If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PCWorld)   Should 2013 be the year you switch to Linux? One penguin seems to think so   (pcworld.com) divider line 186
    More: Interesting, linux, PC users, class switching, Start Button, online banking, ubuntu, switches  
•       •       •

3872 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-01 12:16:03 PM
I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.
 
2013-01-01 12:32:44 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


I'm running Linux Mint 12 right now, and I've never compiled any of my own code.... Not even sure how I would begin to do that.
 
2013-01-01 12:33:42 PM
Can I run all of my games natively? No? Then it's still not my year to switch.

I love linux, don't get me wrong. I work with hundreds of linux servers every day. Damn fine OS. But when I'm at home... gots to be the windows. Games, man... games.
 
2013-01-01 12:40:24 PM
lol no
 
2013-01-01 12:44:52 PM
Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.
 
2013-01-01 01:04:50 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


Can't disagree. I dual-boot Linux because I'm a closeted nerd, but even though I can use it pretty proficiently I see a ton of reasons why some people would hate it - free or not.
 
2013-01-01 02:08:43 PM
I don't use Linux because when something goes wrong, I don't want to have to start coding to fix it.
 
2013-01-01 02:51:39 PM
You know who desktop Linux doesn't work for? People who sorta know how to use computers.

If you don't use your computer for anything other than surfing the web and email, Linux will work great for you- provided you know someone who will install it.

If you know what you're doing with a computer, Linux (or BSD) is what you already use.

If you're mildly competent with a computer, but aren't really that good with one, Linux is way too intimidating. You just want your computer to work like a high-end gaming console. Nothing too hard, let as much as possible be plug-and-play, but have enough tech that the user can still feel smug.
 
2013-01-01 03:19:02 PM
Thoroughly enjoy Mint.
 
2013-01-01 04:08:30 PM
So Linux is recommended by a birdbrain?
 
2013-01-01 04:11:39 PM

Gonz: If you know what you're doing with a computer, Linux (or BSD) is what you already use.


Not necessarily. As several others have mentioned, games for one are a big reason. I don't want to have to dick around with WINE, and still have game X only 85% functional.
 
2013-01-01 04:15:49 PM
Been using Linux (redhat then fedora) as main OS since the 90s. I prefer it to OSX and only run windows when I have to run Windows only software. Most of what I need is gnome-terminal, gvim and latex to keep me productive.

But I'm in academia in a STEM field doing simulation work for research, involving many kilolines of code that produce petabytes of data on supercomputers (that all run Linux). Hardly your average user. But, for average users, distros like Ubuntu are pretty easy to use if you just need to browse and do email. Libreoffice does a very nice job reading Office documents. You can make Linux pointy clicky but it does still require a learning curve to some extent. So does Windows, it's just that everyone's used it and knows where the control panel is.

I could give a bag of rat feces whether Linux ever becomes mainstream. Linux already won the wars I care about (screw you Ultrix, AIX, Solaris and especially SCO). As long as geeks are out there developing it, and it runs on commodity hardware (typing this from a EeePC) I'm as happy as a clam. Back in grad school I literally dreamed of being able to run Unix at home. Now, you can run Linux/Unix (props to the free BSD variants) on a raspberry PI thingy and do useful things.

God I love it.
 
2013-01-01 06:05:44 PM
[punches self in face]

kilolines

[punches b0rscht in face]

kilolines

Why? Why did I bother to be curious, only to find obnoxious, hyper-pretentious sh*t like KILOLINES?

[punches self in face]
 
2013-01-01 06:28:49 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Not necessarily. As several others have mentioned, games for one are a big reason.


Well, that's fine, if you want to use your computer for playing games, like it's a different and expandable console.

It's OK. There's nothing wrong with being part of the crowd. Average is fine.
 
2013-01-01 06:32:50 PM
In before Linux_Yes!
 
2013-01-01 06:36:05 PM
2013, the year of the Linux Desktop!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
 
2013-01-01 06:36:56 PM
Linux is only free if your time has no value.

/Android succeeds because it hides the OS from the user
 
2013-01-01 06:38:36 PM
Linux: where ever application is perpetually "almost out of beta."
 
2013-01-01 06:40:14 PM

cman: Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


It also shows what happens when Linux is a mainstream, popular product - it's nearly as susceptible to malware and exploits as Windows.
 
2013-01-01 06:40:44 PM
It's been the year to switch to Linux for 20 years now....hasn't happened yet.
 
2013-01-01 06:40:52 PM
"can simply swap in something"

No, with over 25 years experience with UNIX and 15 with Linux, I am unable to switch Mint desktops. It's also slower than a dead pig, compared to CentOS (no way I'm I "upgrading" to Gnome 3). The processor spends 80-90 percent of the time pegged. I may try the Lite version of the desktop, but I'm not certain I want to re-install.
 
2013-01-01 06:41:20 PM
No. At least Windows and Aplle has documentation even if it sometimes is lacking. I'm tired of all these distros and linux programs that come with no documentation at all. Then if you go on a messageboard looking for answers but you can't find it, you post a question. And I've seen more than my fair share of rude Linux users not really being helpful in their answers.

I understand you Linux users really want to create some great programs, but you really need to make user manuals for the stuff you create.
 
2013-01-01 06:52:14 PM
It's THE YEAR OF DESKTOP LINUX!!

/ Again
// 10 years or more in a row
// Not gonna happen
/// I use Linux sometimes
 
2013-01-01 06:52:17 PM

OriginalGamer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems


Yeah, but pesky facts won't deter fans. They don't understand that a "product" is more than just "code, compiled or otherwise." There's a reason products aren't free.

Of course, some for-profit products don't get that, either. I've worked for companies that just doesn't understand that code doesn't document itself, and (and I mean this without exaggeration) have little clue as to the work involved in creating documentation for their products. They still think that, once they're "code complete", they're "product complete", too. Sure, their devs still hard-code strings, think culture is for yogurt & beer, have a real difficulty with the concepts of localization & globalization, and think code comments (especially the "triple-slash" comments in C# - y'know, the ones that often get used for customer-facing documentation) are just for the other devs on their team, and should therefore be included rarely, and should be cryptic when added.

Such companies are always surprised when the code they've coddled for two or three years flops on RTM, because no one can figure out why they need it or what to do with it when they get it, because the documentation is basically "here's what I saw", not "here's why what I saw is cool and here's how you should use it." Such companies spend a small fortune on support, sometimes having to do installations & maintenance themselves, on-site, because "a stitch in time saves nine" is somehow an incomprehensible koan to them.

Linux has had this problem for years & years, and as a result has, what, a 1.2% share of the OS market when it comes to net apps? Yeah, this is definitely their year. Hell, they may double their user base!
 
2013-01-01 06:52:38 PM

Kittypie070: [punches self in face]

kilolines

[punches b0rscht in face]

kilolines

Why? Why did I bother to be curious, only to find obnoxious, hyper-pretentious sh*t like KILOLINES?

[punches self in face]


Oh, there are simply kibbireasons and mibbireasons for this!
 
2013-01-01 06:54:04 PM
No.
 
2013-01-01 06:59:23 PM
[foams at the mouth]

[electrical equipment begins to short out]
 
2013-01-01 06:59:29 PM
grep this.  www.cvanepps.com
 
2013-01-01 07:00:37 PM
Oh wat, grepping ballz?
 
2013-01-01 07:03:26 PM
Pro Tools. Virtual Instrument libraries. And pretty much all my music production software. I'd love to try Linus, but if it doesn't run my studio apps then it's pretty much useless to me.
 
2013-01-01 07:04:56 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


Maybe in the old days of Linux. Modern distributions don't require you to compile anything. Most users could get by without even learning to use a command line. The only way you would ever have to compile anything is if you require some obscure piece of software or you are running a source based distribution (which a beginner would not be doing).
 
2013-01-01 07:06:16 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


I've installed Ubuntu a few times, but that's ultimately the issue that stopped me from using it. I get that it's infinitely configurable, powerful and fast, but that goddamed command line just confuses the fark out of me.
 
2013-01-01 07:08:00 PM
What a shiat list. So much that 1,4 and 5 are all the same thing; they each assume that you MUST switch operating systems this year. People still run Windows XP so the fact that Windows 8 just came out is no reason to switch to linux and if you already own a copy of Windows or OSX then Linux being free is pointless to mention.
 
2013-01-01 07:09:31 PM

Gonz: If you know what you're doing with a computer, Linux (or BSD) is what you already use.


Been using Linux since 94, have written a handful of Linux device drivers, and much prefer using it for work.

At home?  WinXP with cygwin.  Why?  games.  Steam may change the landscape, but I doubt it.

/ did they ever get audio under Linux figured out?
 
2013-01-01 07:09:32 PM
cman: Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

!! First a caveat, I've been working in IT for about 16 years, and I lead a team of a dozen programmers (which means I hardly do any real programming for work anymore) !!

Finally, in 2010 I hit the jackpot. Ubuntu 10.04 gave me the right combination of being easy (for me) to use, while also not locking things down where I couldn't tweak them if I wanted. I switched, and haven't looked back since.

My previous attempt was with Ubuntu 9.04 (got rid of it due to wireless issues on the laptop) and before that, mandrake (X windows wasn't mature enough, so it still looked ugly out of the box).

For the majority of users, they will never have to touch the shell.

Unfortunately, giving install commands for the shell online is much easier than walking neophytes through using the software center.

IE, telling someone to copy/paste "sudo apt-get install pidgin" into a shell is easier than telling them to "Go to the applications menu, press "go to the software center, select 'add/remove' (or whatever the default name is, I renamed mine), search for pidgin, press install.

// if I know what I'm looking for, I just use the command line because it's way faster (IE, sudo apt-get install pidgin). If I don't know what I'm looking for, I just browse through the categories.

For the record, this is what the Ubuntu Software Center looked like circa 2011.

eins.my

Anyone who can find apps on their smartphone should be able to find apps in Ubuntu as well. And the process they used to find good apps for their phones should be the same process they should use to find good apps for their Ubuntu machine. (Because it's not like android or has windows apps either).

// obligatory "unity sucks".
 
2013-01-01 07:11:03 PM

gingerjet: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

/Android succeeds because it hides the OS from the user


Free is not about monetary value. It's about freedom.
 
2013-01-01 07:12:54 PM
Hmmm...

1) Wahh, I don't like Windows 8! So poor clones of the Windows XP/7 UI are the obvious choice.

2) Flavors for ever taste. AKA a totally inconsistent user experience from install to install.

3) Supeior securi... Sorry couldn't finish that it's too damn funny. Linux security may be almost on a par with XP. It's certainly better than Windows 95, but to suggest that Linux is more secure than Vista/7/8 is only to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

4) Modest requirements. Not so much.

5) Open and free. As long as your time has no value it's free.

So yeah, if you're a broke college student who wants to use an old computer to surf porn Linux is a great option.

/Could have just gone with "your blog sucks!"
 
