Are you sick of Ubuntu/Linux being compared to Windows?

[farruinn]

I hate to post something that's so negative, but it's something that's beginning to irritate me quite a bit. Ubuntu is not Windows. It's aim isn't to be Windows either, so why do people keep comparing it to Windows and asking for Windows like features in the forums and on brainstorm?

Ubuntu isn't just a free version of Windows, so why not "innovate instead of imitate" as the saying goes?

Edited for clarity:
I don't mean general comparisons, but comparisons along the lies of "why doesn't Ubuntu do <x> like Windows" where it does it as good or better in a different way.

Interesting results though :)

[bruce89]

I wholeheartedly endorse this product or scheme.

[Linuxratty]

Who is comparing it to Windows?

[hhhhhx]

i try not to pay attention to it. usually its biosed thats its not worth the text on my monitor

[bruce89]

Who is comparing it to Windows?

Read the forums more carefully:

What is the lamest reason for giving up on Ubuntu/Linux you've ever heard? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=528687)
linux vs windows (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=713094)
Linux verses (sic) Windows Vista (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=711669)

[teamkiller87]

I don't think it's as much comparing it to Windows, rather than wishing it had the same out of the box functionality as Windows. For example, I'm the unhappy owner of an ATI card which refuses to perform 3d acceleration no matter what I do. It's just one example off the top of my head... Another would be the command line. I have no problems with it, however beginners to Linux might feel intimidated... Windows doesn't have that. Anyway, the list goes on...

Oh, one more thing you already know but need to understand is that Linux is competing with Windows. Granted, it's an unfair and unjust competition but they are still competitors. You can't have a competition if you don't compare the two, now can you?

So, to answer your question. No, I'm not sick of Linux being compared to Windows. Actually, I find it helpful... I think it pushes Linux, and in our particular case Ubuntu, to better itself.

[rfruth]

Are both OSes, one is free the other isn't ...:)

[jrusso2]

Windows is the dominant Operating system for personal computers. Ubuntu claims to be an easy to use Linux replacement.

Whats wrong with comparing that two?

Naturally people coming from Windows as many users are, they will want Ubuntu to work as well as Windows and be able to do the same things.

If Ubuntu is as good as people think it is then why fear Windows?

[aysiu]

There's nothing wrong with comparing Ubuntu to Windows. Since most Ubuntu users are Windows refugees, it only makes sense to do so, just as you would expect recovering alcoholics to compare their sober lives to their drunken ones, or as you would expect any new immigrant to a country to compare her life in the new country to her life in the old country.

That is not, though, the same as demanding that Ubuntu be exactly like Windows (for more details, read Here's an idea - YOU make it more like Windows! (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=439163), which in turn is not the same as saying that Ubuntu would be better if it adopted only one or two features from Windows.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of Ubuntu (or desktop Linux in general) evangelists make the comparisons to Windows in order to win over Windows users:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net, for example. When Windows users are lured into Ubuntu with promises that Ubuntu is Windows-without-problems, that marketing invites comparisons between the two operating systems.

[farruinn]

Who is comparing it to Windows?

There are multiple threads in this forum and many ideas on brainstorm.ubuntu.com along the lines of "Ubuntu should do <foo> like Windows does".

I don't think it's as much comparing it to Windows, rather than wishing it had the same out of the box functionality as Windows. For example, I'm the unhappy owner of an ATI card which refuses to perform 3d acceleration no matter what I do. It's just one example off the top of my head... Another would be the command line. I have no problems with it, however beginners to Linux might feel intimidated... Windows doesn't have that. Anyway, the list goes on...

Oh, one more thing you already know but need to understand is that Linux is competing with Windows. Granted, it's an unfair and unjust competition but they are still competitors. You can't have a competition if you don't compare the two, now can you?

So, to answer your question. No, I'm not sick of Linux being compared to Windows. Actually, I find it helpful... I think it pushes Linux, and in our particular case Ubuntu, to better itself.

I didn't mean to imply that linux shouldn't have the same functionality. Obviously YES! I'd love to see 100% hardware support and anything you can do in Windows you should be able to do in Ubuntu. My gripe is with the suggestion that it should be done the same way as it's done in Windows.

And yes, of course Ubuntu is competing with Windows. That's well defined by Bug #1. There will be the sorts of comparisons where people say "hm, can I use Ubuntu do do my work and other activities I'd normally do with Windows?" And the answer should be yes, but Ubuntu/Linux offers it's own, very different work environment.

My biggest point was "Ubuntu is not a free version of Windows", so people shouldn't expect it to act, behave, and look like Windows - I would be sickened if it did. I'm just tired of functions and features being suggested for the sake of being newbie friendly and "familiar" to Windows users. Did anyone stop to think that this sort of thing might make it unfamiliar for Linux users? Basically, please don't cripple my desktop for the sake of new users or bastardize it for the sake of Windows converts.

Sorry for the rant.

[aysiu]

I'm just tired of functions and features being suggested for the sake of being newbie friendly and "familiar" to Windows users. Did anyone stop to think that this sort of thing might make it unfamiliar for Linux users? Basically, please don't cripple my desktop for the sake of new users or bastardize it for the sake of Windows converts. Then tell the Linux zealots / evangelists to stop marketing Ubuntu as a free version of Windows. Every time you see a blog post, news article, website, or forum thread that says something like, "Tired of viruses and spyware in Windows? Try Linux. It can do everything Windows does and more!" I hope you speak out against it, because it's propaganda like that that invites people wanting to make Ubuntu more like Windows.

Don't blame the new users coming over. Blame the people who coerce/lure them into switching.

[ubuntu-freak]

Then tell the Linux zealots / evangelists to stop marketing Ubuntu as a free version of Windows. Every time you see a blog post, news article, website, or forum thread that says something like, "Tired of viruses and spyware in Windows? Try Linux. It can do everything Windows does and more!" I hope you speak out against it, because it's propaganda like that that invites people wanting to make Ubuntu more like Windows.

Don't blame the new users coming over. Blame the people who coerce/lure them into switching.


I'm starting to get the impression you don't want people to switch. Didn't take me long to get to grips with Debian/Ubuntu, but new features and GUI frontends aren't going to "cripple" Ubuntu.

I see you remembered my post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=701573&page=3), however, I didn't say Ubuntu does everything Windows does and more. There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to switch though, it will only improve free software. Also, they will even be able to install Ubuntu Hardy directly in Windows as if it's a program, using Wubi. That's going to help new users greatly in becoming familiar with Ubuntu.

