is a hefty number of tv cards and modems out there that simply don't work. And that the UI is a convoluted mess.
Each and every of these aforementioned problems exists on linux. Even it's creators admit it. Sure, there have been steps of improvement, but these problems still exist, and people still come across them. Whoever claims compiz works perfectly on most video cards, openoffice's compatibility issues are minor, and the linux kernel has drivers for almost all devices, needs to get his facts straightned out right away. Many people with ATI video cards have problems with compiz (yet some others mysteriously not), openoffice is horrible at opening world documents, and linux drivers (kernel or vendor's) are absent for nearly half of tv cards and modems out there.
Sure, you might got lucky and it might work perfectly for you. In fact, linux might be the best and most reliable operating system for you. However if a product doesn't work for nearly half of the people, this means it's of low quality and reliability, and if you still cannot get this, I don't know what to say.
Let me give you a clue. Have you ever wondered why Macs sell quite well, even if they are generally more expensive that Windows PCs? Let me tell you. It's because they are of higher quality. It's because all the devices inside the computer work fine, the 3D desktop is flawless, they run real Office, and the everything in the UI is where it's supposed to be. Windows are somewhat less good in terms of quality and linux, well linux is on the freaking bottom of the food chain. Linux is far from perfect, in fact it sucks hard for the vast majority of people..
A good paradigm: Macs are the BMWs of computers, Windows PCs are the Fords and UNIXes are the pick up trucks.
Linux is an automobile you have to construct out of spare parts from an auto parts store -which by the way, doesn't necessarily have all the parts- with the use of a sledgehammer and a bottle of vodka.
Satisfied owners of such automobiles say that "the fact the auto parts store lacks passenger doors and rear seats are minor issues". You see., they created a two seater buggy and never needed such parts, so it works perfect for them. So it doesn't suck (whazzat?). And that we should all try making our cars from this particular auto parts store. And that we should not care if it doesn't have passenger doors and rear seats... "Com on, give it a shot, it's free!" they say. When you reply to them that you are living in Germany and you'll be freezing cold in the winter, they reply with "you don't know shit about cars, its the fact you live in Germany in the middle of the winter that's the problem, not the fact our car doesn't have passenger doors". They also say "It's Germany's fault that doesn't eliminate winter from it's land, and you should move from there". And believe me, this sounds just as stupid as the "it's hardware makers fault that do not make a separate driver for all the 20+ major linux distros, and you should buy new hardware" to my ears
So, here is what i am trying to say. Compiz is of low quality and sucks. Openoffice is of low quality and sucks. Linux device support is of low quality and sucks. UI is of low quality and sucks. The vast majority of people care about this fact, as they do with passenger doors So... linux is of low quality and sucks for the vast majority of people! See? It wasn't that hard to understand, was it?
Back then, people were blaming site deisgners for not supporting firefox and that firefox is so much perfect, despite the crappy rendering mechanism it utilized. Back-then, it was the site designers who should support Firefox and it's crappy rendering mechanism.
Then... when these people at Mozilla Foundation actually fixed the quality of their product, sites started to show up correctly and then, all out of miracle, it's user percentage actually increased!! Coincidence? I think not.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
-----------------------
Fix your low quality OS. Fix compiz, fix openoffice, fix device support, fix the UI. Fix the damn linux code! And then, users will come by themselves, just like it happened when Mozilla Foundation eventually fixed their Firefox. Till then, stop trying to "convince" us try such a flawed and low quality product, as you 'll only get disappointed users, posting even more linux sucks topics.
Fix it, and people will come
Makes sense.
I'm confused? Are we
I'm confused? Are we talking about Linux here (the kernel) or one of the desktop environments?
People talk of Linux as though it were some "Consumer Product" like Windows or OSX, when in reality it is a kernel, some essential operating system tools, and then a whole world of various software applications that often work together quite nicely. There is no single product here, some people use Fedora and Gnome, others use Ubuntu and KDE, etc. So if you don't like Gnome, say Gnome sucks, if you don't like OpenOffice.org, say it sucks, but don't say a whole operating system sucks because a few pieces of software don't work exactly like you want, or because you installed the system on a PC that was built for an entirely different operating system.