2013-01-01 07:15:04 PM

lordargent: // obligatory "unity sucks".


I swear, I'm the only person other than Shuttleworth who really likes Unity. I think it's solid.
 
2013-01-01 07:16:39 PM
I still run a version of Slackware that I obtained four years ago or so, and it does everything I need without giving me any problems.
 
2013-01-01 07:18:01 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Sorry couldn't finish that it's too damn funny. Linux security may be almost on a par with XP. It's certainly better than Windows 95, but to suggest that Linux is more secure than Vista/7/8 is only to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


Oh, so you don't understand how root access works? Go on, tell me more about computers.
 
2013-01-01 07:18:50 PM

Gonz: lordargent: // obligatory "unity sucks".

I swear, I'm the only person other than Shuttleworth who really likes Unity. I think it's solid.


I liked Unity until I really started experimenting with GnomeShell.
 
2013-01-01 07:21:29 PM
Gonz: I swear, I'm the only person other than Shuttleworth who really likes Unity. I think it's solid.

Shuttleworth is trying to make Ubuntu into the next windows, but in doing so is throwing choice and configurability out to the dogs as a result.

For example, when the launcher was implemented, they didn't give a way to move it to the right side of the screen. When this was filed as a bug report, Shuttleworth responded.

"I think the report actually meant that the launcher should be movable to other edges of the screen. I'm afraid that won't work with our broader design goals, so we won't implement that. We want the launcher always close to the Ubuntu button."

He wants the launcher to be on the left, but _I_ want it to be on the right.

So I'm still on 10.04 with my trusty old gnome panels that I can put wherever the hell I want (granted, someone else already hacked the ability to move the panel, but this is just one of several design decisions in newer versions of Ubuntu that I don't agree with).
 
2013-01-01 07:22:06 PM
There's just as much shiat to deal with in Windows as there is in Linux, it's just that most people are acclimatized to the Windows shiat.

I've been using Linux since 2009 (first Ubuntu, then Debian) and I couldn't compile a program to save my life.

The command line is a convenience for providing support in web forums, as it's desktop agnostic. A user of a friendly distro like Ubuntu shouldn't have to touch a command line any more often than a Windows user does. Even more challenging distros like Debian have become much more user friendly over the last few years.

Gnome Shell isn't bad once you've customized it with a few extensions. For a modern UI, it's actually pretty resource-efficient, and Mutter is the lightest weight compositing window manager I've ever used. If your graphics are supported, Gnome Shell will run on a single core Atom or Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, but it won't be happy. It will run fine on any dual core processor with 2 GB of RAM or better.

It's unusual to have to download a program from a website and install it if you run a Debian based distribution. New users should use the package manager and not troll the internet for random .deb files.

Gaming on Linux is poor, but improving rapidly thanks to Steam and the Humble Bundles. I think Gabe's end game is a Steam console running Ubuntu, so that should be a big incentive for game companies to port their offerings to Linux.

There are a few large gaps in software availability in Linux, particularly Adobe products. Also no iTunes or MS Office. These alone make moving to Linux impossible for many users.

All in all, use whatever the hell you want. Linux works for me, but YMMV.
 
2013-01-01 07:23:12 PM
I think part of the problem is that Linux users already got a lot of people to try it and it sucked. I love my Android phone, but my laptop is just fine as it is. If I buy a new laptop that comes with Windows 8, and I find I really don't like Windows 8, I might try Linux again. Last time I used it I was not impressed though, so I'm not itching to try it again without a damn good reason.
 
2013-01-01 07:27:33 PM

gingerjet: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

/Android succeeds because it hides the OS from the user


It takes almost now time to install Linux these days. About 6 mouse clicks , a few simple questions, walk away for a bit and it's done.

The only reason to use Windows is that it is superior for games.
 
2013-01-01 07:31:15 PM
Also, if anyone wants to take a peek.

http://lordargent.com/temp/tech/multitasking.png

This was me, downloading episodes of Bones from my TiVo and re-encoding them (so I could stick them on my tablet and phone so that I would have something to watch before bed when I went on vacation).

I also stuffed a few of my DVDs on there for good measure.

// I don't know how people can use computers without dual monitors ;)

// I keep my desktop simple and neat.
 
2013-01-01 07:31:33 PM

buckler: cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.

I've installed Ubuntu a few times, but that's ultimately the issue that stopped me from using it. I get that it's infinitely configurable, powerful and fast, but that goddamed command line just confuses the fark out of me.


To add software in a modern Lixux distribution you go to the software center, point at what you want and click. And that's it.
 
2013-01-01 07:31:39 PM
As others have said, knowing my programs will work without having to waste time tweeking shiat is a lot more important to me than "Sticking it to Micro$oft".
 
2013-01-01 07:34:17 PM

Gonz: lordargent: // obligatory "unity sucks".

I swear, I'm the only person other than Shuttleworth who really likes Unity. I think it's solid.


Nope, it sucks
Not as bad as Windows 8 but it still sucks.
 
2013-01-01 07:38:19 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return:

There are a few large gaps in software availability in Linux, particularly Adobe products. Also no iTunes or MS Office. These alone make moving to Linux impossible for many users.

All in all, use whatever the hell you want. Linux works for me, but YMMV.


Why on earth would you want iTunes? I detest that program.
In a business environment MSOffice is great. For a home user it's excessive overkill. Actually for most of things I do at work it's overkill. They have to keep adding functionality to it so they have a reason to sell you new versions and it's getting ridiculous.
 
2013-01-01 07:45:29 PM

CujoQuarrel: gingerjet: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

/Android succeeds because it hides the OS from the user

It takes almost now time to install Linux these days. About 6 mouse clicks , a few simple questions, walk away for a bit and it's done.

The only reason to use Windows is that it is superior for games.


And office products. Word and Excel are vastly superior to anything I've used on LINUX and they're is nothing anywhere even remotely close to OneNote.
 
2013-01-01 07:50:54 PM

meanmutton: Word and Excel are vastly superior to anything


This is true, but god, do I hate Word and Excel. The less time I spend with them, the happier a man I am. And I totally don't _get_ One Note. It seems far too complex to be a useful notetaking tool. I like plaintext.
 
2013-01-01 07:51:51 PM
no
 
2013-01-01 07:52:04 PM
Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.
 
2013-01-01 07:59:29 PM
Since 2005, I have seen articles like this on Fark. They seem further away now than ever before.
 
2013-01-01 08:00:32 PM

CujoQuarrel: Why on earth would you want iTunes? I detest that program.
In a business environment MSOffice is great. For a home user it's excessive overkill. Actually for most of things I do at work it's overkill. They have to keep adding functionality to it so they have a reason to sell you new versions and it's getting ridiculous.


I agree with you on iTunes and MS Office for home use. I was just pointing out that a Linux switch wouldn't be practical for people who use iTunes (either because they have iStuff or are gluttons for punishhment).
 
2013-01-01 08:02:41 PM
If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?
 
2013-01-01 08:06:20 PM

from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.


To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?
 
2013-01-01 08:07:06 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


I would really love to see some unification. It isn't about minor UI quibbles for basic users, they could care less whether there's a start button or a typeable menu... they just want desktop icons to launch their internets.

Basic users also don't have any clue what "distro" they would be on, and no idea how to find programs and if they could why they wouldn't just install. Assuming there is a mechanism for users to find software they'd want, good luck figuring out whether an application to do what you want should be KDE based (kWhatever) or gnome based (gWhatever) or some third base. Even if they can navigate that far, as you mentioned, RPM (of which 3 distros use different versions), apt, deb, or searching in an app store for your distro (even portage tree for gentoo is kind of this). How many times have Windows users looked for software to do what they want? They won't install anything someone didn't tell them to, cause they've never heard of it. Or worse google a poorly worded description for what they want a program to do and installing the first result.

This fracturing is the bane of a lot of users who know more than jack crap. 75% of computer users could use it just fine, but they sure as hell won't install it themselves, and if they could, good luck tech supporting them. You think trying to get them to tell you what version of Windows is bad, or which Browser they use on Windows... multiply that by dozens of distros, a half dozen desktop environments...

Let me know when users can "just install" stuff across linux, in total transparency to them, and I may be forced to admit we're withina decade of the "year of the linux desktop".
 
2013-01-01 08:11:04 PM
What, again?
 
2013-01-01 08:11:48 PM

CujoQuarrel: from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.

To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?


Proper package management does do well with dependencies... RPM is not proper, end users will not ever open a terminal making apt and portage useless without better front ends than I've seen.

Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.
 
2013-01-01 08:12:27 PM

from my blood: Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.


I don't know how you tried to install applications in Linux. In Ubntu or Debian it's (1) Open the package manager, (2) Find the program you want to install, (3) Click.

from my blood: 2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.


This is true. Commercial software needs to continually add features in order to sell you the latest "upgrade." Doesn't matter whether the new features are useless, make the application harder to use or slow your new quad-core machine to a crawl.

from my blood: 3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.


I've found the core applications to be just as stable as in Windows. More esoteric applications can crash more, but that happens in Windows, too.
 
2013-01-01 08:13:50 PM
About the games lock-in for windows users - I really wish Apple had done more to advance OpenGL games. And I don't mean shiatty iPhone game development in objective C. Apple could really have knocked MS off their perch in this arena, but Jobs obviously didn't give a shiat about gaming.
 
2013-01-01 08:18:15 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: from my blood:

I've found the core applications to be just as stable as in Windows. More esoteric applications can crash more, but that happens in Windows, too.


The problem with that logic... is that all applications in linux are esoteric. There are some "mainstream" ones for browsing, and a few other high profile areas, but 99% of users haven't heard of any of the applications for general computing, and have no idea how to find them.
 
2013-01-01 08:18:43 PM

CujoQuarrel: To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?


Yeah, my elderly mom would love that.

Also the perennial n00bs I know who can't understand how to save a file in a folder and then go back and find it later.

"Don't close that letter I'm writing, I haven't printed it!!!"

"I'll save it."

"But then I'll have to start over!!!"

*Facepalm*

/ To be fair, the perennial n00bs would probably be just as happy being retarded with Linux as with Windows.
 
2013-01-01 08:20:52 PM

WhippingBoy: If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?


BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!
 
2013-01-01 08:25:33 PM

lordargent: Shuttleworth is trying to make Ubuntu into the next windows, but in doing so is throwing choice and configurability out to the dogs as a result.


Every checkbox, every option, every configuration parameter increases the QA load exponentially. Linux fans want bells and whistles, but they also want to pay $0. That's a tough spot for Ubuntu's product team. I'd argue that keeping the options simple is the best way to please the most people.

That said, both Windows (up to 7 at least) and OS X have more window management options than Unity.
 
2013-01-01 08:26:32 PM

Quantumbunny: The problem with that logic... is that all applications in linux are esoteric. There are some "mainstream" ones for browsing, and a few other high profile areas, but 99% of users haven't heard of any of the applications for general computing, and have no idea how to find them.