Seems all good to me.

Nathan

[aysiu]

I'm starting to get the impression you don't want people to switch. I think if it's appropriate for people to switch, they should switch. In other words, people should use whatever OS works best for them. I do not necessarily think people are better off with Ubuntu or worse off with Ubuntu. I didn't say Ubuntu does everything Windows does and more. Nor did I say you'd said that.

[justin whitaker]

I'm starting to get the impression you don't want people to switch. Didn't take me long to get to grips with Debian/Ubuntu, but new features and GUI frontends aren't going to "cripple" Ubuntu.

I see you remembered my post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=701573&page=3), however, I didn't say Ubuntu does everything Windows does and more. There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to switch though, it will only improve free software. Also, they will even be able to install Ubuntu Hardy directly in Windows as if it's a program, using Wubi. That's going to help new users greatly in becoming familiar with Ubuntu.

Seems all good to me.

Nathan

I think that what aysiu is getting at is that saying "Ubuntu is like Windows, only Free", as some propagandists are wont to do actually does open source a disservice.

If someone comes over to Ubuntu with false expectations (all Windows games run in Ubuntu, if we need a ready example) and then finds out that this is not the case...you think they are going to pitch in and help make the hype a reality, or are they going to tell everyone that asks that they tried Ubuntu and it was crap?

You don't need to answer...these forums, distrowatch, and tons of other forums provide ready examples of people that storm back to XP in a huff.

That can't be good for open source in the long run.

[k2t0f12d]

Its all very well and good to complain about the outside forces that obfuscate the goals of whatever thing it is you are trying to do with Ubuntu GNU/Linux, and this thread is starting to rumble and the fault lines between differing points-of-view are starting to show. If you want to reduce the friction on that interface, i.e. users with expectations coming from Windows, here are some thoughts to consider.

Some parties are pushing GNU/Linux as a replacement for proprietary systems, which is completely accurate. It is the user that tacks on the imaginary and contrived idea that the thing that replaces also behaves identically. The end result is seen on these and other GNU/Linux forums in the form of questions that amount to Why doesn't GNU/Linux do such and such like Windows? So what do we do about it?

We can't stop others from claiming the GNU/Linux is a replacement technology. They are free to publish their opinions, and they are not substantively inaccurate. GNU/Linux does replace proprietary operating systems. Why would we complain about this anyway? Everyone that comes to GNU/Linux because of such claims gives the software an opportunity to be demonstrated.

We also can't stop users from assuming that GNU/Linux is going to behave the way they have imagined it should. We can, in as kind a fashion as can be managed, demonstrate the actual functionality of the software and then let the user choose. Some will not have enough patience, or will have unreasonable expectations. In such cases, such users can simply be marked down as hard to work with, and be left alone to decide whether they need software freedom badly enough to find some patience with the software. Almost every license for every software in a free software operating system is going to contain the message, that amounts to, "this software comes without ANY WARRANTY, not even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE". Those words serve both as a legal mechanism protecting the authors and distributors of free software from liability, and, as a meaningful message to the user, that, the support we offer them may be better, faster, cheaper then can be had with proprietary systems, but is also totally voluntary.

[aborigine]

Its inevitable that people compare - just as they compare Windows to Mac.
The interesting thing is what they compare and why they are with windows in the first place.
I'm swicthing to Linux for political reasons as much as for the working environment linux offers.
Why did I go into windows in the first place ? Because I could not afford Mac and because command line working isn't really my thing - it IS a steep learning curve. I'm switching progressively because some of the software isn't up to the same standard of development - open office is not up to my old version of Word Perfect and Gutenberg for Gimp on my HP 1600 gives frankly appalling results.
But don't make Linux more like windows, it should keep its own identity - bearing in mind that, for most people a computer is a tool - if I need a hammer to drive a nail, I don't expect to have to make the head and fix it to the handle before I use it ! This is where Windows scored, it took the fear out of computing (until you get the famous blue screen after having typed 20 pages that is !!)

[BrokeBody]

Ubuntu is not Windows. It's aim isn't to be Windows either, so why do people keep comparing it to Windows and asking for Windows like features in the forums and on brainstorm?


Well, it aims to be a complete desktop OS, just like Windows already is (for my needs). Of course you should compare it with the competition - Let's take a look on this from the business point of view...

[k2t0f12d]

Let's take a look on this from the business point of view...

Sure, and if you look at it closely enough you'll find that you can weigh convenience too heavily and arrive at the wrong conclusion. Which are the most essential features a forward-looking organization needs to have to be able to control its own destiny?

Ability to run their software on their devices for any purpose without needing permission from a third party.
Ability to study their software and then choose the talent they trust to incorporate any changes that meet previously unforeseen future requirements.
Ability to redistribute their software to all of their devices.
Ability to redistribute modified versions of their software to all of their devices.

Nothing in the above is possible or guaranteed by any proprietary system. If a business discovers that they need a specific alteration in their software in order to operate, the only recourse they have with proprietary software is to basically sit on their hands and hope that it comes in the next release. Free software affords business the most essential and necessary assurance, which is their ability to not only control which software they choose to use, but also what that software can and cannot do for them.

[BrokeBody]

Which are the most essential features a forward-looking organization needs to have to be able to control its own destiny?

Ability to run their software on their devices for any purpose without needing permission from a third party.
Ability to study their software and then choose the talent they trust to incorporate any changes that meet previously unforeseen future requirements.
Ability to redistribute their software to all of their devices.
Ability to redistribute modified versions of their software to all of their devices.

Nothing in the above is possible or guaranteed by any proprietary system. If a business discovers that they need a specific alteration in their software in order to operate, the only recourse they have with proprietary software is to basically sit on their hands and hope that it comes in the next release. Free software affords business the most essential and necessary assurance, which is their ability to not only control which software they choose to use, but also what that software can and cannot do for them.

Sure, it's fine in theory :D, but in reality, Windows still holds over 90% market share. :p

Operating System Market Share for February, 2008
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4601/cft03040937441408dql2.png

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

[teamkiller87]

I'm just tired of functions and features being suggested for the sake of being newbie friendly and "familiar" to Windows users. Did anyone stop to think that this sort of thing might make it unfamiliar for Linux users? Basically, please don't cripple my desktop for the sake of new users or bastardize it for the sake of Windows converts.

