Do you feel discriminated?

[beew]

I have just switched to Ubuntu from windows. So far I like the experience a lot.

However, I do have a serious complaint and it is not against Ubuntu or Linux, but software makers. There are many softwares (even open source ones) with both Windows and Linux versions. But somehow the Windows versions are almost always easier to use, have better user interface and come with tons of documentations (as if point and click is not easy enough) whereas the Linux versions are often more austere, sometimes poorly documented and you have to really dig around to find basic information for installations and usage. In some cases the Linux versions actually have less functionalities than the Windows version.

I just noticed that even OpenOffice3.2.1 has prettier icons in Windows. WTF?

[Bachstelze]

That is mostly because Windows provides its own GUI toolkit, whereas in Linux there's at least Qt and GTK. Taken separately, both are pretty much on par with Windows' (a pure Gnome or KDE desktop looks very good), but for big programs like OpenOffice, they have to make sure it works on both, so they make some kind of hybrid, which indeed doesn't look very good. Same goes for Firefox, for example.

[Nick_Jinn]

I think it depends....a lot of really popular and expensive commercial software is more fine tuned for windows....there is more money in it. A lot of Linux apps are volunteer programs.

Sometimes I prefer the Linux apps....I definitely prefer downloading apps from Synaptic to digging around the net from a thousand different sources for apps, mostly expensive ones or if they pose as free they are just a trial....and then there is some legitimate and good freeware.

How many people really need the advanced and more esoteric features of MS office or Word? As a student I never really needed more that Writer, maybe Impress, and for business sometimes I use Spreadsheet. The most basic default features work just fine. However, you can run MS office in Wine, also Photoshop Elements works great, but the CS versions older than CS2 take more doing.

There are some cools apps for Linux though. There is also a lot more you can do with your computer in Linux. You have the freedom to make your desktop do what you want it to do, unlike Windows where there are processes that are outside of your control.


The 'Black Editions' Of XP and 7 are not terrible, but I still prefer Ubuntu based operating systems unless I have some special need. Generally I prefer the extra work to logging off my desktop.


I also use a lot of torrents. If I was using windows I would have tons of viruses. When I get a bad file in Linux, its basically inert. Its like Im wearing a coat of Linux plate armor while windows is just a flimsy wicker shield....yeah, thats a cheesy metaphor, but while no OS is totally impervious I like the security I get in Linux and the repositories of free apps.



But yeah, sometimes the free stuff isnt as polished as the commercial stuff, and that is to be expected. It will get better as Linux grows in popularity though, and its already totally usable for most peoples needs, and a lot more secure and a lot more convenient in some ways, like as far as having lists of free programs with point and click downloads. Could you imagine the days when you had to compile everything from source?

[beew]

But yeah, sometimes the free stuff isnt as polished as the commercial stuff, and that is to be expected.

That is not the problem, I understand. But there are free stuffs with windows and Linux version and the windows version is a lot easier to set up and use and better documented. Sometimes the Linux version is hard not because it should be, just because it is so poorly documented and you don't know what to make heads and tails of it without a lot of googling.

Case in point. Most Linux distros have live usb makers for their own distros. In Ubuntu you can use the startup disk utility. But the start-up disk utility only makes Ubuntu live usbs. Not too long ago I wanted to play with Fedora. Fedora has its own liveusb creator. It offers a windows and Linux version.

The Windows version is very easy to set up. Download the .exe file, click and install. That's it. But they have to write a whole paragraph to explain how to use it in the Fedora liveusb wiki. In addition,there are tons of documentations and tutorials over the internet full of screen shots for basically an extremely easy process.

Now what about the Linux version? They just dump a tar.bz2 file on you and that's it. No explanation, nothing. I found a partial explanation that doesn't work all the way in the Ubuntu forum. I posted my own thread, nobody seemed to have an answer and some told me to use unetbootin(which doesn't create persistence so is of no use) After some further digging I found out there is a bug in the liveusb creator so I have to edit a file. Further there are some missing dependencies that I need to install. After all these hassles I finally got it working. But it would be a lot easier if they give you a couple of sentences of instructions, it is not that difficult!

(Now I know the dd command and all that, but that is not the point.)

Another example is the statistical package R. I just posted a thread asking for help in the education forum. On the R site there are FAQ pages for Windows and Mac, but no Linux! Maybe they assume that Linux users are so advanced that they have no question.

P.S. I also use a bit of torrent. Never catch any virus. I think the virus problem may be a bit exaggerated for windows. I am not a power user by any means, but I never catch anything on my windows XP machine. I know some people whose PC are totally destroyed by virus, but these people are so completely clueless about computers that it is unbelievable.

[Nick_Jinn]

I dont think the virus problems are exagerated at all. Your system will also slow down over time because of the way it handles files and file systems. It just gets bent out of shape....a little bit of that is preventable or fixable, but not all of it.