In a typical user-friendly Linux distro, the basics are pre-installed. There's a web browser, a media player, an office suite, a photo organizer/editor and some basic games.

I wouldn't expect a beginner to use Synaptic Package Manager or apt-get, but the Ubuntu Software Center is just as easy to use as Google Play or the App Store.
 
2013-01-01 08:27:27 PM
is this a repeat of 2000 and 2007?
 
2013-01-01 08:29:08 PM
Honestly, the "year of the Linux desktop" demonstrates a category error. Linux is not an operating system, as we understand it. Linux is a class of operating systems that all use the same kernel. At a low level, yes, they're identical, but users don't live at that low level. They live in userspace, and each Linux distribution is a different experience in userspace.

So we will never see a "Linux desktop". What we might see is the rapid uptake of a highly specific Linux distribution- something like Android.

Although, honestly, I'm looking forward to the next iteration of operating system design. We're due for a fundamental change in how we interact with computers, and I'm not talking about mobile OSes, which these days are just sandboxed desktop OSes. I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it), entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Chakan: BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!


VMS. It was here before you, and it will be here long after you.
 
2013-01-01 08:30:53 PM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-01 08:32:10 PM
I installed Ubuntu the other day but only because it was the only way to play Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition on my computer. Baldur's Gate:EE does not like Intel Integrated Graphics boards/cards. It's unplayable on my computer. Something to do with OpenGL. Some genius discovered that it would be playable if you installed Ubuntu and WINE. As long as you only play it in windowed mode, the game runs perfectly! Now I can finally get my Minsc on!
/Go for the eyes Boo!
//Buttkicking for justice!
 
2013-01-01 08:38:15 PM

t3knomanser: Honestly, the "year of the Linux desktop" demonstrates a category error. Linux is not an operating system, as we understand it. Linux is a class of operating systems that all use the same kernel. At a low level, yes, they're identical, but users don't live at that low level. They live in userspace, and each Linux distribution is a different experience in userspace.

So we will never see a "Linux desktop". What we might see is the rapid uptake of a highly specific Linux distribution- something like Android.

Although, honestly, I'm looking forward to the next iteration of operating system design. We're due for a fundamental change in how we interact with computers, and I'm not talking about mobile OSes, which these days are just sandboxed desktop OSes. I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it), entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Chakan: BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!

VMS. It was here before you, and it will be here long after you.


Um, nope. VMS was '75? I was here in '71. It probably knew more before me, though. After may be a valid point, tho.
 
2013-01-01 08:39:49 PM
Been using Linux for...21 years now (holy crap). It's been mostly alongside windows, though my laptops, home server, and workstation at work are all Linux of some variety, my home desktop is Windows. That's mostly so I can play Steam games.

/nothing says Windows like setting up something to run overnight and wake up to a login screen because an update installed itself and told the PC to reboot.
 
2013-01-01 08:41:48 PM
The problem with desktop Linux isn't the OS, it's the applications. Almost every desktop app that isn't the exact same as the Windows version (ex, Firefox) is really half-assed. Ironically, this is most prevalent with power user or geek oriented software. For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000. Sure, most of it's functionally could be replicated on Linux with several different apps, some command line, but why should I have to do that?
 
2013-01-01 08:54:09 PM

Quantumbunny: CujoQuarrel: from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.

To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?

Proper package management does do well with dependencies... RPM is not proper, end users will not ever open a terminal making apt and portage useless without better front ends than I've seen.

Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.


I've had much better luck with Debian than RPGs I must admit.

Cant think of a single config file I've edited on this machine. There is a GUI for everything (which basically just edits the config files for you)
Well, except for the hosts file to kill some annoying web sites but that not normal usage...
 
2013-01-01 08:54:42 PM

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000.


Depends what you're doing of course, but as someone who runs Mac, Linux and Windows I gotta say VLC is your friend on any platform.
 
2013-01-01 08:54:46 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


Desktop linux is communist, Android is fascist?
 
2013-01-01 08:58:14 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


Was this post from 1998?
 
2013-01-01 08:58:48 PM

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000. Sure, most of it's functionally could be replicated on Linux with several different apps, some command line, but why should I have to do that?


If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.
 
2013-01-01 09:25:28 PM

enry: /nothing says Windows like setting up something to run overnight and wake up to a login screen because an update installed itself and told the PC to reboot.


Heh, I hear ya. Many has been the morning when my loud and vocal swearing has awakened the wife.
 
2013-01-01 09:26:17 PM
Mitt Romneys Tax Return:
If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.

Foobar2000 is actually just as you described. Much of its functionality is in third party plugins and external tools. What makes it so useful is the integration into one very powerful (note I did not say easy to use) package. Having to manually invoke or script each separate tool is much more cumbersome.

Foobar2000 is just one example, there are lots of tools aimed at the power user that are built for Windows but just don't seem to exist on Linux.

Users want to accomplish task "A" which requires steps 1, 2 and 3. Linux almost certainly has programs to do steps 1, 2 and 3, but nothing to tie them together in a polished package. That's the problem. When users go searching for how to do "A" on Linux they find nothing, because there is no one program to do it.
 
2013-01-01 09:28:56 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.


This is a legitimate argument.

That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.

This is not. Ubuntu users don't compile their own code any more than Android users compile their own apps.
There's Steam for LInux now, if the library grows, my last reason for sticking with Windows will be gone.
 
2013-01-01 09:31:53 PM

washu: Mitt Romneys Tax Return:
If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.

Foobar2000 is actually just as you described. Much of its functionality is in third party plugins and external tools. What makes it so useful is the integration into one very powerful (note I did not say easy to use) package. Having to manually invoke or script each separate tool is much more cumbersome.

Foobar2000 is just one example, there are lots of tools aimed at the power user that are built for Windows but just don't seem to exist on Linux.

Users want to accomplish task "A" which requires steps 1, 2 and 3. Linux almost certainly has programs to do steps 1, 2 and 3, but nothing to tie them together in a polished package. That's the problem. When users go searching for how to do "A" on Linux they find nothing, because there is no one program to do it.


Yes but if you need to do steps 1, 2, and 3 to to 'B' that no one haw pre-programmed for Windows you're just out of luck.
 
2013-01-01 09:34:52 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


How would compiling your own code make it run your existing applications?

You don't really know what you're talking about do you?
 
2013-01-01 09:41:48 PM
I hate this idea that Linux is for nerds. I'm a nerd and I hate Linux. I grew my teeth all those years ago on langauges no one has even heard of anymore and I thought those days were dead and buried for good and then along comes Linux and says, "heya folks, crap is cool." OK. I don't really blame people who use Linux because it's better than Bill Gates who took DOS and said "more money for me."

The reality is that one has a choice between buying shiat for free (Linux) and paying money for an OS that smells slighly less bad. But if you think that Linux is nerdy you aren't smart; you just lack taste.
 
2013-01-01 09:43:08 PM
Quantumbunny: Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.

I built a desktop specifically to run Linux, I chose only name brand components, and I had no hardware trouble to speak of.

Monitor resolutions? Let me take a quick screenshot for you.

www.lordargent.com

Keyboard? Mouse?

I'm actually using a wireless MicroSoft keyboard and mouse, and there's a calculator button on that keyboard that when pressed, brings up the calculator in linux (surprised even me).

MrEricSir: Every checkbox, every option, every configuration parameter increases the QA load exponentially. Linux fans want bells and whistles, but they also want to pay $0. That's a tough spot for Ubuntu's product team.

It's open source, you will find more than enough people who want to do QA.

IMO as a software developer, cutting out features that a decent percentage of your user base wants is a no no. I could imagine if it was some hugely ridiculous request, but moving a menu system to the other side of the screen hardly qualifies as a ridiculous request. You have to look at how people use your software and develop features based on that.

On the flip side, how much time was spent on Ubuntu 1 (cloud storage) when dropbox.com already works perfectly in Ubuntu?

How about Ubuntu 1 for Mac (aren't apple users going to use the apple option anyway?)

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000.

Can you give some examples of what Foobar2000 does that you didn't see elsewhere (other than the theming)? I thought music player features were basically commoditized these days.
 
2013-01-01 09:44:14 PM
A general observation - not addressed to anyone in particular...

I don't care what platform people want to do their computing on (although I wish Microsoft had more competition so Windows wouldn't be quite so problematic) - use what works for you.

What does annoy me about Linux threads is all the FUD that gets spread around about how hard it is to use, how you have to compile all your packages, how hardware support sucks and how you have to use the command line to change your wallpaper. It's like there's people who have concluded that Linux hasn't changed since 1999, when they unsuccessfully tried to install the Slackware CD that came in their PC Magazine.

Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Is there a learning curve? Certainly (ever try teaching someone to use Windows for the first time?). Will it work on all hardware? No (neither will Windows). It's just another way of getting stuff done.
 
2013-01-01 09:45:47 PM

t3knomanser: I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it),


Tree-based structure is straightforward. Anything else I can imagine would involve keeping up with a lot of metadata, and that just sounds hard. Not impossible... but a difficult paradigm shift to step into without jumping in all at once. It's hard enough to keep media files with proper, consistent meta data (artist, title, etc) ... I imagine doing that with system data would be error prone. I see room for improvement, though. Just curious what you're thinking.

entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Well, for part of that, isn't that how the web works? And the web is where we do most things anyway. Aside from that, I kinda like how the rest of my programs are set up. As far as what you're saying with Windows, doesn't QT already allow for that? You can write QT applications that can be imported into others. Kinda like how you can add a konsole part or a kate part to a program. Or do you just wanna make that more free-form?

Now, I do wish there was a unified way for ALL programs to essentially hibernate - save memory state to disk and wake up on demand. Isn't that kinda how Android works?
 
2013-01-01 09:50:34 PM

CujoQuarrel:
Yes but if you need to do steps 1, 2, and 3 to to 'B' that no one haw pre-programmed for Windows you're just out of luck.


Windows is far more likely to have something pre-programmed for any random task than Linux. Besides its own massive software library, most useful Linux/UNIX software has been ported to Windows. The reverse is not true.

On Windows, one can solve a task the "Windows way" and in most cases also the "UNIX way" with a bit of extra software. If there is a particular task that only has UNIX software, it can probably be done on Windows. If there is a particular task that only has Windows software then there is a good chance it cannot be done on Linux without resorting to VMs or emulation of Windows.
 
2013-01-01 09:54:03 PM
Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.

Installed from a live USB stick, was able to surf the web on Firefox while the OS was installing.

// I remember spending lots of time waiting for windows installs to pop up yet another dialogue box, wishing it would ask all of the shiat up front and not pop up crap during the middle of the install. NO, I don't want to set the system clock, because as soon as I get this box running and on the network, the clock will get set automatically.

0.tqn.com
 
2013-01-01 09:54:27 PM
As a BSD user, I find you lack of source disturbing. Been on a BSD only desktop since 1998, there's nothing I can't do (save games, but I can't play them in OS X either, so it's moot) that anyone on Windows can do, PDF? Sure, Flash based games? Yup Youtube? You betcha.