You need to stop thinking of philosophy and start thinking of business. Just a select few are NOT in this open source business for the money. Most of them are. You think the management of companies thinks more about how to please present users than how to take hold of a bigger chunk of the market? I think not. And since the market is 90% Windblows it's only obvious they'll concentrate on making the transition easier for Win-users. And this might not actually be a bad thing. Looking a few centuries into the future, when Linux will have 25% market share ( LOOOOL ) , it might mean better hardware support and easier ways of fixing problems. So you shouldn't consider newbies switching over a threat, think of them more as an opportunity for Linux.

[k2t0f12d]

Sure, it's fine in theory, but in reality, Windows still holds over 90% market share.

What does that mean? Does that mean you think I am wrong? Are you saying that business shouldn't be worried about being in control of their own computing? You do know that there are other markets that impact businesses aside from the desktop, right?

[bapoumba]

Moved to "Recurring Discussions".

[Bruce M.]

I think as human beings we are always comparing x to/with y, it's something in our nature.

My car is faster than your car?
Yea, but but you only have two seats and mine gets better gas mileage!

My TV is bigger than yours.
Yes, you're right, but mine has SAP and Surround Sound.

I even remember:
But Windows has Icons, click and run a program.
Yea, but my BAT files start the programs faster!
Yes, maybe so, but I can multi-task in Windows.
Yup, me to, with DESQview

Besides, Linux is a command line OS; with a GUI interface if you want it. And I may be way out in left field by saying that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[k2t0f12d]

Besides, Linux is a command line OS; with a GUI interface if you want it. And I may be way out in left field by saying that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That sounds as if you think of command interface vs graphical interface as being the fundamental basis upon which the operating system is built. That simply isn't the reality of operating system design. The kernel and various libraries, especially GNU C libraries, provide programming interfaces that can be used in many ways through many interfaces. So GNU/Linux isn't based on the command line in any fundamental way, it simply has the richest interface support there. You can readily implement system level services through either the CLI or the GUI. To provide some contrast, Microsoft did not finger-quotes upgrade Windows from the CLI. They simply removed the CLI from the shell.

[airtonix]

post above is awesomly concise. it also what i love about linux...the modularity of CLI and GUI.

this kind of thing is what made QUAKE 1-3 popular amongst the mod community

I love that article about the guy who cries becuase he cant get viruses like all his windows using friends.

[farruinn]

You need to stop thinking of philosophy and start thinking of business. Just a select few are NOT in this open source business for the money. Most of them are. You think the management of companies thinks more about how to please present users than how to take hold of a bigger chunk of the market? I think not. And since the market is 90% Windblows it's only obvious they'll concentrate on making the transition easier for Win-users. And this might not actually be a bad thing. Looking a few centuries into the future, when Linux will have 25% market share ( LOOOOL ) , it might mean better hardware support and easier ways of fixing problems. So you shouldn't consider newbies switching over a threat, think of them more as an opportunity for Linux.

I'm not thinking philosophy, I'm thinking usability, workflow, and interface. My point remains that if I wanted to use Windows I would use that. But I don't. I want to use Ubuntu, so why is there so much push to make Ubuntu look/behave like Windows?

As far as business goes - I would think that any business in open source would be in it for the money. That's sort of the point of business, otherwise you'd be an non-profit organization. Also, of the businesses that are involved in Linux, please name me one other besides Canonical that is trying to put Linux on the desktop. Businesses don't use Linux for their end-users, they use it for their back-ends and servers.

And finally, I don't think we need Ubuntu to look/behave like Windows to have better hardware support or easier ways of fixing problems.

[popch]

My point remains that if I wanted to use Windows I would use that. But I don't. I want to use Ubuntu, so why is there so much push to make Ubuntu look/behave like Windows?

Perhaps we can use an analog from bigone times to kind of understand the phenomenon.

When mechanical clocks were first invented and present in (rich) housholds, the number of left and right turning clocks was roughly the same. Also, there were clocks which took 24 hours for one full round of the hand while others were twice as fast. There might have been other differences.

While we would find a left-turning clock or a 24-hour clock weird none of those variants is intrinsically better or worse than the others. Still, after some time the majority of clocks sold and installed where right turning 12 hour jobs.

We all know that the analog is not perfect. For once, the number of instances of each variant are not even the same order of magnitude. Also, we think that not all variants are of the same intrinsic quality.

Still, there might be some of the same mechanisms at work. Tick-Tock.

@farruinn (OT): I find your avatar quite ingenious. Do you get any negative reactions at all?

[farruinn]

Perhaps we can use an analog from bigone times to kind of understand the phenomenon.

That's a good analogy. I guess I just like my left-turning clock the way it is! :)

@farruinn (OT): I find your avatar quite ingenious. Do you get any negative reactions at all?

It is clever, but not an original idea of mine. I've only ever had one comment on it and that was positive.

[bruce89]

I'm not thinking philosophy, I'm thinking usability, workflow, and interface. My point remains that if I wanted to use Windows I would use that. But I don't. I want to use Ubuntu, so why is there so much push to make Ubuntu look/behave like Windows?

There isn't, but a large number of the (clueless) Ubuntu users seem to like Windowsisation (as can be seen at Ubuntu brainstorm). The developers won't bend to their will though (or I bloody well hope not).

[mdsmedia]

@farruinn (OT): I find your avatar quite ingenious. Do you get any negative reactions at all?

It is clever, but not an original idea of mine. I've only ever had one comment on it and that was positive.I hadn't noticed it until popch mentioned it but I love it :)

[DrMega]

I hate to post something that's so negative, but it's something that's beginning to irritate me quite a bit. Ubuntu is not Windows. It's aim isn't to be Windows either, so why do people keep comparing it to Windows and asking for Windows like features in the forums and on brainstorm?

Ubuntu isn't just a free version of Windows, so why not "innovate instead of imitate" as the saying goes?

Edited for clarity:
I don't mean general comparisons, but comparisons along the lies of "why doesn't Ubuntu do <x> like Windows" where it does it as good or better in a different way.

Interesting results though :)

People always compare things against what they are familiar with. Let me give you another example. When choosing a car, in Britain we mainly choose manual gears (in the US I believe they refer to it as stcik-shift), but in the US most prefer an automatic.

If I were to tell a auto driver why a manual gearbox is better, I would tell them I enjoyed the increased control and the improved fuel economy. Whereas the auto driver might tell me he prefers the smoother ride and the fact that the car does more of the work for you.

It is inevitable that when users first experiment with another OS, they will look for parallels with the system they are familiar to. If they don't see them straight away they may get frustrated. We should let them have their rant, and then try to help them.