To make a blanket statement that "Linux Sucks" is pretty ignorant, it's like saying Windows sucks because Notepad and Paint aren't very good.
In the Linux world you have an abundance of choice, you can choose every single piece of the puzzle and make it do exactly what you want it to do. If one of those pieces doesn't fit in the puzzle, you are free to get out your scissors and cut that piece to fit if you would like. You even have the choice to not use at all if that's what works best for you.
I'm a developer, and I invested a fair bit of time to become familiar with GNU/Linux because it allows me the most flexibility and I'm to the point where it's as easy and natural as anything ever was to use. Of course I banged my head on the wall while learning how to do some of the trickier things (things that seemed like they shouldn't have to be hard), but eventually you get to a point where it's a joy to use and lets you do whatever the hell you want quickly and easily. When I buy hardware, I buy hardware I know will work in my system, just as you'd do with any other operating system, which makes hardware issues all but disappear.
The only people GNU/Linux distros are no good for are people who think they know a lot about computers because they know how to open the windows management console or add a user to the active directory. The people it is best suited to is basic and advanced computer users. It is not well suited to lazy intermediate users who feel they're owed a complete user-experience like OSX without having to do a single thing to make it happen.
Anyway my point is, you don't walk into a community garden and proclaim the whole garden sucks because there is a pile of dog shit in the dirt.
.............................
.............................
OP is a faggot.
Everyone who compares different operating systems and different people with different needs is a faggot.
Linux is nothing but an ego
Linux is nothing but an ego trip for the half wit developers saying linux can do a few tricks.Its garbage.
Totally agree, Linux sucks
Totally agree, Linux sucks so bad, I used it for several months, and I really tried to like it, but it was awful to use, it made me jump thru hoops just to do something that windows did easily, and it really just seems like something a bunch of geeks put together.
If I had to choose an alternative to windows then yes it would be a mac.
BMW = bowl movement wad, (a
BMW = bowl movement wad, (a piece of s***)
I've got approximately 18/8
I've got approximately 18/8 years of Microsoft/Linux experience, so I feel I can give a nuanced opinion on this subject.
Yes, Linux has a steep learning curve, steeper than windows and mac os. Linux does not suck more then Mac OS or Windows, that's comparing apples to pears. All these operating systems have their own strong and weak points.
If you want to play games -> use windows (that's what I use it for).
If you are a video editor, graphic designer, audio designer ... you'll probably prefer mac.
Linux on the other hand fits the needs of (non ms visual studio) software developers very well.
Before you choose an operating system you have to think about what you want to do with that operating system. For example I'm a software developer, so I spend most of my day interacting with my computer on a rather 'advanced' level. If you spend that much time interacting with a computer, it can become worthwhile to invest a lot of time into learning how to interact with your computer as efficiently as possible. For example, I'm looking for a new apartment and just wrote a bash script to check a certain website and notify me through the terminal if something interesting occurs. I put the bash script in a cronjob so it runs every few minutes et voila, I don't have to visit that site anymore.
When interacting with my OS I rarely use the graphical interface and spend almost all time in the terminal. Why?... because once you know howto use the terminal, it is the most efficient way to interact with your computer (in most occasions).
However, learning this takes a lot of time. So you have to ask yourself, what am I going to do with my computer. If you are a very basic user that only checks mail, works with office and surfs the internet, then Mac, Linux, and Windows will all do just fine. If you want to play games next to that, use windows. If you want to use skype, then I would advice Windows or Mac (I know, it also works under linux, however for the typical user that tolerates little configuration problems...). If you want to have maximal control over your OS and are not affraid of a cockpit with many buttons and switches and are willing to invest time because you know it will pay of in the long-run, use linux.
Bottomline:
Think about how you are using a computer and choose your OS based on that. If you buy a ferrari to go racing on the beach you will be disappointed, If you buy a four wheel drive jeep to compete in the F1 you will also be disappointed... I like the fact that there are different Operating Systems that are good at different things. Instead or arguing which one is generally better, be smart and pick the OS that is right for you.