Most of the apps I use in Linux are pretty easy to use. Some are a little harder, but I think they expect you to be a little smarter than the average windows user.


I think the trend is for Linux to become easier though. Its getting there, but not totally there yet. Every distro is easier to use than the one before it.


I use Linux mint, and everything i need is ready to go out of the box...I am not sure what your needs are but it can vary from person to person.


But no, I dont think that viruses, performance leaks or spyware is exaggerated at all. I think that even people who dont recognize why their system is slower than it was when they first got it are still affected. It just hasnt reached a point of system breakdown yet.

I was just gifted a computer that they thought was broken...it was just Limwire (old generation file sharing) giving her viruses and sapping her system resources, and she didnt even know that it was running at startup.

[beew]

But no, I dont think that viruses, performance leaks or spyware is exaggerated at all. I think that even people who dont recognize why their system is slower than it was when they first got it are still affected. It just hasnt reached a point of system breakdown yet.

I was just gifted a computer that they thought was broken...it was just Limwire (old generation file sharing) giving her viruses and sapping her system resources, and she didnt even know that it was running at startup.

I think if they are careful about web browsing and scan all their downloads with a good av scanner(or several) there should be no problem. It may be a bit of a hassle, but IMO no more than having to type a password whenever you want to install something or delete something. You get used to it.

I used torrents. I downloaded stuffs online. But I ran a real time viral detector and did regular scans on my old XP machine. I disabled all unneeded services. It was very fast even for rather crappy hardware. Finally it died because of overheating and some idiot who spilled a can of coke on it, presumably to keep it cool?

P.S.

Regarding Synaptic. It is very impressive, I like the Ubuntu download management system very much except for two things. 1) The softwares are outdated. Old versions are fine for many softwares but sometimes I want new features and bug fixes,--and a few things not in the repos,--so I download online and have third party PPAs 2) Downloading and installation are easy but sometimes you still have to search the web for the documentations.

[Nick_Jinn]

A bit of a hassle? To put it mildly. The hassle I would have to go through constantly to protect and maintain my system using windows is greater than the initial hassle of setting up Linux and getting things to work....once it works its rock solid....and if you dont like trouble shooting, just stick to the long term releases and skip the short term releases unless there is some new feature you must have.

[Bachstelze]

The hassle I would have to go through constantly to protect and maintain my system using windows is greater than the initial hassle of setting up Linux and getting things to work....

That is not true. If you don't visit shady websites or do some other questionable stuff, all you need to do is install an antivirus (I use avast, it works wonders), and you're set. Now, whether that is more hassle than setting up Linux depends on a lot of factors, but either way, making it sound like making Windows secure is a large amount of work is just wrong.

[Nick_Jinn]

If you don't visit shady websites or do some other questionable stuff

lol
Not happening.


But sometimes even if you are not up to no good, shady websites pose as innocent ones. People are tricked every day and only some of them were up to mischief.

[howefield]

If you don't visit shady websites or do some other questionable stuff, all you need to do is install an antivirus (I use avast, it works wonders), and you're set.

Master of the understatement.

[Jazzy_Jeff]

I personally don't care what the software looks like as long as it does what I need it to do.

[bunburya]

I personally don't care what the software looks like as long as it does what I need it to do.
I tend to feel the same and I actually prefer simplistic GUIs. But appearance matters to a lot of people. I always hear people complain about the OpenOffice GUI, I personally never had a problem with it but it seems as though it's something that will have to be worked on if OO is to become more popular.

As has been said, if you really want a great look on Ubuntu try go for as many "home brand" applications as you can. I do tend to think that software developed specifically for Linux (or a specific distro/DE) can often be better in terms of usability than software developed for multiple OSs, though of course that's not always the case. KDE especially looks fantastic and has a lot of its own programs that integrate really well with the desktop. I don't think GNOME has as many home-brand apps, or doesn't rely on them as much, so sometimes it comes across as looking less polished (to me) but it suits me because I like to "shop around" for the program that suits my needs and tastes.

[ticopelp]

I generally feel the opposite. I'm usually the one to repair a friend's Vista computer whenever something inexplicable goes wrong with it, and whenever I have to navigate through the control panel and all the bewildering, poorly organized options, I'm astonished at how difficult to use I find it. But if I worked with it every day, I might feel the same about Linux. It's all a matter of what you're used to.

As for documentation, I've almost never met a problem that a minute or two on Google, Ubuntuguide or these forums couldn't solve.

[Nick_Jinn]

Yeah, you wont find support like this forum for Windows. People who have the knowledge only charge for it. Its part of the philosophy.

While some of the Linux apps are more basic looking, I find that Gnome is a lot fancier looking than Windows 7. Even E17 is. I dont personally care for KDE controls but it looks ok.