Can I roll a desktop for my mom, where it's all point and click? Install FreeBSD and a few ports, results in a desktop O.S with no typing in a terminal for anything.

Year of the desktop for me, my mother and most of my family happened in 2002 when I moved back to my home city.

That said, I wish I could play Diablo, SW:TOR and other games under either BSD or Linux, but that's what my install of Windows XP is for.... for now
 
2013-01-01 09:59:51 PM
I've been running Ubuntu 12.10 (middling 2009-vintage desktop) and 12.04 LTS (old ThinkPad T60) for the last month or so and they run beautifully. I used to work in a Fedora shop doing QA test automation and lab support, so I'm not a total n00b. You were scorned if you wussed out and used a UI so I didn't use them a lot but I actually prefer Unity to the Windows-esque UIs I've used in the past.

If I have a problem, the chances of getting an answer via search that isn't "install distro n, f@g0t!!1" isn't as good as with Windows, but better than it used to be. Speaking of Windows, I'm having relatively little difficulty getting the Windows apps that I need like Silverlight (for Netflix) or MSPaint (it does things that I can't find in a native Linux app without having to bury my head in a doc file) to run under Wine. If I'm feeling particularly prehistoric, I can fire up DOSBox too.

Screen fonts do suck compared to Windows, and I had an unnecessary DNS problem at install that was a royal pain and needed a config file twiddle to fix on both revs of V12. Other than that, it's been a pleasure to work in.
 
2013-01-01 10:08:21 PM
Another article whining about Windows 8? "ERMAHGERD CHAAAAAAANGE, WE'RE DOOMED!"

notthisshiatagain.jpg

That being said, I have several old laptops sitting around and I have Mint installed on all of them, because all they're used for is the internet and Open Office. I like Linux, I just think that it's never going to be mainstream unless there's some consistency and interoperability. Then again, I feel like most of the people I know that use it are probably doing so specifically because it's not mainstream.
 
2013-01-01 10:10:09 PM

TimeCubeFan: Pro Tools. Virtual Instrument libraries. And pretty much all my music production software. I'd love to try Linus, but if it doesn't run my studio apps then it's pretty much useless to me.


Linux audio/studio distribrutions

Quite a few musicians use an audio/studio oriented Linux distro. Even for live performances.
 
2013-01-01 10:16:40 PM

lordargent: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.

Installed from a live USB stick, was able to surf the web on Firefox while the OS was installing.

I remember spending lots of time waiting for windows installs to pop up yet another dialogue box, wishing it would ask all of the shiat up front and not pop up crap during the middle of the install. NO, I don't want to set the system clock, because as soon as I get this box running and on the network, the clock will get set automatically.


I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu, but their installer rocks. Definitely the best in Linux land.

I use Debian, so the installer requires tending and is not as straightforward as Ubuntu's.

To their credit, Microsoft has made a lot of progress on their installers. The Win 7 installer is immeasurably better than the XP installer, and out of the box hardware support has improved. There's still the problem of the "Installing update 1 of 95, please do not shut down your computer" for the first five reboots after installing Windows, though.
 
2013-01-01 10:17:04 PM

lordargent: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.


How are those Wireless drivers treating you.

In all seriousness, this hogwash can go die in a hole already. Ubuntu(or any linux distro really) is a hobbyist's toy, a model railroad that you nerds are so desperate to get other people involved with because you're clamoring for even just one person to care half as much as you have about the fact that three weeks after you started your linux install, it's now almost working to 90% of your system's marked capacity. I don't swing my hobby of polishing my testicles with the floor buffers at the mall while Security isn't looking and demand that you do the same, so I see absolutely no reason why I should hear this rubbish every single year. And it is every goddamn year.
 
2013-01-01 10:20:22 PM

"Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period."


And which distros out of the hundreds out there are easy to install?

 
2013-01-01 10:24:24 PM
RatOmeter: Quite a few musicians use an audio/studio oriented Linux distro. Even for live performances.

That's part of the problem though, there are plenty of alternate apps, some worse, and some that are actually probably better than whatever app someone is used to.

But it doesn't run "THEIR" app and they don't have time to learn a new app.

// whereas, the techie in me loves playing around with apps (Years of developing/testing/code reviewing etc makes me very polarized about software so I'm always looking for the "perfect" app for me.)

// In my case, I basically live inside of Hugin and Rawstudio.

Now, I don't know how Rawstudio

www.photographyblog.com

Stacks up to Lightroom

g-ecx.images-amazon.com

Feature wise, but rawstudio does everything that I needed it to do and was free (vs $149 (MSRP) for lightroom)).
 
2013-01-01 10:33:34 PM

vharshyde: How are those Wireless drivers treating you.


Just installed Debian Testing on a refurbished Latitude E4300 (nice computer in perfect condition - got it for a song because it's a bit long in the tooth). Wireless works fine, although I had to install a driver (just like in Windows and just as easy to install). Proprietary software isn't installed by default in Debian, it would have worked out of the box in Ubuntu.

Also, my ALPS touchpad works fine, as do the function keys and hard buttons. The OS install and all of my applications take up about 10 GB of my 80 GB hard drive. The OS uses about 175 mb of RAM at boot, leaving the remainder of my 2GB for getting work done.

Have you tried looking for Win 7 64-bit drivers for a prefectly functional LaserJet 1000 printer? Don't bother, they don't exist. Printer works fine in Debian Testing, though.
 
2013-01-01 10:36:16 PM

jonny_q: Tree-based structure is straightforward.


It is and it isn't. When trying to find something when you don't know where it is in the tree, it's next to impossible. We've tacked on metadata to solve this, as well as stuff like symlinks and hardlinks. I don't have a finished picture in my head, but it'd be nice for filesystems to at least add things like the ability to shelve files easily (group these ten things into a single project, no matter where they actually reside in the tree), and decent versioning would be nice, too.

jonny_q: Or do you just wanna make that more free-form?


I mean a complete inversion of our approach to things. I mean all applications are nothing more than services- they present data and business rules in a format that can be consumed by widgets. So you wouldn't have Word, in this environment. You'd have a Word service that can open documents and return an object model representing the contents. The OS would then present this to the user- how? Well, it might track down a Word widget that can provide the user an editor. Or maybe it'll just display key bits of information about the file. Or maybe it'll just dump it straight to the printer.

Instead of treating an application as a silo, it inherently isn't. This is closer to how the command line was meant to work, and it's also very similar to how the web works today. Obviously this isn't a fully fleshed out idea, and there are a lot of drawbacks and tradeoffs.

I'm just brainstorming things that are different that could improve how we use our computers in meaningful ways.
 
2013-01-01 10:37:57 PM
It's never going to be The Year of Linux at the rate they're going.

I use Ubuntu. I like it fine. But here's the thing - while I was a fairly adept Windows user, Linux is mostly over my head. Many of the simplest things involve me opening the terminal and learning new commands. I don't mind too much, but I'm half-a-nerd and I like the spirit of the thing. But it isn't very appealing to the vast majority of casual users. This is exasperated by updates and upgrades that drastically change an OS that you've finally gotten used to, with features just suddenly disappearing. Some of these you can replace, assuming you know what to look for and/or what command to enter.

A lot of Linux users look down on Ubuntu or Unity as a dumbed-down version of Linux. That may be so, but they'll need to do a whole lot more dumbing down before they'll ever have an OS that is ready to compete with Microsoft or Apple.
 
2013-01-01 10:40:51 PM

skinink: "Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period."
And which distros out of the hundreds out there are easy to install?


Ubuntu, Open SUSE, Mint. Debian isn't any harder to install than Windows XP. I know you're yanking my chain, but we have this thing called the Internet where it's pretty easy to find out which distros are best for new Linux users.
 
2013-01-01 10:40:53 PM

Quantumbunny: Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.


I have to manually change stuff in OS X and Windows too (recently changed what Spotlight indexes, and let's not forget the registry in Windows, or how things that require Powershell now). I haven't had to manually edit xorg.conf for years, on some very different configurations (last time I edited one of them was on a SGI Octane running Gentoo. And your average person is not going to have SGI hardware).
 
2013-01-01 10:41:59 PM
vharshyde: How are those Wireless drivers treating you.

On my old laptop (a dell inspiron 8600 from circa 2003), the wireless chipset (Broadcom) was not detected automatically in Ubuntu 7.04 and required me to download drivers for it. interestingly enough, windows XP also didn't detect it out of the box and required me to download drivers for it. (in both cases, I just slapped an ethernet cable into it and both OSes grabbed the drivers automatically, so there is that).

On my current laptop (a Dell inspiron 1525 from circa 2008, Intel wireless chipset), everything worked perfectly out of the box with Ubuntu 10.04. And this was the era that live CDs/USBs took off, so you could actually test all of your hardware in Ubuntu before doing an install to disk.

Ditto for my Dell netbook (but that's not fair since the damn thing came with ubuntu preinstalled).

Likewise, on my desktop (hand assembled core i7 on a MSI mobo from circa 2010), I had no hardware trouble to speak of with Ubuntu 10.04. But since I built this specifically to run ubuntu, I made sure to select components that had excellent compatibility (IIRC, Radeon graphcs cards had some issues around this time frame, so I went with an Nvida card).

// If a piece of hardware is popular enough, and the vendor has published documentation on their APIs (like they should be doing), then there will be a decent driver for said hardware.
//
// If the vendor doesn't publish their documentation, then you have to rely on the vendor to create a driver (like Nvidia did), or you have to rely on someone reverse engineering the API. This is a vendor support issue, not an OS issue.
 
2013-01-01 10:42:42 PM

Saners: What a shiat list. So much that 1,4 and 5 are all the same thing; they each assume that you MUST switch operating systems this year. People still run Windows XP so the fact that Windows 8 just came out is no reason to switch to linux and if you already own a copy of Windows or OSX then Linux being free is pointless to mention.


Unless Microsoft gets hip to Apple's methodology, and turns an update for the older version into malware, to encourage people to upgrade. Happened to me, my Mac was working great, until I installed a system software update. Then things started to go bad, really bad. 15+ minute start up bad. Then it farked Mail up. The latest is opening system preferences crashes the computer. I'm seriously debating Ubuntu, I won't be buying OSX 8, just don't trust Apple anymore at all.
 