Funny how every Windows user
Funny how every Windows user I know for some reason is using a Windows installation that is less than 2 years old.
Outside of the business/office environment, many, many people seem to constantly 'lose' files, programs, e-mails because they've had to 'start again'. I know pwople who format-reinstall every semester as a matter of habit know.
These are windows users, you know.... If you look at the failure rate of windows, when isntalled by the user on user built hardware, the failure rate jumps up strikingly.
> Let me give you a clue.
> Let me give you a clue. Have you ever wondered why Macs sell quite well
Thats due to brand loyalty. Ever met a Mac user? They're dedicated to the brand, and Mac has a loyal customer base. Also, people who are sick of Windows know Mac's as they are advertised. They might not know they can install Linux on the same PC and not have to buy a whole new machine. Mac higher quality? Hmm, I'm not sure of that. Worse is that if your ethernet adapter malfunctions, you just cant replace it, like you can with PC's.
> A good paradigm: Macs are the BMWs of computers, Windows PCs are the Fords and UNIXes are the pick up trucks.
You mean analogy? And no, you're analogy is not correct. Macs are the Volvo's. Loyal customer base that swears by it but no one else knows why. Windows is the Ford, or some other car where people buy simply because of the brand name, even though its not necessarily the best car for that price. Linux is the sports car. Might need more maintenance, but more customizable.
> Never mind Compiz is buggy, and freezes on some ATI video cards. Never mind that OpenOffice has a truckload of compatibility issues when opening Office documents.
Then dont use Compiz. Problem solved! Compiz is just pointless eye candy anyway. It's not a core Linux component. OpenOffice seems to open most office documents fine for me. Some may not work well. But its hardly a criticism, since that MS Office formats are NOT OpenOffice's native file format. How well does MS Word do at opening an OpenOffice document?
> Windows are somewhat less good in terms of quality and linux, well linux is on the freaking bottom of the food chain. Linux is far from perfect, in fact it sucks hard for the vast majority of people..
I've just installed Fedora Core 7 on a refurbished IBM Thinkpad. Everything but the modem (which required the installation of a driver) worked after install. Networking, wireless, sound, suspend, video, USB all work. With the installation of a driver, modem as well. YouTube works, Firefox works, networking is fast. I will admit there are gripes, but that is more to do with how quickly distro's become 'obsolete' and some of the assumptions that people make in the Linux community about how computers are used. But the machine has not crashed once, is stable, fast, predictable and secure.
> How developers are suppose to write hw drivers for which they dont have the specs? Release the specs (even under NDA) and a Linux driver will be written for you for free.
This comment is largely true. If you buy a piece of computer hardware, you should be entitled to know how it works. The purchaser has a RIGHT to use the full features of the hardware that they have purchased and a RIGHT to know how to use it themselves. I believe it shabby moral practice to sell people hardware, and withhold from them information on how to operate it. Linux users have every right to demand specifications.
I liked the analogy - Linux
I liked the analogy - Linux is like a sports car - might need more maintenance but is more customizable.
Hah - you must have never owned a sports car. In the very least not a good one!
Let me tell you why your wrong.
1- A sports car is made by a company. A company that stands by its product, and is there for its customer to fix it if anything goes to shit. You might have to pay for it but hey, if you can't afford it then why are you driving a sports car anyway?
2- A sports car is usually made of parts that are themselves high quality.
3- A sports car is a joy to use, and usually provokes feelings of envy from others on the road.
4- A good sports car these days is usually not very customizable.
5- etc.. etc..
Linux does none of those.
If something goes to shit, your the mechanic. If you ask a fellow owner for help you will be called a noob, and looked down upon for not being able to resolve the 100 dependencies they spent 3 nights resolving themselves.
Quality parts means low coupling. Linux dependency hell is testament to bad design.
A sports car provokes feelings of envy from other road users. I only feel pity for Linux enthusiasts, along with the other 99% of computer users.