[mdsmedia]

People always compare things against what they are familiar with. Let me give you another example. When choosing a car, in Britain we mainly choose manual gears (in the US I believe they refer to it as stcik-shift), but in the US most prefer an automatic.

If I were to tell a auto driver why a manual gearbox is better, I would tell them I enjoyed the increased control and the improved fuel economy. Whereas the auto driver might tell me he prefers the smoother ride and the fact that the car does more of the work for you.

It is inevitable that when users first experiment with another OS, they will look for parallels with the system they are familiar to. If they don't see them straight away they may get frustrated. We should let them have their rant, and then try to help them.I don't disagree with you, but I think a lot of the comparisons are expecting Linux/Ubuntu to be able to run "x" program that runs in Windows, or "y" hardware which is flawless in Windows.

Much of the criticism of Linux is what it won't do, that Windows does, where it's simply that the program has been written for Windows or the hardware drivers are written for Windows.

Then there is the criticism that to install programs in Windows you just have to double click an exe file, where they forget they have to OBTAIN the exe file first.

A great deal of the criticism of Linux, not working "as easily" as Windows, stems from unfamiliarity. Once they have their program file it's easy to install. But in Linux, you obtain your program and install it all in one go.

I'm sick of the comparison simply because it usually stems from Windows users knowing little about how Linux works.

I came to Linux with an open mind and while it's not perfect I find it far superior to Windows in many ways. There I go...comparing Linux to Windows.

[aysiu]

I don't disagree with you, but I think a lot of the comparisons are expecting Linux/Ubuntu to be able to run "x" program that runs in Windows, or "y" hardware which is flawless in Windows.

Much of the criticism of Linux is what it won't do, that Windows does, where it's simply that the program has been written for Windows or the hardware drivers are written for Windows.

Then there is the criticism that to install programs in Windows you just have to double click an exe file, where they forget they have to OBTAIN the exe file first.

A great deal of the criticism of Linux, not working "as easily" as Windows, stems from unfamiliarity. Once they have their program file it's easy to install. But in Linux, you obtain your program and install it all in one go. While you're right that it stems from unfamiliarity, I don't see what's wrong with this. It's a natural human tendency to compare what we're used to with what's new and to tend to have a bias toward what we're used to.

It's not something to be "sick of." It's quite natural.

[ubuntu-freak]

There isn't, but a large number of the (clueless) Ubuntu users seem to like Windowsisation (as can be seen at Ubuntu brainstorm). The developers won't bend to their will though (or I bloody well hope not).


Agreed. I don't think they will either. There's a big difference between being an alternative to Windows, with a unique and special identity, to a free Windows-like system wishing to emulate it as much as possible.

Most core Ubuntu developers are still working for Debian. They are making the best desktop Debian distro they can, not a Windows ripoff.

Nathan

[funrider]

what makes you different from M$ if you dun provide a choice for people to discuss, say, in an open minded way?

[drbob07]

I have to disagree with you on the second part.

Ubuntu is not Windows is entirely true, but to say its aim isn't to be Windows is partially false.

It's an Operating System, Windows is an Operating System, therefore, they are two comparable items. The Ubuntu goal is different from the Windows goal, but at the core, they are both trying to get "customers" (whether paid or free) to "buy" their product and utilize it on their computers.

I'm not sick of them being compared because they are two comparable pieces of software, in all honesty. Whats annoying is people comparing two -unequal- feature sets, like DVD playback. You -paid- for those libraries on a Windows machine, you did not pay for them on a Linux box (most likely) so, obviously, you can't compare them.

I think that at the core, comparison + competition is always a good thing. It's when you're comparing them on unequal grounds that Linux has a complete disadvantage in where it gets annoying.

[KiwiNZ]

There isn't, but a large number of the (clueless) Ubuntu users seem to like Windowsisation (as can be seen at Ubuntu brainstorm). The developers won't bend to their will though (or I bloody well hope not).

To add the word clueless was uncalled for. Just because a Ubuntu user wants THEIR system to look like Windows does not make them clueless. That is insulting. Please choose your words more carefully.

[k2t0f12d]

what makes you different from M$ if you dun provide a choice for people to discuss, say, in an open minded way?

But you do have a way to voice your suggestions which no one is even trying to take away? Are you saying that only those that agree with you are open minded, and those that don't agree with you are like Microsoft? That sounds like the logical opposite of open-mindedness to me. What if I don't want to include things from the suggestions that you approve of? Am I not allowed to voice my disagreement and then cite my reasons?

[ubuntu-freak]

I have to disagree with you on the second part.

Ubuntu is not Windows is entirely true, but to say its aim isn't to be Windows is partially false.

It's an Operating System, Windows is an Operating System, therefore, they are two comparable items. The Ubuntu goal is different from the Windows goal, but at the core, they are both trying to get "customers" (whether paid or free) to "buy" their product and utilize it on their computers.


I don't see how that means Ubuntu is trying to BE Windows. Any desktop OS is similar to others, doesn't mean Ubuntu is trying to copy and emulate Windows as much as possible, it's just trying to be as user friendly as possible.

Nathan

[k2t0f12d]

It's an Operating System, Windows is an Operating System, therefore, they are two comparable items. The Ubuntu goal is different from the Windows goal, but at the core, they are both trying to get "customers" (whether paid or free) to "buy" their product and utilize it on their computers.

Its funny how often free software gets beaten, broken, and forcibly rammed into the the same pigeon-hole as proprietary systems where it cannot naturally exist. GNU/Linux operating systems pass from person to person by word of mouth alone. Some of the users might be actively trying to get more people to use free software, but I have never seen a paid ad for it, nor any official marketing attempt by its distributors. Free software is not a marketed product, it is an unadvertised, distributed software service, licensed under free terms that, among other more important things, allow the user to pay what they want for it, including nothing at all. The focus of its developers and distributors is to improve its value and utility, not marketing it and not increasing the userbase, which is totally unnecessary since the software moves itself.

[futureproof]

I get really tired of watching the abuse that stems from this comparison, if you trawl through these forums there are literally 100s of snipes at windows, not to mention the mass of threads whose sole purpose is to make fun of and insult windows and sometimes its users. While I understand this is a ubuntu/linux forum I do find it offensive that in the other OS section the windows TITLE has a "don't use as a bashing area" warning, is it presumed that people will only use that area to bash?