And then you have to consider that Windows costs thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands if you want to install tons of professional grade apps and you dont pirate them. You can get by on a budget of a few hundred dollars, but CS5 photoshop, Corel, MS Office, Dreamweaver.....it adds up into the thousands in a hurry.

[beew]

As for documentation, I've almost never met a problem that a minute or two on Google, Ubuntuguide or these forums couldn't solve.

Depends on your solfware. I think that is an understatement. If the program comes with a good help file you shouldn't have to go online or post in Ubuntu forums just to find out how a piece of software is supposed to work. I have gone searching for hours for simple instructions of some obscure softwares even I have easily downloaded and installed it with synaptic. Is it better to search the internet for a download source?

Here I am not comparing free softwares with commercial ones. But commercial or free (as in beer or freedom, either way) softwares with both a linux and windows versions. A case in point is R, I just posted a message on the education/science forum. In windows you click a tab to get the nice PDF manuals. In the Linux version I can't even find the bloody manuals.On the website there are Windows and Mac FAQ pages, but none for Linux but they have elaborate instructions for people who compile from source, as if to say that if you don't want to or don't know how to compile from source you shouldn't use Linux.

I agree that looking good is not the be all and end all, but interface and design are part of the user experience. Again I am not comparing OpenOffice's look to MS office(I actually like openoffice a lot better), but its windows version v.s its linux version (also, it seems to have gotten uglier since Oracle bought it from Sun, but that is another story)

[XubuRoxMySox]

Simple and basic is really good for a simple boy like me. The simpler the better!

I like a pretty interface and a little eye candy but not if it gets in the way of simplicity.

I really only feel "discriminated" against when I shop for hardware and it "requires Windows." Oh please. I'll go without (for as long as I can) before I buy stuff that wants to dictate what OS I use.

Fortunately there's plenty enough Linux-friendly hardware and software to all I need them for.

-Robin

[Paqman]

It's not really discrimination, given that all of us made the choice to use Linux. We're aware of its shortcomings, but we use it anyway.

[Nick_Jinn]

You can always run Windows as a virtual Machine and Wine for many games and use it inside of a tricked out Linux Desktop. If you want MS office or Photoshop elements (the affordable but also easier to use version for photos) it all works in Wine, and the rest works in virtualbox.

[BurningSludge]

I only feel discriminated when it comes down to device drivers and accessories.

[ticopelp]

Depends on your solfware. I think that is an understatement. If the program comes with a good help file you shouldn't have to go online or post in Ubuntu forums just to find out how a piece of software is supposed to work. I have gone searching for hours for simple instructions of some obscure softwares even I have easily downloaded and installed it with synaptic. Is it better to search the internet for a download source?

I'm not saying my way is best, but I rarely used help files even when I was running Windows. For me it's much easier to do a Google search and find solutions that other people have used successfully. Quite often their information is more up-to-date than any documentation if some bug has arisen in the meanwhile.

In my experience no OS is immune from this sort of thing. I recently had to fix a wireless problem on a Vista computer, and I was amazed at how uninformative the process was. The wireless doesn't work, a menu pops up that says "click here to fix the problem," then the menu says "the problem has been resolved!" and of course it hasn't. No error code, nothing I can look up or reference. I'd take an indecipherable block of Linux error code any day over that.


Here I am not comparing free softwares with commercial ones. But commercial or free (as in beer or freedom, either way) softwares with both a linux and windows versions. A case in point is R, I just posted a message on the education/science forum. In windows you click a tab to get the nice PDF manuals. In the Linux version I can't even find the bloody manuals.On the website there are Windows and Mac FAQ pages, but none for Linux but they have elaborate instructions for people who compile from source, as if to say that if you don't want to or don't know how to compile from source you shouldn't use Linux.

I won't disagree that sometimes Linux doesn't get the support that the major platforms do. It's unfortunate, but that's why I find the community valuable -- they take up the slack where the commercial interest leaves off.

I think the reality of desktop Linux right now is that you have to come prepared to have a different user experience and to learn a lot of new things that might not be entirely comfortable. Tinkering and getting under the hood is a big part of the appeal for some users, which is where some of the unfortunate attitude occasionally comes from.

[Simian Man]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how many people support Linux at all. I mean you're using a platform with ~1% of marketshare. How can you feel "discriminated" against?

[Nick_Jinn]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how many people support Linux at all. I mean you're using a platform with ~1% of marketshare. How can you feel "discriminated" against?


That is unlikely to be the global statistic. It could be as high as 6% in China, a country with 5x the US population. Globally, Linux could already be bigger than Mac. Android is also Linux and is one of the most popular operating systems for mobile computing.

[Nick_Jinn]

I won't disagree that sometimes Linux doesn't get the support that the major platforms do. It's unfortunate, but that's why I find the community valuable -- they take up the slack where the commercial interest leaves off.