These days, you can change the size of your exhaust on your sports car, maybe tint the windows. Its like changing the wallpaper on your desktop. You would have to be stupid to go into the more critical parts of your sports car and void your warranty. Why would you want to change something that's working well, anyway? I guess only if it isn't ;)
Have a nice day.
> Funny how every Windows
> Funny how every Windows user I know for some reason is using a Windows installation that is less than 2 years old.
Funny how every Ubuntu user I know is using an installation that is less than exactly 6 months old... But seriously, my XP was fine for four years til I went to Vista.
> How well does MS Word do at opening an OpenOffice document?
Pretty good actually! (You did know that the latest Office 2007 Service Pack added support for the OpenDocument formats, right?) So far it opens my old OpenOffice files just fine. (I used to use OO before Office 2007.)
>I will admit there are gripes, but that is more to do with how quickly distro's become 'obsolete' and some of the assumptions that people make in the Linux community about how computers are used. But the machine has not crashed once, is stable, fast, predictable and secure.
Of course there are gripes, otherwise this site wouldn't exist.
> How developers are suppose to write hw drivers for which they dont have the specs? Release the specs (even under NDA) and a Linux driver will be written for you for free.
Just like that, huh? A driver will be written for you for free! It's magic! Presuming that someone is interested in doing it, that they know what they are doing, that they don't stop development after getting a barely working driver with only the most basic functionality...
> Funny how every Ubuntu
> Funny how every Ubuntu user I know is using an installation that is less than exactly 6 months old... But seriously, my XP was fine for four years til I went to Vista.
I will admit the rate at which Linux releases become considered to be obsolete is too quick. Definately agree the Linux community should endeavour to give software and distros/libraries a longer shelf life. Valid criticism. However, the actual installation lasts for years if you wish. My main desktop machine had Linux installed nearly 8 years ago, and I've never had to reinstall it, and it still runs just as reliable and just as fast. If only the Linux community could take advantage of this fact and allow the software to have a longer support period and allow people the opportunity to install once, run for years without having to lose the ability to run new software. Admittedly, you can still use Win2000 and run the lastest programs, but no Linux distro from that era would have a hope of running Firefox, Thunderbird, googleearth, etc. Maybe open office and some other apps, but not many.
> Pretty good actually! (You did know that the latest Office 2007 Service Pack added support for the OpenDocument formats, right?) So far it opens my old OpenOffice files just fine. (I used to use OO before Office 2007.)
No, I didn't know that. So MS Office has caught up then? ;)
> Of course there are gripes, otherwise this site wouldn't exist.
I think this site exists more to put forward consturctive criticism, which is something virtually no-one who has gripes does. Instead they just complain about their own situation, often missing the point. Linux is a community effort, at least take some ownership and say "it would be better to take this approach, etc". Just saying "command line shouldn't exist", etc is not constructive. I agree Linux developers could be more receptive to those who offer advice and dont code, but to be honest, very little useful feedback is given. Remember, its not a company which own Linux, yet people act exactly as if it is, as if they are powerless and helpless.
> How developers are suppose to write hw drivers for which they dont have the specs? Release the specs (even under NDA) and a Linux driver will be written for you for free.
Considering that hardware support for Linux has vastly improved, and that my Laptop works nicely with wireless, then yes, I think it is possible to get good hardware support. I only have one device which doesn't work under Linux, and its a crappy digital "camera" using some odd obscure program to download the images (some twain variant. I "won" it attending a time share seminar). Its one of those exotic, el cheapo devices made as cheap as possible, so its understandable. Everything else I own works. If the hardware is common enough, there WILL be a driver for it.
You seem to imply that it's
You seem to imply that it's Linux fault for not having better drivers.
How developers are suppose to write hw drivers for which they dont have the specs? Release the specs (even under NDA) and a Linux driver will be written for you for free.
The hardware companies did not invest quadzillions in the software drivers but in the hardware. And you don't have to release driver code, just the specs (as AMD/ATI is doing currently).
> However if a product doesn't work for nearly half of the people
Let me guess you have asked two people if their hw works on Linux???