2013-01-01 10:42:46 PM
I used Linux around 1999 to about 2004 and then switched back to Mac and Windows. I liked it, but there was a lot of package difficulties (and I was using Suse/Mandrake/RedHat, the major flavors of the day) and hardware issues. About 2 years ago after swearing at my Windows machine for the millionth time I thought 'Hrm, see what the kids are doing these days' and downloaded Ubuntu and haven't looked back. Switched to Mint about a year ago from Ubuntu for picky reasons...but in general: there is ZERO installing from source anymore. I haven't been able to throw a piece of hardware at my machine it didn't handle great. And NO MORE Hunting around to play mp3s or use Flash or Acrobat. Any minor problems I've encountered, well, google is the best resource and I quickly find the solution. The best part is no more pirated ware and/or paying for crappy software. k3b+devede does anything Nero can do and more. OpenShot is a fantastic video editor I use all the time. I have weird needs too, like having to do sheet music scores for my band, and Frescobaldi does great engraving (along with MuseScore which is on all platforms I believe). I've got to say in fairness for crazy audio editing and recording needs Linux still has issues, using crap like Jack which works 20% of the time. I don't do much that I can't just use Audacity for but it'd be nice if I could get some of those fancy midi things like Rosegarden actually working. That's a minor minor gripe - as a pure desktop machine I don't know why anyone wouldn't use Linux. ESPECIALLY the non-geek users, the people like my Mom who just use their computers like you'd use a tablet (Facebook, email, YouTube videos, etc).
 
2013-01-01 10:44:11 PM
armanox: I have to manually change stuff in OS X and Windows too

shiat, you just reminded me of .ini files and regedit :P
 
2013-01-01 10:45:23 PM

swahnhennessy: It's never going to be The Year of Linux at the rate they're going.

I use Ubuntu. I like it fine. But here's the thing - while I was a fairly adept Windows user, Linux is mostly over my head. Many of the simplest things involve me opening the terminal and learning new commands. I don't mind too much, but I'm half-a-nerd and I like the spirit of the thing. But it isn't very appealing to the vast majority of casual users. This is exasperated by updates and upgrades that drastically change an OS that you've finally gotten used to, with features just suddenly disappearing. Some of these you can replace, assuming you know what to look for and/or what command to enter.

A lot of Linux users look down on Ubuntu or Unity as a dumbed-down version of Linux. That may be so, but they'll need to do a whole lot more dumbing down before they'll ever have an OS that is ready to compete with Microsoft or Apple.


Well, in the new Windows it's all changed -- again -- so it's not going to be the OS you've gotten used to.

Go get Linux Mint. Install it as a dual boot (it's easy).

You can do everything fine without using the command line. However using the command line for basci tasks is pretty dang easy
 
2013-01-01 10:47:41 PM

swahnhennessy: This is exasperated by updates and upgrades that drastically change an OS that you've finally gotten used to, with features just suddenly disappearing. Some of these you can replace, assuming you know what to look for and/or what command to enter.


This kind of stuff happens in Windows and Mac, too, though. It's unfair to single out Linux. The fact that, in Linux, the lost functionality can sometimes be restored is an advantage that open source software has over proprietary software.
 
2013-01-01 10:48:36 PM

t3knomanser: When trying to find something when you don't know where it is in the tree, it's next to impossible.


t3knomanser: I'm just brainstorming things that are different that could improve how we use our computers in meaningful ways.


Windows and Mac OS (and probably Linux, I dunno, I don't use it much) already do this.

They index file names AND contents. Simply type some words into the Search box and you get your relevant files.

I work with severely computer-unsavvy people. Tech-tards. Computer-phobes. And teaching them to let the computer search for things solves 90% of our problems.

"Aunt Sally Christmas" TA DA!

"December rent payments" TA DA!

"Colson County property tax" TA DA!
 
2013-01-01 10:49:27 PM

RatOmeter: TimeCubeFan: Pro Tools. Virtual Instrument libraries. And pretty much all my music production software. I'd love to try Linus, but if it doesn't run my studio apps then it's pretty much useless to me.

Linux audio/studio distribrutions

Quite a few musicians use an audio/studio oriented Linux distro. Even for live performances.


I've used Ardour for recordings in the past. I Ebayed an 8 channel firewire audio interface which I have working reasonably well with a couple different Linux machines, and I'm happy with the setup. I've never really used Pro Tools, so I don't really know how they stack up, but I like Ardour a lot and it was more than enough for what I needed. I'm not sure who else uses it, but it is sold as part of Harrison Mixbus. I wouldn't tell people to go and rip their Pro Tools setups apart and drop in a Linux-based studio, but if you're interested in Linux and pro audio it's something to check out. I can't really speak for the virtual instruments, as I don't really use any.

I would recommend though that if you're new to Linux and want to play with pro audio, consider one of the pre-made distros. There are some tweaks you can do to improve performance (latency) with audio, and these usually implement them by default. I'm typing this on a Gentoo machine, and I don't really mind doing some of that stuff myself when I'm just messing around, but unless you want to get your hands dirty you don't need to bother.
 
2013-01-01 10:51:52 PM

vharshyde: lordargent: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.


How are those Wireless drivers treating you.

In all seriousness, this hogwash can go die in a hole already. Ubuntu(or any linux distro really) is a hobbyist's toy, a model railroad that you nerds are so desperate to get other people involved with because you're clamoring for even just one person to care half as much as you have about the fact that three weeks after you started your linux install, it's now almost working to 90% of your system's marked capacity. I don't swing my hobby of polishing my testicles with the floor buffers at the mall while Security isn't looking and demand that you do the same, so I see absolutely no reason why I should hear this rubbish every single year. And it is every goddamn year.


I'd like to comment on this as a Linux user who is not a geek, who has used a bunch of different LInux distros over more than a decade and has also used Windows a lot too. First of all, wireless drivers specifically: I just put Linux on my wife's notebook and the wireless card was detected with the Ubuntu Live CD, so that was easy! Secondly, three weeks to get a Linux install up and running actually was near the norm for me back in 2000. Now it is about 4 hours from inserting the install disc to PERFECT SYSTEM. But even in the bad old days I saw the major difference between Linux and Windows as this: Linux would take a bit to get up and perfect, but once it was like that, it seemed to be like that forever. Windows, it would work flawlessly right out of the box and then gradually deteriorate until you're trying to kill 4 hours while it defrags and you still get .dll errors like crazy. Now I know there's tons of fixes and virus checking and cleaners you can use for Windows, but I'm not a computer geek - which is WHY I like Linux. Man, I don't know what goes in /etc and what goes in /usr. I know my computer will boot flawlessly, quickly, all the time and anytime I want to watch pornography it is there for me, working.
 
2013-01-01 11:01:31 PM

lordargent: It's open source, you will find more than enough people who want to do QA.


Open source != zero cost to develop and test. Volunteers are great, but for the most part you get what you pay for. Just look at all the low quality bugs on Launchpad, or all the "expired" bugs where testers never bothered to respond to questions.


On the flip side, how much time was spent on Ubuntu 1 (cloud storage) when dropbox.com already works perfectly in Ubuntu?

How about Ubuntu 1 for Mac (aren't apple users going to use the apple option anyway?)


Canonical wants to control the entire desktop stack. Not entirely sure why they've made Ubuntu 1 such a priority, but I imagine buzzword compliance has something to do with it.
 
2013-01-01 11:06:50 PM

TimeCubeFan: Pro Tools. Virtual Instrument libraries. And pretty much all my music production software. I'd love to try Linus, but if it doesn't run my studio apps then it's pretty much useless to me.


Cheap file server.
 
2013-01-01 11:11:26 PM
Here is the important thing to a lot of users like myself: How consistent is the user experience between versions? I am not talking between distros, but versions of the same distro.

I've grown up with desktops, starting in the early 80's. I've done the tape drive, the floppies, typing BASIC games out of magazines, command line. The greatest revolution to me was when Windows and IBM pretty much forced standardization on the consumer market. All through high school I could work on a report at home or at school in one lab, but I could not start it at one place and finish it elsewhere. In college I could, and that was fantastic. Browser wars? Abusive monopolies? Who cares? Does my shiat work on a given workstation? Can I sit down at a computer and know how to do what I need to do? Those are the things that matter.

Microsoft has been screwing up this good thing they had. They are mucking with the interface.

There is less and less consistency of experience. This is driving a lot of people I know away from Microsoft, a little bit at a time. They added ribbons to Office? I switched my parents and my wife first to Open Office and now Libre. Things like that.

What consistency of user experience can one count on in a given Linux distro? That right there will determine the relative success of Linux in the consumer market. That, Spider Solitaire and Freecell. People will adapt... to a new system that promises greater consistency.
 
2013-01-01 11:16:17 PM
MrEricSir: Open source != zero cost to develop and test. Volunteers are great, but for the most part you get what you pay for. Just look at all the low quality bugs on Launchpad, or all the "expired" bugs where testers never bothered to respond to questions.

If nobody is willing to test/respond to inquiries about a bug, then is that bug really of big importance?

IE, if you ran into a bug that affected you, and someone responded to you asking for details, and you just ignore them, then what gives? If the person that submitted the bug doesn't even care enough to respond then fark that bug.

Like One Hundred Papercuts.

From my personal experience, I used Windows OSes for around 20 years (3.11 was released in 1993), and in Ubuntu 10.04, I finally have an OS that doesn't annoy me to use it. Sure there are some issues, but those issues are dwarfed by all of the crazy shiat I encountered over the years (and still encounter) on windows OSes.

// unfortunately, versions of Ubuntu newer than 10.04 bring back that annoyance factor. I don't know what I'm going to do when 10.04 goes out of the support window :(
 
2013-01-01 11:21:37 PM
If you know what an OS is, nobody cares what you think.

99% of users never choose or install or upgrade an OS.

They buy computers & tablets & phones and use the included software. That's where the money is.
 
2013-01-01 11:27:39 PM
There will never be a time when people en masse switch over to any flavor of Linux. Never.
 
2013-01-01 11:28:26 PM
As a FreeBSD user, I'm offended.

/starts a "2013 is the year of the *BSD desktop" blog post
 
2013-01-01 11:29:27 PM

MrEricSir: lordargent: Shuttleworth is trying to make Ubuntu into the next windows, but in doing so is throwing choice and configurability out to the dogs as a result.

Every checkbox, every option, every configuration parameter increases the QA load exponentially. Linux fans want bells and whistles, but they also want to pay $0. That's a tough spot for Ubuntu's product team. I'd argue that keeping the options simple is the best way to please the most people.

That said, both Windows (up to 7 at least) and OS X have more window management options than Unity.


It's simply not true that Linux users want to pay $0. Many people are willing to pay and do pay for free software. I like the software that the Free Software Foundation makes so much that I donate $10. $120 a year is a small price to pay for great software especially since it is still less money than a copy of Windows would cost.

Developers can and do make money by developing free software. It isn't turning anyone into Bill Gates or Steve Jobs but it's possible to make a living. One way is accepting payments from individuals or organizations for developing free software that suits their needs or adding requested features to existing software.