I think the reality of desktop Linux right now is that you have to come prepared to have a different user experience and to learn a lot of new things that might not be entirely comfortable. Tinkering and getting under the hood is a big part of the appeal for some users, which is where some of the unfortunate attitude occasionally comes from.


This is certainly the case, though I dont agree with certain power users who wish to avoid making it noob friendly for the sake of keeping it arcane.....I dont think that noob friendliness necessarily translates into reduced options on the more esoteric end. As it stands now, using Linux will make you a more competent computer user.

Just knowing how to insert a live linux disk into a PC to salvage files from an infected PC when users cant log into windows has made me a 'go to' guy for "data recovery" and re installations. I even sell people on letting me install dual operating systems, and while they often couldnt have installed it themselves (and I am a noob compared to most of you) they loved the end product I gave them.

[murderslastcrow]

I think, in many cases, people compare freeware to open source software. Things like Skype and Google Earth. Subconsciously they lump these categories together.

Open source applications have, for a long time, focused less on the interface and more on the functionality and optimizations and consistency. Ie. Open source programs, for a long time, weren't vain enough to be 'pretty'.

However, we've finally realized, perhaps partially through OS X's success, that good visual design is absolutely key to overall functionality. Amarok 2 is a shining example of what vanity should look like in software. Beautiful and functional.

But really, while it's not that difficult to create consistency throughout GTK and Qt these days (sure, you won't get round menus with GTK in QT, but I suspect that won't be too much longer), it's still deterring developers. The user may be fine running Gnome applications in KDE4, and running Qt applications in Gnome with consistency is a cinch! (just look at VLC) But I think one of the main reasons people don't focus on Linux is the tools available to developers. wxWidgets is great, but it only includes GTK support, and doesn't support a lot of native integration that it could.

Qt is great for cross-platform creation, but the commercial license is expensive (not VERY expensive, but still costs money).

So really, I think if we focus more on filling software vendors' needs and giving them incentives to work cross-platform, we'll get more support. But, on that note, the entire time I was on Windows I felt discriminated against. I was seen as a consumer, not as a user.

With open source, the only thing developers see me as is a user. Someone who wants to enjoy the software and make use of it, not someone to squeeze money out of as soon as possible. Open source doesn't typically patronize the user, but in that lack of patronizing, it finds strength in the ability to change in more critical circumstances, while OS X and Windows will pretty much always stay the same.

If my Grandma's any witness, huge changes in the interface (new notifications, MeMenu, switched window buttons) actually don't screw with the user's mind that much. Casual users are the ones more open to change, it seems- all the nerds can just deal with it or find something that suits them better.

I think, the deeper you go with open source, the more easily you can become distracted from the fact that we're all together in this. It's the beauty of Linux that we have arguments with each other- we actually have options to argue for. Much more than people who primarily use commercial and gratis software.

[juancarlospaco]

But i like austere GUI! :)

[beew]

Open source applications have, for a long time, focused less on the interface and more on the functionality and optimizations and consistency. Ie. Open source programs, for a long time, weren't vain enough to be 'pretty'.First of all I am talking about functionality, not mere prettiness, though there is nothing wrong with making pretty gui because that IS a part of the computing experience (I am not ashamed to say that I like the rotating cube )

Secondly my comparison is not between open source and commercial softwares, but primarily between open source softwares that have a windows and a linux version and the windows versions somehow often appear to be more polished, better documented and even have more functionalities.

I just come across another example. I use windjview to view djvu documents in windows and use djvew4 in Linux. They appear to be both based on Djvulibre and open source. But windjview supports tab reading while djview4 doesn't.

In fact to my best knowledge there is no native Linux document viewer (pdf. djvu whatever) that supports tab reading while there are quite a few windows document viewers that do. Now most of these viewers are not open source(but windjvview mentioned above is), but it is a functionality issue and at least for pdf viewers the available Linux options are quite inferior in terms of functionality: Evince is bloated and slow like a slug and it renders picture poorly, xpdf is very basic (and ugly to boot) and okular is also slow and doesn't support tabs. What are other options? If I want a fast pdf or djvu viewer that supports tabs can use windjview or Foxit in WINE but that would be to admit that the Linux alternative is less functional.

[Nick_Jinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqJhY9-qziU

[inobe]

That is not true. If you don't visit shady websites or do some other questionable stuff, all you need to do is install an antivirus (I use avast, it works wonders), and you're set. Now, whether that is more hassle than setting up Linux depends on a lot of factors, but either way, making it sound like making Windows secure is a large amount of work is just wrong.

avast ?

you have an interesting sig, do tell :D


"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.)"

[fatality_uk]

@ OP. No, not all. Why would I? I choose to use Linux and am very happy with my choice.