Concerning Mac, OS X supports only one type of hw, namely their hw.
OS X supports only a very
OS X supports only a very limited types of HW.... which is why it just works.
Installing OSX?
1. Switch on.
2. Input network settings.
THE END.
If you want you can fiddle around with it. But you don't have to. It's easy. It's nice and lazy.
Linux, even in more recent distros is still geeky, difficult, buggy, etc.
It should just work. It doesn't.
Sounds like a bunch of Linux
Sounds like a bunch of Linux Apologists to me. The drivers don't make themselves. Quality control doesn't make itself. This a clear fact. What exactly are you trying to say? Is it a sport's car? It's a KIA that has had a performance kit added. Macs just work for everyday use deal with it. PC's for the most part just work deal with it. That is the bottom line to get mainstream approval. Linux is a joke when it comes to anything but being a server. Where are my apps so I can put a shortcut in my menu? Why so many file systems? How can an app destroy my installation? Why when I remove an App it doesn't always remove all pieces? I have to find them in Synaptic. I mean you can make it look pretty but underneath the dress it's all scaly and slimey.
First of all, this
First of all, this conversation is somewhat confusing to follow if everyone is Anonymous.
Why so many Filesystems? Freedom!!!
Just because you don't know how to use something does not make IT bad. It makes YOU bad. Like everything else, you need to LEARN.
Did you learn Windows in a week? NO
Mac? NO. (well maybe, those things are so simplified. you can hardly do anything to customize it or tweak it in any way.)
In MY opinion the only few things wrong with Linux. Are:
Multimedia. Not it's fault but the Hardware manufacturers and maybe certain proprietary software.
And honestly, I think that's it!
It could be more organized, but that's just a burden with so much freedom.
Typical linux fan boy
Typical linux fan boy response "Linux is perfect you are just too stupid to use it." Give me a break. Never took a course on mac or pc and taught myself how to use them very well. I've been using Puppy and now Ubuntu for the last two years and there are many aspects of the system that are still baffling to me. How much customising do I need anyways when I just want to install some apps and actually have them work no muss no fuss. It's fun to putz around in terminal but some of these linux folks almost make it into a fetish.
Hmmm, you know, I haven't
Hmmm, you know, I haven't taken a course on linux and so far I seem to be doing just fine in the learning phase. >_>
And thats on a not so newbie-friendly OS (Arch). With no GUI...
Although, I already knew what to expect and did research before trying it out, and chose that so I don't get lazy on the learning phase. So this could be just me. ;p
There are also many 'Grandma's" who don't know how to use a computer who run Linux without issues, occasionally I wonder if this type of anger is just anger for the sake of it. And many of these 'Grandma's" and "Aunt's" don't know anything about computers. >_> Just thought I'd add that :3
So, gonna flame me for it, or state your opinions? ;p
Thats because Grandma
Thats because Grandma probably doesn't do anything more than run several preinstalled apps and occasionaly click to install a program from repositories. Most users do more than run 3 basic apps.
If dear grandmother wants to do more, she's stuffed. ie, install new hardware, install software not in the repositories. Yes, real computer users do this kind of thing. Linux is great if you are perfectly happy with it as it is out of the box. As grandma would be , but not how most literate computer users would be.
Fail.
20But she probably has her grandkid (you) SSH into her machine to give her the impression it updates itself and its so effortless.
You want to run apps now?
You want to run apps now? Surely you know Linux isn't an OS that caters for those who want to run apps?
You want to run your own apps? Once YOU choose? DOn't be silly!
I get tired of this
I get tired of this "Freedom" excuse. It's tired, worn, irrelevant and misleading. It's philospical mental masturbation
I don't care about "Freedom", I care about being free.
That sums up most people, and when they use Linux, despite all the arguments that Linux zealots make about this and that being about Freedom, the user just doesn't feel free.
Linux is built to assist with abstract philosophical notions of what Freedom comprises of, but its not built to give the user the ability to be free.
If it was, they would be able to download software directly from third parties and it would work. Like you can with Windows.