[aysiu]

While I understand this is a ubuntu/linux forum I do find it offensive that in the other OS section the windows TITLE has a "don't use as a bashing area" warning, is it presumed that people will only use that area to bash? No. If it were presumed that people would use it only to bash Windows, we would either close that subforum (if we didn't want people to bash Windows) or change the warning to say "Please use this as a bashing area" (if we wanted people to bash Windows).

The presumption is that some forum members might be tempted to use it as an area to bash Windows, hence the warning against doing so.

[futureproof]

No. If it were presumed that people would use it only to bash Windows, we would either close that subforum (if we didn't want people to bash Windows) or change the warning to say "Please use this as a bashing area" (if we wanted people to bash Windows).

The presumption is that some forum members might be tempted to use it as an area to bash Windows, hence the warning against doing so.


Thanks for clearing that up :)


I guess there will always be some tempted into bashing and snide comments, sad really.:(

[roshm]

there really isn't anything to compare. Windows at least works, Ubuntu doesn't. Not a whole lot to compare.

[aysiu]

there really isn't anything to compare. Windows at least works, Ubuntu doesn't. Not a whole lot to compare.
Uh, you just did make a comparison, actually.

What do you mean about Ubuntu not working, anyway?

[mdsmedia]

there really isn't anything to compare. Windows at least works, Ubuntu doesn't. Not a whole lot to compare.And Windows has viruses, spyware, botnets, requires endless background software to protect users from themselves, and Linux/Ubuntu doesn't. Not much at all to compare.

Windows works...sloooooooowwwwwwwllllllllyyyyyyyy.... Ubuntu just works.

Ubuntu provides thousands of free programs that you can only get by buying them, if they even exist in Windows.

But "Windows works". Yeah right.

[Chriis]

I all,

( sorry for my poor english)

I'm new to linux, (Ubuntu feisty) and i do not boot xp anymore,..:guitar:

I have read this forum since the begining of this adventure, to keep myself informed.:)

The think that most surprised me is that people keep talkin about windows. :confused:

Here in my language, an OS is called "Systeme d'Exploitation"
which literaly mean "exploitation system¨ and is intended to "exploit" the hardware,..not the people that want to use it! :lolflag:

Stop talkin about Msoft and keep talkin about Linux, install it where you can,..maintain and support them, it is the only way to expand
the number of linux users.

Here at home , i plan to install it in my wife's machine,..and teach my sons to use linux before windows, 3 and 7 years ^^

ps: Very good work to all of you! Bravo! Keep doing,

Chriis

[futureproof]

And Windows has viruses, spyware, botnets, requires endless background software to protect users from themselves, and Linux/Ubuntu doesn't. Not much at all to compare.

Windows works...sloooooooowwwwwwwllllllllyyyyyyyy.... Ubuntu just works.

Ubuntu provides thousands of free programs that you can only get by buying them, if they even exist in Windows.

But "Windows works". Yeah right.




Could you explain some of the endless background software that is protecting me from myself? I'd like to know if there is a better way to configure my system. My windows works as quickly now as it did when I installed it. Ubuntu didn't 'just work' for me, I had to learn a few new things to get gpu and wireless to work properly. There are 1000s of free programs for linux, 99% of which i will never use, apart from the os and a few games all the software I use under windows is free.

Thanks

FP

[Chriis]

apart from the os and a few games all the software I use under windows is free.
FP

You do not use Office software at all?
what you do with your pc? Just to know

Chriis

[futureproof]

You do not use Office software at all?
what you do with your pc? Just to know

Chriis


I use open office for anything that requires that kind of thing.

Other things I do include

audio/video ripping, editing, encoding, transcoding etc etc.

broadcasting audio

emulation - old consoles/computers/pinball/arcade

graphics - editing

I run a couple of servers and a tracker


none of the software I use required money, I paid for an OEM copy of the OS and a few games which, for the amount of entertainment they provided, were cheap.


There are lots of places to find free software for windows

http://www.opensourcewindows.org/

http://nedwolf.com/Freeware.htm

[k2t0f12d]

http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=1
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=22
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=13223
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=12470
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=14068
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=16251

__________________________________________________

Speaks for itself :rolleyes:

[funrider]

But you do have a way to voice your suggestions which no one is even trying to take away? Are you saying that only those that agree with you are open minded, and those that don't agree with you are like Microsoft? That sounds like the logical opposite of open-mindedness to me. What if I don't want to include things from the suggestions that you approve of? Am I not allowed to voice my disagreement and then cite my reasons?

i am referrring to the OP, not you

[akiratheoni]

<pictures snipped>

__________________________________________________

Speaks for itself :rolleyes:

Ha, I was writing an essay on open source and I need visual sources... thanks! I'm using these. :P

As for the discussion of Windows and Linux itself, I have gotten tired of it but I know it's going to happen so I just accept it. Windows has implemented itself as the "standard" of operating systems so when someone moves somewhere else, they compare it. Although I hear too much comparisons of Windows to Linux, but I never hear any of Windows to Mac... I wonder why.

there really isn't anything to compare. Windows at least works, Ubuntu doesn't. Not a whole lot to compare.

I love the irony...

[Northsider]

I dont care either way...it's like comaring NYC to Chicago (or better, NYC and LA). They are two totally different cities.

[popch]

Speaks for itself

Sure does. What does it say, though? What were the issues which have or have not been solved by the different parties?

Not arguing, just wanting to understand the figures presented.

[akiratheoni]

Sure does. What does it say, though? What were the issues which have or have not been solved by the different parties?

Not arguing, just wanting to understand the figures presented.

How I understand it is that Microsoft lauds their developmental method as superior to that as open source yet the facts are different and even not in their favor.

Let's analyze a quote from Steve Ballmer. I realize it's not a recent quote (something like '03 or so) but it still shows the ignorance of Ballmer.

Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that. There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring -- we provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send e-mail. None of that is true in the other world. So far, I think our model works pretty well...

Now, the "no road map for Linux" may be true because with open source you get decentralization... but there are companies such as Red Hat and Canonical that do have a road map for their project.

But if Ballmer's method just "works", then why do they have outstanding security problems with Windows?

And then you get the issue where Microsoft actually refuses to fix a flaw in NT (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,110054-page,1/article.html). If their method 'works' then why does Ubuntu have 0 security vulnerabilities for ALL of their versions of Ubuntu?

Keep in mind that all of the studies that show that Windows has less flaws than Linux are all sponsored by, guess who, Microsoft.

Now to directly answer your question about the issues fixed.