It's more than a bunch of nerds who don't want to spend money. Free software is a community and grateful users such as myself who don't have the skills to develop software give back either by donating money or time to improve the quality of the software. Linux users are a diverse crowd and there is no one stereotype that can describe all of us. Go to www.humblebundle.com and you will see that we are willing to pay money for something we want. When given the option to pay what you want for a package of indie games Linux users have paid an average of about $4.00 more than Windows users and almost $3.00 more than Mac users.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:40 PM
I think I will stick with Windows 2008 R2 as my primary desktop OS. I have a couple of Windows 2012 servers running at home, and a test environment at the office. I have Windows 8 installed on my Samsun series 5 which I like a lot. I stick with Microsoft because my job revolves around several Microsoft products. I am the company DBA / SharePoint admin. That being said I was given an old HP 6730 laptop that I am in the process of loading p with Ubuntu Server so I can expand my skills a little.
 
2013-01-01 11:52:07 PM
I switched to Linux in either 1993 or 1994 (it's been long enough that I can't remember, but this was in the days of downloading a bunch of 3.5" floppy images) so she's only off by 19 or 20 years. N00b. :)

I had at least one Linux machine in my house from then until 2006 (and if you count things that are powered off, I still have two) but after about 2001, Linux was relegated to tinkering or running servers (when I still ran servers at home), and OS X was the UNIX I used when I actually wanted to get shiat done.

I still use Linux at work, though, along with Tru64 and Win7.
 
2013-01-02 12:09:04 AM

Gonz: Pokey.Clyde: Not necessarily. As several others have mentioned, games for one are a big reason.

Well, that's fine, if you want to use your computer for playing games, like it's a different and expandable console.


Games are all I use my Windows box for. When I want to be productive I use my Mac. The bottom line is none of the software I bought my computers to use runs on Linux. And 90% of it never will.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:13 AM

Ed Grubermann: The bottom line is none of the software I bought my computers to use runs on Linux. And 90% of it never will.


That's odd, all the software I use on my computers runs on Linux. Maybe you need different software.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:20 AM
Will this be the Year of Linux on the Desktop?

i126.photobucket.com
(hot like a cpu after recompiling an OS)

"Get use to disappointment."
 
2013-01-02 12:40:32 AM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Ed Grubermann: The bottom line is none of the software I bought my computers to use runs on Linux. And 90% of it never will.

That's odd, all the software I use on my computers runs on Linux. Maybe you need different software.


I'm not talking broad categories, like spreadsheets, browsers, etc... I'm talking about very specific programs. They don't exist for Linux and there are no acceptable analogs.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:22 AM

numbquil: It's simply not true that Linux users want to pay $0. Many people are willing to pay and do pay for free software. I like the software that the Free Software Foundation makes so much that I donate $10. $120 a year is a small price to pay for great software especially since it is still less money than a copy of Windows would cost.

Developers can and do make money by developing free software. It isn't turning anyone into Bill Gates or Steve Jobs but it's possible to make a living. One way is accepting payments from individuals or organizations for developing free software that suits their needs or adding requested features to existing software.

It's more than a bunch of nerds who don't want to spend money. Free software is a community and grateful users such as myself who don't have the skills to develop software give back either by donating money or time to improve the quality of the software. Linux users are a diverse crowd and there is no one stereotype that can describe all of us. Go to www.humblebundle.com and you will see that we are willing to pay money for something we want. When given the option to pay what you want for a package of indie games Linux users have paid an average of about $4.00 more than Windows users and almost $3.00 more than Mac users.


Relying on donations is really, really tough. Believe me, I'm an open source developer and that's what we do where I work.

So yes, I know that you can make money developing open source software, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.
 
2013-01-02 12:59:47 AM
As for Mint - I just went over to their site so I could configure a bootable USB stick (as I'd got the most recent version of Ubuntu and after playing with it for a few minutes decided that I had the same reaction to Unity that everyone else did). The Mint download page is interesting because off the bat there seems to be four varieties of Mint and for the life of me I couldn't figure out which was the most commonly used one. Mate? Cinnamon? (KDE and XFCE I recognized - but the placement on the site seemed to indicate that Mate or Cinnamon were the preferred versions of the distro)

So right off the bat - before I've got to the bit where I download and install what seems to be the "New Ubuntu/New Fedora/New Mandrake/New SuSE/New Debian/New RedHat/New Slackware/New Currently Recommended Distro before we all decide we hate it because it was really good when it started and they they borked it up" - I'm provided with a bucket of choices that don't make a lot of sense.

The reality is that 95% of the guys I new who were hardcore Linux nerds back in the salad days of the late 90's - when "year of the Linux desktop" kinda seemed possible - are all running Mac OSX now because they got to the stage where they don't give a fark.

If Mint is the new "Gateway Distro" and it makes it complicated to figure out which fricking version you should start with - desktop market share ain't going anywhere.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:29 AM
Unity finally broke my loyalty to Ubuntu, and, consequently, I haven't been using linux much in the last 6 months or so. Mint looks really good, though, so I'm going to give it a spin.

Seriously, though, if I want a dictatorial interface, I'll buy a Mac and never look back. The greatest thing about linux is its configurability.

/longtime linux dabbler
//dual boot for the music software.
 
2013-01-02 02:02:08 AM

narkor: As for Mint - I just went over to their site so I could configure a bootable USB stick (as I'd got the most recent version of Ubuntu and after playing with it for a few minutes decided that I had the same reaction to Unity that everyone else did). The Mint download page is interesting because off the bat there seems to be four varieties of Mint and for the life of me I couldn't figure out which was the most commonly used one. Mate? Cinnamon? (KDE and XFCE I recognized - but the placement on the site seemed to indicate that Mate or Cinnamon were the preferred versions of the distro)

So right off the bat - before I've got to the bit where I download and install what seems to be the "New Ubuntu/New Fedora/New Mandrake/New SuSE/New Debian/New RedHat/New Slackware/New Currently Recommended Distro before we all decide we hate it because it was really good when it started and they they borked it up" - I'm provided with a bucket of choices that don't make a lot of sense.

The reality is that 95% of the guys I new who were hardcore Linux nerds back in the salad days of the late 90's - when "year of the Linux desktop" kinda seemed possible - are all running Mac OSX now because they got to the stage where they don't give a fark.

If Mint is the new "Gateway Distro" and it makes it complicated to figure out which fricking version you should start with - desktop market share ain't going anywhere.


If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with google to figure out which desktop is best for you, then you should go buy that Mac, my friend.
 
2013-01-02 02:16:22 AM
2013 is the year of the Linux desktop

/This is not a repeat of every year since 1990
 
2013-01-02 02:17:57 AM

ThunderPelvis: If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with google to figure out which desktop is best for you, then you should go buy that Mac, my friend.


This is the kind of assholery that is why Linux will never make it to the desktop.

Any help you will get from the linux community will be from a high and mighty dickweed that thinks missing manuals, and unclear instructions are what makes linux good.
 
2013-01-02 02:19:01 AM

Ed Grubermann: I'm not talking broad categories, like spreadsheets, browsers, etc... I'm talking about very specific programs. They don't exist for Linux and there are no acceptable analogs.


SHUT UP! THE GIMP REALLY IS AS GOOD AS PHOTOSHOP!

/lolololol
 
2013-01-02 02:35:08 AM

ThunderPelvis: If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with google to figure out which desktop is best for you, then you should go buy that Mac, my friend.


Unless you're running a VM farm, or some other specialty distribution, you shouldn't have to look up anything. The problem for most users is that the last thing they want is a choice in the UI. Oh, sure, they want to be able to put their kid's picture on their desktop and set the "You've Got Mail!" sound to a duck farting in a airplane restroom, but that's about it. They just want the software. And that's where Linux fails, and until people get their heads out of their butts and stop forking every frigging project every  time two developers can't agree on some nitpicking point, that's where Linus will always fail.
 
2013-01-02 02:36:55 AM

Ed Grubermann: ThunderPelvis: If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with google to figure out which desktop is best for you, then you should go buy that Mac, my friend.

Unless you're running a VM farm, or some other specialty distribution, you shouldn't have to look up anything. The problem for most users is that the last thing they want is a choice in the UI. Oh, sure, they want to be able to put their kid's picture on their desktop and set the "You've Got Mail!" sound to a duck farting in a airplane restroom, but that's about it. They just want the software. And that's where Linux fails, and until people get their heads out of their butts and stop forking every frigging project every  time two developers can't agree on some nitpicking point, that's where Linus

Linux will always fail.

/FTFM
 
2013-01-02 03:08:03 AM

fluffy2097: ThunderPelvis: If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes with google to figure out which desktop is best for you, then you should go buy that Mac, my friend.

This is the kind of assholery that is why Linux will never make it to the desktop.

Any help you will get from the linux community will be from a high and mighty dickweed that thinks missing manuals, and unclear instructions are what makes linux good.


The Linux community has people who spend a ridiculous amount of time helping newbs.

I'm not responsible for the fact that installing and maintaining Linux sometimes requires a high level of computer literacy, but my mom can use it after it's up and running, and that says a *lot*. However, if you can't do 5 minutes of research before installing a farking operating system, then you shouldn't be installing that operating system.
 
2013-01-02 03:37:19 AM

t3knomanser: I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.


I'd love something unique or new, but the file/folder system we have is most efficient for humans to grasp. There may be other methods but they would seem alien to us. As it is, the system emulating an actual file cabinet, it relates to how we do things in the real world. We put X in location Y.

A novel approach would be a GUI that's either 3D or stylized 2D with depth(3D depth but 2d objects), similar to how Hollywood has portrayed computers of the future. The 3D novelty would get old though, because you've got to move your orientation to place X to get to object Y. It's time consuming, most times you just want to click a time or three and have an object open/run.

It may also be cumbersome to do with a mouse and keyboard. Tablets could(and do) use the touch display, some with multiple fingers, and that's where I see the futuristic UI coming to life(limited as it is with ONLY touch), unless large TV's w/ touch get cheap, or some other control technology, we're not going to see anything really innovative that's actually useful.
 
2013-01-02 04:27:14 AM

ThunderPelvis: my mom can use it after it's up and running, and that says a *lot*.


It says nothing when you have pre-configured a system for someone so that they don't have to do anything except click the Email or web browser or word processor icon. The fact you don't understand that, speaks volumes about your lack of understanding.

If you can walk her through repairing it over the phone, I might start to be mildly impressed that you can do what Windows desktop support monkeys do all day every day. Not because of the OS that you're doing it with, but because I imagine you'd probably curse out your own mother before walking her through fixing something.
 
2013-01-02 04:36:42 AM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: skinink: "Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period."
And which distros out of the hundreds out there are easy to install?

Ubuntu, Open SUSE, Mint. Debian isn't any harder to install than Windows XP. I know you're yanking my chain, but we have this thing called the Internet where it's pretty easy to find out which distros are best for new Linux users.


Ah yes, the linux attitude I talked of earlier.
 
2013-01-02 04:52:12 AM

fluffy2097: ThunderPelvis: my mom can use it after it's up and running, and that says a *lot*.

It says nothing when you have pre-configured a system for someone so that they don't have to do anything except click the Email or web browser or word processor icon. The fact you don't understand that, speaks volumes about your lack of understanding.