If it was, users would be able to figure out how to work on their system without having to rely on developers explaining things which aren't documents (like PAM modules)
If it was, users could choose not to upgrade every 6 months to stay in the game.
If it was, users could choose any distro and not have to worry about sofware supposedly for "Linux" not working with their choice.
If it was, it wouldn't burden the user with having to go through a steep learning curve having to learn things they dont need to learn, to accomodate the developers freedom to be slack and not follow standards, or the devleopers desire to do things in obscure, rare ways which wont work with most peoples system.
If it was, developers would design the system so people are free when they use it.
Seriously -- if you're
Seriously -- if you're coding, and you're doing it for free, that's really your playground.
You volunteer to write code, you write what you like. There's no way this issue isn't going to come up in a massive volunteer project.
Freedom means others don't tell you what to do when the coding you do is free. Freedom means that a corporation has the freedom to hire you to do the coding they want done, so long as that code is given back according to the rules of the GPL as necessary in certain circumstances.
Maybe there is a difference if the focus is on the end user -- why let's not make an OS that actually makes things easier on the end user? Doing things you don't want to do, coding things that aren't easy, don't seem doable, things that might give some folks headaches even?
If the value proposition is "you learn it if you want it for free" that's one thing, but that's not really 100% what's going on, actually. It's not so much a workplace, a focused "proprietary" environment with a particular goal in mind (making an easy to use quality product) -- although it is in some cases -- but it's more like a playground -- an ideal job, an ideal workplace, day in and day out, a comfortable pair of worn-in bluejeans. At least in part, this is what makes difficulties. It's not just "you learn it if you want it for free". That's actually just probably a very small part of the situation.
It's more like -- and this is what it looks like -- everyone just does whatever they want for whatever reasons they may have, and it is what it is, and you have to learn to make the best of it, to make it work for you.
Such is the definition of this freedom, and freedom it certainly is. It can be very useful at times.
However, there are some of us who realize that there is a better way. Realizing that a "desktop" is a valid goal, and having some concrete visions about what a "desktop" is, well, actually, it's more like having some concrete visions about what having a "desktop" can help you accomplish, and how much time you could save if you could just focus on what you wanted to do with that desktop -- that's very inspiring, to say the least.
It's not "on purpose" -- it's just like a shopping cart full of random, disorganized stuff. Good stuff, nonetheless - free stuff, even. Just having to dig through it, you know.
Linux could be 1000x better than it is, really, if everyone got together and got more focused about it. Well, maybe not 1000, but a lot better, never the less.
Im a fan of linux. The
Im a fan of linux. The developers need to get more focused on making one good flavor of linux not 100 or more. People like windows because it's easy and there is nothing wrong with that. If Microsoft kept the idea that if you can't get it to work your just too dumb to use a computer we all would be using dos and there would be no intenet and no progress. Even worse we would still have huge pc's that use punch cards. Let's work together to fix these things not aginst eachother about what you think is right and go your own way and make your own flavor that wil be great. I not asking for perfect just better. Computers will never work perfect because no one who make them is perfect. Linux has it's problems,Windows and yes even Mac. So let's not bash eachother but come up with one operating system that works well not perfect just well. I challange you. one more thing get out more people they are just computers.
Thank you. This post was
Thank you. This post was very much needed. You are right (except for the "no internet" point).
I see two major sides here: usability of windows vs. freedom of linux.
I think that we shouldn't argue, but rather pick a side, and not bicker about our differences. We should give both flavors a shot and just accept that we either like linux or windows.
Personally, I work with both. But I have insightfully seen that most people work better with windows than linux.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT CRITERIA.
The problem is that many
The problem is that many Linux fans don't understand that increased usabliliy leads to more freedom. Having slightly different version of the OS, each with incompatibilities takes away freedom, rather than adding to it. If I have one GUI I can use anyway I like, and its really usable, then that offers more freedom than choosing between 20 half developed ones.
MS understand this. Choosing between 30 brands, none of which suit your pruposes doesn't give you as much freedom as just having ONE choice which DOES suit your purposes. Do windows users suffer from lack of choice? Well, not really, because the only one "Windows" flavour out there does what they want it to do. I'm ont advocating a monopoly, but its insane to just create different 'niche' products thinking that it increases choice.