As the graphs say, you can go to Secunia and search. Here is the one for Ubuntu 7.10:

http://secunia.com/product/16251/

And Windows XP:
Home Edition: http://secunia.com/product/16/
Professional Edition: http://secunia.com/product/22/

[roshm]

I have just got my network card working after a very steep learning curve and am so happy to be out from the microsoft thumb. Someday I hope to contribute like the ones did that helped me.. Live long and prosper Ubuntu.

[acidsolution]

I never bother about it and i think it is good to compare after all the winner in linux and ubuntu is at top
every time people compare windows with ubuntu /linux they feel the difference between them. and this certainly helps those people who dont know about the power of linux and thus helps them to shift towards linux .
In mine opinion healthy comparision is good for both windows and linux to improve themselves :)

[k2t0f12d]

We can readily see that there are a relatively equal number of security bugs filed against the different generations of Windows and Ubuntu bu Secunia, although Ubuntu 6.10 to 7.10 actually covers a vastly shorter period of time then Windowsk 2K through Vista.

Now look at the unstable distribution of Debian, codename `Sid':

http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=530

Debian `Sid' is under constant development and always exists under that name. New software and new versions always enter in the Debian system through `Sid'. `Sid' is a constant version that is constantly changing, and constantly in various states between working and broken. It alone has more security bugs filed against it then every Windows and Ubuntu example I showed combined. Yet every single bug is patched, with only one that is listed as a partial fix, in the distribution version that is labeled unstable!

[akiratheoni]

Yet every single bug is patched, with only one that is listed as a partial fix, in the distribution version that is labeled unstable!

Then again, 'unstable' for Debian still means '99% stable' for most Ubuntu users :P

[farruinn]

Whats annoying is people comparing two -unequal- feature sets, like DVD playback. You -paid- for those libraries on a Windows machine, you did not pay for them on a Linux box (most likely) so, obviously, you can't compare them.

I think that at the core, comparison + competition is always a good thing. It's when you're comparing them on unequal grounds that Linux has a complete disadvantage in where it gets annoying.

A very insightful point, thank you.

[farruinn]

Free software is not a marketed product,

Er, what? Maybe not the types of ads you see on TV, but it is certainly marketed by the companies to aim to make a lot of money off of their open-source products. I'm sure Sun, MySQL, Red Hat, Novell, etc don't depend on just word of mouth (In fact, if you want to get technical, Apple advertises open source since Mac OS X is at least partially open).

Didn't Firefox have a marketing campaign where they gave away huge Firefox posters to be put up in public places? Also, search youtube for "novell mac linux pc ad". I don't know if these have actually been televised, but they are out there.

I would imagine that if it seems like there isn't much marketing for open-source that's because you may not be an open source vendor's normal customer and not connected to their normal channels of marketing.

[farruinn]

what makes you different from M$ if you dun provide a choice for people to discuss, say, in an open minded way?

Ironically, I think my frustration stems from people not being open-minded: some people aren't open to doing things in a new way or an unfamiliar way so they start to ask for features to make Ubuntu look like Windows.

I don't have a problem with comparisons that look at what Microsoft has done right with Windows and suggest that Ubuntu/Linux incorporates it. I have a problem when the interface or features seem unfamiliar and instead of being open and learning a bit, the reaction is to Window-fy it to make it familiar.

[jrusso2]

A very insightful point, thank you.

Not really I paid for it when I bought a DVD player/writer. It came with Windows only software. So I bought a license to play back DVD imo. I am entitled to play them back on what ever Operating system I use.

[futureproof]

Not really I paid for it when I bought a DVD player/writer. It came with Windows only software. So I bought a license to play back DVD imo. I am entitled to play them back on what ever Operating system I use.

You bought the HARDWARE, it will play and write to DVDs in many formats. The software you got with the player is free to you, if you can use it use it, if you can't then you will have to find an alternative. You bought a device that reads and writes disks and does what it's advertised as doing. The ability to decode the encrypted data that has been read is nothing to do with it. You have to deal with that seperately.

VideoLAN will play DVDs for you without installing anything extra, thats free and available for multiple platforms. TBH I wouldn't install anything that came free with any of the hardware I bought. It's usually free because it's garbage.

[ubuntu-freak]

You bought the HARDWARE, it will play and write to DVDs in many formats. The software you got with the player is free to you, if you can use it use it, if you can't then you will have to find an alternative. You bought a device that reads and writes disks and does what it's advertised as doing. The ability to decode the encrypted data that has been read is nothing to do with it. You have to deal with that seperately.


Most courts would agree with what he said, especially as he is enabling it himself.

Nathan

[k2t0f12d]

Er, what? Maybe not the types of ads you see on TV, but it is certainly marketed by the companies to aim to make a lot of money off of their open-source products. I'm sure Sun, MySQL, Red Hat, Novell, etc don't depend on just word of mouth (In fact, if you want to get technical, Apple advertises open source since Mac OS X is at least partially open).

I must have missed those ads, or wasn't in the proper region of the world to be exposed to it. What about something like rsync? I haven't seen any rsync posters or ads? Or GNU. Any GNU posters being actively displayed to increase awareness of the operating system? Internet sites like YouTube aren't paid ad sites and fall under word of mouth, unless you by chance saw free software in a banner ad. I haven't. Saying that you are sure that major vendors of free software do not rely on word of mouth alone does absolutely nothing to demonstrate any large scale commercial ad campaign for free software. I have never seen any ads at all from any of the companies you've mentioned. Apple's operating system has some free software parts, but that is certainly not what they are saying they're selling. Word of mouth is technically a marketing tool also, however, what I am driving at is that free software isn't a product and doesn't need to be differentiated by adverts to sell copies off the block.

Didn't Firefox have a marketing campaign where they gave away huge Firefox posters to be put up in public places? Also, search youtube for "novell mac linux pc ad". I don't know if these have actually been televised, but they are out there.

I've seen Wow is Now shite splattered everywhere, but have never even once seen any such animal as a Firefox advert out in the wild. Are they pasted to the backs of sasquatch? :rolleyes:

I would imagine that if it seems like there isn't much marketing for open-source that's because you may not be an open source vendor's normal customer and not connected to their normal channels of marketing.

You want me to take for face value the thing you claim through your imagination? :rolleyes: It doesn't seem to me like a very effective ad campaign to only advertise to those who already use the service you are selling. Which is exactly to point. A company like Red Hat isn't selling free software, they are selling a service they provide through free software, not the software itself.