If you can walk her through repairing it over the phone, I might start to be mildly impressed that you can do what Windows desktop support monkeys do all day every day. Not because of the OS that you're doing it with, but because I imagine you'd probably curse out your own mother before walking her through fixing something.


Uhhh...what do you think 97% of users use their farking computers for?

You want Linux to be effortlessly distributed across all possible platforms. That's hilariously naive and...well, stupid.
 
2013-01-02 05:02:50 AM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.


Turns out this is going away in Windows too. Linux was just ahead of the curve.
 
2013-01-02 05:12:49 AM
2012 was the year most people adopted Linux. They just don't know it yet.
www.technobuffalo.com
/hot
 
2013-01-02 05:14:20 AM
I thought that large HDDs and dual booting were going to end this silly "debate". Guess not.
Hey, people! It's 2013! You can have several OSs on your computer - you are not limited to just one.
We don't have to argue over which one is "better" anymore.
Unless, of course, we just like to argue for the pleasure of waving our E-peens at one another.
 
2013-01-02 05:40:37 AM
Apart from serving files and DB what does Linux actually do?
 
2013-01-02 05:52:59 AM

Honest Bender: Can I run all of my games natively? No? Then it's still not my year to switch.

I love linux, don't get me wrong. I work with hundreds of linux servers every day. Damn fine OS. But when I'm at home... gots to be the windows. Games, man... games.


This.

I work with RHEL linux daily, I love CentOS and Mint, but for home?  No games, no linux.

Until Linux becomes a platform for games, I won't be switching.
 
2013-01-02 05:55:57 AM

phlatulence: Apart from serving files and DB what does Linux actually do?


Mostly runs millions of smartphones, these days...Android is a Linux distro. Some people also use it as a desktop OS. It's the anchor of the free, noncommercial software community.
 
2013-01-02 06:24:22 AM

jaytkay: They index file names AND contents. Simply type some words into the Search box and you get your relevant files.


But that's a hack- it's not part of the filesystem. It's a separate set of applications that take the contents of your filesystem and convert it into a searchable database. Why doesn't the filesystem support this?

omeganuepsilon: I'd love something unique or new, but the file/folder system we have is most efficient for humans to grasp


The millions of people who drop everything on their desktop so they can find it easily disagree.

omeganuepsilon: As it is, the system emulating an actual file cabinet


No it isn't. A filing cabinet does not allow you to nest folders to an arbitrary depth. The filesystem doesn't emulate anything- it's a tree datastructure that calls its nodes and leaves things that sound sort of like what we're familiar with.

omeganuepsilon: A novel approach would be a GUI that's either 3D


That's pretty much every GUI these days. They all run through a 3D compositing engine.
 
2013-01-02 06:55:42 AM
I've got a desktop I'd like to get up and running again, but...

When I try to install Windows 7, the external USB DVD I'm using can't find drivers for the player that the Windows 7 disk is in.
When I try to install Mint Linux via USB, I get all kinds of errors.
I don't try to install OSX because it's not a hackintosh.
 
2013-01-02 07:20:18 AM

EngineerAU: Will this be the Year of Linux on the Desktop?

[i126.photobucket.com image 198x200]
(hot like a cpu after recompiling an OS)

"Get use to disappointment."


You sound edumacated.
 
2013-01-02 07:32:16 AM

ThunderPelvis: Unity finally broke my loyalty to Ubuntu, and, consequently, I haven't been using linux much in the last 6 months or so. Mint looks really good, though, so I'm going to give it a spin.


This might work for you:
sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

xubuntu flies on my vintage 2005 laptop.

I think someone at Ubuntu's trying to make things -too- friendly. Clean installs of the newest versions install a "guest account," and there's no clear or easy way to remove the thing. Strikes me as "Fresh version of Linux, now with Microsoft Bob!"
 
2013-01-02 08:16:03 AM
Meh. An OS is an OS is an OS. They only exist to let us get stuff done on our computers. They all suck, just (usually) in different ways.

All I want from my OS is the ability to set my own wallpaper, to run apps that I want/need, and to stay the heck out of my way. The more transparent an OS is to the user: that is, the less aware of the OS the user is, the better in my opinion.

I have yet to see this perfect OS in any flavor, Windows, Linux, Mac, real Unix- they all have their issues which require futzing around with instead of doing what I turned on the computer to do. At least Linux is free to get and use, so I'm not having to pay for the privilege of those headaches.

/PCLinuxOS 2012, with XP in VirtualBox for the few proggies that don't run well in WINE.
 
2013-01-02 08:31:49 AM
2011 was the year of the Linux Desktop, but not in the way that anyone ever envisioned.

That was the year that Canonical intruduced Unity, which completely fractured the already splintered
world of Linux graphical interfaces.
 
2013-01-02 08:34:09 AM

stucka: ThunderPelvis: Unity finally broke my loyalty to Ubuntu, and, consequently, I haven't been using linux much in the last 6 months or so. Mint looks really good, though, so I'm going to give it a spin.

This might work for you:
sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

xubuntu flies on my vintage 2005 laptop.

I think someone at Ubuntu's trying to make things -too- friendly. Clean installs of the newest versions install a "guest account," and there's no clear or easy way to remove the thing. Strikes me as "Fresh version of Linux, now with Microsoft Bob!"


Just finished installing Mint and I'm poking around now...I've used the Xfce in the past, but it's a bit light.  I'll probably stick with Mint for a while and see how I like it.  So far, so good...

Incidentally, if anybody else wants to try it, make sure that you do *not* try to import your settings off of a windows installation unless you have a farking huge linux partition.  Damn thing can barely load the desktop once the partition is completely full  :/
 
2013-01-02 08:38:44 AM

StoPPeRmobile: "Get use to disappointment."

You sound edumacated.


I'm lazy and used cut-and-paste. Which the last time I installed Linux was something that only worked for some apps but far from all of them.
 
2013-01-02 08:41:57 AM

phlatulence: Apart from serving files and DB what does Linux actually do?


It has really cool screen savers.

(Seriously, quite a few are based on real world physics instead of cartoon physics.)
 
2013-01-02 09:37:26 AM
Another reason 2013 won't be the year of Linux?

You can get Windows 8 for $15 without too much wrangling (upgrade price plus "I bought a computer with Windows 7 on it in the past few months" discount). Even if you didn't actually do the latter. They don't check or anything.

Ahem, not that I'd advocate gaming the system like that.

I like Mint and Ubuntu (yes, even Unity, shut up), but there is NOTHING wrong with Windows 8 that hasn't been blown out of proportion by people who are terrified of and/or confused by change. Metro isn't even as radical a change as Ubuntu's switch to the Unity environment.

Use what makes you happy, because haters gonna hate.
 
2013-01-02 09:49:23 AM

skinink: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: skinink: "Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period."
And which distros out of the hundreds out there are easy to install?

Ubuntu, Open SUSE, Mint. Debian isn't any harder to install than Windows XP. I know you're yanking my chain, but we have this thing called the Internet where it's pretty easy to find out which distros are best for new Linux users.

Ah yes, the linux attitude I talked of earlier.


I'm terribly sorry that I hurt your feelings. I'm sure that your initial question was asked with complete innocence and a genuine curiosity about which Linux distros would be appropriate for a new user.
 
2013-01-02 10:02:45 AM

Gonz: If you know what you're doing with a computer, Linux (or BSD) is what you already use.


Yeah whatever internet tech tough guy. People like you really piss those of us off who are responsible for keeping corporate systems online for a living.

You assume a lot of BS.
 
2013-01-02 10:06:33 AM

b0rscht: involving many kilolines of code that produce petabytes of data on supercomputers (that all run Linux)


I may have just located the snarkiest person on the internet.

KILO-lines? are you freakin kidding me.

Access to MULTIPLE "supercomputers" you are SO full of shiat.
 
2013-01-02 11:33:29 AM
Thus far, Mint's distro with the cinnamon GUI is excellent.  We had a good run, Ubuntu, but your new UI is total shiat.
 
2013-01-02 12:25:50 PM
I remember back in USENET days. January was the month of the "19xx will be the year of Linux" post.

There was some guy, I don't remember his first name, but his last name was like Schwartz or something. He'd collect every pro-Linux article along with a digest. He'd post a hundred and fifty or so articles / day. Teh dude was insane.
 
2013-01-02 01:10:13 PM

DjangoStonereaver:
That was the year that Canonical intruduced Unity, which completely fractured the already splintered
world of Linux graphical interfaces.


And still none of them can handle having windows inside a window, so you can tile multiple documents inside one window and compare them side by side. Something that windows 3.11 could do.

/or it has been able to for the past year or so and none of the programs for Linux have bothered to use the functionality.
 
2013-01-02 01:22:17 PM

t3knomanser: i have issues


I think I've had that conversation before.

If you were a little less contrarian troll and sarcastic contrarian, you might be worth talking to.

Pardon me for having not removed your favorite that says only posititve things about you. I will rectify the situation so that I remember to never talk to you about os/filesystems because of your geeked out kneejerk obsessive compulsive reactions.

Easy example:

t3knomanser: omeganuepsilon: As it is, the system emulating an actual file cabinet

No it isn't. A filing cabinet does not allow you to nest folders to an arbitrary depth. The filesystem doesn't emulate anything- it's a tree datastructure that calls its nodes and leaves things that sound sort of like what we're familiar with.


You sure are twitchy when people say emulate.

FYI, a folder system IS a filing cabinet idealized, without physical structure constraints of paper folders. If you can't grasp how the concepts are the same, you really do need some mental help.
 
2013-01-02 03:03:30 PM
Linux advocates would do well for their cause if they'd take a few days off to read one of Dale Carnegie's books.
 
2013-01-02 04:24:46 PM

Benni K Rok: I've got a desktop I'd like to get up and running again, but...

When I try to install Windows 7, the external USB DVD I'm using can't find drivers for the player that the Windows 7 disk is in.
When I try to install Mint Linux via USB, I get all kinds of errors.
I don't try to install OSX because it's not a hackintosh.


If you don't mind a little bit of work to get win7 going on it,
Link
 
2013-01-02 04:30:03 PM

t3knomanser:
VMS. It was here before you, and it will be here long after you.


Who still uses VMS?
 
2013-01-02 04:44:02 PM

Honest Bender: Can I run all of my games natively? No? Then it's still not my year to switch.

I love linux, don't get me wrong. I work with hundreds of linux servers every day. Damn fine OS. But when I'm at home... gots to be the windows. Games, man... games.


THIS^

get over yourself you buncha hipsters
 
2013-01-02 05:53:18 PM

EngineerAU: Linux advocates would do well for their cause if they'd take a few days off to read one of Dale Carnegie's books.


They'd be wiser to read "The Tragedy of the Commons". Then they might stop trying to mess up a good thing by being "Linux Advocates".
 
2013-01-02 05:58:35 PM

Red_Fox: Access to MULTIPLE "supercomputers" you are SO full of shiat.


You should see what the beowolf cluster of those can do!
 