The whole talk about "freedom" is just rubbish anyway. Most users want freedom FROM things, than freedom to do things.
Hi everybady! i just want to
Hi everybady!
i just want to say one thing, linux works perfect oooonnnlllyyy on supercomputers.
thats all folkx
MSs primary goal is to make
MSs primary goal is to make money. There lays the main difference between "linux and "windows".
With Linux you can role your own if so desired.
If your so worried about Linux standards why not sign in to http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb and make your concerns, which are already well known by developers, known.
I totally agree with you.
I totally agree with you. The main difference between Microsoft and Linux is that Microsoft tries to make a shitload of money. I often think of Microsoft as a really selfish capitalist who only thinks of himself and wants the cash of everybody else. Adam Smith would say "That is the perfect person!", because to get our cash Microsoft will have to create and make stuff that we want or they will have to make us want their products. And Microsoft is totally succesful, at that. It's what most people want so to me that is the "best" OS (I really don't like it, though lol. I only use it to play some games and use Photoshop -- no Gimp is nowhere as good as Photoshop).
I use both, Linux and Windows. I began using computers in 1995 using Win95, I was at the age of 6. And I remember it being much easier than when I tried out Linux in 2006 at the age of 18 lol. Linux has a lot of potential but yes, you can get most things to work much easier on Windows. And here is the mistake that many Anti-Linux users make, they think that Windows works better because hardware and programs work "without any problems" on it, which is nonsense.
If Windows keyboards had only 11 buttons, Adobe would make a Photoshop that only needs 11 buttons. People forget the fact that hardware , as well as, software companies want to make money and the OS that's best for that is Windows, because most computer users use Windows. No hardware company gives a shit about their stuff working on Linux because the potential buyers of that small portion of computer users will barely make a difference and is not worth the effort. Change the market share of Linux and Windows and suddenly all companies will program software and create hardware that runs perfectly on Linux and all Windows users would be rather surprised how the "product quality" ,as OP describes it, dropped to the bottomless.
The Linux community has no real leader or guide. Basically, everybody could have his own distro with his own packaging system and whatever, which totally blows. I know people want customize things but what's the use of customizing Synaptic? Great, maybe you can add a function that installs programs at a certain time, whatever. What most people want to customize is the GUI, the GUI of every goddamn program. I totally think that the Linux community should create like 5 or even less distros and make sure that one program that runs fine on one can run just as well on the other. Why 5? Well, people should be able to choose between major GUI's like KDE and stuff and some other things. Or you could make 1 distro and make it able to switch from KDE to Gnome to whatever. If the Linux community all worked on one "super distro" instead of everybody trying to make a name and create some other bullcrap like Pac-Man (Arch Linux) or whatever that distro would be awesome and more people would use it.
There really is a lot of potential in Linux, it's success may lead to a future in which everybody has his own super-customized but still perfectly working free OS. It can make a difference, but not the way it was the past years.
...there were some other things I wanted to write, totally forgot 'em lol.
Oh well, that's it for now.
********The whole talk about
********The whole talk about "freedom" is just rubbish anyway. Most users want freedom FROM things, than freedom to do things.*********
Well said.
Over the years I've tried many different versions of Linux. For the most part it's never given me any issues I couldn't work around. The problem is that I don't want to work around anything. i just want it to work so I can get done and get on with my life. I do use Linux occasionally for various reasons simply because it outshines the others or in may cases it's just easier. Easier is the big one. For that reason I use windows as my primary OS. It's easy, it works, and I don't have to work around this or that.
I also tend to be very hesitant to upgrade Linux once I have it working because nearly every time I make even the smallest so-called upgrade, I end up spending a great deal of time screwing around getting other crap to work again. Under windows, I can update automatically without too much worry. It too occasionally makes a mess of things but it's generally an easy fix and just not at all common.