[popch]

GNU/Linux operating systems pass from person to person by word of mouth alone. Some of the users might be actively trying to get more people to use free software, but I have never seen a paid ad for it, nor any official marketing attempt by its distributors. Free software is not a marketed product, (...) The focus of its developers and distributors is to improve its value and utility, not marketing it and not increasing the userbase, which is totally unnecessary since the software moves itself.

Not true.

Free software is not a marketed product: Canonical is an enterprise with the central mission of marketing Ubuntu and derived products. SuSe and now Novell place adverts and generally markets another Distribution of 'Linux'. Sun goes to great lengths to let the world know that Java and Open Office exist. Innotek spends money in order for people to know that there is a free and open source variant of their product 'VirtualBox'. I will stop now not because I have run out of examples but because I consider the point being made.

Perhaps it would be helpful to recall what is meant by 'marketing'. A useful description which comes reasonably close to common usage can be found in http://www.wikipedia.org.

Marketing is a societal process which discerns consumers' wants, focusing on a product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product) or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29) to fulfill those wants, attempting to mold the consumers toward the products or services offered. (...)
Its specialist areas include:
advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising) and branding (...)Even that description gives rise to some dispute because a considerable part of marketing - if done properly - goes into molding the product to perceived consumer's needs as well.

GNU/Linux operating systems pass from person to person by word of mouth alone.
As I have mentioned above, this is not true. Word of mouth is just a subset, and it also applies to commercial products. Consider, for instance, the number of PCs sold with Windows instead of other operating systems just on the say-so of uninformed and uncaring sales personnel.

The focus of its developers and distributors is to improve its value and utility, not marketing it

According to the definition of 'marketing' as used by people actually engaged in marketing, that's a contradiction in terms.

increasing the userbase, which is totally unnecessary since the software moves itself.

It is not unnecessary and the software does not move itself. Otherwise, some of the free and open products which are clearly better than their expensive counterparts would have moved themselves and therefore would be much more widely deployed than they are today.

[akiratheoni]

I've seen Wow is Now shite splattered everywhere, but have never even once seen any such animal as a Firefox advert out in the wild. Are they pasted to the backs of sasquatch? :rolleyes:


IIRC before the release of Firefox 2, Mozilla bought a full page (or was it two pages) for advertising Firefox in the Wall Street Journal or some other prestigious newspaper, I don't remember.

[koenn]

IIRC before the release of Firefox 2, Mozilla bought a full page (or was it two pages) for advertising Firefox in the Wall Street Journal or some other prestigious newspaper, I don't remember.

I too remember full-page adds in newspapers and magazines to "launch" Firefox - a few years ago, don't remember what version though.

[koenn]

I'm sick of the comparison simply because it usually stems from Windows users knowing little about how Linux works.
I sympathise.

I didn't notice an increase in windowsification threads lately, but that could be because I actively ignore them , as they get on my nerves.
I do remember getting a bit worked up about "like windows" threads about a year ago : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=442270

[mdsmedia]

Could you explain some of the endless background software that is protecting me from myself? I'd like to know if there is a better way to configure my system. My windows works as quickly now as it did when I installed it. Ubuntu didn't 'just work' for me, I had to learn a few new things to get gpu and wireless to work properly. There are 1000s of free programs for linux, 99% of which i will never use, apart from the os and a few games all the software I use under windows is free.

Thanks

FPI was just lashing out at and feeding a troll. My post was really just an equally baseless reply to a baseless attack on Ubuntu/Linux.

Having said that, I'd love if you could tell me how you managed to keep Windows working as quickly as when you installed it. This is a serious question. I had my brand new HP notebook, running XP Pro, slowing to a ridiculous extent within 6 months of getting it. I must admit that a lot of that seemed to be due to Confabulator and Widgets. But having removed those it still will not get to anything like the speed it ran at when it was new.

I'm continuously removing stuff from Windows, even shutting down AVG after bootup, in pretty sound knowledge I won't be going anywhere near any viruses, just to try to get something like the performance I get with Linux.

I can't fully defrag my Windows partition. It's horribly fragmented....once again due to not having defragged it often enough over time.

What do you NOT do or DO to ensure your Windows runs smoothly. As I said, a serious question...probably for another thread, but a serious question all the same.

And for me, apart from the optional configuration I could do if I wanted, Ubuntu worked out of the box. Far less configuration than I ever needed for a clean install of Windows.

[farruinn]

Word of mouth is technically a marketing tool also, however, what I am driving at is that free software isn't a product and doesn't need to be differentiated by adverts to sell copies off the block.

I often agree with much of what you say on these boards and admire your dedication to free software, but I will have to disagree on this point. There are many free software products out there that businesses rely on (distributing, not using) to make money and they spend money to advertise these products. Perhaps I misunderstood you the first time, but I am quite confident on this point, all imaginations aside. :)

When you think of the companies I mentioned (Redhat, Novell, Sun, etc) they must be doing some sort of advertisement for their products and I'm sure it's not limited to word-of-mouth but isn't the sort of thing you'll see a commercial for during the Super Bowl. Maybe some of IBM's commercials have been for open sourced products, but I'm not sure.

[Jim!]

I actually like Ubuntu being compared to Windows, mainly because I'm still quite new to the OS and like too see whats 'better' and whats not.

[k2t0f12d]

I often agree with much of what you say on these boards and admire your dedication to free software, but I will have to disagree on this point. There are many free software products out there that businesses rely on (distributing, not using) to make money and they spend money to advertise these products. Perhaps I misunderstood you the first time, but I am quite confident on this point, all imaginations aside. :)

When you think of the companies I mentioned (Redhat, Novell, Sun, etc) they must be doing some sort of advertisement for their products and I'm sure it's not limited to word-of-mouth but isn't the sort of thing you'll see a commercial for during the Super Bowl. Maybe some of IBM's commercials have been for open sourced products, but I'm not sure.

Thank you for appreciating my other writing about free software.

The analogy of free software equals product is poor for more than its obvious lack of exposure through traditional advertising. The biggest problem in the concept of software equals product in market is that it is such an incredibly shallow abstraction. It leads people away from thinking very deeply about what the software is, what its made of, where it came from, and why. Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, etc do not sell free software as product. They sell a service rendered {with,though} free software, which includes copies of the software only incidentally. I routinely build the many software packages that comprise GNU/Linux from source code obtained from divers sources on the Internet. When I am finished, I have an operating system that is comprised of exactly the same software as any of the major distributions. So whose product do I have? Whose customer am I? Almost all of the software included in any major distribution isn't even attributable to the vendor in any way, shape, or form. They are merely redistributing other people's work under their own banner. Most of those authors do not distribute source under the software is product infrastructure.