2013-01-02 06:06:43 PM
I use Linux on my desktop and laptop to do real work. As a sysadmin, I am much faster working from a command line than I ever was working in a Windows GUI.

As I've said before, Windows has its own horrible flaws that everyone just seems to accept as normal, and troubleshooting why something doesn't work in Windows is about 10x harder than figuring out why it doesn't work in Linux if it falls outside normal use. (Go ahead and try to run ProSeries 20xx using a Windows 2003 Server and Windows 7 64 bit)

That all being said, all of my techs use Windows. To each their own.

The only way Linux will become dominant on the desktop is if there is a streamlined cheap commodity desktop running Linux with some reason for people to use it. There already are a few, that have much simpler UIs (such as the Roku box), but being that they are using proprietary skins, no one really learns anything of the OS underneath.
 
2013-01-02 07:09:54 PM
Sent from my brand new, pretty darn cool Chromebook. I believe the chrome OS is a Linux kernel, IIRC
 
2013-01-02 08:11:28 PM

Phaeon: Sent from my brand new, pretty darn cool Chromebook. I believe the chrome OS is a Linux kernel, IIRC


You can download ISOs for installation on older hardware from here.

I thought it was quite Red Hat-like when I tinkered with it.
 
2013-01-02 09:17:19 PM
Until Gnome and KDE get their shiat together . . . no thanks . . .

/ recently left linux
// linux is good, Gnome and KDE must catchup
/// fark Unity
 
2013-01-03 12:38:38 AM
aw-geeze-not-this-shiat-again.jpg
 
2013-01-03 02:58:05 AM

lordargent: MrEricSir: Open source != zero cost to develop and test. Volunteers are great, but for the most part you get what you pay for. Just look at all the low quality bugs on Launchpad, or all the "expired" bugs where testers never bothered to respond to questions.

If nobody is willing to test/respond to inquiries about a bug, then is that bug really of big importance?

IE, if you ran into a bug that affected you, and someone responded to you asking for details, and you just ignore them, then what gives? If the person that submitted the bug doesn't even care enough to respond then fark that bug.

Like One Hundred Papercuts.

From my personal experience, I used Windows OSes for around 20 years (3.11 was released in 1993), and in Ubuntu 10.04, I finally have an OS that doesn't annoy me to use it. Sure there are some issues, but those issues are dwarfed by all of the crazy shiat I encountered over the years (and still encounter) on windows OSes.

// unfortunately, versions of Ubuntu newer than 10.04 bring back that annoyance factor. I don't know what I'm going to do when 10.04 goes out of the support window :(


You could look into Linux Mint with either MATE or Cinnamon. With MATE, you get the Classic GNOME 2 feel. I believe Cinnamon is either based off of or forked from GNOME 3 (I don't understand the difference between based on/forked from.) I'm currently using Linux Mint 13 with MATE and have set up the top and bottom panels I got used to with Ubuntu as opposed to keeping the bottom panel with the Mint Menu. Also, I think Linux Mint's software center looks better and more functional than the Ubuntu one you posted above although it can be slow.
 
2013-01-03 03:58:53 AM
b0rscht:
You can make Linux pointy clicky but it does still require a learning curve to some extent. So does Windows, it's just that everyone's used it and knows where the control panel is.

Apparently you didn't read TFA... The major point of the article was that Windows 8 means you WILL be making a major paradigm shift in your computer use, or waiting for Windows 7 to go obsolescent. Since you HAVE to switch in a major way, why not switch to something much better? Familiar interface? Not yours. But, BETTER, you CAN have, by switching to Linux.

And, VirtualBox does a seamless job of running your Windows only stuff -- much less clumsily than WINE. As more people check out Win 8, Linux has a chance to make it bigtime in the desktop world. I'd say the odds are against a shift to Linux, but usage could easily triple, or more, as some percentage of people get off the Windows merry-go-round, and start using a real operating system.

If a reasonable shift to Linux starts, it would encourage the game makers to make a Linux version of their games, and THAT could well start an avalanche. Microsoft has had a good run -- time for them to go into the archives of PC history.
 
2013-01-03 04:21:19 AM
Mr. Eugenides:
3) Supeior securi... Sorry couldn't finish that it's too damn funny. Linux security may be almost on a par with XP. It's certainly better than Windows 95, but to suggest that Linux is more secure than Vista/7/8 is only to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, so YOU know nothing about security.... Well, let me see if I can find you some pictures to illustrate....


farm9.static.flickr.com

Windows Security Structure

www.zdistrict.com

Linux Security Structure

This house can be viewed with this link.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:20 AM
WhippingBoy:
If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?

God Mode.
 
2013-01-03 11:06:32 AM

GeneralJim: Mr. Eugenides: 3) Supeior securi... Sorry couldn't finish that it's too damn funny. Linux security may be almost on a par with XP. It's certainly better than Windows 95, but to suggest that Linux is more secure than Vista/7/8 is only to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Oh, so YOU know nothing about security.... Well, let me see if I can find you some pictures to illustrate....


[farm9.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

Windows Security Structure

[www.zdistrict.com image 500x333]

Linux Security Structure

This house can be viewed with this link.


Let me tell you what I know about security.

Last year, there were about as many Linux OS vulnerabilities as there were Windows OS vulnerabilities. You can go to CERT and look at the data yourself if you don't belive me. This despite the fact that the number of people targeting Windows probably outnumbers the people targeting Linux by 1000 to 1.

Windows also has in Windows Update, a consistent stable platform for determining vulnerabilities and delivering updates to computers including computers running out of date software. Microsoft will still release a patch for XP if the vulnerability is critical where the Linux community will say "well, that's 2 versions old, you can't expect that to be secure."

You may personally have a secure linux system, but for most users, who install the OS and forget, Windows is a far better choice.
 
2013-01-03 11:59:58 AM

Mr. Eugenides: Windows also has in Windows Update, a consistent stable platform for determining vulnerabilities and delivering updates to computers including computers running out of date software. Microsoft will still release a patch for XP if the vulnerability is critical where the Linux community will say "well, that's 2 versions old, you can't expect that to be secure."


Or the linux distribution could provide you a security website that can be tied right into your update system, which can be manual, assisted, or fully automatic.

http://www.debian.org/security/

Once I actually got an update to handle a change in the legal definition of daylight savings times days before MS sent one.

But then I'm sure you'd miss things like having your overnight jobs interrupted because MS decided to reboot after it is used MS Update to push an update to Skype to handle Facebook better, even when you have auto-updates in Skype turned off.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:15 PM

WhippingBoy: If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?


i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 01:48:52 PM

GeneralJim: why not switch to something much better?


Windows 8 it is!

/Windows 8 is actually very nice.
//The problem is more that windows 7 already works, so why pay $60 - $100 for an upgrade?
///They offer a real cheap upgrade path from Vista to windows 8 though, know several people doing that.
////Pretty sure you can even turn off Metro, which is the only thing people biatch about.
 
2013-01-04 12:10:08 AM
washu:
Foobar2000 is just one example, there are lots of tools aimed at the power user that are built for Windows but just don't seem to exist on Linux.

Users want to accomplish task "A" which requires steps 1, 2 and 3. Linux almost certainly has programs to do steps 1, 2 and 3, but nothing to tie them together in a polished package. That's the problem. When users go searching for how to do "A" on Linux they find nothing, because there is no one program to do it.

Well, yeah...

It is assumed that the user, if they want a sorted directory listing, can list the directory, and run the output into the sort program. It's a different paradigm than the "One huge program that does everything one might possibly need." But that does not mean that it is an inferior paradigm. If you're trying to get an O/S that has the classic user-friendly interface (Do what I WANT, not what I SAID) so that ANY moron can use it, first, only a moron will WANT to use it, and, second, success will NOT be achieved.

I am amazed at what people cannot do on computers they have owned for literally years. And, I'm talking almost exclusively Windows-based computing. I've seen several people who, after using pretty much only games, e-mail and Web browsing, don't understand the concepts of cut and paste, or bookmarks. It is NOT POSSIBLE to make something so easy that everyone will understand it. When users wander off the "games / browser / e-mail client / document production" dude ranch, they are out in the world of computers, even if only dipping in a toe. It is better if that world is a rational computer system, like Linux, than a Rube Goldberg structure held together with tar paper and chicken wire, as Windows is. If you're going to use the computer, use the damned thing. If not, go back to the dude ranch.

Think about it... Do you want to use a computer so simple that people who cannot set their VCR (Betamax, no doubt) clocks can use all of its features? I sure don't.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:07 AM
Mr. Eugenides:
Let me tell you what I know about security.

Last year, there were about as many Linux OS vulnerabilities as there were Windows OS vulnerabilities. You can go to CERT and look at the data yourself if you don't belive me. This despite the fact that the number of people targeting Windows probably outnumbers the people targeting Linux by 1000 to 1.

Windows also has in Windows Update, a consistent stable platform for determining vulnerabilities and delivering updates to computers including computers running out of date software. Microsoft will still release a patch for XP if the vulnerability is critical where the Linux community will say "well, that's 2 versions old, you can't expect that to be secure."

You may personally have a secure linux system, but for most users, who install the OS and forget, Windows is a far better choice.

Wow. I guess you DON'T know much about security... One at a time, here....

You say "Last year, there were about as many Linux OS vulnerabilities as there were Windows OS vulnerabilities." Okay. How many of the Linux vulnerabilities can muck about as root? Typically, Linux vulnerabilities, if exploited, do little to no damage. Windows, on the other hand, is buns up and kneeling for hackers.

You say "This despite the fact that the number of people targeting Windows probably outnumbers the people targeting Linux by 1000 to 1." Do your own math here... With a thousand to one ratio of hackers (just using your number here) and the same number of vulnerabilities, how many times less likely is Linux to be hacked than Windows? And that figure ignores the greater damage hacks of Windows generally do.

You say "Windows also has in Windows Update, a consistent stable platform for determining vulnerabilities and delivering updates to computers including computers running out of date software." I use SuSE Linux, and I use the updater (YOU) all the time...

You say "Microsoft will still release a patch for XP if the vulnerability is critical where the Linux community will say 'well, that's 2 versions old, you can't expect that to be secure.'" There are a couple of problems with that logic, Sparky... First, Microsoft says they're done with XP updates. And, for Microsoft, done is done. With Linux, the source code is out there, and someone can patch it to fix a bug, even after the "target" has moved on.

Second, you DO know that one can update the kernel on a Linux system without disrupting it, right? The kernel, where any serious vulnerabilities would be, is a whole separate issue from the accoutrements of packages, commercial software, etc., etc. in an average Linux system. Windows is arranged such that, to go from XP to Windows 7, say, you have to yank out and start over. So, why would people NOT update the Linux kernel, at LEAST if they discover a vulnerability in it? It sounds like you're just making up bizarre situations, and trying to use them to justify Windows.
 
2013-01-04 10:40:04 PM
i49.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report