I won't even get into the MS Office compatibility issues. Even the die-hard Linux fanboys begrudgingly acknowledge those problems. I need to submit documents that can and will be opened perfectly every time. If freedom means the opportunity to find a new job because of a blown deadline caused by an unreadable mess, I'll take the other option. Freedom is a myth anyway. Freedom is standing naked in a field freezing your butt off and hungry because you chose not to submit to the will of society and it's rules. The reality of this world we live in is that Windows rules. Like it or not, it's a fact and until Linux can conform to the rules set down by the dominant OS, it will never be more than a curiosity used by a very small percent of the population. Some of you seem to feel superior and that you are the elite 2%. Well small percentages work in both directions. 2% of the people control the wealth but another 2% lay in doorways babbling to imaginary friends wallowing in their own filth. Being different doesn't lways mean better.
Until Linux developers stop trying to reinvent the wheel and start trying to make a product that not only works like windows but outshines it, it'll never be mainstream. I believe the primary failure of Linux is in the attitudes of the developers. They are highly skilled and very intelligent people who do amazing things. They are Geeks! I admire geeks and what they can do. The linux geeks can't seem to put themselves in the place of the users they are trying to get to use their product. Most of us out here aren't geeks and don't want to be. It's us, the dumbass users who are barely computer literate and don't have a clue how to compile a kernel or even know a single BASH command who are the one's who make or break an OS. You may easily make an OS or app that you can use but if you don't make one that WE (the consumer) can easily use with minimal time needed to learn, your product will fail.
I'll continue to use Linux and will try out each new distro on test machines in the hope it will some day live up to it's limitless potential but until that day comes, I'll be using windows on the boxes that help me earn my living. And no, I won't be learning to program. I am not a programmer or developer. I'm a user. I'm paid well and USE computers but I'm not in the computer or IT industry.
I just noticed something.
I just noticed something. On several posts, people keep talking about the linux experience and they throw in words like "consumer".
There is a huge problem with that. Unless you are actually paying for a linux distro (and you are a fool if you are) then you are not, and in fact the vast majority of linux users are not, consumers. Linux is free and open source. Linux programs are not paid for. Linux systems are designed in large for free, and we, the irate customer need to remember that we are not customers at all.
That being said, Linux really does suck in the "noob user" department, but we can't just email the GM of linux and tell them that... There is no GM. Hopefully, someday, somewhere a group of linux code writers will ban together and realize that if they work together that they will make something that could be profitable to them (Look at google, you don't have to buy anything and they are loaded) and that just works for the rest of us. Until then, we just have to wait, give ideas, and remember...
We didn't buy anything.
I like the "freezing your
I like the "freezing your butt off in a field" analogy. I was thinking that last night in a conversation actually, how the only way to be truly free is to be isolated. Despite the utter freedom, no one wants that. Fact is, every human being is willing to relinquish independance and freedom for a better quality of life. We give away independance so as to live with our spouse and have a family. We sacrifice some freedom and independance to enjoy the fruits of society. Life is about compromises and balance. We find the right proportion of freedom, the right contancts, the right attachments, the right morals/laws/limitations etc. We don't really seek 'freedom' or 'choice' or 'grace' or 'virtue', but just an arrangement which brings the best quality of life we can get. Thats it.
Some people are willing to sacrifice 'choice' to have a product that does what they need it to do. REally, they just want products that bring them the best quality of life/use.
Linux zealots basically say that people should be prepared to give that up to be 'free', which is like asking someone to give up all their social bonds as they will be more 'free' as a hermit. Then, even worse, criticising them for being lemmings or sheep for not wanting it.
Well, thats what the Linux zealots are like.
Great post, so true...
Great post, so true...
I don't understand reason
I don't understand reason why this website was created I see that all of linux users want it their way i mean way suitable for 1% of human population. How could it be better for us if u just smashed all true words that this guy said in first post. Usual linux user bullshiting when it comes to talk.
Quality is important and its simple fact. I would add one another factor that makes sux and is lack of standards and general complicity. Why everybody loves mac? Its shiny and SIMPLE.
I cant wait to see ChromeOS go go google and make it simple.
File System Hierarchy - nah