Neither the GNU operating system nor the free software kernel program known as Linux started out in the business world as software equals product in market. That business model played no role whatsoever in its impetus. It never needed that abstraction to flourish then, and doesn't need it to do so now. It is a meaningful simplification of ideas for the empty suits and empty skirts in the roles of business executives, and nearly entirely devoid of any meaning to the developer or the end user. the value of free software is self-evident to business that knows how to use the freedoms conveyed through its licensing to study, modify, and redistribute to its own advantage. It is not a leap of intellectual prowess to attempt to argue the product in market abstraction for anything because of the very fact it is nothing more then an abstraction for otherwise real things. An abstraction that also isn't very accurate or useful in the case of free software for the reasons I have described above.

[axionet]

Windows is something I open ever now and then depending on the weather.

Now Winblows I will never use again as long my computer has breathe.

Enough said.

[futureproof]

I was just lashing out at and feeding a troll. My post was really just an equally baseless reply to a baseless attack on Ubuntu/Linux.

Having said that, I'd love if you could tell me how you managed to keep Windows working as quickly as when you installed it. This is a serious question. I had my brand new HP notebook, running XP Pro, slowing to a ridiculous extent within 6 months of getting it. I must admit that a lot of that seemed to be due to Confabulator and Widgets. But having removed those it still will not get to anything like the speed it ran at when it was new.

I'm continuously removing stuff from Windows, even shutting down AVG after bootup, in pretty sound knowledge I won't be going anywhere near any viruses, just to try to get something like the performance I get with Linux.

I can't fully defrag my Windows partition. It's horribly fragmented....once again due to not having defragged it often enough over time.

What do you NOT do or DO to ensure your Windows runs smoothly. As I said, a serious question...probably for another thread, but a serious question all the same.

And for me, apart from the optional configuration I could do if I wanted, Ubuntu worked out of the box. Far less configuration than I ever needed for a clean install of Windows.



I'm no super expert or anything, but briefly

1. Set the page file max and min to the same size.
2. Turned off all unnecessary services.
3. Have registry cleaned + compacted upon every boot (adds about 3 seconds to boot time)
4. Have Temp files/folders cleared on shutdown
5. Have minimal background programs running, absolutely no garbage in the background.
6. Defrag once a week, takes about 2 mins on a 2% fragmented drive.


Once for some unknown reason it started taking a while to boot (3 mins) and it was sluggish, I couldn't find a problem, but reinstalling the HD controllers fixed it.

Of course in addition to the above I use the best applications I can find, not monster bloatware

[bruce89]

Now Winblows I will never use again as long my computer has breathe.


/me wonders if I should start a new thread about this kind of thing.

[aysiu]

/me wonders if I should start a new thread about this kind of thing.
We already have 773 posts about it in this thread:
Concerned about Windows bashing (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=341579)

[AdHavoc]

I'm just tired of functions and features being suggested for the sake of being newbie friendly and "familiar" to Windows users. Did anyone stop to think that this sort of thing might make it unfamiliar for Linux users? Basically, please don't cripple my desktop for the sake of new users or bastardize it for the sake of Windows converts.


lol that's pretty much what Linus Torvald said in the mailing discussion awhile back. I entirely agree with it though. There comes a point where "user-friendly" becomes "an idiot OS," kind of like Mac OSX.

[k2t0f12d]

lol that's pretty much what Linus Torvalds said in the mailing discussion awhile back. I entirely agree with it though. There comes a point where "user-friendly" becomes "an idiot OS," kind of like Mac OSX.

The goal of UNIX programmers has since before time out of mind to separate mechanism from policy; a goal that has not been observed very well by other operating systems developers in the industry. This philosophy is address comprehensively in the book The Art of UNIX Programming by Eric Steven Raymond;

But perhaps the most enduring objections to Unix are consequences of a feature of its philosophy first made explicit by the designers of the X windowing system. X strives to provide "mechanism, not policy", supporting an extremely general set of graphics operations and deferring decisions about toolkits and interface look-and-feel (the policy) up to application level. Unix's other system-level services display similar tendencies; final choices about behavior are pushed as far toward the user as possible. Unix users can choose among multiple shells. Unix programs normally provide many behavior options and sport elaborate preference facilities.

But the cost of the mechanism-not-policy approach is that when the user can set policy, the user must set policy. Nontechnical end-users frequently find Unix's profusion of options and interface styles overwhelming and retreat to systems that at least pretend to offer them simplicity.

In the short term, Unix's laissez-faire approach may lose it a good many nontechnical users. In the long term, however, it may turn out that this 'mistake' confers a critical advantage—because policy tends to have a short lifetime, mechanism a long one. Today's fashion in interface look-and-feel too often becomes tomorrow's evolutionary dead end (as people using obsolete X toolkits will tell you with some feeling!). So the flip side of the flip side is that the "mechanism, not policy" philosophy may enable Unix to renew its relevance long after competitors more tied to one set of policy or interface choices have faded from view.

In defense of the benefits of mechanism over policy, I have been critical of instances where users coming from operating systems whose developers are not as forward-looking as UNIX programmers ask for the removal of robust, critical interfaces like the console shell programs. I am not concerned very much about the addition of interfaces to GNU/Linux, even those whose intended purpose is to emulate the very thing the drove me to use free software in the first place. However, no UNIX users and devs are going to take a request to remove the shell seriously. For those that think they should, feel free to remove the offending programs and see how far you can go without them. Depending on the distribution you are using, that could actually be quite far, and such is the case with Novell's openSUSE,

Whenever I have read Torvalds, it has not struck me that his focus is on the appearance of superiority. He definitely has strong opinions, with which I do not always I agree. But where it comes to technology, his views are a very accurate barometer on what is the smartest path to take. For that reason, I suspect that when writing about "an idiot OS" there is more then aesthetics involved. There are aspects of system design that simply collide with the forward-looking nature of UNIX philosophy, especially when policy get more attention then mechanism. So for those who especially want to see GNU/Linux look and act more like Windows, you are going to continue to discover friction when advocating ideas based on that predication. UNIX is older, more mature, and more robust then Windows, and its users and developers have very strong ideas about how it gets put together, which is focused a great deal on reliable, extensible, inter-operable services and a great deal less on appearances and behavior.